By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%.
During my valedictorian keynote at the conference, I appointed the lovely Diane Bast as my independent adjudicatrix. She read out six successive questions to the audience, one by one. I invited anyone who would answer “No” to that question to raise a hand. According to the adjudicatrix, not a single hand was raised in response to any of the questions.
These were the six questions.
1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
At a conference of 600 “climate change deniers”, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.
One of the many fundamental dishonesties in the climate debate is the false impression created by the Thermageddonites and their hosts of allies in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that climate skeptics would answer “No” to most – if not all – of the six questions.
That fundamental dishonesty was at the core of the Cook et al. “consensus” paper published last year. The authors listed three “levels of endorsement” supporting some sort of climate consensus.
Level 1 reflected the IPCC’s definition of consensus: that most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made. Levels 2 and 3 reflected explicit or implicit acceptance that Man causes some warming. The Heartland delegates’ unanimous opinion fell within Level 2.
Cook et al., having specified these three “levels of endorsement”, and having gone to the trouble of reading and marking 11,944 abstracts, did not publish their assessment of the number of abstracts they had marked as falling into each of the three endorsement levels. Instead, they published a single aggregate total combining all three categories.
Their failure to report the results fully was what raised my suspicions that their article fell short of the standards of integrity that the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have expected of a paper purporting to be scientific.
The text file recording the results of Cook’s survey was carefully released only after several weeks following publication, during which the article claiming 97% consensus had received wall-to-wall international publicity from the MSM. Even Mr Obama’s Twitteratus had cited it with approval as indicating that “global warming is real, man-made and dangerous”.
The algorithm counted the number of abstracts Cook had allocated to each level of endorsement. When the computer displayed the results, I thought there must have been some mistake. The algorithm had found only 64 out of the 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, marked as falling within Level 1, reflecting the IPCC consensus that recent warming was mostly man-made.
I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in “,1”.
Next, I read all 64 abstracts and discovered – not greatly to my surprise – that only 41 had explicitly said Man had caused most of the global warming over the past half century or so.
In the peer-reviewed learned journals, therefore, only 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3% – and not 97.1% – had endorsed the definition of the consensus proposition to which the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, had assigned 95-99% confidence.
Now that we have the results of the Heartland Conference survey, the full extent of the usual suspects’ evasiveness about climate “consensus” can be revealed.
Cook et al. had lumped together the 96.8% who, like all 100% of us at ICCC9, had endorsed the proposition that we cause some warming with the 0.3% who had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition that we caused most of the warming since 1950.
In defiance of the evidence recorded in their own data file, they had then explicitly stated, both in their article and in a subsequent article, that 97.1% had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition.
Amusingly, 96.8% is 97% of 97.1%. In other words, 97% of the abstracts that formed the basis of the “97% consensus” claim in Cook et al. (2013) did not endorse the IPCC’s definition of the consensus, as the article had falsely claimed they did. However, those abstracts did endorse the more scientifically credible Heartland definition.
Among the unspeakable representatives of the MSM who came to the Heartland conference to conduct sneering interviews with climate “deniers” was a smarmy individual from CNN.
He asked me, in that supercilious tone with which we are all too familiar, how it was that I, a mere layman, dared to claim that I knew better than 97% of published climate scientists. I referred him to Legates et al. (2013), the peer-reviewed refutation of the notion that 97% of scientists endorse the IPCC’s assertion that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made.
The CNN reporter said that the result in Legates et al. was merely my “interpretation”. So I pointed to a row of internet booths nearby and said, “If I count these booths and find that there are, say, 12 of them, and if you count them and find there are indeed 12 of them, then our finding is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of fact, that any third party can independently verify.”
I challenged him to go away, before he broadcast anything, and count how many of the 11,944 abstracts listed in the Cook et al. data file were marked by the authors themselves as falling within Level 1. If he counted only 64, I said, then his count would accord with mine. And our counts would not be an “interpretation” but a fact, whose truth or falsity might readily and definitively be established by any third party performing exactly the same count as ours.
He said he would check, but with that look in his eye that seemed to speak otherwise.
The results of my survey of the 600 Heartland delegates reveal that the difference between the Thermageddonites and us is far less than they would like the world to think. Like most of them, we fall within Cook’s endorsement levels 2-3. Unlike them, we do not claim to know whether most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made: for that is beyond what the current state of science can tell us.
Above all, unlike them we do not misreport a 0.3% consensus as a 97.1% consensus.
You may like to verify the results recorded in Cook’s data file for yourself. I have asked Anthony to archive the file (it resides here: cook.pdf ).
[UPDATE: David Burton writes: I’ve put the Cook 2013 data into an Excel spreadsheet, which makes it a lot easier to analyze than from that cook.pdf file. There’s a link to it on my site, here: http://sealevel.info/97pct/#cook ]
If the reporter from CNN who interviewed me reads this, I hope he will perform the count himself and then come back to me as he had undertaken to do. But I shall not be holding my breath.
At a conference of 600 “climate change deniers”, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.
henry says
they would all be wrong
there is no man made global warming
whatsoever
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
but the climate IS changing
Precision is impossible, but how about stipulating that global average temperature has increased by about one degree C, +/- some unknown but possibly large fraction thereof, since the depths of the LIA c. AD 1690? What portion of that warming might have been caused by human activity?
I’d say 25%, tops.
Assume further that human activity might contribute another fraction of a degree to warming over the next century. IMO, that’s a good thing, in addition to the benefit from increased CO2 for plant food.
No catastrophes are likely to result from such minor changes, such as runaway sea level rise from melting ice or thermal expansion of the oceans. Any warming might help counteract the global cooling the planet is liable to experience over the next three decades or so.
In short, regarding presumed CAGW (CACA or GWAC): Global Warming, yes, primarily naturally for over 300 years within an at least 3000 year long cooling trend, since the Minoan Warm Period, if not indeed the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which ended c. 5000 years ago. Anthropogenic, negligible. Catastrophic, no. Indeed, so far Beneficial (BAGW).
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…
I expect this result will get all the attention in the MSM that the studies reporting 97% should have garnered – no coverage.
I guess your position, Lord Monckton, comes with some perks. I would have loved to see that exchange with the CNN bot.
So the real consensus is 99.7% who disagree with the hysteria derived from the Cook paper. That is going to hurt a lot of warmists.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
IMO a net warming from human activities (population growth, effect on other living things, structures, forestry, agriculture, industry, aerosols, GHGs, etc) remains a theoretical possibility, but feel our effect on climate is negligible, whatever the sign, ie cooling or warming, & probably within margin of error of detectability.
Besides which, the atmosphere, ocean & land surface shouldn’t be expected to behave in the wild in the same way as measuring CO2 absorption bands in the lab under fixed, controlled conditions.
Anyone who reads the scientific literature will agree with Legates that 99% of the papers do not say global warming is man made. To get past the “gate-keepers” authors must acknowledge the prevailing bias of anthropogenic warming but their studies results suggest aletrnative views.
For example the introduction by several of NOAA’s top climate scientists in Hoerling et al (2012) Transition to Semipermanent Drought Conditions Imminent in the U.S. Great Plains? wrote
“While some have raised the specter of a shift to semipermanent 1930s type drought conditions on the Great Plains due to human-induced global warming, the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding extreme events (Field et al. 2012) expresses only low confidence in a projected change in drought over the U.S. Great Plains as a whole and medium confidence for some increased dryness across the southern portion of the domain.”
Yet their conclusion was “Several lines of evidence and physical considerations indicate that simplifying assumptions regarding temperature effects on water balances, especially concerning evapotranspiration in Palmer’s formulation, compromise its suitability as drought indicator in a warming climate. The authors conclude that projections of acute and chronic PDSI decline in the
twenty-first century are likely an exaggerated indicator for future Great Plains drought severity.”
The bottom line is very simply, as most sceptics will agree, that AGW obviously has to exist, as is demonstrated by UHI, which is paradoxically downplayed by alarmists.
The question is does CAGW or a future Thermageddon exist, to which every sceptic will say “No” for the very simple reason there isn’t a single shred of evidence anywhere to suggest it does, except in the machinations of dodgy, biased, computer models. The geological record also demonstrates that CAGW is a myth and that the impact of natural climate cycles is a large multiple of whatever man’s puny efforts can achieve.
Consensus is not a good way to do science. I like what Margaret Thatcher said, that consensus is “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”
Christopher, thanks for doing the right thing and speaking coherently, pedantically, to an obviously hostile inquisitor. I pity the reporters from CNN for they are not allowed to investigate reality. They have to conform to the party line, whether it be based on shibboleths or profundities.
I expect to see no coverage at all of the conference on CNN. They have other agendas.
For ¾ of the year I have central heating on at least for part of a day, eventually all of it ends radiated into atmosphere. No doubt, my CH does contribute to the man-made temperature change. Since it is gas-fired, it also contributes to the man-made CO2 increase.
Without question 7 asking “is mankinds contribution and expected contributions to the co2 level likely to create catastrophic or dangerous warming”.
Then you have given ammunition to the alarmists. I can see the Guardian glitterati happily proclaiming that even Lord Monkton and the Heartland conference delegates agree that co2 is a problem (after all spin is a newspapers stock in trade) and that therefore the decsion makers need delay no further and introduce urgent measures to combat co2 emissions.
Of those 600 delegates, how many would be bona fide climate scientists? I am just curious because the warmist alarmists I argue with always strongly contend that only the opinions of climate scientists really matter.
1. Does climate change?
Yes
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
Yes
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
Yes, probably (but CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales)
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
Yes, but not much (Note: …other things are NOT “being equal””)
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
Maybe (There was global warming from ~1975 to ~2000, but cooling before that from ~1945 to ~1975)
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
Maybe, but not much – probably mostly natural variation.
Well-done.
It has been a minor source of irritation at the many who have challenged the Cook numbers,. While that study was quite flawed, it seems like many trying to challenge it that they were saying that a better number for the proportion of scientists who think there is some human component to global warming is much lower, when I think the right answer is higher as your poll indicates.
I look forward, pessimistically to any accurate reporting of the conclusion (for that matter I wonder if there will be any reporting.)
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
“Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…”
Sorry Dr Svalgaard, this is beneath you. Claims about a lack of warming are aired here, but by no means often and the only group who claim CO2 cannot cause warming are the so-called “:Sky Dragons” who are the only group Anthony has banned from posting. There are many people posting here and most disagree with each other one one or more issues so this is a very broad “church’ of skepticism, but in my experience reading posts here, there are very, very few who would answer no to any of the six questions, let alone all.
Lief, there was observable warming from 1986 to 1990, then the temperature flattened and since 2006 has been cooling. I doubt that very many, if any, in WUWT would disagree with that. The question of did we experience a spate of warming has never been the question. The question is, “Was carbon dioxide the root cause of the observed warming”. The answer to that question is no.
Emissions of men do NOT cause global warming, not one tiny fraction. The prove is meticulously
made with understandable calculations and graphs. Whoever reckons that AGW exists, should
deal with: “”Joachim Seifert: Das Ende der globalen Erwärmung, Berechnung des Klimawandels”” (2010), available on the German Amazon.de, ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4, and refute it or shut up, once and for all. The autor will pay 20 times the bookprice to whom, who is able to refute the book.
JS
You’re killing me with this Visual Basic:
awk -F, ‘{ x[$6]+=1 } END { for(n=0; n<=10; n+=1) print n ": " x[n] }' < cook.txt
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…
===
Leif, I have a better idea….
….why don’t you come up with a temperature history that’s even half way accurate
then we can discuss if there has even been any global warming in the first place
JFD says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:49 am
if any, in WUWT would disagree with that.
The issue was: would 100% here answer an unqualified NO to all six questions. Would you?
Of course, the way the poll was conducted was poor [as all such PR-stunts are], as people should have been given a third choice [maybe, don’t know’, perhaps, can’t tell, etc]
Latitude says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:59 am
Leif, I have a better idea….….why don’t you come up with a temperature history
Not a ‘better’ idea, but a half-assed way of avoiding the issue.
Not an comprehensive check, but I found 64 “1”s in the pdf file. So assuming this file is authentic, there does appear to be 64 records with a level “1”
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
You can all go along with Lord Monckton if you want, but not me.
Based on this from Wiki which no one seems to disagree with too much
” there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.”
If this is true and CO2 is really such a potent Greehouse Gas how could we possibly have had Ice Ages with levels that high?
As temperatures were also high at those times, how could they have become low enough for Ice Ages?
“I’d say 25%, tops.”
I’m with you. I placed it at 15-25% years ago. Of the ~1C the planet warmed in the 20th century, we made at BEST .2-.3C of it.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Not a ‘better’ idea, but a half-assed way of avoiding the issue.
====
I agree 100%…..
Working with a wonked out temp history and then trying to claim any science based on that….
….is a classic example of avoiding the issue
It’s the qualifier here: “4. Other things being equal…” that gives me problems, There’s a whole argument just in those four words. Otherwise, well done m’lord.
Very nice analysis!
For anyone who wants to examine Mr. Cook’s data file in a friendlier format, I’ve loaded it into a spreadsheet, which you can find in the “Cook, 2013” section, here:
http://sealevel.info/97pct
The descriptions of the “Category” and “Level” columns are in Mr. Cook’s paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Harry Passfield says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:07 pm
It’s the qualifier here: “4. Other things being equal…” that gives me problems,
The qualifier is unnecessary [and unscientific]. Either CO2 causes warming [over what all the other things do] or it does not.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…
An interesting proposition….
I could answer ‘Yes’ to the first 5 questions posed by Christopher Monckton.
I have a problem with #6 though.
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
The question asks “ Is it likely….” which to me implies a probability or “How likely is it?”
I could answer ‘Yes’ but would assign a low probability to man’s emissions having a significant contribution to the measured global warming since 1950. The measured data sets since 1950 have so many sources of potential errors (siting, measurement, sensor/housing changes, location moves, UHI encroachment, etc.) combined with man made ‘adjustments’ embedded in them that I doubt man’s small contributions to global warming is separable or meaningful from the ‘noise’ level in the measured data available since 1950.
If ‘likely’ means ‘greater than a 15% contribution to the measured global warming since 1950’, I have to answer ‘No’.
Well done. The questions were put in a way that skeptics could answer yes – without deviating from the manner of the typical consensus survey. The goal was to make a point – and I think it was.
The word “likely” is a loaded term. It’s certainly possible that we’ve added some small, as-yet unmeausured and probably unmeasurable amount of warming.
It’s also possible there are ufos.
Bruce Cobb says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm
The word “likely” is a loaded term. It’s certainly possible that we’ve added some small, as-yet unmeausured and probably unmeasurable amount of warming.
It’s also possible there are ufos.
So it was a lousy poll, a pure PR-stunt, no science.
Okay, Lief, I won’t duck. Here are the questions and my answers in CAPS.
1. Does climate change?
A – YES
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
A- YES
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
A- YES
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
A- NO, if any it is very small.
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
A- YES
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
A- MAYBE, production of ground water from no or slow to recharge aquifers account for 2.6 mm per year of the increase in ocean level. The produced water is used for agriculture (food and fodder), watering yards and makeup water to evaporative cooling towers at process plants and power plants. The water vapor from the evapotranspiration of these human uses of ground water takes place at constant temperature due to changing the potential energy of the liquid water to kinetic energy of the vapor. The vapor rises until it reaches an elevation where condensation occurs. The condensation changes the kinetic energy back to potential energy. Thus, heat has been transferred from the ground into the troposphere. My understanding is that that this process increases the temperature of the troposphere. After one cycle the additional water joins the hydrological cycle. However, the production of ground water is a continuous process rather than a one time release.
The evaporative cooling towers release water vapor from the tops of the towers about 20F above the surrounding air. In addition to the water vapor there is considerable drift (carry over) plus aerosols.
The amount of no or slow to recharge groundwater production is about 900 km3 per year.
————
So, is that 5 unqualified yeses? No, but it is at least 4.75.
Brilliant. Now get off of skeptical blogs, people, singing to the choir, lamenting the hysteria of the masses, and go present these graphics to the masses, online. It’s free! No, they don’t read skeptical blogs much. Too many squiggly line plots and thousand word essays here.
Once again, an erudite presentation. I am, however, disappointed that you would use such limited and arcane a tool set as VB for Applications and Notepad.
JimS says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:38 am
Of those 600 delegates, how many would be bona fide climate scientists?
define ‘bona fide climate scientist’. The term itself is a strawman.
Once again the royal “We” applies and is earned
And once again the media and the world doesn’t care because money and power are more important then truth or individual liberty and pursuit of science for its own sake
Leif,
We sometimes hear from people who say there is no greenhouse effect. Mostly these people seem to mean the “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer, as greenhouses trap heat via convection wheres GHGs work differently. Mostly.
Personally, I’d like to be asked if there’s been warming since the MWP. Using warmer logic, I would answer that since it was warmer during the MWP, the climate is in a cooling trend.
more soylent green! says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm
We sometimes hear from people who say there is no greenhouse effect.
Just stay on topic: the six answers, please, e.g. in the format y,y,y,n,n,n or whatever you think it should be.
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…
I answer YES to all 6, and not only go that far, but even further still. I am, after all, a lukewarmer. But even if the surface record is correct (it isn’t) and 100% of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic (highly unlikely), and is 100% attributable to CO2 increase (it ain’t), there still isn’t any real danger. All it is is +1.1C per century, and not accelerating, so far as I can determine.
PDO phases cancel and aerosols tip the scale against warming trend, if anything (going by CMIP5), being more prevalent at the earlier end of the scale.
So you can say YES six times and go further than that and still wind up on the skeptical side of the aisle (for example, I think AGW is statistically significant.)
@kenw:
“define ‘bona fide climate scientist’. The term itself is a strawman.”
My answer: Someone with a Ph.D. in a physical science, including one or more of the following disciplines:
climate science, atmospheric science, meteorology, physics, geology or oceanography.
The term “climate scientist” is not a strawman at all, in my opinion.
Leif:
6 times yes.
Christopher:
What possessed you to believe that a CNN reporter was even capable of counting to 64? After all, there’s not one repeated number in the sequence, and their only skill set appears to be repeating things….
Anthony I’ll repeat the request I made in email.
It would be cool to have a badge made for all the sites whose owners agree with the 100% consensus.
What would also be cool is a survey posted at each site showing what % of readers agreed with the 100%.
I would have answered NO to question 4 but since I am not an accredited scientist no one will listen to me, but I’m happy to talk science about that.
“lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…
###############
I think what you will find is that many people will try to weasel out of answering the questions simply
yyyyyy
Ahem. 99.7%+0.5%=100.2% Hope this helps.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article;jsessionid=7BF9E32CE357E2E9709C7A97F0AFB536.c3
Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW.
Level of endorsement Description Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming ‘The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s’
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’
(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined ‘While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive…’
(5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming ‘…anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results’
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming ‘…the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect’
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming ‘The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission’
I downloaded supporting file from position paper site above:
Category
2,Impacts
3,Mitigation
4,Methods
5,Paleoclimate
8,Not climate related
9,Not Peer-Reviewed
10,No Abstract
Endorsement
1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
4,No Position
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%
Year,Title,Journal,Authors,Category,Endorsement (file layout definition imbedded in file)
Now to tally them up:
Endorsement counts: (total number of records 11,944)
1 64
2 922
3 2910
4 7970
5 54
6 15
7 9
8 0
9 0
0 0
11944
So according to Cook’s own file 7,970 took NO POSITION
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc., etc.”
Perhaps more common here than “CO2 cannot cause any warming” is another suggestion. An interesting 7th question might have been:
Is it possible [not likely] that atmospheric CO2 concentration naturally lags surface temperature?
Im just a layman, but I have poured over all the available works I could access. Im not convinced # 6 is a yes at all. Ultimately Id have to give it a very light mild yes, but Im not even convinced of that entirely.
My interpretation of co2s ability is that it is likely minute in practice. The ice core data does imply that co2s effect isn’t very strong. Youll see temps fall while co2 is still peaking over levels some claim it should over power all other factors, only to track temps down later. The best case for co2 having an effect at all to me was always that temps DO seem to fall slower then they rose. Which implies some level of buffering effect to this laymen, but not much.
In lab conditions colloidal silver is unstoppable it kills 650 plus diseases. In practice though, in an actual human body the results are hardly stellar.
this is how I relate to the claims of co2. In a lab, we all know how much energy increased co2 is said to retain. In practice though? I do not see that the data backs it up.
When you look at somewhat inflated temp trendline, the ocean cycles, the potential the sun played a role, and the NOAA paper on water vapor that showed a massive increase over the same period we had warming, and a drop since (the period we have not been warming) , plus wrap this up with how I interpret the ice core data, Im left thinking there is little room for co2 to be playing a role. I expect its very small or non existent.
JimS says: July 11, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Don’t you think, considering the absolute cobblers Mann made of his stick, that just a tad’s-worth of statistics knowledge is required? Or do you think a man like McIntyre (there are many others) is not worthy?
BTW: I think our host might claim something to do with ‘meteorology’ (you specified a minimum of ‘one’ skill). Does that count?
Over longer and shorter periods in the past, climate has changed. The idea that governmental effort can stop the climate change is as dim witted as totalitarian governments could make the world better.
The idea that some warming is manmade is spurious and should get the burial it deserves.
I think the variation in water vapor (by far the most potent greenhouse gas) and the variation in solar insolation at the surface is noisy, oscillatorally tied to oceanic/atmospheric processes, and buries the amount of CO2 (from whatever source) warming such that CO2’s signature cannot be observed in the global temperature data.
DavidG says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/#comment-1683697
Henry says
you are so right
but few here seem to realize at
Note the graph just below the last table, for minima
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/#comment-1683526
I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in “,1”.
Yikes!
Using such unique sophisticated software makes it virtually impossible to replicate your results.
/Extreme Sarcasm
So Leif–you want us to stay on topic concerning WARMING?
Now THAT’s a real “scientific term”, no?
LOL!
And to JimS–you realize practically ALL universities that now offer a degree in “climate science” have placed the discipline in their GEOGRAPHY departments?
Now THAT’S a real confidence builder, no?
(I’m not aware of any university giving an honorary degree in “Climate Science” to anyone…)
In response to lsvalgaard, I give a Yes to all 6. However, I would also add that the warming so far does not indicate anything catastrophic. In fact, so far the increase in CO2 and temperature has so far been net beneficial as the planet has become 11% greener and crop yields have increased substantially. There is at this point, ZERO data which points to catastrophe, and MODELS do NOT count as data.
As I read the evidence, the anthropogenic CO2 component of warming is too small to reliably measure. So forced into a boolean value I would have to respond false to #6.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
I think what you will find is that many people will try to weasel out of answering the questions
There is also the strong effect of peer pressure. It takes more than usual courage in such a audience to not go along with the prevailing view. A much better poll would have first stated the six questions and then asked: who would answer ‘maybe’ or ‘not sure’ to at least one of these six.
This whole thing was clearly a PR-stunt and carries no significance.
Re; lsvalgaard July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
“Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…”
So the fact that there are people who frequent this board who have odd and unacceptable points of view discredits the entire site and all skeptics? Is that your thought process?
Go look at some of the alarmist websites. They practice outright censorship. They wish to pretend as though any dissent is ill informed.
Now you, when faced with informed dissent have to defer to the notion that some dissent is illogical, uneducated or deliberately obtuse in order to maintain your illusion that CAGW is not only correct, but irrefutable. Go find a mirror and take a good hard look. You are the people who put Galileo under house arrest. You are the people who attempted to destroy Wegener and his work, before finding out he was right.
But no, Anthony has chosen not to enforce censorship on his site. Shame the pro-CAGW police allow no such discourse on theirs.
Bob Kutz says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:04 pm
So the fact that there are people who frequent this board who have odd and unacceptable points of view discredits the entire site and all skeptics?
To some degree it does, yes. But censorship is not the answer. Stricter moderation as S. McIntyre does to keep people on topic and not go way out on their own tangent would be a step in the right direction.
97 percent of climate scientist would says whatever it takes to get more money and 100 percent of the tools that want to control our lives would be more then willing to give them the money as long as they say the world is coming to end unless we give up our freedom.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
I think what you will find is that many people will try to weasel out of answering the questions simply
===
I think what you will find is that the stupid questions are impossible to answer..
No one friggin knows…….
What I REALLY would love to see, is a poll of all the scientists that believe co2 has the potential to cause catastrophic issues that touches on which of the dozen or so published explanations for the current lack of warming they believe holds the most weight. Id love to see such results in such a manner that no one knows what the others in the field are saying until we have the final results.
This would be particularly interesting because if you have read many of these explanations for the lack of warming, for the most part they each have wildly different implications for the rest of our understanding of climate science as it currently seems to stand to this layman.
You can read several sites that cover these issues that will grab onto one of these various explanations or hilariously even just randomly force aspects of each together in some haphazard way. Most Ive debated this recently will even dismiss the freaking IPCC in favor of how some blog represents the field, while they mock the “science deniers”.
Id really love to see just how divergent the views are of those that tell us we are in deep peril. I think a massive poll of everyone at the IPCC or that they cite would have amazing ramifications for the field and our cultures understanding of climate.
Whatever is the full truth of the matter I think the fact these issues are reported in a very biased manner to control the dialog is rather obvious to any honest unbiased person that actually keeps up to
date on the issues.
Pamela Gray says: July 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm: … such that CO2′s signature cannot be observed in the global temperature data
Agree (probably). But remarkably, the reverse IS .TRUE. …such that the global temperature signature can clearly be observed in the CO2 data.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Not only is this relationship true, it is also a tons of fun, because it puzzles the heck out of everyone so almost nobody wants to talk about it.
When they do, the warmists call it a “feedback effect”, which is an explanation worthy only of a Cargo Cult.
“BTW, when is GI Joe coming back to our island with all those Camel cigarettes and Baby Ruth candy bars?”
Best to all, Allan 🙂
tset
The climate consensus is no such thing Lord Monckton! The Japanese IBUKU climate satellite data confirms that the CO2 in the northern hemisphere is a net zero while the CO2 in the southern hemisphere is coming from temperature induced and moisture induced releases from high vegetation regions in equatorial regions. Add to that the oceanic releases as a result of ocean warming and it is clear that the CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT^ coming from humans. I am afraid Lord Monckton is very seriously wrong!
I would like to add to my previous comment. Not only is there not data pointing to catastrophe ahead, there actually is data which points to NO catastrophe ahead.
1) No temperature rise for past 15+yrs while CO2 has increased markedly
2) Sea level rise rate slowing 30% in the 2000s vs the 1990s.
3) No increase in number or frequency of violent hurricanes/tornadoes since CO2 has gone from 300ppm to 400ppm
4) No increase in frequency/severity of droughts or floods since CO2 has gone from 300ppm to 400ppm.
The only real data the warmist THOUGHT they had that supported catastrophe ahead was the infamous Mann’s Hockey stick. But we all know how that eventually turned out.
OK, its working now.
Anthony, Monckton etal. take a look at our local weather for next week here in North East Texas.
The TV weather talkers say a Cold Front aka a low will bring temps with only a high of 80 F. Monday or Tuesday may be even Wednesday. Very very unusual for here mid July.
Watts’up with that?
Do not know of it ever getting that cold here mid July. Just weather but of interest do us.
So many climate sceptics are also arrogant like the warmists pretending to know how climate works….
Folks, the questions are designed to be answered either “Yes” or “No” for a reason. And that is to show that most all who are asked, 100% in this case, understand that the world has warmed and that greenhouse gases have played a part and that humans are responsible for an increase in greenhouse gases. That is all. No body asked anyone to go into more detailed discussion or explain the answers or give anything other than “Yes” or “No”. A clever trick to make a point and I believe the point needs to be made. Now, understand that when an entity is confronted with facts or logic they know can hurt their cause, they simply ignore them rather than give them any life at all by rebutting them. An often used lawyer/politician trick. So for what it is worth the point is made but the talking point that opponents of AGW are deniers of warming will continue.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
============
Definitely a case of selection bias in action.
Let us remember, and we’ve said it many times here:
The concept is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm to a level that will cause catastrophic climate related activities.
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.
Questions 1 – 6 being answered “Yes” does not constitute any form of agreement with the CAGW by CO2 warmist’s alarmism and is very much consistent with the Oregon Petition statement.
Terri Jackson said
“The climate consensus is no such thing Lord Monckton! The Japanese IBUKU climate satellite data confirms that the CO2 in the northern hemisphere is a net zero while the CO2 in the southern hemisphere is coming from temperature induced and moisture induced releases from high vegetation regions in equatorial regions. Add to that the oceanic releases as a result of ocean warming and it is clear that the CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT^ coming from humans. I am afraid Lord Monckton is very seriously wrong!”
Err – are you seriously saying that – or is it a spoof ?
If serious (!!), can you explain why CO2 has now risen to levels not seen for several millions years ? Why in the warm interglacials during the last several hundred thousand years did CO2 not go to current levels ? Levels did not exceed 300ppm, yet its currently 400ppm. The human source is the only credible conclusion – which of course can be calculated.
I’d answer yes to all 6.
1. Yes
2. Yes, the data seems clear, but …
3. Unknown, the scientific research is completely untrustworthy. Not worth a bucket of spit. All of it. I don’t care how eminent a scientist you are, your funding comes from agencies that are bureaucratically and politically corrupted by CAGW fever, and scientific research that doesn’t support the political orthodoxy is not funded, and if inadvertently discovered it is suppressed.
4. Same as 3.
5. Same as 3.
6. Same as 3.
Using the phrase I picked up from the resident eminent scientist, the science is worse than useless. It’s time to disallow all cites prior to 2014, burn all the data, and start again with fresh new data sets.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
=====
About a dozen posters had made a liar out of you even before you posted this.
Smelling a rat in 2007, I began my own internet research into the veracity of AGW doom-sayers.
I found WUWT and since have been a near daily visitor.
If someone were to ask me if I’ve learned the effects of CO2 on our atmosphere, Here’s my answer.
1) CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
2) At 380 PPM, CO2 IR absorption is almost at saturation and as CO2 increases there will be less and less added IR absorption.
3) Since CO2 can be proved to absorb IR, thereby warming, and the RSS satellite data shows no increase in the rate of temperature rise since 1979 and no temperature rise at all since 1998, While all along there’s a steady rise in atmospheric CO2. There must be a mechanism, a negative feedback that cancels this warming.
Clouds, clouds cause cooling. They are a result of warming yet cause cooling, a negative feedback, a stabilizer.
Given our atmosphere’s “recovery” from jolts like El Nino, and volcanic eruptions, our atmosphere displays the characteristics of a stable system. One not prone to “run-away” temperature.
I learned all this here at WUWT.
It’s as clear as the nose on my face.
But that face is not one of a “Climate Scientist”
so don’t pay any heed to this screed.
There is nothing to fear from the climate.
But, there is plenty to fear from “Climate Charlatans”
Cook’s paper served its media purpose. Absent media worthy retraction (now unlikely, as predicted when given a last shot months ago), best to move on. It was a battle lost in a war to be won. Skeptics appear to be starting to win, since Mother Nature herself (pause, Antarctic ice, Arctic ice recovery, stadium wave, weak 2014 El Niño) is on our side.
The increasing vitriol and attempts to silence (BBC re Lord Lawson), growing public rejection of those tactics (Rasmussen poll), and growing resort to extra legal means (EPA) are increasing evidence this is likely so. Focus on the future.
James Abbott says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm
============
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/graphs.htm
http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-industrial-and-current-co2-levels-deliberately-corrupted/
MarkW says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
=====
About a dozen posters had made a liar out of you even before you posted this.
“I think what you will find is that many people will try to weasel out of answering the questions simply”
do a count. “many” did weasel out of answering “simply.”
counting those who didnt weasel doesnt answer the question.
when monkton asked the question nobody weaseled.
now did they?
leif also posed a question simply.
count the answers that contain caveats, weaseling,
count the answers like those given to monkton. simple Y/N
give your own answers like you were in the room
yyyyyy
@Steven Mosher – actually “many” did not “weasel” out of answering. The question was not asked of us. So “many” commented on the over all content of the post.
Should WUWT put up an actual poll, I am sure most would take it.
Please allow me to correct you, Monckton. The consensus is off 300% since it includes three decades of future generations of scientists.
yes leif. a nice stunt.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…
==================
Write a post, ask some questions.
Should get a pretty good turnout 🙂
1. Does climate change? YES. The climate has changed drastically over time and did so long, long before mankind appeared on this planet.
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s? Unknown. The data is very unreliable, but it seems to indicate that CO2 has risen.
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s? Unknown. We don’t know what NET effect mankind has had on CO2 since 1950, but it is likely that human activities has had a slight upward effect on CO2 levels.
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming? Unknown. CO2 both cools and warms depending on location and other factors; and we don’t know what its net effect is but data would indicate the additional CO2 has had precious little effect.
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s? Unknown. The data sets are not reliable due to “adjustments”, incompetence and bias. The non-adjusted temps seem to indicated no warming at all since 1900.
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950? Unknown. See other answers.
“But no, [Mr. Watts] has chosen not to enforce censorship on his site. Shame the pro-CAGW police allow no such discourse on theirs.”
I think that the site is pretty open to different views, but there are some people not allowed to post here, some topics not allowed to be discussed, and sites that one is not supposed to link to. These things relate to the poll above. So, this site is much better than the pro-CAGW sites as you say, but perfection is still aways off.
[The topics you refer to are not related to the poll above. .mod]
I’d answer “Yes” to all six questions. As to CO2, I like to give my “pie” analogy. Eating an extra 150 calorie piece of pie for desert every night, a person will gain weight, but their weight won’t increase indefinitely at 1 pound every 20 days- 3000 calories. A person quickly reaches a new weight balance somewhat higher than their pre pie weight. Likewise,, fossil fuel energy use has been increasing worldwide, so .naturally CO2,( weight) continues to rise, but once fossil fuel use levels out, the world will quickly reach a new, somewhat higher, CO2 balance.
As to increased heat, nobody mentioned another factor involved- energy use. We’ve been drastically increasing energy use over the last 200 + years, most of that energy is released in urban areas, and ultimately winds up as heat. Most of our temperature measurements are in urban areas. The temperatures of URBAN areas will continue to rise as long as we continue to use more energy, regardless of whether that energy is fossil fuel, hydropower, wind, or solar.
– that energy is finally going to wind up as heat regardless of the source.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
“Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc.”
Yes Leif, but you know that the bin of so-called deniers also include a nut fringe and an ignorant anti-just-about-anything type (no one is excluded here who follows the common sense rules of WUWT), just like one finds ideologue malthusians and legions of know-nothing useful idiots along with honorable and corrupt scientists on the other side. A sceptics’ scientific conference is a natural filter for thoughtful sceptics. People haters and end-of-the-world types that side with CAGW scientific proponents on the other hand are all invited to join in in the love-in. I’m not surprised that 100% of skeptics at such a conference would accept that man is having some effect on climate. Exactly what it is, how much and how caused, in light of natural variability, is the issue with such sceptics.
Did Leif and Mosh answer the questions?….
BTW….my answers are exactly the same as Mark
Latitude says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Did Leif and Mosh answer the questions?….
My answers to this cleverly designed PR-stunt would, of course, be yyyyyy. What is wrong with the poll is that there are no numbers, no error bars, no confidence intervals, no ‘how much’. Totally useless and without any scientific value. Pure PR bullshit, by that well-known master of BS.
[Unless all who answered the poll also answered yyyyyy. .mod]
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm
I am pretty sure you missed the whole point.
Latitude – I checked those references. There are references to the Keeling data having been manipulated, the pre-industrial levels being wrong, etc. All tosh. The Mauna Loa smoothed curve is exactly that – smoothed on a running mean (standard method) but they still show the seasonal “breathing” of the biosphere. Location differences ? Nope – the global trend, based on a network of sites shows a very similar record to the Mauna Loa data taken at altitude.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global
The pre-industrial level of 280ppm is confirmed from ice cores:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php
There is no real evidence that this data has been “deliberately corrupted”. Its just more wishful thinking from those that delude themselves that the entire scientific community is working to a conspiracy plan.
Randy says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:20 pm
I am pretty sure you missed the whole point.
If I did, it just shows how lousy the stunt was. The purpose of a PR-stunt is to make the point come across, and so they failed in my case.
It’s 100% Mann made
I would still like to have an overall understanding of the 600 delegates and their credentials as being climate scientists. Were half of them climate scientists? One quarter? One hundred per cent? Those are the issues I have to contend with when discussing AGW with various people. Therefore, no matter what consensus the 600 came up with, unless others regard them as qualified, it was a useless exercise. Telling me that a climate scientist can not be defined, or, that there is no such thing, doesn’t cut it.
I used to read posts from Leif Svalgaard and Steven Mosher with great interest, always intelligent, sharp and to the point.
Now they both come across as mildly bitter, sarcastic and condescending…., I wonder what happened…..!
We get it. Svalgaard has a beef with Monckton, who called him out recently. I hope mods will not allow Svalgaard to continue flaming this thread with his serially inane comments.
Gee, Jim, I’m a bit confused.
Is a climate scientist the one who gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each year using billions of taxpayer monies to make bad decisions about the climate and publicize only what the government wants to publicize about climate “science” ?
Or is a climate scientists one uses “science” and “research” and “technology” to study the climate and report to others what the climate is actually doing? +
Do you have to get a PhD before or after you are wrong about the world’s climate in order to be a climate scientist?
Do you have to both have a PhD AND be wrong about the world’s climate in order to be a climate scientist, or can you be right about the world’s climate and NOT be a climate scientist?
What is more important in being called a climate scientist: Being right about the climate or being paid to get a PhD by the government?
If science can be bought by $24,000/00 from an oil company, how much science is being bought for 200 billion from the government?
(If a climate scientist lies in the woods but no one smells his polluted paper, does he still get his research grant renewed next year?)
Leif,
Yes to all six. It was just as much as PR stunt as the Cook paper that he is comparing it to.
He does have a point that rather than engage in open debate, some would rather resort to name calling and arguments based on “consensus” and authority. The climate issue has been deeply politicized and many without any ability to read the science and with very limited math ability, whether in the media or on the street, can simply dismiss anything they don’t agree with by saying “97%”. And they don’t take the time to even try to ask questions or learn anything at all about climate. That is the frustrating part and it is important to put a stake through this 97% meme as it is inaccurate. And one way to do that might be through a PR stunt that gets people to realize that skeptics agree 100% on what their “enemies” say they deny. It actually is the truth, even if it is also a PR stunt.
Richard D says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Svalgaard has a beef with Monckton
I think you have this backwards. Monckton has done his best to defame me [not that I really care].
Bill_W says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:44 pm
many without any ability to read the science and with very limited math ability, whether in the media or on the street, can simply dismiss anything they don’t agree with by saying “97%”
So now they will just say “100%”.
Some here might want to re-read this:
“The results of my survey of the 600 Heartland delegates reveal that the difference between the Thermageddonites and us is far less than they would like the world to think. Like most of them, we fall within Cook’s endorsement levels 2-3. Unlike them, we do not claim to know whether most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made: for that is beyond what the current state of science can tell us.”
Bold mine.
Many above comments seem to reflect the bolded phrase.
I don’t see where Monckton has posted this as if it were some sort of serious scientific survey either. Just a simple raise, or in this case non-raise, of hands that was easily counted, or, again, in this case non-counted.
Regarding the credentials of the attendees, I think the more important point would be that they were a reasonable microcosm of the climate science skeptical viewpoint. Not all proponents of the skeptical view would be considered “climate scientists” just as not all of the alarmists are “climate scientists”. (“climate scientists” in quotes because it is evident there are differing views on what the qualifications are.) Arguing over whether one is a “climate scientist” while at the same time praising Al Gore’s movie, seems a little absurd to me.
Most importantly, we should not let the MSM or the Alarmists define what we believe. Monckton’s informal survey at least allows us to portray ourselves more correctly than, say, a CNN reporter might.
A C Osborn says, July 11, 2014 at 12:04 pm:
“4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
You can all go along with Lord Monckton if you want, but not me.
Based on this from Wiki which no one seems to disagree with too much
” there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.”
If this is true and CO2 is really such a potent Greehouse Gas how could we possibly have had Ice Ages with levels that high?
As temperatures were also high at those times, how could they have become low enough for Ice Ages?”
Note how the operative term here is “other things being equal”. Other things being equal, there are reasons to believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause some ‘global warming’. This is what they do in the lab. They measure the temperature effect inside an closed glass box. In such a situation ‘the top of the atmosphere’ can’t lift and convection and evaporation cannot increase in efficiency. All that can happen is a reduction of the temperature gradient away from the externally heated bottom surface, because the top lid warms.
So I would answer YES to all the first 5 questions, but a resounding NO!!!!!!!!!!! to the last.
The surface/atmosphere system isn’t even remotely resembling a closed glass box in a lab.
By virtue of being alive and having a body temp of 98.6 (or thereabouts) we contribute to global warming “some” but it matters very little in the natural course of things. I doubt even the UHI has much effect on “global warming” – this is particularly *not* noticeable in the winter months that are bitterly cold even with the sun shining all day. The heat just isn’t permanent enough to achieve any warming – much less hold onto it. So while man contributes “some” – it is precious little, and certainly not enough to cause the climate to change.
@Jim Stevens says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:09 pm
@kenw:
“define ‘bona fide climate scientist’. The term itself is a strawman.”
My answer: Someone with a Ph.D. in a physical science, including one or more of the following disciplines:
climate science, atmospheric science, meteorology, physics, geology or oceanography.
Ooooh – I am a Climate Scientist and I didn’t know – where’s my grant?
(Bsc hons physics specializing in Atmospheric circulation, pollution and meteorology!!!!)
PS Never used it in anger but must still be a “Climate Scientist”
PPS – Leif you are being a bit hard on Christopher – he was using the exercise merely to demonstrate a point – something that is done quite a lot a conferences all over the world.
okulaer says, July 11, 2014 at 5:53 pm:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Sorry, meant to post as ‘Kristian’ as usual …
HaryG says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:13 pm
PPS – Leif you are being a bit hard on Christopher – he was using the exercise merely to demonstrate a point – something that is done quite a lot a conferences all over the world.
That is like saying that smoking is healthy, because so many do it.
But, I realize that my bar for what is reasonable is set a bit higher than his. Just sad to see all the oohs and aahs that applaud sinking so deep.
y.y.y.y. y-but I’d rather say “not unlikely” because of crummy data. y–same caveat as the previous, which it takes as one of its premises.
LOL…..he didn’t write it up as a peer reviewed paper!
Speaking of PR stunts Leif, Chris Turney* has been quiet since January of this year.
*Expedition costs – AUS$1.5 million. Does NOT include rescue and recovery costs.
Lord M had a classical education, which accounts for the latin and the VB…LOL
lsvalgaard says:
This whole thing was clearly a PR-stunt and carries no significance.
Of course it can be labeled a “stunt”. It was aimed at debunking the “stunt” that promotes the 97% consensus. What interests me most about your reply is did you likewise post about the 97% consensus as also being “a stunt that carried no significance”?
Climate change is very real. For example, the average climate of the northern hemisphere is so cold as to cause the ground to be buried under a thousand feet of ice. The cycle of glacier on/glacier off takes place every several hundred thousand years and can be clearly seen in many ways. Even as the science is settled that glaciation has taken place, the causes are still undergoing vigorous debate.
With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that proposes what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that there climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science all converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
There’s a scene in the movie World War Z in which the hero learns how one group of people managed to defend itself against the zombie infection:
“When nine people agree on something, it’s the tenth man’s responsibility to disagree no matter how improbable the idea.”
Peer review, party opposition and, sadly, watchdog journalism seem to have driven us to a point where evidence no longer matters except to the extent it can be twisted by PR and marketing firms.
Thankfully for climate science, the tenth man role is being played by the publishers of this blog and its contributors.
Here’s to hoping we all keep seeking evidence and, should a time arise when evidence conflicts with our beliefs, notions and interests, maintain the ability to wriggle ourselves from entrenched positions.
Which is exactly the reason far too many “scientists” claim a belief in CAGW.
Also, I’m amused by your frustration that commenters aren’t complying with your strict instructions in this thread. How dare they, eh?
jim Steele says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm
did you likewise post about the 97% consensus as also being “a stunt that carried no significance”?
No need to, as we all know it is garbage. But why must we stoop to their level? Because we think the general public is too stupid to understand anything else?
wobble says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Also, I’m amused by your frustration that commenters aren’t complying with your strict instructions in this thread.
People show their understanding and astuteness by their actions and their comments. Some don’t come across very positively, but I guess it takes all kinds…
These aren’t the only things people show. It seems as if you’re missing obvious elements.
Dear Anthony Watts,
Please consider adding to the Blogroll under “Political Climate” a new entry, “WND – Lord Monckton” using the link below, so others may more easily enjoy his written wit that might not be climate related but is still informative and entertaining, currently arriving as weekly missives.
http://www.wnd.com/author/cmonckton/
The most-current posting is July 9, “Climate of Freedom in Las Vegas”, and well worth reading.
Thank you for reading this suggestion.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all
For the record, I would have said “yes” to all six questions.
As for the claims of no warming, I write a post every month in which I give the time for which six different data sets show no warming. However that does not mean that I believe there is no warming at all. There is some warming, but it is just over a longer period of time than the time at which the slope is zero for that particular data set.
I could make the following three statements, all of which are true:
1. There has been no warming on RSS for 17 years and 10 months.
2. There has been no statistically significant warming at the 95% significance level on RSS for 21 years and 8 months.
3. The warming on RSS since 1979 is much less than the average model projection.
If you got into a conversation with someone over a coffee and you mentioned points 2 or 3, chances are their eyes would glaze over and you may as well stop talking. But #1 is very straight forward and easily gets the point across that nothing catastrophic is happening. And until the next super El Nino makes that claim not true, we may as well use argument #1. At some point, we may have to go to argument #2.
wobble says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:32 pm
These aren’t the only things people show. It seems as if you’re missing obvious elements.
Such as? Educate me!
1. Does climate change?
So I’m told. I haven’t noticed any real change in my lifetime.
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
They tell me it has. I haven’t tried measuring it myself.
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
If you already know there has been a measured increase, why did you ask question 2?
And I suppose it seems likely, since we burn stuff and make beer and breathe.
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
I don’t know what has to be equal.
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
That’s what the official figures show. Can I trust them?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
Look, if it has been honestly measured, what is the point of asking question 5? And I’m not even a mala fide climate scientist, so I don’t know what effect CO2 has on the climate system. Does anyone?
One way of looking at the Cook et al paper, is confusion between ‘ought’ and ‘is’.
They live in a dreamworld where the two words are interchangeable. In other words, what they are essentially trying to say is ‘97% of climate scientists ought to believe in the consensus’, but they get semantically confused and say ‘97% of climate scientists believe in the consensus’. The deep seated confusion between ought with is, is the main problem.
Add to that, why they WANT people to believe in the consensus in the first place, and you have the answer, social control. The moral imperative. Its surprising how strong it is in some people, when they can no longer even tell the difference between moral causes and reality. Moral causes trump reality. Trouble is, that isn’t science.
People, RSS has a calibration fix tacked onto the raw data due to changes in the satilite’s orbit affecting its accuracy. Stop using RSS. The other satilite data sets won’t come back to bite your comments in the arse.
Not sure why everyone is busting Leif’s chops since he is correct. I wasn’t going to make a big deal about it, but the very first thing that went through my mind as I was reading the article was…OMG, a show of hands? Worse, a show of hands for a dissenting vote? The result is meaningless!
I understand the goal, it was well intention-ed, but given the circumstances, it was unlikely to have had any other result, so fair to call it a well intention-ed PR stunt. That said, I think it fair to say that most skeptics accept that the GHE exists, and it drives me nuts when people in this forum claim “experimental” or other evidence to show that it doesn’t. They should be taken to account in exactly the same manner as those who claim catastrophe is on the horizon, for both are disseminating false information and calling it science.
From lsvalgaard on July 11, 2014 at 7:47 pm:
Well I was doing catch-up yesterday and saw this innocent-looking recent posting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/07/nasa-satellites-see-neoguri-grow-into-a-super-typhoon/
That descended into dreck like:
And you had no replies there to any of it!
Thus clearly there you had missed the obvious solar enthusiast lunatic fringe element.
lsvalgaard says:
in response to Jjim Steele “did you likewise post about the 97% consensus as also being “a stunt that carried no significance”?
“No need to, as we all know it is garbage.”
Leif,it was (is) absolutely imperative that honest scientists stand up and refute the 97% lie consensus (as well as the deceptive Hockey Stick) The whole Progressive takeover of the United States and destruction of the free-market system and American way of life is based on a lie that you, as you have now admitted, is an outright GARBAGE lie.
You credentials as a top notch solar scientist may be undisputed, but Instead of attacking the people seeking to do us harm based on a lie, you attack the people who expose the lie for what it is. I have to ask myself… Why?
lsvalgaard says to Jim Steele:
“No need to, as we all know it [97% consensus] is garbage. But why must we stoop to their level? Because we think the general public is too stupid to understand anything else?”
How do you confront the 97% consensus myth when confronted with it, Leif? It was presented to me a few days ago to justify ignoring the wishes of the people with regards to the “carbon tax.”
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:35 pm
Thus clearly there you had missed the obvious solar enthusiast lunatic fringe element.
I must not have paid attention. That particular dreck was buried among too much other dreck.
Alcheson says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:48 pm
You credentials as a top notch solar scientist may be undisputed, but Instead of attacking the people seeking to do us harm based on a lie, you attack the people who expose the lie for what it is. I have to ask myself… Why?
We can do expose the lie without stooping to the same lows as they. Resorting to meaningless polls makes us look bad and harms the good fight.
Khwarizmi says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:54 pm
It was presented to me a few days ago to justify ignoring the wishes of the people with regards to the “carbon tax.”
So you retort that they are wrong on the 97%, the correct number is 100%. But that also that the issue is not whether, but how much, or better ‘how little’.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:35 pm
Thanks for mentioning my comment. It’s patently obvious you’re not one of the people who learns from reality. Perhaps you would go down the list of my comments and refute them with evidence to the contrary. I have evidence for everything I say. What do have but snark?
Where is the evidence that CO2 caused warming? Why would skeptics vote for that without evidence? I think a great number of the 600 want to go along to get along with the warmists, to find a middle ground, etc. You will be rolled by this administration for taking that posture. They will spin it as you agreeing with them.
Many of you are in a a state of cognitive dissonance here – you aren’t focusing on reality everyday, watching what happens with the Sun, the moon, and the Earth. You dismiss what you miss, and you miss a lot from the looks of things!
kadaka clearly you have no idea what causes evaporation in the oceans or warming anywhere.
The SUN caused the global warming period just as it caused the LIA.
Leif replies:
So you retort that they are wrong on the 97%, the correct number is 100%. But that also that the issue is not whether, but how much, or better ‘how little’.
= = =
So you agree with Monckton on the 100% figure that was secured without mentioning quantification issues, but you would insist on mentioning those issues? Fair enough.
I tend to agree with Randy (July 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm) with regard to question 6.
There is often a tremendous difference between in vitro (glass) and in vivo (live) outcomes. I thought was an excellent analogy.
Khwarizmi says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:23 pm
So you agree with Monckton on the 100% figure that was secured without mentioning quantification issues, but you would insist on mentioning those issues?
The percentage is meaningless. What matters is only quantification: how much, or how little. Numbers, my friend. Numbers, otherwise we have nothing at all.
I agree with davidmhoffer. It was a stunt to prove just how ridiculous the claim of 97% consensus claim is.
TeeJaw quotes Margaret Thatcher on consensus. Great quote. The full speech is here:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104712
Here is another quote from that speech: When I asked one of my Commonwealth colleagues at this Conference why he kept saying that there was a “consensus” on a certain matter, another replied in a flash “consensus is the word you use when you can’t get agreement”.
Hate you looking for a clearer sign to short the ever loving f out of this pig?
Leif: “Numbers, otherwise we have nothing at all.”
Agreed. Since no numbers for a temperature fingerprint can be seriously attributed to our CO2 fingerprint in vivo, we have “nothing at all.” Therefore it would be irrational to vote “yes” on question 6. The 100% figure representing those who did vote yes, is like any consensus figure, a meaningless one. All that should matters is how well the map meshes with reality. And it doesn’t do a very good job.
Even when accepting the 4degC temperature rise by 2100 claimed by IPCC politicians, in comparison to solar input to global warming it is seen completely irrelevant to Climate. A simple order-of-magnitude calculation using elementary three-Rs maths is all that’s needed, viz http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html
From Bob Weber on July 11, 2014 at 9:01 pm;
I have learned from you. For example, you previously said:
Yet Bob Tisdale, resident ENSO expert, has professionally explained on July 8 how the 2014/2015 El Nino, which we are in, will be dying out soon unless atmospheric feedbacks kick in. Etc.
If you follow Tisdale even peripherally, you would know El Nino is a long-building event, dependent on many things. Including the long building up of warmth in the Pacific Warm Pool, waiting for the weakening of the trade winds to allow the full release of the El Nino.
You are predicting higher sea surface temperatures when Tisdale has already warned SST’s are high so expect “hottest ever” record proclamations, with higher land temps which is part of Tisdale’s warning, more evaporation which is expected with the higher SST’s anyway. And you predicted a possible El Nino happening which is already basically happening except weakly and the indicators are showing it will likely die.
You also predict the heightened solar activity will power more hurricanes and typhoons which derive energy from differences in potential thus with SST’s already elevated there’s a shortage of cooler waters to drive formation of hurricanes and typhoons and by the Eschenbach Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis the most likely result in these conditions is more frequent tropical thunderstorms happening earlier in the day transporting more heat away from the surface, not more hurricanes and typhoons.
Thus as I am one who does learn by studying reality, I have learned from you to take what you give as cause and effect and relationship between, and know I will be better served by looking elsewhere.
Imminent Solar Physicist Denounces Appeal to Consensus in Climate Wars
New York Times, Monday July 13
Gretel Gaia, Climate Correspondent
Yesterday, writing on the most popular climate blog on the planet, Leif Svalgaard, an emminent solar physicist who once quipped, “I know the sun”, lashed out at climatologists and environmental journalists for their repeated appeals to authority when trying to convince the general public about the legitimacy of “global warming.”
“They are wrong on the 97%: the correct number is 100%,” complained Svalgaard bitterly. “But the issue is not whether, but how much, [it has warmed due to our emissions] or better ‘how little’”, he said.
http://www.newyorktimes.com/environmental/0307014un_real.htm
Whoops – “emminent” – stupid me.
Too much is invested in the climate change industry for really meaningful numbers to come out. The big investors have mega bucks invested in it. While on the other side the entrenched industry using outdated technology is not willing to simply turn over and die. The result is what being fed is what they want us to hear not the reality or the truth. Sigh. Sick of the greedy humans!
I’m pleased to say I haven’t seen a single bit of press either on the tv or newspaper about your little coal industry sponsored conference. It seems the media is finally tired of nutters.
MyS = f(6Y, z|X|, Pr(C))
Where my level of scepticism is a function of my unequivocal six yes’s, the likelihood of the existence of an unknown array of variables impacting upon the climate system state (z) and my assessment of the probability of a catastrophic state change lying in the 400-600ppm range of free atmospheric CO2. There, that was easy.
“Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?”
If it likely, what is the evidence ?
I am just a geologist but I truly believe that there was a major glacial period about 400 million years ago when the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were about 10 times greater than they are today.
From Siberian_husky who pissed on blog owner’s leg when they said on July 11, 2014 at 11:02 pm:
It is easy to grow tired of nuts when you work in the nut packaging industry.
PS: Mr. Watts is a meteorologist. He knows when it is raining. He also knows that’s not rain.
Denial connects to a srawman argument, which changes the sceptics’ position to make it indefensible. Quite often we end up in discussing whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not when we should be discussing whether it is significant or not.
Qantitive arguments are mostly ignored in this debate. How much? should be the first question followed by when, how and why. In a spoken language insignificant is often translated to does not exist. We say that there is no AGW when me mean that it is insignificant.
Radiation is a cause of a cancer but we have not outlawed walking outdoors. Sense of proportion works here, at least yet, but green thinking is very much based on lack of it.
kadaka,
Higher solar activity in the short run will drive up SSTs more, and could cause all the things I mentioned. It doesn’t mean they WILL happen. That we had a solar spike starting from last October through early this year caused the conditions people have discussed earlier in the year that would lead to an El Nino. What I meant if I wasn’t clear enough, was that MORE solar activity at higher levels increases those events chances of occuring. Perhaps you haven’t studied the relationship between ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) and solar activity.
Last summer the Weather Channel experts were carrying on about how the hurricane season was going to be a strong one. It wasn’t. The sun’s activity waned until later in the season, and shortly after a solar surge in October, we had Typhoon Haiyan. We also have to remind ourselves that the ocean was warming all summer last year, accumulating heat, before the late season solar surge.
That was one example of evidence for a relatively short-term solar influence on extreme weather events via enhanced solar warming. There are plenty more examples, including all hurricane & typhoon activity this year to date. Has anyone noticed hurricane and cyclone activity this year is also behind the curve, as is tornado production, as it has been for years? Along with the “pause” in “warming” too. These things are all related to solar activity.
You disparage a supposed lack of response to my comments. First I should mention you pulled quotes from several of my comments and made them look like I said them in the order you listed – out of context with eachother. Secondly, some people did exchange comments on some of my comments. Third, with the new way of looking at the solar-earth connection I am showing, the information I provided was new to many people and I’m sure many will be paying attention to see if what I said transpires before casting dispersions or commenting, as you are doing.
If the sun is more active now and in the next several months, after NOAA/NASA have declared the solar max was reached in May/June, then yes, we COULD have all those conditions. If it drops like a rock, El Nino fizzles, and hurricanes/typhoon activity will be low, ACE will be low, and temps will eventually drop. I tried to provide evidence that the sun in this rotation is more active than was expected, that it could continue to be higher than expected, that there could be more solar peaking before the big slide downhill to solar minimum, and that history as a guide means all those weather phenomenon could happen as a result of potential solar warming during this year.
Consider that a more qualified restatement. About the moon, I have all the weather maps and temps necessary to show the lunar-driven atmospheric influence over a long period of study. It’s not a big secret that the moon creates atmospheric tides that follow the lunar declination cycle.
And the snippet on the solar plasma stands on its own. How are you going to argue with that?
So good luck with your continued learning from reality. I am in no way backing down just because your view of reality doesn’t include mine. None of these issues are going away, I’m not going away, the sun’s activity and it’s affect on the earth isn’t going away. The only thing that I think will go away in the long run are any doubts that the Sun is the big cheese when it comes to weather and climate influences. I hope in the future you will stop quoting me out of context, please.
Odd, isn’t it?
The one individual on this thread castigating others with the ad hom attack of a ‘weasel’ response is the resident master of weasel trolling…..
On second consideration, I retract that statement. It is an undesired slur on my part of the genus Mustela of the family Mustelidae. My mistake was correlating the malodorous scent of the particular individuals flatulent responses with a family most well known for truly offensive emissions. Correlation is not necessarily cause and effect.
Just because the offensive emissions reek to high heaven, doesn’t mean it’s a skunk. Skunks are quite engaging and sociable critters….. unlike our resident malodorous troll.
‘Amusingly, 96.8% is 97% of 97.1%.’
It most certainly is not. 0.97*0.971 = 0.94187.
US TV Station says that coming US cold blast is a solar effect:
http://www.abc2news.com/weather/weather-blogs/polar-vortex-to-take-a-vacation-south-next-week
1. yes, definitely
2. yes, defnitely This is Keating’s Mauna Loa data–careful and about as good as it gets in real science, where anything can turn out to be wrong after all.
3. yes, definitely.The graph correlates with technology. Nature could do something like that, but it would be a remarkable coincidence if this were the sun or something.
4. Uncertain. The greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in vitro even by schoolchildren. But ancient graphs and the stability of life on Earth makes it seem that the feedbacks are so strongly negative that no net effect exists
5. UHI–yes. No previous poster in this thread has really pointed out that “the pause” correlates with RSS and satellites. All prior records were urban–and we know that human activities warm urban areas. RSS and satellites measure the surfaces as a whole.These may be flawed measurements, or maybe that is just an excuse for that flat record. So overall–NO.
6. yes, in that the “measured” warming was A) falsified by humans and b )UHI–heat release by humans in urban areas.
davidmhoffer says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm
———————————–
“That said, I think it fair to say that most skeptics accept that the GHE exists, and it drives me nuts when people in this forum claim “experimental” or other evidence to show that it doesn’t. They should be taken to account in exactly the same manner as those who claim catastrophe is on the horizon, for both are disseminating false information and calling it science.”
David, it may be worth re-reading this –
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Matt L. says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:05 pm
There’s a scene in the movie World War Z in which the hero learns how one group of people managed to defend itself against the zombie infection:
“When nine people agree on something, it’s the tenth man’s responsibility to disagree no matter how improbable the idea.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The correct answer to questions 4 and 6 is “NO”
Now if there is just one “tenth man”, it doesn’t matter if most sceptics got it wrong and believed that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere actually did reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability. Because in the end all sceptics are politically saved if alternate views (and their supporting repeatable empirical experiments that so distress you) continued to be aired on sceptic forums.
You have put in a lot of effort, but by now you should be aware that herding sceptics is like trying to herd cats. The remaining sleepers cannot hope to steer all sceptics to the lukewarmer path. And to win, AGW believers need all voices on sceptic forums to be lukewarmer. This cannot be achieved. Therefore sceptics will win.
@Lord Dorchouse
Someone rigged yet another meaningless poll for political purposes. I keep telling you that this British politics won’t work in the US. Nobody knows anything with great certainty regarding CO2, warming, etc. Trying to “accept partial blame” is not going to pacify the nuts on the left. Yet, it will confuse people who aren’t yet climate zombies.
I demand that you confess, at once, sir, to you your mendacious etc. & etc. or I shall file a complaint with the proper authorities. That, after all, is how we Americans talk to each other when you Brits aren’t listening, like now when you, an ex-Thatcherite, aren’t listening to what I’ve told you a few times about the US not liking this kind of BS in general. How are all the lawsuits going? Going well? Haven’t heard much about the people you’re “protecting” with your complaints and lawsuits. Do show us the results sometime.
Because warming produces methane and CO2 so is CO2 causing some minor warming or is warming causing CO2 rise. In a nett sense there can be only one! So looking at nett processes since natural emission dominates man-made warming 97:3 ( funny how that 97 keeps coming up) it’s clear that in fact warming causes CO2 rise. Now Leif, in the light of the fact please reconsider your opinion on #4, does temperature related emission of CO2 or temperature rise due to CO2 emission dominate the CO2 rise characteristic? Does anyone really know?
The Japanese CO2 balance seems to indicate that most populated areas are in fact CO2 sinks, so in fact other than some tiny areas marking a few of the biggest cities in the world mankind actually sinks CO2 rather than emits it, whicn makes sense given the amount of agriculture that is done to feed us all. From my reading of the Japanese data pretty much all CO2 emission is natural, look at the northern territory in Australia, with less than a million people across the whole state, yet huge emissions.
It’s clear the answers to questions 3-6 are probably insufficient knowledge to answer, not for the sky dragons reasons but rather doubt about whether mankind is in fact a nett cause, or a nett mitigation. That’s what the data says!
From Bob Weber on July 11, 2014 at 11:42 pm:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1979/to:2014/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1979/to:2014/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2014/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2014/mean:13/normalise
Where in that do you see how higher solar activity WILL drive up SST’s?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/mean:13/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/mean:61/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1850/to:2014/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1850/to:2014/mean:61/normalise
In the short run, the wiggle-matching shows you have as good or better chance arguing the SST’s lead solar activity.
In the longer run, the solar activity seems to match SST’s, up to about the satellite age circa 1979, at which point they diverge. Note that with the proposed 20% increase to pre-1947 International (SIDC) SSN that wipes out what was the current solar Grand Maximum, the graph will be somewhat different. So let’s just look at 1947 up to 2014:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1947/to:2014/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1947/to:2014/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1947/to:2014/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1947/to:2014/mean:13/normalise
It becomes even more obvious from around 1970 onward that SST’s clearly lead solar activity. How can it be that short-term higher solar activity WILL drive up SST’s when the SST’s spike first?
If what you say WILL happen clearly does not happen, then why should I believe what you say COULD happen could happen at all?
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:14 am
Those findings clash a bit with the often made claims here at WUWT that there is no warming at all, that CO2 cannot cause any warming, etc. Perhaps we should have a poll to see how many here answers NO to all six questions…
These are not questions suitable for making decisions. The word likely is too vague.
So Leif, I wouldn’t be answering yes or no and even if the questions were more direct I still couldn’t answer in the affirmative. Why, because no-one know whether man is making a difference or not. There has been no definitive work done on the subject of man’s influence on the climate.
Likely et al are suppositive not definitive.
Stephen Richards says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:25 am
These are not questions suitable for making decisions. The word likely is too vague.
Indeed, as I said it is a lousy poll, a meaningless PR-Stunt.
I thought the type of science represented in the 64 type 1 results was the most interesting point.
I found a paper by a biologist about jellyfish and there reaction to ocean acidification and another 2 papers by (the same) paediatricians in group 1.
Should one really claim that a scientific concensus is a concensus by naming non-related sciences. I mean, a paediatrician might be a scientist, but his opinion on Global Warming cannot be more relvant than any ordinary person.
Warm water takes longer to release C02 but with more fish,weeds and decaying matter, it is obvious.
The really relevant questions should be:
A) Are we actually able to measure the planets average temperature. (Max and Min should
at least be discussed much more than today). For example; all the measured temp. rise in the arctic takes place in winter and involve anomolies of up to +10 degrees. But -20 degrees instead of -30 degrees, is that really relevant to ice-melt.
B) How much and why was CO2-levels rising in 1860 ? Could humans have been responsible then ?
Strange that none of the 600 answered “NO” to Q 6?
Maybe they thought Lord Monckton was asking rethorically not really expecting anyone to raise their hands?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
–
I will refrase the question as it automatically rearranged it self in my mind:
Do you believe that there is more than 1/2 probabillity that we are able to measure the, if any, (positive) warming ” that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
–
Given that at least some of those 600 people believe in a negative feedback from CO2, precipitation, clouds, and maybe more complex mechanisms – one would expect a percentage of sceptics answering NO. What if all we accomplish by adding CO2 to the climate is making the climate wetter, not warmer? Someone must believe that, I almost do. Maybe a tiny fraction warmer, but so small a fraction it is unmeasureable, that belief would also constitute a NO.
–
No, I am not a climate scientist.
Denying deniers?
The real question that is being denied is the political established UNFCCC with its claim of CAGW, as basis for radical changes nationally and globally.
The interesting question is: With anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the war. Do you believe we have CAGW today?
For those sceptics who believe that human CO2 emissions have caused some amount of global warming, please tell me what the evidence for this is. All the evidence I’m aware of (e.g. ice cores show zero warming effect of CO2 and that temperatures rise before the CO2 rises) suggests that CO2 has no effect on the climate. Certainly, CO2 has a warming effect in the laboratory, but that doesn’t mean it has any effect in the climate system. In this century CO2 has increased by around 10 per cent. And the amount of warming? Zero, or even a slight cooling.
So, for anyone who believes that CO2 has warmed the climate, please show me the data and the proof. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Chris
Much has been bandied about in the article by Lord Monckton, and in these comments below his article, about this or that amount of CO2, and whether this is significant or not. However, do we really know how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere, and by how much this varies now and how much has it done in the past, or how much is sequestered by wet, or on the other hand dry deposition, for instance,? Without such accurate measurement, we are in no position to even start to attempt to predict what the levels will be in the future.
I say, that we do not know the answers to these questions which I have posed.
So then if we do not know how much wet or dry deposition there is or has been,
then how can we know how much CO2 has been sequestered in the past
and at what rates, and by what method? Then how can we reasonably expect
to be able to know what these levels will be in the future, and therefore what
proportion of this process was, is, and in the future might be attributed to
the activities of Mankind, as opposed to natural processes?
This dilemma was explained, in the paper …
JOURNAL OF CLIMATE AND APPLIED METEOROLOGY – VOLUME 25
” Evaluation of the Accuracy with Which Dry Deposition Can
Be Measured with Current Micrometeorological Techniques* ”
J. A. BUSINGER
National Center for Atmospheric Research,** Boulder, C0 80307
(Manuscript received 19 October 1985, in final form 24 December 1985)
—–
The Abstract reveals the salient questions which are posed, and which
impact upon past measurements of CO2, current techniques and for
predictions of future trends, and their possible consequences, as are
discussed in Lord Monckton’s article.
—–
ABSTRACT
By reviewing the physics of the processes leading to dry deposition in the
atmospheric surface layer, a number of corrections and possible errors in the
determination of the dry deposition fluxes are identified. ……
Although of recent vintage, the importance of dry
deposition is well established by now. Especially in the
neighborhood of sources of pollution, dry deposition
is often more important than wet deposition, even in
areas with substantial precipitation such as the north-
eastern United States and much of Westem Europe.
Therefore, there is a great need to measure dry depo-
sition and to know how accurately it can be done. This
has been recognized by the Environmental Protection
Agency …….
…… It may be useful at this point to indicate what
specific areas have been omitted. These include
1) an analysis of the chemical and optical techniques
with which the trace constituents have been measured;
2) chemical and photochemical reactions during the
process of turbulent transport in the surface layer;
3) although quite important, the processes that de-
termine the surface resistance, other than molecular
diffusion,
4) the biological reactions to certain species of dry
deposition within the canopy;
5) effects of resuspension.
Although the issue of inhomogeneous terrain and
its effect on dry deposition clearly falls under the pur-
view of this study, it has not been included because the
existing literature does not provide clear guidelines on
how to do this. It is a very important problem that
needs a great deal of careful research.
The technique of surface sampling has not been dis-
cussed in this paper because the physics is not clear
and it is not considered a micrometeorological tech-
nique.
———
* This paper has been reviewed in accordance with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for
publication.
** The National Center for Atmospheric Research
is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
© 1986 American Meteorological Society
=======
To get a full copy of this important paper now
(PDF IMAGE FILE 2MB) – Click My Name Above
– Wun Hung Lo
@ Bjorn from Sweden
Yes the Q6.
There are a number of definitions in the English language for the word “Likely”
and the use of the word “Likely” is again a subjective term, for which there is
no exact quantification. I surmise that the definition which applies here is …
… “Within the realm of credibility”
Therefore I should rephrase the question thus :
” 6. Is it within the realm of credibility that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950? ”
This is much less obscure than the original question put to the audience,
but it is what I believe that the audience understood. The nuances of the
English language are capable of expressing an idea, or a hypothesis in a
very accurate fashion, but only if the writer takes care, especially in the case
of important analytical questions such as were posed by Diane Bast, acting
as his barker in the vox pop survey, during Lord Monckton’s valediction.
The correct answer to questions 3 – 6 is “I don’t know” or “Maybe” but apparently those were not among the choices.
@ Chris Wright
” anyone who believes that CO2 has warmed the climate ”
This is a fair point, which has been asked many times,
and the answers always involved some subjective extrapolations
from past data, or reference to computer modelling, and theoretical
mathematical constructs, based on experiments in some laboratory
usually long ago. Monckton, Lindzen and others have often said in their
explanations that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 should cause some
warming, but again Lindzen, Soon, and others have said, that we just
don’t see it in the empirical measurements.
In the paper which I linked to in my Name,
the difficulties in making such measurements
are outlined, and though the paper is almost
30 years old, I do not believe that the problems
outlined have been resolved.
We simply don’t know what the numbers are, because we
have no way of accurately measuring them, even with modern
satellites and so on, because we simply do not understand how
the minutia of the processes which are responsible fluctuate
over the time periods in question, or how to measure them.
In many so called proofs of the theory, many such factors
are simply ignored, estimated, or fudged in computer analysis.
This is NOT Science, as I understand it.
@ The Engineer
Yes these are the relevant questions
This is the dilemma that Businger points out in his paper to which I link at my name.
In his case he complains that they simply do not know how much
wet or dry deposition of CO2 has occurred, is occurring, or will occur
in the future, because the processes involved are not fully understood,
and indeed in the paper it is noted that many such processes are simply
then ignored, because there is no method of measuring them.
Franky there is too much fretting about the minutia,
and Monckton’s original suggestions made years ago
to the US Senate, and Governments across the Globe,
still holds true. That is to say that …..
“The correct response to the non-problem of CO2 is to do nothing”
Since then of course Billions of Dollars have been spent in trying to
measure the minutia of the processes in which CO2 is involved,
and all to no avail. Scientific research to further the endeavours
and increase the sum total of the knowledge of Mankind is laudible,
but embarking upon boondoggles and hokum experimentation,
to merely earn wages and further one’s personal agenda is not.
The latter is the reality of what is really going on, I fear.
I’m put in mind of an earlier thread where the issue of geoReactors came up, and Willis posited that one such is possible, but the evidence provided show that it produces approx. 0.1w/m^2 at the surface, compared to the 240w/m^2 which results from the sun—easily swamped.
In the years I’ve been visiting, the real question, the WUWT mean meme, if you will (there have been spikes of this and that, but they were never the primary focus of discussion for a majority of time), has never been “is there” or “is there not” a man-made contribution to atmospheric CO2, or a question of “does” or “does not” an increase of atmospheric CO2 add to the “greenhouse” effect of the atmosphere—-
The real direction that I have observed, here and at other “skeptic” sites worth the time to visit, has been to show, through linking to scientific papers and other verifiable sources of information, that there is no proof that mankind’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is driving the warming; that the proposed “protocols” to reduce mankind’s CO2 output are more harmful to humanity than any foreseeable warming; that the proposed “protocols” to reduce mankind’s CO2 emissions are futile because they will have no measurable impact on the climate over any timescale you wish, because mankind’s contribution to the amount of atmospheric CO2 is swamped by the natural variability of climate itself.
Some people, notably Donna Laframboise at nofrakkingconsensus.com, focus a lot of reporting on the academic and political fraud committed by institutions, like the IPCC. Some of that takes place here at WUWT as well, but the focus here is primarily on the science, not the policies.
I believe that one BIG reason the polls show that “Climate Change” is always at the bottom of any list of concerns for the man-in-the-street is because the Alarmists have been proven very much to be The Boy Who Cried Wolf: their warnings get more shrill, their predictions more dire, and continue to fail to materialize. I’m pretty sure that it’s not because the skeptic argument is carrying the day, for the simple reason that most people I know, most people I’ve met, have no idea about the science behind any of it, no expertise to judge the relative merits of the various scientific arguments, and are pretty much aware of that lack. And they either won’t or can’t take the time to remedy that lack. So for them, on the one hand there are the Alarmists crying “Repent! The End is near!” and on the other, a calmer group saying, “Well, yes, in billions of years, perhaps…” and providing a lot of math to show the probabilities and statistics—and my own observation is that the typical man-in-the-street doesn’t want to know the technical details: he just wants a nice yes or no. And the Alarmists have simple, non-technical, warm & fuzzy, nicey-nice sounding, feel-good answer: Tim Wirth’s, even-if-it’s-wrong, it’ll-be-the-right-thing-to-do argument. And they dress it up with pictures like the hockeystick and cute polar bears and sciFi movies like the Algore opus, and lay out the breadcrumbs for the marks to follow—like the witch in Hansel and Gretel. Whereas the skeptical community presents thousands of papers and says, “Start reading, and you’ll understand why I say, ‘Bullsh!t.'” Accepting the skeptical argument means work. Accepting the Warmist argument means you only have to decide butter or no butter with the popcorn.
But eventually, even the most obtuse among us will notice that the claims of the sky falling haven’t ever come true. Which seems to be happening.
Now, it occurs to me that proving a guy like Cook and his fraudulent claims might be just an interesting distraction, but still just a distraction. Anyone can point out that there was once a consensus that the earth was flat—and look how that turned out. Whether there is or is not a consensus is immaterial, and we know it, so why dwell upon it?
Perhaps because blandishments from the likes of Cook are used by politicians to justify harmful policies. So perhaps the effort described above is not a distraction, is not a waste of time, as some appear to suggest.
That said, I think the focus of WUWT is where it should be (in no particular order):
IMHO.
Because consensus is important: it gets politicians who set policies elected, after all.
The Nielsen Media Research data for 2013 shows a 13% decline in prime time for CNN. In total, the combined viewership of all three major cable news channels, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, dropped 11% to its smallest audience since 2007.
The reporter is possibly too busy on his resume to get back.
OT to begin with, but I’ll get there:
Last night I dropped over to see some friends. One of them had a son with advanced cancer, and months earlier I had introduced him to another friend who is a leading cancer doctor in my city, and they commenced an advisory role in his son’s treatment and at last report it was going well…
When I arrived, the first thing I asked my friend was “How’s your boy doing?”, and he replied “He died.” I was shocked, and expressed my condolences. My friend apologized for not telling me, and all I could say was “Please don’t apologize”. His son was 22 years of age.
Which gets me to my point. Some of the comments on this thread and elsewhere are unnecessarily combative, even among those who reject the warmist mantra. Of course we don’t agree on everything – that is normal – that is science. But it is a waste of life to devote our energies to anger and hostility.
Count your blessings, gentlemen (and ladies). Most of us here are fortunate that the Sun still rises over our families every morning and we live in safe countries that nurture our well-being. We are a blessed generation that has suffered none of the global conflicts or plagues that savaged previous generations – humanity has experienced two World Wars and one deadly global influenza epidemic in just the past 100 years. We live in a blessed time when, thanks to modern medicine, the premature death of our children is an anomaly, not a routine occurrence like it was just a century ago.
So count your blessings, ladies and gentlemen, and strive to extend some kindness and courtesy to one another…
Best wishes, Allan
“Yes the Q6.
There are a number of definitions in the English language for the word “Likely”
and the use of the word “Likely” is again a subjective term, for which there is
no exact quantification. I surmise that the definition which applies here is …
… “Within the realm of credibility”
Therefore I should rephrase the question thus :
” 6. Is it within the realm of credibility that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950? ”
Thank you Wun Hung Lo. I was suspicious about the nuances of “likely”, so I opted to put a number on it, 1/2. I derived it from dividing likely in two, more likely and less likely.
That may have been an error on my part.
If “likely” is more close to possible than probable, the question changes values.
BUT still, are there really no climate sceptics out there who belive in a negative CO2 feedback?
Maybe that is why we are not Venus, heat releases CO2, CO2 makes climate wetter and clouds eventually cool the climate. Is it too far fetched? CO2 historically is lagging behind temperature you all know. Not one out of 600 is convinced human conribution to warming is too small to measure?
Maybe I am missing the point and Moncktons Q:s were just rethorically ment, and I took them to litterally. Or maybe the survey was a satirical comment on how easy it is to come up with a consensus figure when your subjects playing along?
The climate around Phoenix and Tucson remains warm while climate in rural Arizona has been cooling since around 2000.
Warming of Phoenix and Tucson has contributed to global average temperature rise.
I conclude from this that humans are, to some degree, responsible for warming, whether or not CO2 plays a role.
Konrad;
And to win, AGW believers need all voices on sceptic forums to be lukewarmer. This cannot be achieved. Therefore sceptics will win.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your analysis of public discourse and political process appears to be at the same level as your physics. You clearly understand neither, and no amount of observational data will dissuade you from your opinion. Your are precisely the type of person that Leif was referring to upthread, and you do more harm to this debate than you can possibly understand
@Björn from Sweden
I was quite surprised at the use of the word “Likely” by Monckton, in this context,
because he had just given an extended critique on the use of such terms, by the
IPCC in its analyses of scientific papers, in its latest Assessment Report.
As a matter of interest, different English Lexicons have a variety of
different ways of describing the meaning of the word “Likely”, and
these also differ, as to whether the word is used as an Adjective,
or as an Adverb, since both are valid usage.
In the case of Monckton’s original question Q6, it is used
as an adjective, which is qualifying the proposition put.
In American (US) English usage, the meanings of words can
have subtle, and sometimes not so subtle differences, and
for instance “Fanny” has radically different meanings in British
English, and in US English, whereas in Scotland and Australia,
that word might usually be used in a derisory sense, rather
than in a descriptive factuality.
We Assume that Monckton used the word “Likely” as defined
in British English, but was that what was understood, by his
(mostly) US English speaking audience?
—
British English :
Cambridge –
describes something that will probably happen or is expected
Oxford –
1. Such as well might happen or be true; probable
2. Apparently suitable; promising
—
American (US) English :
Princeton University –
1. Has a good chance of being the case or of coming about
2. Having a high chance to be (or become) true or real
3. Expected to become or be; in prospect
4. Within the realm of credibility *
—
Webster’s dictionary describes the etymology of this word thus :
Middle English, from Old English “gelīclic” fitting (from gelīc like)
and Old Norse “glīkligr”, līkligr, from glīkr like; akin to Old English gelīc
First Known Use: 14th century
Related Words as an adjective :
conceivable, earthly, imaginable, possible, potential,
supposable; apt, bound, certain, doubtless, imminent,
inescapable, inevitable, liable, necessary, sure, unavoidable
Related Words as an adverb :
maybe, mayhap, perchance, perhaps, possibly; conceivably,
imaginably, plausibly, practically, reasonably; potentially;
assuredly, certainly, clearly, conclusively, decisively, definitely,
definitively, indisputably, indubitably, positively, really, surely,
truly, undeniably, undoubtedly, unquestionably; presumedly,
supposably, supposedly
—————-
So then “likely” is such a flexible word with so many nuances
of meaning depending on the context in which it is used, and
is so widely open to misinterpretation, that it ought not to be used
in any such scientific discourse, or in a vox pop, or other poll, where
the exact meaning construed is critical to the understanding of the
question, and indeed the answers which are being solicited.
Indeed, your thoughts on whether a thing might be “more likely”
or on the other hand “less likely”, are part of the schema which
the IPCC has used, and tried to define with actual percentages.
Such definitions are in mine opinion, fatuous. Why not substitute
the actual percentages which they have calculated, rather than
defining a particular percentage as being in the grouping of
“More Likely” or “Extremely Likely” or similar hokum?
—-
Many of You, Dear Readers, may think of my writings on this matter
as a petty argument about semantics of the English Language, which
has seemingly little relevance to the important questions in this debate.
However I see this as absolutely vital. How can scientists, politicians,
and indeed the public be expected to understand, and form a view on
the substantive issue, if confusing and ambiguous words such as “likely”
are used in crucial dissertations, summaries, and polling?
Might I suggest a helpful exercise for prospective authors,
and that would be to use an English thesaurus, to find a
more precise word, when the initial word thought of, by
the author, might have an ambiguous meaning.
Words with ambiguous meanings are often used to deliberately
confuse or distract the reader, and by lawyers in performance
of their duties for clients, but such tactics have no place in the
field of scientific research, reporting, or in soliciting opinions
about such scientific endeavour.
I would say: #1 – #5, Yes.
#6: Show me. Provide measurable, testable scientific evidence quantifying the fraction of a degree warming due to human emitted CO2. If given that testable data, I agree with #6.
But so far, there is no such data. Therefore, it is a conjecture. An assertion. I’m willing to accept it with no problem if there is supporting evidence posted, because the goal is knowledge, not being right.
But I can’t accept #6 as being currently verified; it isn’t. Give me testable, measurable evidence, please.
kadaka those graphs are very messy. This one is much clearer http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif.
What is the point to your missive? Everyone does contigency planning/forecasting to some extent. My discussions involve contingencies in the solar activity and weather/climate response, based on historical data/learning. Today Joe D released this http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/welcome_back_to_the_1950s_and_soon_the_1960s_70s_and_then_18001/
His view on imminent cooling is about the same as mine, and mine is borne out of an analysis of the SIDC-SST graph linked above, which has much hidden information in it. Please keep on eye on solar activity and temperatures for the rest of the year. You’ll definitely learn something.
I will note that Don Easterbrook, David Evans, David Archibald, Piers Corbyn, Henry P, (there are many more) are among those who for years have been calling for colder temps based on a solar activity dropoff. I learned what to look for by paying close attention, and I can only hope my fellow skeptics will pick up on the habit of paying attention to daily activity over at least six months to get a handle on the temp response to solar ups and downs. That was the point of those explanations.
James Abbott says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Latitude – I checked those references. There are references to the Keeling data having been manipulated, the pre-industrial levels being wrong, etc. All tosh. The Mauna Loa smoothed curve is exactly that – smoothed on a running mean (standard method) but they still show the seasonal “breathing” of the biosphere. Location differences ? Nope – the global trend, based on a network of sites shows a very similar record to the Mauna Loa data taken at altitude.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global
The pre-industrial level of 280ppm is confirmed from ice cores:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php
There is no real evidence that this data has been “deliberately corrupted”. Its just more wishful thinking from those that delude themselves that the entire scientific community is working to a conspiracy plan.
The ice core data as published takes no account of diffusion of CO2 from the bubbles through the ice. See:
“CO2 diffusion in polar ice: observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core”, Jinho AHN, Melissa HEADLY, Martin WAHLEN, Edward J. BROOK,
Paul A. MAYEWSKI, Kendrick C. TAYLOR; Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 54, No. 187, 2008
“ABSTRACT. One common assumption in interpreting ice-core CO2 records is that diffusion in the ice does not affect the concentration profile. However, this assumption remains untested because the extremely small CO2 diffusion coefficient in ice has not been accurately determined in the laboratory. In this study we take advantage of high levels of CO2 associated with refrozen layers in an ice core from Siple Dome, Antarctica, to study CO2 diffusion rates. We use noble gases (Xe/Ar and Kr/Ar), electrical conductivity and Ca2+ ion concentrations to show that substantial CO2 diffusion may occur in ice on timescales of thousands of years. We estimate the permeation coefficient for CO2 in ice is 4 10^–21 molm^–1 s^–1 Pa^–1 at –238C in the top 287m (corresponding to 2.74 kyr). Smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion at this depth/age is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the smoothing in the firn. However, simulations for depths of 930–950m (60–70 kyr) indicate that smoothing of the CO2 record by diffusion in deep ice is comparable to smoothing in the firn. Other types of diffusion (e.g. via liquid in ice grain boundaries or veins) may also be important but their influence has not been quantified”
The raw ice core data also does not agree with stomata data nor does it agree with the chemical measurements made in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For example see:
“50 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF CO2 ON MAUNA LOA”, Ernst-Georg Beck, Energy and Environment Vol 19 No.7 2008. Section 3 CO2 Measurements of the Background before 1958. in particular the collated references to other research.
The ice cores seem to be a cherry pie that has been concocted by ‘the team’.
dbstealey says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:38 am
Ditto that.
Wun Hung Lo, this semantics discussion is very important.
I am from Sweden, and english is a foreign language to me.
Further, the nuances of this languge are lost to me.
I have learned english not from direct two way communication with native english speakers but from reading. Therefore guidance in interpreting subtle menings are missing from my english education, eg facial expressions, follow up questions, confirmation etc.
And I know that my english is better than many swedish scientists.
Therefore it is important to keep in mind, when adressing a global audience, that language can be deceptive and it is easy for a foreigner to believe he has understood something when in fact he has not. Especially surveys which surpsisingly often, almost as a rule, are vague and difficult to interpret.
It is not a trivial discussion, it may be a little OT though.
Leif,
Yes, it was a PR stunt, a good and useful one, and nothing more.
Answering unqualified “yes” to all six questions is as stupid as answering unqualified “no” to any of these questions.
Stop behaving like a foolish teenager, and, please, use parentheses as required, not meaningless brackets.
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:24 am
Answering unqualified “yes” to all six questions is as stupid as answering unqualified “no” to any of these questions.
Since nobody answered “no” [implying that they did not disagree] everybody was stupid. I can accept that.
If 99.7% of scientific papers did not say that recent global warming was mostly man-made, but 0.5% did, please point me to one of the 0.2% that both did and didn’t.
Again folks
there is no man made warming
whatsoever
There simply is no room for it in my last [established] equation
(at the end of the minima table)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
lsvalgaard: “…everybody was stupid.”
Or uncertain.
I consider it very likely Monckton expected the lack of response to his subjective questions, which made the audience appear as consensus-oriented as those he mocks.
nutso fasst says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Or uncertain. I consider it very likely Monckton expected the lack of response to his subjective questions, which made the audience appear as consensus-oriented as those he mocks.
Let me mock you a bit on the ‘very likely” 🙂
But, of course, the PR-stunt was carefully rigged to give the required response. Just goes to show the fraudulent behavior of activists on both side of the question.
The stupid ones are the people who hail this stunt as significant, e.g. “Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:24 am Yes, it was a PR stunt, a good and useful one” and many others. How low can the skeptics stoop? Disgusting to witness.
Lief, global warming is real and man’s co2 has caused some of it. I too am with the consensus. The question is how much of the warming is down to man? The Sky Dragons do peep in once in a while and give a false impression. I have warned them before that this is not the way to win the debate, EVEN IF THEY ARE CONVINCED OF THEIR CASE. They simply get brushed aside by Warmists who tar everyone with the ‘D’ label.
Jimbo says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Lief, global warming is real and man’s co2 has caused some of it. I too am with the consensus. The question is how much of the warming is down to man?
As I also said: it is a question about ‘how much’ [or ‘how little’ if you are on the other side of the fence]. The Poll was a useless PR-stunt.
Monckton’s PR stunt does show one very significant attribute of the 600 or so audience members. When not a single one is able to say “NO” to a question, you have something much worse than “consensus.” You have blind adherence to the ideology. Effectively Monckton has shown that in a gathering of “skeptics” not a single one was a skeptic
“very likely”
ha ha ha !
I wondered whether there was some irony being used here.
That is to say, language used to convey scorn, by saying
one thing but implying the opposite.
Still you make a fair point. With Monckton’s method of conducting
the poll by a show of hands in the audience, and asking the group
to signify whether they disagreed with his proposition, there is an
almost overwhelming peer pressure, to not be “the one” who is first
to go against the group and break the “consensus” of the meeting,
and to disagree with the principal speaker of the meeting.
I suspect that if the same poll were to be conducted by “secret ballot”,
then the results would not have been unanimous, and that even among
such an audience of sceptics, there would have been some deviation.
The poll, as conducted, although achieving the desired (and expected)
result, so far as Monckton was concerned, is not therefore a fair one.
Apparently all the preceding questions were leading up to that crucial
final Q6, by which time the bandwagon effect had made it virtually certain
that the audience would not disagree, no matter what Monckton had asked.
A different result might have occurred, had Monckton asked solely the Q6.
Naturally the danger in making such a feast of this manoeuvre, is that it
will be seen as a ruse, and demolished by the opposition, thus having
the contrary effect in the final analysis, to that which was intended by
Monckton. I suspect that this impromptu poll may cause even more
controversy and will be seized upon by the CO2 alarmists, as yet more
“evidence” of disingenuous doings by the “Heartland bête noires”.
Well, while not objecting to the six questions as asked, I’m not able to give an unqualified yes to all six.
On number 4, I would have to voice a basic objection to the notion, that one can (or is permitted in science modeling to) alter ANY one single parameter of the system, and insist that ALL other parameters undergo NO change whatsoever. That simply cannot happen in the physically real universe.
Take Ohm’s Law for example.
“”” For a certain class of materials (mostly metallic conductors) in an electric circuit; when all other physical variables are held constant, the current flowing is linearly proportional to the applied EMF. “””
That says literally:- I = a x EMF where (a) is a constant (when ALL other physical quantities are held constant). Well it would normally be written as ; I = G.V where G is defined as the conductance in siemens units. Alternatively we could define 1 / G = R and call that “resistance” in units of ohm.
So Ohm’s law simply says; R is constant, where R can be defined as V / I.
But the required conditions are not realizable. Changing the applied Voltage and Current, will result in an energy dissipation in the conductor material, and for all materials will change the Temperature, and this invariably results in a change of R.
Does an incandescent light bulb obey Ohm’s Law. Well of course it does, when you satisfy the conditions.
So only very small Voltages can be applied, without significant power dissipation and Temperature rise. You certainly can’t get any visible radiation out of it, while it follows Ohm’s law.
Well that in itself (emission of visible EM radiation) would be a violation of the conditions of Ohm’s law, that nothing else changes (besides Voltage and current)
Most conductive materials do not obey Ohm’s law. (semiconductors for example.)
So I object to question #4.
For question #5 I would plead total ignorance.
I have zero confidence in any purported global Temperature estimates or data, prior to about 1979/80 the arrival of the satellite data era, and also the oceanic buoy water / air Temperature measurements.
So I don’t know for sure that earth has warmed appreciably, since about 1850, let alone since 1950.
But I get Monckton of Brenchley’s point in asking those questions at the conference; to get on record, that not all climate skeptics can be branded as fossil fuel shills, living off grant money from industrial interests; comparable to a good number of warmist disciples, who live off their post doc fellowship grant,s from other vested interests, including the public (tax payers) dole.
g
There is experimental evidence that the Hypotheses of greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
There is experimental data that proves that increased CO2 causes the atmosphere to cool. Lord M. you better brush up on the real scene.Here are just a few references tat back up this position.
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist consenus, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author) http://www.principia-scientific.org
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”
Benjamin Franklin
.
From Bob Weber on July 12, 2014 at 9:53 am:
You were wise to conceal the true source of that graph, but not smart as the URL lead to the source:
http://climate4you.com/Sun.htm
They have graphs there: Solar irradiance since 1610 as reconstructed by Lean et al (1995) and Lean (2000), until 2000. From 2001 data from PMOD/WRC are used.
They used the discredited Lean reconstructions that Judith Lean no longer recommends, and the VIRGO data from PMOD which has a degradation issue. I would say I wouldn’t have revealed the source page either except I would have sourced from a site using better more-traceable data.
Here’s a normalized replication:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2014.18/normalise/offset:-0.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2014.18/mean:37/normalise/offset:-0.5/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/to:2014.18/normalise/offset:0.5/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1960/to:2014.18/mean:37/normalise/offset:0.5
Now I can click on “Raw Data” and have actual numbers to look at. Your previous use of “short term” has the connotation of within a year or so. Since you were happy with the 37-month running mean of the climate4you graph, I’ll look at the minimums of that, looking for similarly large drops within a few years of each other.
Note there’s a difference, for temps January is xxxx.00, for SSN it’s xxxx.05. For this quick look it doesn’t matter much.
Minimums:HadCRUT4_SIDC-SSN
1965.58__1964.47
1975.33__1976.38
1985.42__1986.05
1993.17__1996.13
2000.17__?
2008.58__2008.55
Yup, in 1964-65 SSN did start going up about a year before global temperatures.
Then temps lead SSN 1976-75, 1985-86, lead in a longer stretch 1993-1996. There’s a 2000 temp drop not matched to SSN.
And then, in 2008 were they really almost simultaneous, and SSN lead by a month? No. Look at the actual curve shape, the more representative temperature minimum was on 2007.67.
So out of the five pairs, coming out of minimums, global temperatures have led SSN for the last 4 times.
Global temperatures rose about a year or more before solar activity rose 80% of the time, during the time period shown on your proffered graph.
So why should I believe your earlier claim that increased solar activity will lead to increased sea surface temperatures, when the global temperatures were increasing a year or more before solar activity increased 80% of the time?
I’ve already learned you predict the obvious and what is already occurring, when you’re not predicting what is a coin toss, thus guaranteeing yourself a better than 50% success rate before your words slip sideways out of your mouth.
Otherwise, I’ve learned your ability to do simple research and grasp basic fundamentals is so slim I can hardly get by the first paragraph of your replies without devoting an entire comment to correct just those first few lines of nonsense. Stop writing so much, you just embarrass yourself more.
I cannot believe that I am literally watching lsvalgaard have a public hissy fit over something he repeatedly states was such an obviously stupid publicity stunt! (He doth protest much) Maybe he’s never been to a normal convention of anything. You know, where absolutely no one expects the large gathering speeches to be of the quality of peer reviewed research…Maybe he’s unaware that Lord Monkton has a fabulous sense of humor. I mean, he seems convinced that Lord Monkton phrased the questions in a manner such that they get the answers he wanted, yet it’s obvious to ME that he phrased them in the exact same terms the IPCC uses. I don’t know..perhaps because his sole intent was to compare the results WITH the infamous Cook et al survey that purported to show a consensus with the IPCC statements?
Or perhaps Lord Monkton doesn’t give a rat’s rear view what you or I or anyone else thinks and takes full advantage of his right to speak freely for his own personal delight and entertainment. And good for him! But Leif lost any sympathy I might have had for his “point of view” when he was asked this question:
“So the fact that there are people who frequent this board who have odd and unacceptable points of view discredits the entire site and all skeptics?”
And Leif responded-“To some degree it does, yes.”
Wow. Really Leif? What metric have you used to calculate that? What “numbers” do you have that prove actual discrediting has taken place? I mean…”if we don’t have numbers, we don’t have anything right?” Of all the odd and unacceptable points of view I’ve seen on this site, that has to be one of the most disturbing ones so far. But good for you!
Aphan says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:25 pm
when he was asked this question:
“So the fact that there are people who frequent this board who have odd and unacceptable points of view discredits the entire site and all skeptics?”
Perhaps the asker was thinking of people like you…
In response to Lief’s Poll, I will stick my neck out.
1. Yes. Ever since planet earth first aquired an atmosphere, climate has changed. Climate change has driven evolution and it would be a cause for concern, if climate were not to change.
2. Yes. (But C02 levels are low for life on earth, particularly plants).
3. Whilst it is clear that manmade emissions of CO2 has increased over the year, it is not possible to determine the cause of this since, it is clear that there has been a change both in the total amount of CO2 emissions, and in the total capacity of CO2 sinks. Since we do not know the full extent of each, what they comprise of, how they operate and their inter-relationship, all one can say is that it is possible that manmade emissions have contributed towards the increase in CO2 levels since 1959.
4. As Lief has pointed out, this is a silly question, since we are only interested in whether rising CO2 levels will drive up temperature irrespective as to whether all other things are equal or not. As to the question, all one can say is that there is no observational data that passes scientific scrutiny that rising levels of C02, at 20th century levels, leads to an increase in temperature; there is no first order correlation in any of the land based, or satellite, temperature data sets between CO2 and temperature, and there are instances of anti-correlation (such as the post 1940s cooling, and the fact that the rate of warming in the latter part of the 20th century was no greater than in the early part of the 20th century). But really, the data sets are so flawed and have substantial error bandwidths such that one cannot extract a CO2 driven temperature response over the noise of natural variability.
5. The temperature data sets are so flawed that that question cannot be reasonably answered. It appears that in the States, there was some cooling post 1950s, followed by some warming in the 1970s, but given that the satellite data suggests that (globally) there was no warming post 1979, save for the ENSO event at the end of the 1990s,, I consider it likely that there has been some net warming since 1950 and the likely cause of the warming, or bulk of it, was the 1998 El Nino. UHI may have led to a perceived warming in the land based data set for the 1970s. Inciidentally, Michael mann’s trees suggested that there was no warming in the 1970s and 1980s and this is consistent with the satellite data which also shows flat temperatures (albiet in the case of the satellite data as from 1979).
6. See 3 and 4 above..
In my above post, I mention the deivergence problem that Michael Mann found. Most readers will be familiar with the divergence issue, but for those who are not, I briefly comment.
Michael Mann in his tree ring study found that his trees were, as from around 1970 to early/mid 1990s, suggesting that global temperatures were not rising. This finding diverged from the land based thermometer record which suggested that there was warming from about mid 1970s onwards.
Michael Mann decided that his trees must be wrong, and that the land based temperature record was correct. He decided to cut and splice the record by using tree data up to the end of the 1960s and the land based thermometer record post then.
However, it is quite possible that Michael Mann had made a significant finding, namely that the land based thermometer record had become corrupted possibly due to station drop outs, poor station siting, pollution by UHI etc so that the land based thermometer record was showing a false warming.
The satellite data post 1979 suggests that teh land based thermometer record had become corrupted and that there was no warming between 1979 and mid 1990s, ie., both the trees and the satellite were saying something similar.
Michael Mann could have written an interesting paper on the divergence issue and could, if he had been constructive, discussed the implication of the diveregence problem on the accuracy of the land based thermometer record.
Looks like the “knicker twister-in-chief” really has a few of you going.
8–)
@Berthold Klein
Certainly, Heinz Thieme has given us an alternative view on the matter of the so called “greenhouse effect” due to CO2 induced back radiation from the atmosphere, and whether you agree or not with his hypotheses, this is proof that there is no 100% consensus view on the matter by climate change / global warming sceptics.
Why it is the case that sceptics like Monckton, Lindzen, Soon, and others should adhere rigidly to the certainty that there is in fact a “greenhouse effect” caused by CO2, when they see no empirical evidence for this direct causal relationship is perhaps baffling. Yet because demonstrations and experiments in laboratories appear to show the CO2 greenhouse warming effect, at least so far as the majority of scientists, politicians, and the public are concerned,
and because revered past scientific gurus have said so, then even prominent sceptics are reluctant to state openly such opinions, for fear of reprisals, and ostracisation, as is perhaps exemplified by the treatment of Tim Ball, since he voiced such opinions, and became a so called “Dragonslayer”.
Leaving aside all of the other references which you gave on the subject, it is worthy of note that Heinz Thieme. does have his own website, realplanet dot eu, where he has expounded all of his dissertations.
Particularly interesting are these three :
To understand basic thermal conditions within an atmosphere:
The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect – explained stepwise
http://realplanet.eu/atmoseffect.htm
Contribution to the discussion about Anthropogenic Climate Change:
On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation
http://realplanet.eu/backrad.htm
Contribution to the discussion about Climate Change:
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
http://realplanet.eu/error.htm
Other pages at his site are mostly in German Language,
but naturally a user can use the built-in translator with the
Google Chrome web browser, or indeed use the Google
web translation facility, or some other similar online service.
For readers convenience I have linked to such URL at my name.
Those hypotheses seem convincing, and if other readers disagree, then I would like to hear why they disagree, and their explanations as to where they think Heinz Thieme has gone wrong, and why he might be mistaken. Naturally we shall require to see empirical evidence from critics of Heinz Thieme, and it will not be good enough to merely state that “Arrhenius said ….. ” or similar.
Jimbo says:
July 12, 2014 at 2:44 pm
———————————-
“Lief, global warming is real and man’s co2 has caused some of it. I too am with the consensus. The question is how much of the warming is down to man? The Sky Dragons do peep in once in a while and give a false impression. I have warned them before that this is not the way to win the debate, EVEN IF THEY ARE CONVINCED OF THEIR CASE. They simply get brushed aside by Warmists who tar everyone with the ‘D’ label.”
In diversity, strength.
The lukwarmer “warming but too small to be a problem” approach has initial appeal as a “Realpolitik” solution. You end the scare with minimum embarrassment for activists, journalists, politicians and some sceptics. But you end up leaving those who did most to promote the hoax secure in their positions of influence. You will just have a UN manufactured “bio-crisis” with “bio-debt” to be collected and redistributed under a framework of UN global governance before you can say “Thank heavens that’s over”.
There are indeed many who push the lukewarmer line, warning sceptics they risk looking foolish if they dare entertain the idea that there may be no net radiative GHE at all. But how foolish will sceptics look if their was a simple empirical disproof to both the radiative GHE hypothesis and AGW and it was not considered on sceptic forums because of enforced “consensus”? Very foolish.
Think about this. The very foundation of the radiative GHE hypothesis depends on the surface being warmed by the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is instead cooling the surface, the entire AGW edifice crumbles. No radiative GHE, no AGW. Climastrologists claim that the oceans are a “near blackbody” that can only heat to -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR, therefore the atmosphere must be warming the surface.
Do you believe that -18C figure? If so, why? Did you check it empirically for yourself, or did you think you didn’t have to because a lot of people said so and there was a “consensus”?
I recommend you and other readers empirically checking that -18C figure for yourself. Not point and click, cut and paste and type, type, type. Actually do the empirical experiments for yourself. I have. The oceans are a selective surface not a near blackbody. They would heat dramatically without atmospheric cooling, regardless of no DWLWIR. Just like an evaporation constrained solar pond. Don’t take my word for it, do the experiment.
F. Ross: “Looks like the ‘knicker twister-in-chief’ really has a few of you going.”
There is robust evidence he alters the climate of discourse.
Leif, you did not answer Aphans questions.
And please, his name is Leif… not Lief.
[+emphasis]
Aah! I see. Peer reviewed evidence I presume
😉
Henrik Øelund says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:12 pm
Leif, you did not answer Aphans questions.
They have to be relevant to deserve an answer. All I saw was general whining, but I can for your benefit make a stab at this one:
“What “numbers” do you have that prove actual discrediting has taken place?”
I have several colleagues who sometimes ask me why I bother to be on WUWT considering all the nonsense that they see [from some people], and I can also ask myself, so I have anecdotal evidence that this discredits WUWT, and this is apart from the abuse WUWT takes from warmists sites [Tamino, RealClimate, etc]. My estimate would be that about a third of all comments are nonsense [most from the same small group of halfwits]. Here is a typical quote “The suns magnetic field and the electric universe interaction keeps the sun rotating”. You may disagree that this discredits WUWT; if so, I’ll include you among the third I mention above.
F. Ross: “Peer reviewed evidence I presume”
Of course. I peered at it and it looks good to me.
Leif, you stated, “The Poll was a useless PR-stunt.” You could not be more wrong if you are referring to Monckton’s six questions.
Did you fail to deduce that they were in response to peer reviewed reports claiming a 97% consensus of CAGW?
Did you fail to note that their scientific uselessness was a planned mockery of these scientific reports?
You should be cheering Monckton’s political skill in debunking the abuse of science by the warmist brigade, not ridiculing it.
Also, as you yourself point out, and was Monckton’s point, the questions mean little without elaboration and precise definition. Therefore your up thread sneer of folk who did precisely that, calling their reasonable words , “weasel words” was not justified.
lsvalgaard;
My estimate would be that about a third of all comments are nonsense [most from the same small group of halfwits].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I for one hope you continue to participate. I expect that for every half wit there are many, many more who though silent have long since figured out which ones are the half wits and which scientists they can rely on for the facts.
David A says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Did you fail to note that their scientific uselessness was a planned mockery of these scientific reports?
If so, I would have expected him to have stated right up front in this company that his stunt was a planned mockery. I did not see any such admission.
You should be cheering Monckton’s political skill in debunking the abuse of science by the warmist brigade, not ridiculing it.
Monckton is, indeed, a slick operator and practised manipulator, but this particular attempt to debunk something is beyond the pale, beyond decency, stooping to the same low [or lower] as his antagonists.
Therefore your up thread sneer of folk who did precisely that, calling their reasonable words , “weasel words” was not justified.
If you have paid attention, I have not used the words ‘weasel words’, so your particular sneer falls flat.
Well I for one hope you continue to participate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm. I just assumed I am not one of the half wits, but just realized I have no evidence to support that assumption 😉
davidmhoffer says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Hmmm. I just assumed I am not one of the half wits, but just realized I have no evidence to support that assumption 😉
But, at least statically, you have a 67% chance of not being one. 🙂 those are good odds.
JimS says:
Of those 600 delegates, how many would be bona fide climate scientists? I am just curious because the warmist alarmists I argue with always strongly contend that only the opinions of climate scientists really matter.
This qualifier tends not to apply to alarmist supporters.
Would a climate scientist who disagreed be subject to the “no true scotsman fallacy” too?
Strange, the data shows no warming for 17+ years despite CO2 increases, especially man’s, yet you get a 100% vote that CO2 causes warming!! I don’t think so. Time to drop this “CO2 must cause some warming” belief don’t you think, as the data does not support it.
From Ilma on July 12, 2014 at 10:52 pm:
Time to admit you are as shortsighted as the (C)AGW-pushers. We have a very complex climate system with many systems so interconnected we cannot claim to understand what is cause, effect, or feedback, as there are elements that can be all three at once!
They have pointed to one thing, (fossil!) CO2, and said “Ah-ha! That is it!” You note there hasn’t been warming for awhile, point to that one thing and say “Ah-ha! That cannot be it!”
Don’t you realize how stupid you sound? With a system this complex, with inherent feedback lags and over/under compensations, you cannot point to a pause and cite it as evidence one piece of the complexity has no effect. There are mechanisms yet to be hypothesized that are at work, for we do know we do not know all of them that are there. Until you know enough to show this is not a temporary masking of the CO2 signal, you cannot say it does not have an effect.
This is the age of being sustainable, and your position is not.
Several of us raised our hands in disagreement at some of the propositions put by Monckton, but he choose to look the other way. I was sitting at the back of the room and I could see there was not 100% agreement… perhaps 95%. I am again proud to be in the thinking minority. That Monckton wants to turn us into sheep, herding us in the direction of support for what he considers a more respectable position is upsetting. Then again Monckton is about as intellectual as Al Gore. Both good showmen keen to corral a support base. But count me out.
Ilma says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:52 pm
———————————-
“Time to drop this “CO2 must cause some warming” belief don’t you think, as the data does not support it.”
Far better to drop it because empirical experiment disproves it.
Jennifer Marohasy says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:11 am
———————————-
“I am again proud to be in the thinking minority.”
Sadly it’s always a minority. But that’s life on Planet Ocean.
Thank you for resisting the call of the herd.
Lord M,
Great that you have set the scene for this what appears to me, somewhat shoddy piece of academia.
I have a certain expertise with databases and I have come up with these figures.
“Endorsement” No of Papers Percentage
Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% 64 0.54
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise 922 7.72
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it 2910 24.36
No Position 7970 66.73
Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW 54 0.45
Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify 15 0.13
Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50% 9 0.08
I note that in the abstract it says “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
To claim that 97% of Scientists endorse the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is a long shot indeed!
For you and any of those who are interested, my database (which connects directly to Cook’s text file copied from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article, can identify the papers that appear under each “Endorsement”, category, year, author and publisher.
If anyone would like a search done under any of those categories I am happy to oblige. Just leave a message on my website http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com.
Cheers
Roger
ps. I have had my heated discussions with people at the Skepitical Science web site and could get no answers out of them, just many attermpts to side track and barn storm. I don’t think they would know facts and truths if one hit them between the eyes. Anything associated with them I personally dismiss – Cook et al with them.
“Jennifer Marohasy says:
July 13, 2014 at 12:11 am
Several of us raised our hands in disagreement at some of the propositions put by Monckton, but he choose to look the other way. I was sitting at the back of the room and I could see there was not 100% agreement… perhaps 95%. I am again proud to be in the thinking minority.”
This was good news indeed. Thank you Jennifer.
werner brozek says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/#comment-1683925
@werner
1) my data set
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
says it is cooling since 2000; most others say it is cooling from 2002.
2) there is no man made global warming
(look at the graph below the minima table: there is no room for any man made warming [that would affect minima] in the equation)
The Chicken Little political climatologists are a sad lot. Careers and funding depend upon demonizing a mostly innocuous gas and turning any normal weather or climate variation into a catastrophe. As we have seen, even volcanos and earthquakes become extensions of climate! They must huddle together to maintain any semblance of scientific dignity and fall behind a suspect and marginally irrational figure like Mr Gore to lead them. Only the media and like-minded political figures can maintain their moralistic righteousness in the face of a mountain of contrary data.
… and the strawman, (lsvalgaard), continues to distract the crows, (truth seekers) from the grain (the truth).
How has it become so easy ?
My 30 year old Bachelors in Philosophy from a state school in Pennsylvania (NO, not that one), has given me just enough common sense to avoid being sucked into such nonsense, even in spite of the Assbergers and the ADD.
What the hell is wrong with the rest of you ?
Jennifer Marohasy’s reply (July 13, 2014 at 12:11 am) is noteworthy. Her comments on MoB’s approach as a “showman keen to corral a support base” is consistent with everything I’ve seen. In this case you, in a post about abuse of stats by Cook et al, MoB’s headline “agree that we cause some global warming” staggeringly can’t even be justified from his 6 questions! you could at best only claim there is 100% agreement that it is LIKELY that we cause some global warming.
Jennifer then provides 1st hand eyewitness testimony that there were opposing views to the questions asked, conveniently ignored by MoB for the sake of a headline 100%… that is how prepared he is to bastardise observational evidence for the sake of a headline. At least with Cook you had to scrape away a bit to find some faults.
Lastly though Marohasy’s own ego is also noteworthy. She thinks the fact she disagreed with some of MoB’s questions makes her part of a thinking minority, when in fact it could just mean she is wrong. The ultimate in confirmation bias!
Mattb says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:02 am
ignored by MoB for the sake of a headline 100%… that is how prepared he is to bastardise observational evidence for the sake of a headline.
In my book that is called fraud.
Björn from Sweden: “[that Monckton appears to have fabricated rather than contrived his results] was good news indeed.”
Strongly disagree. A stunt may be defensible, outright fraud is not.
On half-wits:
“You know how stupid the average person is, right?
Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
– George Carlin
“Lastly though Marohasy’s own ego is also noteworthy. She thinks the fact she disagreed with some of MoB’s questions makes her part of a thinking minority, when in fact it could just mean she is wrong. The ultimate in confirmation bias!”
Well, to be fair she did not say she was right, only that she was thinking for her self.
In the long run it is better to think for your self and sometimes be wrong than to blindly obey.
Maybe the others were a thinking majority, let us hope so.
A couple thoughts on this post. First, it says:
Cook et al actually rated 12,465 abstracts. They simply didn’t include 521 in their data files. Oddly, they did include 336 of those 521 in their searchable database. You can read the details of what was and was not released here.
Second, this post offers two links to data files. The original one was to a PDF file. The original file released by Skeptical Science was more conveniently formatted, though the spreadsheet now included in the post may win out for some.
Third, while it’s true:
The issue of endorsement levels was known well before then. I discovered it within two days of the paper being published (see here). The discussion on my post led Marcel Crok to write an article within one day. There was never any excuse for people not to know about this problem. Anyone could have checked the Cook et al results the day the paper was released.
There was a politician a few years ago who declared that if we didn’t do something quickly, Antarctica would soon be the only habitable continent.
If we followed Leif and Moshe’s methodology, we would immediately assign this position to all warmistas.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:49 pm
===============
For someone who doesn’t care, you spend a lot of time whining about it.
MarkW says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:57 am
For someone who doesn’t care, you spend a lot of time whining about it.
You must make a distinction between whining and calling out. And what is my opinion to you that you comment on it? I call that ‘whining’
Anyone else notice how Leif has managed to get us all talking about whether Mockton’s little “poll” was valid, instead of Mockton’s data regarding the real results of Cook’s survery.
Intentional? You decide.
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:59 am
==========
One post vs dozens? You decide.
lsvalgaard says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:31 pm
=============
More whining.
MarkW says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:18 am
Anyone else notice how Leif has managed to get us all talking about whether Mockton’s little “poll” was valid, instead of Mockton’s data regarding the real results of Cook’s survery.
Intentional? You decide.
Monckton has made that decision by the title of his posting: “The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100%.”
MarkW says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:19 am
One post vs dozens? You decide.
Decision made already.
MarkW says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:22 am
More whining.
I agree that you are still whining. Bring something to the table instead.
By Jennifer’s testimony it wasn’t merely a PR stunt – a cleverly designed set of questions to give a predetermined answer – it didn’t give the answer intended anyway. Good Lord, whats up with that!
HenryP says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:28 am
Thank you! But watch Hadsst3 over the next few months.
Response to lsvalgaard says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:11 pm
David A says:
July 12, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Did you fail to note that their scientific uselessness was a planned mockery of these scientific 97% reports?
=======================================
If so, I would have expected him to have stated right up front in this company that his stunt was a planned mockery. I did not see any such admission.
================
DA, Really? Did you see the title of the post?
Did you read this early in the post?… “That fundamental dishonesty was at the core of the Cook et al. “consensus” paper published last year. The authors listed three “levels of endorsement” supporting some sort of climate consensus.” Not having been at the conference I do not know the details of what was said. (either do you) However logically every attendant familiar with the CAGW issue understood his point. How you missed it is a mystery.
DA said…You should be cheering Monckton’s political skill in debunking the abuse of science by the warmist brigade, not ridiculing it.
=======================
Leif says… Monckton is, indeed, a slick operator and practised manipulator, but this particular attempt to debunk something is beyond the pale, beyond decency, stooping to the same low [or lower] as his antagonists.
————————————————————————————–
Response…That is silly. He is not passing it off as peer reviewed science. He is simply using an example of vague general questions to show the pitiful nature of the warmist brigade, cloaked in scientific robes of peer review and MSM parrots. There is nothing indecent about a skillful mockery of something that is in fact indecent. His actions are logical, and moral.
DA said…Therefore your up thread sneer of folk who did precisely that, calling their reasonable words , “weasel words” was not justified.
Leif says… If you have paid attention, I have not used the words ‘weasel words’, so your particular sneer falls flat.
==========================================
Response. True that, but a distinction without a difference, as here, lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm, you support Mosher’s use of that term. Nothing in my post was a “sneer” as it was direct honest criticism. I consider the broad scale swipes at WUWT posters in general, which you and Mosher engage in, to be sneers.
David A says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:07 am
DA, Really? Did you see the title of the post?
I see that I can count you as one of Monckton’s sheep that Jennifer was talking about.
“Well, to be fair she did not say she was right, only that she was thinking for her self.”
so if I agree with the majority I’m not thinking for myself? If I’m with the minority I could just be bloody minded!
From Jennifer Marohasy on July 13, 2014 at 12:11 am:
I hope you’re not implying the “thinking minority” is also so “liberal” with the truth for the sake of making a statement. It was clearly stated at the top of this piece by Monckton (bold added):
Thus you are accusing Monckton of choosing to “look the other way”, when the real truth at the base is this is a matter of the independent adjudicatrix reporting inaccurate counts.
To carry through with your accusation you must also add that Monckton knew Diane Bast gave innaccurate counts but has chosen to ignore that fact. Do you wish to amend your charge at this point, m’lady?
BTW, I haven’t seen the pictures. How small was the room with how little attendance with such obviously adequate bright and ample lighting that both Monckton and Bast should have been able to see you with your hand up at the back of the room?
OK, I’ll just point it out then.
The whole 97% consensus thing allowed the CAGW alarmists to categorize skeptics as “deniers” and force skeptics to defend an all or nothing point of view that they didn’t really hold (exactly), and entirely skew the conversation by changing the focus away from the actual science being debated.
So, HERE and NOW, a couple of clever if not wise hooligans are controlling the debate by nefariously forcing you to defend a poll, proclaimed by it’s facilitator as wholly unscientific, as something akin to science.
PLEASE, stop allowing this. THIS is how they win public opinion without ever telling the truth. They cannot win the debate so they change it.
PLEASE, when they change the debate… change it back. Refuse to play their game. They are like children who are mad because you haven’t let them to win after a pout. If you refuse to enable them they will eventually swat the gameboard away and find another distraction, perhaps something with substance or integrity, we can only hope.
Konrad;
“Time to drop this “CO2 must cause some warming” belief don’t you think, as the data does not support it.”
Far better to drop it because empirical experiment disproves it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing like making a fool of yourself first thing in the morning. I order for empirical experiment to disprove it, you would have to have two identical earth’s to experiment on, one with and one without CO2.
I submit to you that you have no such duplicate earth, and as a consequence your claim is either an outright lie or a complete inability to understand the physics and the terminology you so freely throw around as if you do.
Further, the experiment that you do trot out on various threads claiming to produce the results you insist prove your position does not, and can not, duplicated the processes of the atmospheric air column in either function or scale. That you do not understand that this is a process that is sensitive to both, and that your experiment captures neither, has been explained to you many times in this forum. Again, you either have a complete and total misunderstanding of the physics, or you are just a liar.
Lastly, I personally have provided you with considerable observational evidence that anyone can look up for themselves. Chief among thee are the temperature records which show that earth’s temperature profile is cooler over dry areas of the earth and warmer over high humidity parts of earth (at the same latitude). The observational evidence is dead simple and the exact opposite of your theory.
You pollute this blog with your blather, and you smear skeptics as you do it. If skeptics much accept such as you into their ranks in the name of free speech or whatever passes for it on Anth_ny’s blog, then I must henceforth describe myself as a lukewarmist, if no other reason that not to be associated with your utter nonsense.
Leif, tell me, as a reputable scientist haven’t you anything better to do that wasting your time responding to every Tom, Dick and Harry?
Some seem to have made rather heavy weather of my simple survey of opinion at the Heartland conference. The purpose was to show that – contrary to some reports of the conference – delegates would not go so far as to say No to any of the six questions.
Ms Mahorasy says she and some others put up their hands in answer to some of the questions. Well, neither my adjudicatrix or I saw any hands raised. Stage lighting makes it difficult to see all 600 delegates, but certainly no one raised a protest about our having failed to notice any raised hands.
Whether or not a few hands were raised, the conclusion remains: the preponderance of climate skeptical opinion is not willing to disagree that we may have some influence on the climate. How much influence is quite another question – and one which I did not ask because there is no scientific way to determine our contribution.
jim Steele quotes:
“While some have raised the specter of a shift to semipermanent 1930s type drought conditions on the Great Plains due to human-induced global warming, the special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change regarding extreme events (Field et al. 2012) expresses only low confidence in a projected change in drought over the U.S. Great Plains as a whole and medium confidence for some increased dryness across the southern portion of the domain.”
Maybe because they are looking at a Nino and +ve NAO bias with increased GHG forcing, with no increase in Great Plains drought but increased Cali region drought. I think that it will do the reverse due to weak solar activity.
I firmly believe that Lord M used the word “likely” for the specific purpose if tying the IPCC’s phrasing to the Cook et al paper. He also only asked respondents to raise their hands if their response to any particular question was “No”. That means that all other answers…”I don’t know” “maybe” etc were covered under the option of NOT raising ones hand.
Intelligent sceptics are able to question even their own point of view if neccessary. They understand that using the word “likely” allows for the possibility of the statement being true, but does not make the statement a FACT. For example Jennifer, anyone who has spoken on stage at a convention (not the break out classes…the large venue) will tell you that the onetage lighting is not just hot, it’s also blinding to the average person those lights are aimed at. So it is “likely” that if those in the back raised their hands, neither Lord M nor Mrs. Bast would have been able to see it. A “thinking person”, in my book, would consider and invalidate every other possibility before reaching a definitive conclusion, especially one clearly based on a personal assumption about Lord M’s motives or desires for all of us.
Most ironically, Leif stated early on the people show their understanding and astuteness by their actions and their comments. Although I believe it’s possible to understand something astutely and NOT act or respond in a manner that makes Leif happy, I do believe that his behavior and his posts here in this thread demonstrate that it is very “likely” that he does not understand Lord M’s exercise, nor is he as astute as he likely thinks he is.
Chris Schoneveld said on July 13, 2014 at 9:06 am:
Who wouldn’t want to respond to a Jefferson, Nixon, and Wales?
To any reasonable scientifically literate person all of these questions are rhetorical, which is the whole point of the exercise, to expose claims that mainstream skepticism includes Sky Dragon paper tiger denial of the greenhouse effect as being slander. Are mainstream serious climate alarm skeptics whistleblowers or are they mavericks? The public is still trying to figure that out, with no help lately from Goddard or Nova and now Marohasy who seem quite proud to be public mavericks that prevent whistleblowers from being taken seriously. We now have blunt proof of fraud in the bladeless input data of the latest Marcott 2013 hockey stick. Was this exposed by anyone at this conference? Is it exposed on the Reference page of any skeptical blog? Has it been presented on TV or to Congress? Are the majority of skeptics utter fools? That’s also a rhetorical question given that the answer to my last two questions seems to be no. Hand skeptics a nuclear warhead and they become pacifists and weirdos.
Chris Schoneveld says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:06 am
Leif, tell me, as a reputable scientist haven’t you anything better to do that wasting your time responding to every Tom, Dick and Harry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Leif should be commended for his responses. As for his colleagues who question his time spent here, they should be questioning their own lack of participation. By withdrawing from the conversation, they are giving those whom spout the very nonsense they claim discredits the forum a free voice to poison the discussion. If they want a credible discussion to occur, they should be participating in it and putting their credentials and reputable opinions on the table to improve the quality and accuracy of the discourse. By withdrawing, they are declaring themselves an elitist clique with no responsibility to converse with the masses because there are half wits among them.
Is it possible to answer “yes” to questions 1 to 5 inclusive and “don’t know” to question 6? Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases may well have contributed to global warming but not “measured” global warming.
To date there is no proof that anthropogenic C02 has contributed a measurable amount to increased temperatures globally or indeed that the increase in CO2 has actually resulted in increased temperatures globally.
While increased levels of C02 may well have contributed to global warming there is no proof that other natural forces have not been the primary and, possibly, even the sole cause of the measurable increase in temperatures that, we are told, has been seen since 1950.
Perhaps Dr Svalgaard or Steven Mosher can point me to the conclusive evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed a MEASURABLE amount to global increased temperatures.
Until then science tells me that I should remain an agnostic and not a blind believer.
“davidmhoffer says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:51 am ”
I like that post a lot!
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:16 am
////////////
I am at a loss to see the point of the survey.
Quite obviously, no one would say an unqualified NO to any of the questions.
Sceptics would always say possibly, may be, lets see the data/evidence etc.
It is clear beyond doubt that man has some impact on environmental conditions, and this impact can lead to alterations in the micro regional climatic response. That is exactly what UHI is, and I doubt that any sceptic disputes UHI. Agriculture, de-forestation, daming rivers and flooding valleys all lead to micro regional micro climatic response.
The quality of the data sets is so bad that no one knows what temperature is doing, still less to what extent it is influenced by CO2. That means that nothing can be firmly denied,
if the data was of better quality and longer duration, no doubt we would have the answer whether changes of concentration of CO2 from arobout 280ppm to 400ppm in earth’s atmosphere has had any impact on temperature,
The actual percentage should be 33%. See:
http://understandingagw.org/?p=177
“6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?”
Fluxes across the sea-atmosphere interface: Heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere is a product of a number of processes: solar radiation heats the ocean; net long wave back radiation cools the ocean; heat transfer by conduction and convection between the air and water generally cools the ocean as does evaporation of water from the ocean surface.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
While short-wave radiation will warm both surface end subsurface layers, long-wave radiation will cause a cooling of the surface depending on the temperature and humidity of the air.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1963.tb01399.x/pdf
With that, and that CO2 has not got the heat capacity to carry warmth through to the night cycle as water vapour does, shouldn’t we be looking for a net negative effect on global mean surface temperature from increases in atmospheric CO2?
“6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?”
Hell yes. Even if only a hundredth of a percent, it counts, and mankind has released amounts of greenhouse gases that wouldn’t be in the atmosphere without our doing so.
To argue against such an absolute statement, you’d have to be one of those stark raving loonies who flatly reject the greenhouse effect exists at all to argue otherwise, which would be negating the question by saying there are no greenhouse gases at all.
If there is one thing troubling about this survey, is how many have forgotten their schoolchild days and how true-or-false questions work. “Well being a thinking person I’d give a qualified yes/no/maybe…” They don’t exist.
Yes or No, On or Off. This is simple binary logic, not a reason for a dissertation! “Well I can’t give +5 for TTL, only +2.3 at best…” That is not an option.
davidmhoffer, I would agree with you if the subject was a scientific one, not a silly opinion poll at a conference.
I was typing my post on my tiny tablet as Lord M was responding on his own. It seems I not only “understood” his motives, but was “astutue” enough to use my own experience with convention lighting to determine he likely hadn’t seen any raised hands in the back.( I wonder why those thinking people didn’t protest out loud on the spot for clarity’s sake if not their own integrity? )
According to Leif, my ability to understand and be astute resulted in my actions and posts being accurate. I can only wonder what his were the result of.
REPLY: I had a clear view of the back, I didn’t see any hands – Anthony
CM of B said:
“”Whether or not a few hands were raised, the conclusion remains: the preponderance of climate skeptical opinion is not willing to disagree that we may have some influence on the climate.””
Yes sir, deforestation, farming, hydro-electric dams, irrigation, urban sprawl. smog,
all this human activity can be shown to affect climate.
CO2, there is no evidence that CO2 warms the planet. there is evidence that it doesn’t.
Namely:
Constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 with no increase in temperature since 1998.
No increase in the RATE of temperature rise since 1979, per RSS satellite data.
Aphan says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:57 pm
According to Leif, my ability to understand and be astute resulted in my actions and posts being accurate. I can only wonder what his were the result of.
The difference between us is simple and stark: I concentrate on the poll, you wonder about people.
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Aphan says:
July 13, 2014 at 1:57 pm
According to Leif, my ability to understand and be astute resulted in my actions and posts being accurate. I can only wonder what his were the result of.
The difference between us is simple and stark: I concentrate on the poll, you wonder about people
——————————————————————————————————————————-
———————————————————————————————————————————
No sir. From my observation you concentrate on MISREPRESENTING the poll in order to attack the character of “the people”. Transparent, and stark indeed.
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm
From my observation you concentrate on MISREPRESENTING the poll in order to attack the character of “the people”.
Lemme see: I have not attacked your character but you are attacking mine. What does that make you?
It is late in the game and I reluctantly take one more swipe at the dead horse, but it seems to me that Lord M. was performing a spoof on the Cook et al. 97% consensus claim and/or the many warmists who insist that some very high per centage of scientists agree yada, yada, yada.
If my surmise is correct then one might say the spoof was a failure if it is necesary to point that it is a spoof.
Whether or not the poll performance was a spoof, I fail to see why so many have taken so great offense at it.
Lighten up, it’s better for your blood pressure.
FACT: Sensationalist Goddard blanket bans consistent constructive criticism. Then his frat boy cheerleaders taunt us silent ones after Goddard allows in a post, suddenly. Gavin Goddard is just a horse’s ass miscreant pushing a culture war as if Darwin was still just a complete baffoon. He’s the skeptical version of Al Gore. Skewer this pig already.
davidmhoffer says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:59 am
———————————-
Wow! That was quite a rant. This –
“You pollute this blog with your blather, and you smear skeptics as you do it. If skeptics much accept such as you into their ranks in the name of free speech or whatever passes for it on Anth_ny’s blog, then I must henceforth describe myself as a lukewarmist, if no other reason that not to be associated with your utter nonsense.”
– is just over the top. What is about my simple repeatable empirical experiments that gets you so riled? In 2011 I found out that LWIR (even if emitted from a cooler object) can slow the cooling rate of a hotter material, but it just doesn’t work for liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. But the AGW hypothesis states that DWLWIR is keeping the oceans 33C hotter than they would otherwise be. So I conducted some further experiments to see if the 255K assumption was correct for water in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. What’s so wrong with that? Why do you rage so?
You say –
“In order for empirical experiment to disprove it, you would have to have two identical earth’s to experiment on, one with and one without CO2.”
No. All that is needed to disprove the idea of a net radiative GHE is an experiment showing that the oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR would be 33K or more hotter than the 255K assumption that is the very foundation of the hypothesis.
“I submit to you that you have no such duplicate earth, and as a consequence your claim is either an outright lie or a complete inability to understand the physics and the terminology you so freely throw around as if you do.”
No lie. I am not claiming a duplicate earth. I am clearly claiming that experiments into the difference between “selective surface” and “near blackbody” demonstrate why the oceans can be 33K warmer than the 255K assumption without DWLWIR having any role.
“Further, the experiment that you do trot out on various threads claiming to produce the results you insist prove your position does not, and can not, duplicated the processes of the atmospheric air column in either function or scale.”
Experiment? Just one? On various threads I have shown multiple experiments, including –
Ability of CO2 to both absorb and emit LWIR
The two shell radiative model
Effect of LWIR on the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool
Selective surface effect in rigid materials
Selective surface effect in liquids
Relative height of energy entry and exit effecting circulation and temperature profiles in gas columns
Gravity bias in conductive exchange between surface and atmosphere
Pressure effecting conductive exchange between surface and atmosphere
You do indeed frequently point to real world observation. I would point out that currently environmental measurements are rapidly diverging from climate models and it is fair to question the assumptions underlying these models. Clean, repeatable empirical experiment is the best way to check these assumption.
The claim that DWLWIR is what is keeping the oceans 33K above 255K fails the most basic checks.
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 3:52 pm
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm
From my observation you concentrate on MISREPRESENTING the poll in order to attack the character of “the people”.
Lemme see: I have not attacked your character but you are attacking mine. What does that make you?
——————————————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————————————–
A keen observer,paying attention.
And I have not attacked your character at all in that sentence, just your behavior.
Please also pay attention when responding to me, I’ll not let you change meanings of words or make up motivations as you seem fond of, like that certain sentences attack your character as opposed to your behavior.
If you can’t debate on the merits of the actual words said the meanings thereof I have no time for you. As a Doctor I would think you would debate from a stronger, more integral position of fact and understanding rather than having to twist and moan for a better angle.
Frankly it’s really a shame to see it, until today I would have expected better from someone of your reported education and stature. I have been disappointed but not suprised.
There’s a little something for your character. I’m not impressed.
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:55 pm
And I have not attacked your character at all in that sentence, just your behavior.
As a behaviorist [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism ] I don’t see the difference.
Now, in general, when you accuse somebody of something, quote exactly what bothers you. In what way was what I said a MISREPRESENTATION? I have alleged [and many commenters agree] that the thing was just a PR-stunt. Is this what you think is a MISREPRESENTATION? or do you have a different nefarious motivation for your utterance?
While I agree with the point that most (but sure as hell not nearly all) skeptics acknowledge increased CO2’s role in warming, although think it’s been exaggerated, the “poll” as conducted was rubbish.
Leif’s right here, in other words.
Christoph Dollis says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Leif’s right here, in other words.
Something for lawrence Cornell to ponder…
Konrad;
You do indeed frequently point to real world observation. I would point out that currently environmental measurements are rapidly diverging from climate models and it is fair to question the assumptions underlying these models.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At no point sir, did I support the models. I’m a major critic of the models. So don’t take me to task for something I never said. The facts that YOU have the physics wrong in no way suggests that the models have it right, and at no time did I suggest they did.
As for the rest of your rant, there is so much you clearly don’t understand that there is little use having a point by point discussion about it. Your argument rests on the oceans not being 33K above 255K. Sadly, that’s not even what the claim is, and your entire rant thus falls apart because it debunks something that wasn’t claimed. There is a marked difference between the temperature of the oceans and the surface temperature of the oceans, and if you understood Stefan-Boltzmann as it applies in this case you would understand your mistake. All your other errors are just piled up on top of that one.
But leave the details out of it. The bottom line remains that if YOUR physics was right, the earth would be colder than the moon. It isn’t. If YOUR physics was right, Venus would be colder than Mercury. But it isn’t. If YOUR physics was right, jungles at the equator would be colder on average than deserts at the equator, but they aren’t. In your world, you’ve constructed a long, complex thread of reasoning that is wrong assumption piled upon wrong assumption, but put together in a logical fashion which then conclude that 2+2=5 and you’ve built an experiment that proves it. All I’ve got is two popsicle sticks and two more popsicle sticks, and when I shove them into one pile, there’s four. Count ’em four. The earth is warmer than the moon, Venus is warmer than Mercury, jungles are warmer than deserts, and the difference between them is the presence of radiatively active atmospheric components. I don’t need to go into the details of why you are wrong anymore than I need nothing more than popsicle sticks to prove that 2+2=4.
Aphan says:
July 12, 2014 at 5:25 pm
when he was asked this question:
“So the fact that there are people who frequent this board who have odd and unacceptable points of view discredits the entire site and all skeptics?”
(lsvalgaard) Perhaps the asker was thinking of people like you…
I remind you of this because you just claimed that the simple and stark difference between us was that your focus was the poll and I am the one who wonders about people. I wonder about a lot of things. Like how the “number” of your posts that were directed at people, and your opinions of them, compares to the humber of your posts “focused on the poll”. Or why you allow your obvious biases/assumptions to interfere with what should be an objective observation of facts.
I couldn’t care less whether you are a sceptic or a luke warmer or a flaming worlder. Those are labels based on one’s personal opinion and everyone is perfectly entitled to their own. Of course it’s possible that you’re having a stroke or going through withdrawal/off your meds, or perhaps experiecing some other form of frustration that might cause temporary insanity upon which this whole episode can be attributed. But if not, for someone so clearly concerned about people’s behavior discrediting groups they are associated with, your behavior here in this thread is anecdotal evidence that will discredit the field of “science” far more than any “half wit” posting at WUWT can discredit a group opinion/label.
davidmhoffer says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:57 pm
———————————-
“At no point sir, did I support the models.”
I made no claim you did, rather that the problems we have both observerd with the models is what caused me to try the experiments.
“Your argument rests on the oceans not being 33K above 255K. Sadly, that’s not even what the claim is, and your entire rant thus falls apart because it debunks something that wasn’t claimed.”
No, my claim is that without DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling average temperatures of the oceans would be far above, not just 255K, but 288K as well. The foundation claim of the radiative GHE hypothesis is that the average temperature of the oceans would be 255K in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. That claim is provably false.
“There is a marked difference between the temperature of the oceans and the surface temperature of the oceans, and if you understood Stefan-Boltzmann as it applies in this case you would understand your mistake. All your other errors are just piled up on top of that one.”
I am well aware of the limitations of the standard S-B equations and why they should never be applied to selective surfaces. But this is just what the climastrologists went and did. The treated the oceans as a “near blackbody” with an emissivity near 1. The oceans are a selective surface not a near blackbody, nor do they have an effective emissivity near 1*.
Climastrologists just used emissivity ~1, incident solar at ~240 w/m2 and came up with the 255K for the oceans in absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. This mistake lies at the very foundation of the entire radiative GHE hypothesis. It can never be hidden.
*(to tell the difference between apparent and effective emissivity you must first measure with all background IR cancelled, and this is still not good enough for water as it emits from within the first 100 microns so suffers from cavity effect.)
Aphan says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:08 pm
your behavior here in this thread is anecdotal evidence that will discredit the field of “science” far more than any “half wit” posting at WUWT can discredit a group opinion/label.
I think you are wrong on this. The field of ‘science’ will not [be] discredited by me, but by the non-scientific nonsense that poses a science. You might wonder whether my comments will discredit me in this company, but that I don’t take seriously and such personal things are really off/topic IMHO.
Aphan says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:08 pm
I wonder about a lot of things. Like how the “number” of your posts that were directed at people, and your opinions of them, compares to the number of your posts “focused on the poll”.
You may ask that question about your own comments. What are the numbers for you?
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:34 pm
____________________
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Bruce Cobb says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm
The word “likely” is a loaded term. It’s certainly possible that we’ve added some small, as-yet unmeausured and probably unmeasurable amount of warming.
It’s also possible there are ufos.
“So it was a lousy poll, a pure PR-stunt, no science.”
______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Simply put: You are not presenting an argument here. In spite of many fools getting sucked into your false argument, there is nothing substantial here to debate, unless you start from a disingenuous “misunderstanding” of something that was PRESENTED as “a lousy poll [&] PR-stunt”. And before you start on nonsense, an eight grade class paying attention would see this without the “exact words” being shouted at them. Many here have pointed that out. No one has presented this as “science”, yet you demand that it be defended as such.
So you misrepresented the poll in order to subvert the conversation to continue to demand science from parlor polls. As in HERE :
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Latitude says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Did Leif and Mosh answer the questions?….
“My answers to this cleverly designed PR-stunt would, of course, be yyyyyy. What is wrong with the poll is that there are no numbers, no error bars, no confidence intervals, no ‘how much’. Totally useless and without any scientific value. Pure PR bullshit, by that well-known master of BS.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
In case you are confused that’s a character attack. And then you just went downhill from there. BTW thanks for the link but I sat thru 101 thirty years ago. And Wikipedia ?! really ?!
The difference between character and behavior ? Well, while it’s true that we can use behaviors to “measure” some aspects of character (personally I find any quantification of “character” to be inherently subjective and therefore suspicious) , they are NOT identical. I see a difference, I’m pretty sure that you do as well really.
Come to think of it that might be a good example of your modus operandi. Character and behavior are no more the same thing than thought and action, but perhaps, in order to “win” a debate you THINK they are for the moment. As in feigning ignorance of the “motivations” (now that’s about character, isn’t it?) of someone taking an informal non scientific poll at a conference….
and then proceeding to attack their character.
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:43 pm
and then proceeding to attack their character.
It seems to me that you are the one attacking somebody, i..e. me. Have I attacked you?
What standing do you have to attack me? [not that I really care]
Survey science is a social science replete with bias, some of which is intentional. Anyone thinking they can measure the opinion “temperature” of the society they wish to study is walking on thin ice. Indeed, survey science is often employed like the paint color chosen for a restaurant. Its one purpose is to affect the opinions of the reader of the results of said survey. It is one thing to observe and record the behavior of humans. It is quite another to observe and record the “reasoning” of humans. But it is because of that difference that survey science is very useful in swaying public perception. The real goal is not to measure the subjects, but to influence the consumers of the measure’s results.
THIS is interesting. Appears to be a question of character AND behavior here ?
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ?
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:11 pm
jim Steele says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:42 pm
did you likewise post about the 97% consensus as also being “a stunt that carried no significance”?
“No need to, as we all know it is garbage. But why must we stoop to their level? Because we think the general public is too stupid to understand anything else?”
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:02 pm
THIS is interesting.
Have I ever attacked you?
“No need to, as we all know it is garbage. But why must we stoop to their level? Because we think the general public is too stupid to understand anything else?”
Indeed, why must we stoop to their level? If you think that we should, what does that show about your respect for the general public?
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:47 pm
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:43 pm
and then proceeding to attack their character.
“It seems to me that you are the one attacking somebody, i..e. me. Have I attacked you?
What standing do you have to attack me? [not that I really care]”
————————————————————————————————————————–
Surely you jest. You asked me to explain my specific issue with your behavior here. I present said explaination. Essentially, you don’t seem to speak with integrity, I’ve explained that’s my observation. I’ve given examples, others have also. I like integrity, it’s a good thing. Now and then it’s good to point that out.
You don’t like my answer, so now I’m just mean ? Here’s a suggestion : If you don’t like being “attacked”, don’t be a BS bully. You just might get called on it.
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:19 pm
You asked me to explain my specific issue with your behavior here.
But you have persistently evaded that. What MISREPRESENTATION exactly have I committed according to you.
I’ve given examples, others have also
Like
Christoph Dollis says: July 13, 2014 at 6:53 pm Leif’s right here, in other words.
davidmhoffer says: July 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm Not sure why everyone is busting Leif’s chops since he is correct
Steven Mosher says: July 11, 2014 at 3:04 pm yes leif. a nice stunt.
This is not a popularity contest. You are entitled to disagree with me, but not to attack my character or behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [if you didn’t know]
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:08 pm
_____________________________________
My bad there. I believe in that specific case I misread your meaning. No, I don’t think we should “stoop to their level” but I don’t think calling out BS is stooping to their level, maybe a bit of a cop out on your part. As far as the general public, I live in the U.S. where the Education system … well, lets just say that is a loaded question with no simple answers.
But NO, no one should be lied to or BS’d.
Yes, that’s a “thing” with me. That’s why I call it out.
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:46 pm
But NO, no one should be lied to or BS’d. Yes, that’s a “thing” with me.
With me too, hence my comments.
Konrad;
No, my claim is that without DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling average temperatures of the oceans would be far above, not just 255K, but 288K as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your misunderstanding of fundamental physics is even worse than I thought.
Please …
Leif, Lawrence, Mark & others
a bit less of the flame war, as
it is hot enough in here already
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:19 pm
You asked me to explain my specific issue with your behavior here.
But you have persistently evaded that. What MISREPRESENTATION exactly have I committed according to you.[…]
_______________________________________________________________________
I have explained that clearly. I won’t repeat myself. You are now just providing examples for me of what I have already pointed out about your disingenious behavior here by insisting I have evaded a question that I have clearly answered for all here to see.
_____________________________________________________________________________
[…] “I’ve given examples, others have also
Like
Christoph Dollis says: July 13, 2014 at 6:53 pm Leif’s right here, in other words.
davidmhoffer says: July 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm Not sure why everyone is busting Leif’s chops since he is correct
Steven Mosher says: July 11, 2014 at 3:04 pm yes leif. a nice stunt.
This is not a popularity contest. You are entitled to disagree with me, but not to attack my character or behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [if you didn’t know]”
_____________________________________________________________________
Once again you change the subject for others distraction. I didn’t present examples of popularity, I presented examples of your argument. You’re right, it isn’t a popularity contest any more than this poll was presented as science. So why do you present examples of your “popularity” ? You argue about apples while presenting an orange as example.
I don’t disagree with your argument, as I have pointed out you have no argument except that which you’ve manufactured for the sake of instigating an argument. It’s the METHOD of your debate I have a problem with. (Already clearly explained) Therefore I disagree with your disingenuous BEHAVIOR here and will call out dishonesty where I see it.
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:10 pm
Therefore I disagree with your disingenuous BEHAVIOR here and will call out dishonesty where I see it.
Since this is a fairly serious charge you must be specific and show where I have been dishonest. Quote my own words for that exactly as said. Don’t make things up. In particular you have to show that I believed that what I did was dishonest at the time. So, go ahead and show us.
From RobRoy on July 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm:
Now adding “RobRoy” to the “doesn’t realize” group.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.5/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.5/derivative/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2014.5/derivative/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/derivative/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/derivative/trend/
Per RSS, we have had rising temperatures with rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1979. While you say there has been no increase in temperature since 1998, temperatures have obviously risen faster from 1979 up to 2014, 1.25°C/century, than they did in the period since 1979 before the “no increase”, 0.82°C/century.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/to:2014/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/to:2014/compress:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/to:2014/trend/
Using the yearly averages, from 1979 to 1997 inclusive was a 26.923ppm CO2 increase, with a 0.82°C/century increase. From 1979 to 2012 inclusive (Dec 2013 not yet official) was a 57.037ppm CO2 increase, with a 1979 up to 2013 increase (same source) of 1.25°C/century.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration went up, rate of warming increase went up. How does that not show atmospheric CO2 concentration does correlate with global warming?
See the first graph, I took the trends of the derivatives (the changes between adjoining months), which basically yields the rates of the rates of changes. From 1979 up to 1998 yields “slope = 0.000192138 per year”, while 1998 up to 2014 yields “slope = 0.000429044 per year”.
What that means, is with the additional atmospheric CO2 the size of temperature increases is going up more than double in the later period what it was in the earlier period.
Again, how does that not show atmospheric CO2 concentration does correlate with global warming?
Of course that is using the 1979 and 1998 years you mentioned. Maybe it looks different with other years…
First, I don’t HAVE to do anything. But I will try to explain to you now what dishonesty means here.
– An informal poll was taken at a conference
– Said informal poll was presented here clearly as a non scientific poll in order to SIMPLY make a point.
– I have quoted you, here, demanding that said poll be defended AS science when NO ONE here ever said it was remotely scientific.
– There is NO appeal to scientific proof here, you are creating a conflict that does not exist. For what purpose ?
– Now, in order to “misunderstand” this one would have to be either stupid or dishonest or perhaps a hormonal preteen just not paying attention.
– I don’t know you enough to know whether you are a hormonal preteen and nobody here would accuse you of being stupid, at least not me.
– I contend that you didn’t “misunderstand” at all, that your demands to have it explained in a way that was knowingly never intended were basically contrarian in nature and in essence, dishonest.
None of this is new. You KNOW the truth here. Everyone here can read and comprehend. And so can you. Your game playing here and childish demands for yet more of this and clearer that and “why ya gotta be like that ?” is just more distraction and subtrifuge … and dishonest.
davidmhoffer says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:51 pm
Konrad;
No, my claim is that without DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling average temperatures of the oceans would be far above, not just 255K, but 288K as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your misunderstanding of fundamental physics is even worse than I thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Konrad,
I’m going to try one last time to actually help you. Not by telling you what I think the answer is, but by suggesting you research two things:
1. What the meaning of effective blackbody temperature is in the context of a planet with an atmosphere, and;
2. What the temperature of earth is as seen from space.
Either you’ll have an aha! moment, or you won’t.
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:58 pm
– Said informal poll was presented here clearly as a non scientific poll in order to SIMPLY make a point.
The posting did not say that the poll was non scientific. Show where it said that.
– I have quoted you, here, demanding that said poll be defended AS science when NO ONE here ever said it was remotely scientific.
Quote my exact words here and now as to your claim.
Since those first two points are not true, the rest of you comment becomes moot.
@ lsvalagaard
Congratulations on trolling this thread to the bitter end. Laughable how Monckton messed you up.
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:04 pm
Since those first two points are not true, the rest of you comment becomes moot.
I have said a couple of times that there was no science in the poll [I think you agree with that]. other people have talked about ‘science’ galore. There are 200 instances of science, scientist, or scientific.
Richard D says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:12 pm
Laughable how Monckton messed you up.
To his detriment.
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:04 pm
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 9:58 pm
– Said informal poll was presented here clearly as a non scientific poll in order to SIMPLY make a point.
The posting did not say that the poll was non scientific. Show where it said that.
– I have quoted you, here, demanding that said poll be defended AS science when NO ONE here ever said it was remotely scientific.
Quote my exact words here and now as to your claim.
Since those first two points are not true, the rest of you comment becomes moot
——————————————————————————————————————–
I HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THIS REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. ARE YOU A CHILD, SERIOUSLY ? BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW ACTING LIKE ONE. REVIEW THE THREAD … COMPLETELY AND CAREFULLY… BOTH POINTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, ARE TRUE AND PROVEN TO BE TRUE. IF YOU CAN’T READ, COMPREHEND, OR REFERENCE WRITTEN WORDS ON A PAGE I CANNOT HELP YOU. I AM SORRY, I AM RETIRED AND CAN’T HELP YOU WITH YOUR EXTENSIVE EGO ISSUES. YOU MUST SEEK VALIDATION ELSEWHERE. IT’S 1:30am HERE AND YOU HAVE DEVOLVED INTO SILLINESS. I WON’T PARTICIPATE. GOODNIGHT.
lsvalgaard says:
“To his detriment”
+++++++++++++++++++
Likely Monckton is snug in bed in his castle in Scotland and here you are LMAO….
lawrence Cornell says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:29 pm
I HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THIS REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY.
What other response could one expect, but that does not make it true.
Richard D says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:32 pm
Likely Monckton is snug in bed
‘Likely’ like in his questions?
From lawrence Cornell on July 13, 2014 at 10:29 pm:
So says the person screaming all-caps on the internet. I know who my mother would say is the one acting childish.
“‘Likely’ like in his questions?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, likely he’s snug in bed and you’re trolling his thread, try to keep up.
lsvalgaard says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:27 am
David A says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:07 am
DA, Really? Did you see the title of the post?
============================
I see that I can count you as one of Monckton’s sheep that Jennifer was talking about.
===========================================================
Leif that is a “sneer” just as I earlier explained to you that the broad scale swipes at WUWT posters in general, which you and Mosher engage in, to be sneers. By the way, the tile of the post refers to the 97% studies. Yet my pointing this our to you received no acknowledgement of that, but a sneer and personal attack.
My posts to you were very simple criticisms of what I perceive as poor arguments…
1. The informal pole was NEVER represented to be scientific, but intended to make a simple point;
that skeptics also overwhelming answer yes, just like the warmist brigade does, to the over simple unscientific questions purported to be answered in the pseudo scientific 97% poles. (Since that was the simple dual purpose of the question put to the skeptical community, Monckton was not “falling to their level” or any BS sophistry)
2. Those pseudo 97% studies were passed off as scientific by the peer review community, and they were circulated worldwide by the LSM.
3. Christopher Monckton never intended this simple pole to do anything except demonstrate that skeptics to not fall under the “denier” label you and Mosher regularly broad-brush them with, and to point out a clear flaw in the 97% consensus studies. ( many posters here clearly got that message and tried to tell you this,)
The rest of the various posters arguments about the nuances of the questions are strictly academic, and not related to point 1. I also pointed out that folk explaining their views of those nuances were not using “weasel words” (as Mosher commented and you supported) but were adding necessary detail to make the scientific cogency of those questions relevant. (You also agreed that without further definition the questions were not of relevant scientific merit.)
From Richard D on July 13, 2014 at 10:32 pm:
Monckton made an honest living as a journalist and then as an entrepreneur who founded a business selling quality shirts. I am certain he is far too practical and intelligent to acquire such a money pit as a castle.
davidmhoffer says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:03 pm
————————————
“I’m going to try one last time to actually help you. Not by telling you what I think the answer is, but by suggesting you research two things:
1. What the meaning of effective blackbody temperature is in the context of a planet with an atmosphere, and;
2. What the temperature of earth is as seen from space.
Either you’ll have an aha! moment, or you won’t.”
David, been there, done that. For a planet at 1 AU having a thick radiative atmosphere like earth and receiving an average of 240 w/m2 the temperature as seen from space should be ~255K.
Does this tell you anything about whether the atmosphere is warming or cooling the surface below. No, for that you would need to know more about the surface materials of the planet. Assumptions like “the surface is a near blackbody” or “we can just use lapse rate and an imaginary ERL to back calculate surface temperature” are both dead ends.
Imagine a polished aluminium planet (e= 0.05) reviving an average of 240 w/m2 with no atmosphere. Average surface temp would be above 500K. Now add a thick radiative pure methane atmosphere. The surface temp will drop. What temperature would it now appear from space? ~255K 😉
Without knowing the true surface response to solar radiation and DWLWIR, you cannot know whether the atmosphere is warming or cooling the surface. In the case of our planet, the “near blackbody” assumption about our oceans is an unrecoverable mistake.
Have a look at this very simple experiment run by Texas A&M in 1965 –
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
They tried making layer 2 matt black for better UV/SW absorption. It did not work as well at heating as having layer 3 black. If such an experiment were run under simulated solar cycle with layer 2 black and no DWLWIR average temperatures would be below zero. Layer 2 clear and layer 3 black is a game changer. Average surface temperature would easily climb beyond 15C.
Now how do the climate modelling assumptions treat our oceans? Layer 2 black or layer 3?
Exactly … except for the arguments he put forth, several reasons why it’s a bad poll.
David A says @ July 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm:
“Leif that is a “sneer” just as I earlier explained to you that the broad scale swipes at WUWT posters in general, which you and Mosher engage in, to be sneers.”
Amen!
Yeah, I went back it and reread it for the hell of it, and I didn’t see that either.
I was originally going to cite this post as it made the point I was trying to make elsewhere, but the poll was too loaded for my taste so just had to make my statement without this backing.
Anyway, most skeptics are as Christopher Monckton says, but quite a few of the blog commenters (here and elsewhere) dismiss AGW more than can be supported by the science and reason. While the poll wasn’t properly structured, count me down with its consensus just the same.
Christoph Dollis says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:56 pm
The posting did not say that the poll was non scientific. Show where it said that.”
Yeah, I went back it and reread it for the hell of it, and I didn’t see that either.
=================================
The posting also made no attempt to say the poll was scientific. The verbal poll was done for a clear and simple two-fold purpose as explained numerous times….
1. Skeptics also overwhelming answer yes, just like the warmist brigade does, to the over simple unscientific questions purported to be answered in the pseudo scientific 97% poles.
2. Those pseudo 97% studies were passed off as scientific by the peer review community, and they were circulated worldwide by the LSM, yet even with setting aside their horrible methodology, they asked the wrong questions, which even skeptics overwhelmingly answer in the same manner.
It is that simple.
@ David A says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:32 am
Exactly! Thank you for saying the obvious.
Since co2/climate science and Data has been politicized with the UNFCCC to promote political agendas my answers would be.
If one can not scientifically measure or quantify values, antroproghenic CO2 and temperature, that can be validated again and again the whole debate is unscientific.
1. YES
2. YES
3. Don’t know
4. Don’t know
5. YES
6. Don’t know
davidmhoffer says, July 13, 2014 at 6:57 pm:
“If YOUR physics was right, jungles at the equator would be colder on average than deserts at the equator, but they aren’t.”
Oh, yes they most certainly are. Where on Earth did you get the idea that they’re not? Mean annual temperatures in tropical rainforest areas are consistently lower by several degrees than in tropical/subtropical desert areas. Because of the higher atmospheric water content.
davidmhoffer says, July 13, 2014 at 10:03 pm:
“2. What the temperature of earth is as seen from space.”
The Earth doesn’t have a ‘temperature’ ‘as seen from space’. It emits an average radiation flux to space. This flux is not tied to some specific temperature. It is a consequence of the energy balance between the Sun and the Earth. Since 240 W/m^2 is the mean flux the Earth system absorbs, then it is also the mean flux it needs to shed back to space. It does so from all levels, from the surface all the way up to the ToA. The mean flux is a cumulative flux from the Earth system as a whole, not an S-B (BB) flux from one specific layer with a correspondingly specific S-B temp.
David A says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm
1. The informal pole was NEVER represented to be scientific, but intended to make a simple point;
This is a straw man. I never said that it was science [quite the contrary] or that it should have been science, even though the poll was touted as an analogue to the ‘97%’ poll which was supposed to be scientific. My point in general is that the questions were cleverly posed to achieve the intended propaganda effect, and that the ‘result’ was probably not even representative of the opinion of the audience [c.f. Jennifer]. Contrast the propaganda effect of ‘the consensus is not 97% it’s 100%’ with [the more correct] ‘the consensus is not 97% it’s 95%’. So, the poll was a PR-stunt, and this is not a way to conduct the debate or to ‘fight the good fight’. Better to be a ‘sneering’ lion than a bleating, corralled sheep.
I am going to stick my neck out and say that I am very close to answering the First Question (does climate change): NO.
Of course, it depends what you mean by climate change. Globally, there are only two climate states, glacial and interglacial.
Climate is regional, not global, and the problem is that it is a band and a band within which there is much year to year, even multidecadal variation.
The problem here is that climate is not about a few tenths of a degree of temperature. Nor is it something that can be assessed and measusred over a 30 year period. Given tectonic movement, and glacial events, climate is something measured over thousands of years (possibly even longer).
One has to ask oneself whether there has been any climate shift of any country in the past few hundred years? If so which country, and from which band to which band (Koppen/Koppen-Geiger/Trewartha classification etc)?
The reality is that there has been no climate change this past century. If one looks at the past climate of countries over say two thousand years, there have been periods of warming, periods of cooling, dry periods, wet periods, examples of extreme (in relative terms) flooding, examples of extreme (in relative terms) drought, examples of exceptional (in relative terms) harsh winters, examples of exceptional (in relative terms) hot summers. There is a large variability, within the climate band for each country, and if what we are seeing today, is nothing more than what we have seen in the past, that is not climate change.
I would like the warmists to list which countries have undergone climate change, this past century, when compared to the historic climate characteristics of that country over the past few thousand years, detailing the change undertaken and from which climatatic regional band the country has shifted from, and into which climatic regional band that country now sits.
Richard
I wrote an article on exactly this subject last year.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/26/noticeable-climate-change/
Whilst climate changes continually it all just seems to go round in a circle. The current decade in the UK is very similar to that of the 1730’s which caused phil jones to ruefully reflect that natural variability was much greater than he had expected.
The problem is that we tend to look at either the very short term-the satellite record-or the very long term-millions of years. Our human historical context has been submerged in the belief of Dr Mann’s unchanging climate over the last 1000 or more years until ‘WE’ ruined things.
Of course, ‘anecdotal’ evidence that would help to provide proper context to wild climatic claims is much derided
tonyb
So there are still people who think you can live on a planet without impacting on its climate.
Interesting*
YYYYYY
Q7 Do you think accurately predicting future temperature based on historical records, however accurate the record, is nugatory (Y)
*Frightening
Kristian;
The Earth doesn’t have a ‘temperature’ ‘as seen from space’. It emits an average radiation flux to space. This flux is not tied to some specific temperature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The average radiation flux to space IS the effective black body temperature. Looks like you need remedial physics as bad as Konrad,
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 6:29 am:
“The average radiation flux to space IS the effective black body temperature. Looks like you need remedial physics as bad as Konrad,”
Is it indeed? A flux is a temperature. Nice one.
So where is this e=1, 255K BB surface of Earth emitting the 240 W/m^2 flux to space?
Being able to use the S-B equation to calculate a theoretical specific emission temperature based on a measured mean radiation flux doesn’t mean you’re describing a real-world direct flux/temp relation.
You know of course that Earth’s atmosphere is not a black body? Or don’t you? A constantly churning volume of gas heated from below is not comparable to a solid-surface black body. And a solid solar-heated surface (like Earth’s) in direct thermal contact (convectively coupled) to air (with or without radiatively active gases) can never be a purely radiative situation, what all radiative laws (e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck, Kirchhoff) strictly describe. Because of something called conduction > convection (on earth also evaporation).
Kristian;
You know of course that Earth’s atmosphere is not a black body? Or don’t you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What part of suggesting that Konrad research the meaning of effective black body temperature of a planet with an atmosphere did you miss?
All of it apparently.
Kristian;
Is it indeed? A flux is a temperature. Nice one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Precisely how do you think the temperature of a body in space is arrived at? By satellites and telescopes extending a thermometer a thousands or millions of kilometers and sticking it under the bodies tongue? Are you daft? The temperature of a body in space can be measured by taking the mix of energy fluxes being emitted from the body and converting it into a temperature.
Your argument is as stupid as claiming that a thermometer under one’s tongue cannot take temperature because it is full of Mercury which merely expands when warmed. ALL temperature measurements are arrived at by an indirect means than in one way or another converts an energy flux into temperature, these are only two examples. By your argument, the thermostat in your house doesn’t measure temperature (but it does) and neither does the local weather station (but it does).
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm
From lawrence Cornell on July 13, 2014 at 10:29 pm:
ARE YOU A CHILD, SERIOUSLY ? BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW ACTING LIKE ONE.
So says the person screaming all-caps on the internet. I know who my mother would say is the one acting childish.
_____________________________________________________________________________
If my mother had said or written something and I refused to acknowledge that she ever said it or denied its very existence in spite of the written words sitting in front of me, I would expect her to be a bit frustrated and yell at me a bit.
Has the education and upbringing on this globe deteriorated to the point where simply ignoring statements made or pretending, yes pretending to understand something wrongly, or just not see it is now accepted as standard truth finding procedure. Is that how we find the truth now ?
Are we here to win a debate or find the truth ?
NO, they are not the same.
Having said that … you are right on your point. I am not proud. I lost it and shouldn’t have.
First, I want to thank Mr Burton for having kindly translated the Cook et al. data file from its original comma-delimited format to an Excel spreadsheet to make it easier for non-programmers to handle.
Next, I want to report a conversation I have had with the operator of another climate-skeptical blog who has noticed that a small band of sophisticated trolls, inferentially paid for their efforts, is attacking not only the head postings at this and other blogs, however reasonable those postings may be, but also – in sneering and often savage tones – anyone who dares to show signs of supporting the head postings or opposing the Party Line on global warming.
No small part of the strategy of the promoters of the climate scam has been their relentlessly vicious mistreatment of those of us with whom they find it profitable to disagree. Lenin used to recommend that any lie should be told as long as it assisted the march of Communism, and that the opponents of the Party Line should be personally denigrated. His devoted follower Saul Alinsky says the same in his “Rules for Radicals”.
The intention of these trolls is to try to ensure that anyone who dares to question the Party Line should have his reputation destroyed, or should be bullied into silence, so that others who might otherwise speak out remain silent because they are fearful for their reputations.
One of these trolls persists in making a pest of himself here, and in venomously attacking not only me (I have broad shoulders) but many others on this thread, even though I know Anthony has warned him to moderate his language.
So I should like to ask all those who wish to post their views here to consider themselves welcome to do so, and not to allow themselves to be deterred by bullies. And I should like to ask those who have been less than polite toward those with whom they disagree to acquire a little civility. There is a growing feeling in some quarters that WUWT has become a no-go area because the trolls have been so successful in sneering at even the most innocent of passers-by who take the chance to make a polite point and are cruelly savaged for it.
A little more moderation and civility all round, please. And I hope that Anthony will now give a clear and final warning to the worst offender here.
From Konrad on July 13, 2014 at 11:44 pm:
No.
What’s the maximum temperature you can get without an atmosphere? Albedo of zero, everything is absorbed. Energy in equals energy out, of course.
Stefan-Boltzmann law says radiation emitted equals SB constant times effective radiating temperature raised to the fourth power, SB constant is about 5.67*10^-8 W/(m^2*K^4).
Total Solar Irradiance at top of atmosphere is about 1360 W/m^2, if the Earth were a flat disk perpendicular to the Sun’s rays. Area of flat disk is pi*r^2, surface area of sphere is 4*pi*r^2, so average solar radiation t.o.a. is TSI/4. We will use that value for your metal planet at 1 AU with the same radius as the Earth.
So TSI/4 = SBC * T^4
1360/4 = 5.67E-8 * T^4
340 / 5.67E-8 = 6.00E9 = T^4
278K = T
Maximum effective temperature is only 278K, 6°C. How could that polished aluminum planet possibly be 500K? By Stefan-Boltzmann it would have 3,540 W/m^2 outgoing radiation, and it does not receive a tenth of that.
So what is the source of the extra energy?
lsvalgaard says:
“This whole thing was clearly a PR-stunt and carries no significance.”
Just as Cook’s “study” was.
If 100% of you guys believe that we cause some warming why is this the coldest July 14th ever?
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/266951981.html
elmer says:
July 14, 2014 at 10:28 am
If 100% of you guys believe that we cause some warming why is this the coldest July 14th ever?
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/266951981.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If natural variability is larger than the warming in the first place, there would be no surprise to that result. There is substantial evidence to suggest that it is:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
– – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
I think your comment has anti-intellectual merit only, and that it only demeans the spirit of this venue.
Ugly.
John
Monckton of Brenchley:
Please ignore the post from John Whitman at July 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm.
Whitman is a troll who specialises in supporting the trolling of others as a method to help the other trolls destroy threads. He has a long history of doing it on WUWT threads.
Richard
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 8:31 am:
“What part of suggesting that Konrad research the meaning of effective black body temperature of a planet with an atmosphere did you miss?
All of it apparently.”
So tell us what meaning this effective black body temperature of planet Earth has regarding the rGHE hypothesis and relate it to what I said. Jeez.
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 8:41 am:
“Precisely how do you think the temperature of a body in space is arrived at? By satellites and telescopes extending a thermometer a thousands or millions of kilometers and sticking it under the bodies tongue? Are you daft? The temperature of a body in space can be measured by taking the mix of energy fluxes being emitted from the body and converting it into a temperature.”
Hahaha! Are you being serious? Do you have any idea what we’re talking about here at all? Apparently not. I know full well what an ‘effective black body’ temperature of a celestial body is, David. And how it’s arrived at. That’s not the issue. Does this calculated temperature mean anything to the actual temperature at some level somewhere in the atmosphere or solid surface of a planet like Earth? That’s what’s of interest here. No one cares whether you’re able to calculate the theoretical surface emission temperature of Earth IF IT WERE a black body absorbing and emitting its energy from ONE AND THE SAME solid surface, David. The 240 W/m^2 mean radiative flux to space from Earth originates from the ENTIRE system, solid/liquid surface and all layers of the atmosphere above it. It is a cumulative, a final flux going out through the ToA. And it’s purely a consequence of the flux coming IN from the Sun. Earth needs to shed this mean flux also. 240 W/m^2. To maintain energy balance. Get it? This flux intensity simply HAPPENS to correspond to a temperature of 255K via the S-B equation. That doesn’t mean that’s the ‘temperature’ of Earth. The surface is at 288K. The tropopause at 210K. Which one’s Earth’s temperature?
Kristian;
The surface is at 288K. The tropopause at 210K. Which one’s Earth’s temperature?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What would the temperature of the surface be if there were no atmosphere?
Kristian;
This flux intensity simply HAPPENS to correspond to a temperature of 255K via the S-B equation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So it is a coincidence? And here I thought it was a calculation.
– – – – – – – –
What to do when the signs of recursive troll namecalling start sprouting here?
Well when I was a boy about 10 on my grandparents farm I was taught when milking a cow to move the milk pail far away from the cow when she showed signs needing some bowel and/or bladder activity. Then to go get the scoop shovel, wheelbarrow and some fresh sawdust.
John
Kristian;
Does this calculated temperature mean anything to the actual temperature at some level somewhere in the atmosphere or solid surface of a planet like Earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it does. Find out what “mean radiating level” is and apply it in the context of the effective black body temperature of a planet with a radiatively active atmosphere.
Friends:
I repeat. Don’t feed the troll.
Richard
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 1:17 pm:
“What would the temperature of the surface be if there were no atmosphere?”
You tell me, David. Look to the Moon. If we let a satellite circle the Moon for a while to take measurements of its emitted flux to space, what would we find? An evened out mean flux of around 300 W/m^2. This corresponds to the average flux from the Sun coming IN (the Moon’s surface has a much lower global albedo than planet Earth). Putting this flux into the S-B equation we get around 270K. This is the Moon’s ‘effective black body temperature’, David. But what is the Moon’s ACTUAL, physical mean global surface temp? It’s been measured. Because there is no atmosphere in between, this is in fact possible on the Moon. The REAL mean global surface temperature of the Moon, when evened out across the diurnal cycle, is about 200K.
This means, when ‘seen’ from space, the Moon looks like a 270K celestial body when in fact it holds an actual physical surface temperature of a mere 200K.
Funny, isn’t it?
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm:
“So it is a coincidence? And here I thought it was a calculation.”
Stop embarrassing yourself, David. It’s not a coincidence. It’s a calculation. It however bears no relevance to reality. Why are you deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ what I’m saying. It’s not hard. You only need to read it. You’re not this stupid. So why are you pretending to be?
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm:
“Kristian;
Does this calculated temperature mean anything to the actual temperature at some level somewhere in the atmosphere or solid surface of a planet like Earth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it does. Find out what “mean radiating level” is and apply it in the context of the effective black body temperature of a planet with a radiatively active atmosphere.”
You just don’t get it, do you? There is no ‘mean radiating level’. There is only a temperature S-B calculated from a measured mean flux. Again you’re not reading what I’m writing.
I know very well what the ‘effictive emission height’ hypothesis says, David. Difference is, I know how stupid it is. You don’t.
Earth doesn’t emit its 240 W/m^2 flux to space from an atmosperic level at 255K just because this temperature happens to correspond to the S-B calculated emission temperature based on that flux. The radiative flux to space from the Earth system comes primarily from 1) the solid/liquid surface, or 2) high up in the troposphere, close to the tropopause:
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/upwelling_brightness1.jpg
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460/
The first level is on average much warmer than 255K, the other one on average much colder. What does this tell you, David? Look at the data. Look at the real world. Don’t follow theoretical dogma, David. I thought you were a sceptic. The ‘EEH hypothesis’ is probably the easiest thing in ‘science’ to be sceptical to. It has NO observational support from the real Earth system whatsoever. It is purely hypothetical. So why this utterly uncritical need to promote it?
– – – – – – – –
Jennifer Marohasy,
Since Monckton has acknowledged in a comment that he is aware of your observation that there was not a 100% yes response to some of his questions, then an erratum addendum update to his main post is appropriate action for him in order to set the record straight.
Thank you for providing your observations.
John
[“Since” or “If Lord Monckton” ? … .mod]
NO. Absolutely NOT true.
Heat exchange is instantaneous. Radiation heat transfer into space is immediate, varies according to the surface temperature ^4th power, and the surface emissivity, and does NOT occur at a “mean temperature” of anything, and -therefore, using a “mean temperature” to discuss radiation heat transfer into space is dead wrong.
Heat (SW radiation) into the moon (no atmosphere) occurs at the same radius as the earth at that day-of-year, varying between a low in July of about 1310 watts/m^2 with a peak in Jan 3 of 1405 watts/m^2. Top-of-surface (there is no Top of Atmosphere on the moon of course, but top-of-surface becomes the equivalent.) Best workable approximation is a cosine wave of DOY, varying through the year. Received radiation ALSO cannot be calculated using a “mean average” and get anything useful.
By the way, half of the lunar day, radiation at top of surface = 0.00000 watts/m^2 Be sure to include the actual radiation received per second at each location in your future approximations.
At NO time does the moon EVER receive 240 watts/m^2, which by the way, is a “earth=-bottom-of-atmosphere average value that is ALSO dead wrong. On earth, the equal radiation is TOA, which varies between 1405 to 1310watts/m^2. At the moon’s orbital distance from the earth, there is no real difference. The moon’s surface receives the same input solar radiation as the earth’s top-of-atmosphere solar radiation.
Received radiation on the moon’s surface then varies by latitude and tilt on that day-of-year, just as on earth. Using a “mean average” is WRONG.
Now, the moon’s surface does EMIT into a near-perfect black space at 0.0 K.
ALL surfaces of the moon can be considered acccurately enough to emit to that temperature. NO surface on earth emits to that temperature, by the way. The upper atmosphere comes close however.
Now, go back to your “simplified approximation of nothing” above and repeat your calc’s.
You CANNOT learn ANYTHING is you use “mean avearges” because a lunar surface emits at T^4 power all the time, and conducts what is received down about 3-6 inches. Below that depth in loose dust, the temperature in the dust remains near constant. Below 24 – 36 inches deep in solid rock, conductance heat losses nears zero, and the temperature also becomes near-constant.
The surface temperature, as on Mercury where there is ALSO no atmopshere, varies between extreme heat and extreme cold. It is never “average”
And I strongly disagree with you. Thus, you are wrong and are demeaning the spirit of this venue. 8<). And my opinion is worth more than your opinion is. In my opinion.
Please show by copy/paste exactly where Lord M has acknowledged what you claim.
John Whitman says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:20 pm
richardscourtney on July 14, 2014 at 12:35 pm
Monckton of Brenchley:
Please ignore the post from John Whitman at July 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm.
Whitman is a troll who specialises in supporting the trolling of others as a method to help the other trolls destroy threads. He has a long history of doing it on WUWT threads.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
What to do when the signs of recursive troll namecalling start sprouting here?
Well when I was a boy about 10 on my grandparents farm I was taught when milking a cow to move the milk pail far away from the cow when she showed signs needing some bowel and/or bladder activity. Then to go get the scoop shovel, wheelbarrow and some fresh sawdust.
John
____________________________________________________________________________
It appears from casual observation Mr. Whitman that you started shoveling on arrival.
RACookPE1978 says, July 14, 2014 at 2:32 pm:
“You CANNOT learn ANYTHING is you use “mean avearges””
Why are you telling me this, RACookPE1978? Tell David M. Hoffer and the rest of the rGHE/EEH hypothesis promoters.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 14, 2014 at 9:11 am
“inferentially paid for their efforts”
——————————————–
Viscount Monckton, that is a big call.
I am well aware that not all on climate blogs are sceptics. I tend to categorise into –
“Sleeper”
“False flag”
“pop-corn warrior”
“snow-stormer”
However I have no evidence that any of these are paid directly for their efforts and indeed I think it unlikely. I suspect the smug satisfaction of being a “climate warrior” from the security of their Mum’s basement is sufficient for most.
Some maintain sceptic “cred” and try to steer the debate (Alinsky method).
Some poorly represent hard sceptic arguments to discredit them (New! Web optimised! Reverse Alinsky).
And some just choke and derail threads that are heading in a dangerous direction. (Does the type of sparkles a unicorn snorts effect the spectrum of its rainbow excreta?)
What I would ask you to consider that one or two may have very little interest in climate, and just want the whole crazy debate away from their own particular scientific sand-pit.
From Kristian on July 14, 2014 at 1:31 pm:
Willis Eschenbach explained that two and a half years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/the-moon-is-a-cold-mistress/
Etc, good reading. The average effective temperature remains 270K as that is what S-B gives us for the average radiation emitted. The average measured surface temperature can be less without violating S-B.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says, July 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm:
“Etc, good reading. The average effective temperature remains 270K as that is what S-B gives us for the average radiation emitted. The average measured surface temperature can be less without violating S-B.”
kadaka, did you read David M. Hoffer’s question to me? The question to which my comment was a response. It went as follows: “What would the temperature of the surface be if there were no atmosphere?”
Note, he is NOT asking about the effective (BB) temperature. So, in your mind, kadaka, would the surface temperature of Earth without an atmosphere stop at 255K? Or would it end up somewhere else? This is central to the rGHE hypothesis.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I did read one that used the term “sky dragons”. I searched online for a definition several months back to no avail. I hear they are banned; is there someone who could summarize the sky dragon mystery for me? (Also, the comment above that I read said that they believe that CO2 does not have an effect that leads to warming). Question, is that true, and if it is not, what is all the fuss?
Sorry about the question if it leads to trouble, but I was just curious to understand.
@ Ursa Felidae,
As I understand it (and please, anyone, jump in if I’m barking down the wrong well), the Sky Dragon is a euphemism for the theoretical heating of the Earth’s surface due to “greenhouse” gases (please note that I say theoretical, though it’s accepted by most. However, there is still slim room to doubt “Greenhouse Gas Heating Effect” (GHE) is the root cause of the current state of the climate, and hasn’t been proven, hence is still theoretical). There is a book, “Slaying the Sky Dragons” (I have not read it) which I gather holds some unpopular hypotheses about the actual impact of “greenhouse” gases, basically holding that they are not the cause of the warming of the Earth’s surface.
Since the “warming” itself is defined by the slope of the curve of a trend taken between two arbitrary points in history (positive slope, warming, negative, cooling), claims from “no warming” to “extreme warming” abound (if I chose to use Noon today and 4am tomorrow as my two points, I could claim dramatic cooling… And apparently many have cherry-picked their start dates in order to have given conditions which would result in just what their theories claim—while if someone picked dates decades earlier or later, those theories would be undermined by the results of the same algorithms with this differing input). Some argue that it’s futile to chose dates which are less than thousands, millions, billions of years, etc. Nearly all have valid arguments to back their claims for the dates they chose, hence the results they claim prove their pet hypothesis.
Laboratory experiments prove that certain gases absorb and re-radiate long-wave infrared radiation. The jury is still out about exactly how much impact that re-radiation has on surface temperatures, because the primary devices used to ‘calculate’ the effects of this re-radiation are computer models which can’t take into account all the possible variables which effect the resultant climate, for the simple reason that there is too much we don’t yet know–leaving aside the complexity of what we think we know.
The Slayers, as the 8 authors of the book and their adherents are sometimes called (proudly or derisively, depending upon your belief in their hypotheses, or so it appears to me), have tossed more excrement in the game with a set of hypotheses which are pretty universally derided. Some of their claims have been refuted by experiment by our host, and you can find them in the archives if you wish.
The gross omissions of basic knowledge of physics in some of their claims—as demonstrated here a number of times—makes it very difficult to take anything they say seriously.
They appear to be, collectively, a very large troll which tries to take over serious debate about science with whimsical non-science—-very much as if they desire to SEEM like skeptics, but wish to confuse the issue. I gather the thinking is that they desire to appear like skeptics in order to deceive the gullible who lean skeptic, and create flawed “skeptic” theories so that all skeptics can be derided at Warmist blogsites and in the papers. Sort of like saying Bonnie and Clyde were poster-kids for the Second Amendment; an argument that would only please gun-control advocates. I’m a military guy: this is what you’d expect of deceptive tactics; active measures to confuse the enemy. I can assure you it is a very real, and actively employed art in warfare and business. Why not here?
This last is not melodrama: one only has to look at the terribly inappropriately named, SkepticalScience blog to know that there are some who try very hard to distract.
This is what the very obvious-seeming troll John Whitman appears to be doing: trying to seem reasonable while sowing discontent. I can only agree with @ richardscourtney who says that he has experience with this individual. From his very first comment, he was pretty obviously trying to provoke. He didn’t discuss the post, he fanged CM of B.
In an aside to @ Konrad, you quoted Viscount Monckton accurately when you pasted, :
“inferentially paid for their efforts” and said, Viscount Monckton, that is a big call.
You then said, However I have no evidence that any of these are paid directly for their efforts [emphasis mine]. I agree with you that it is a big call; however, given the savagery I’ve witness in this thread… Perhaps. Even those not involved in fanging each other have tossed the adjective “stupid” around more times in this one thread than I have seen in years of casual reading on this website. Patience has been sparingly used, and the discussions a bit on the pugnacious side. That said, I have also seen a great deal of engagement by people from whom I have learned things in the past—I believe it was @ davidmhoffer who commended about actual scientists staying engaged to educate those of us who know less but want to learn. I agree with that totally, and I’m often grateful that many who know more put up with so many questions, the answers to which probably seem quite obvious to them, without getting all elitist—a characteristic of Warmists we deplore (think Michael Mann with “My science” all the time…). So it’s with no small amount of discomfort that I read CM’s claims, apparently about people from whom I’ve learned enough that I have respect for their intellect.
But I have also witnessed the savagery on this thread myself, and can draw my own conclusions (and will, eventually, after I figure out just what the hell it was I saw. It was not civil, whatever it was).
In any case, as you quoted, CM did not ever say “paid directly” but “inferentially paid”. I would have to ask exactly what he meant by that—though I can make inferences of my own if I dare—but I don’t interpret that to mean they were directly compensated. For example, reading the Venona files and Comintern files after the fall of the Soviet Union, we learn that KGB Residents wished to pay CPUSA members for their spying efforts to encourage them, but were told in no uncertain terms by Earl Browder and others in the 1930s and again in the 1940s that being paid would be an insult! They were believers and did what they did out of loyalty to the cause—they were no mercenaries! So instead, they were given token awards, made Heroes of the Soviet Union. The pay they desired was recognition, not remuneration in coin of the realm. “Inferentially paid,” as it were.
What, exactly, this inferential pay that CM of B speaks of would be, I’ve no idea. Nor from whom it would come.
Please understand I make no accusations myself—I have no evidence of such, don’t know enough about what goes on in those circles to say i could even recognize evidence if I saw it—but also know I don’t know what CM of B may have seen. Clearly I don’t have all the facts. But I would have to believe that a declaration of that sort is something for which he has a tangible source or evidence. Whether his interpretation of that source is accurate or plain wrong aside, I can’t imagine his making a claim of that sort without a source.
I’m pretty sure we’ll have to wait a bit, but by and bye the other shoe will drop.
Meanwhile, all this has been a bit of an education, a bit of a lark, and a bit alarming. I hope that civility and calm return.
Meahwhile, how ’bout dat ice in Antarctica?
From Kristian on July 14, 2014 at 5:00 pm:
Good question, loosing the atmosphere involves loosing the oceans as they would boil and vaporize as the pressure drops. The moist ground would transform into a crunchy dry lattice and dust. The solid ice would remain but be subject to sublimation and shrinkage. What were the oceans and rivers and lakes will become valleys and vast canyons filled with dust from the formerly-dissolved minerals.
So we’d wind up with likely a similar albedo to the Moon, thus an average effective temperature of 270K, although with the diurnal swings the average measured surface temperature will be less.
Kristian;
You just don’t get it, do you? There is no ‘mean radiating level’. There is only a temperature S-B calculated from a measured mean flux. Again you’re not reading what I’m writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh I am reading what you’re writing. Of COURSE there is a “mean radiating level”. How could there NOT be one? Even if photons escaped from the atmosphere completely random, even if they escaped from the atmosphere exactly as Konrad claims, there would STILL be a mean radiating level. If you want to deny that there is one, there’s nothing more to discuss because your premise is that something that obviously exists, doesn’t. I’m trying to show you that 2+2=4 using pospsicle sticks and you’ve defined one of the sticks as not existing. No point discussing further with you which is unfortunate because you have a lot of physics right, just a belief system that prevents you from taking the last logical step.
Pay attention to Kadaka, he’s pretty much nailed it. I’ve no more patience for this.
From Ursa Felidae on July 14, 2014 at 5:28 pm:
Basically the “Slayers of the Sky Dragons” claim there is no greenhouse effect by using inaccurate views of assorted scientific principles. It’s sort of like claiming you won’t get hurt when someone shoots a blunt-nosed bullet at you because the tip builds up a pressure wave that provides a cushion of air.
Don’t test that.
Here’s a helpful piece by Dr. Roy Spencer that explains some things while linking to further info.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
P@ Dolan says:
July 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well written.
@ davidmhoffer,
Coming from you sir, high praise! Thank you!
P@ Dolan:
Thankyou for your superb post at July 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm.
It provides a fine overview of the conduct of the battle over the ‘AGW issue’ as it is being conducted on blogs.
Perhaps you would consider using extracts from your post as the basis of an article for submission to our host with a view to his considering it for publication. I think such an essay would be useful.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
July 14, 2014 at 3:39 am
re. David A says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm
1.” The informal pole was NEVER represented to be scientific, but intended to make a simple point;…”
This is a straw man. I never said that it was science [quite the contrary] or that it should have been science, even though the poll was touted as an analogue to the ’97%’ poll which was supposed to be scientific. My point in general is that the questions were cleverly posed to achieve the intended propaganda effect, and that the ‘result’ was probably not even representative of the opinion of the audience [c.f. Jennifer]. Contrast the propaganda effect of ‘the consensus is not 97% it’s 100%’ with [the more correct] ‘the consensus is not 97% it’s 95%’. So, the poll was a PR-stunt, and this is not a way to conduct the debate or to ‘fight the good fight’. Better to be a ‘sneering’ lion than a bleating, corralled sheep.
==================================================
sorry Leif, but again you somehow fail logic. I never said that you said it was science. You complained that it was not science. I explained to you that it was not intended to be science but intended to make a simple point; (Now where is your straw man) That point being…
…that skeptics also overwhelming answer yes, just like the warmist brigade does, to the over simple unscientific questions purported to be answered in the pseudo scientific 97% poles. (Since that was the simple dual purpose of the question put to the skeptical community, Monckton was not “falling to their level” or any BS sophistry) Since I was being critical of your complaint that the poll was not scientific, and explained to you that it was not intended to be scientific, it is unfathomable how you can call that a straw man. (except that via a complete misrepresentation of my point, whereby you created a straw man.)
As to your 95% claim, that is a scientifically meaningless assumption on your part, and irrelevant to the simple message of the poll and the post. (By the way, having repeated once again what the simple message of the poll was, I notice you again failed to address that simple dual message.)
You then end with a pitiful repeat of a previous “sneer”, and claim to be a roaring lion. (really a bit sad)
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:35 pm
…So it was a lousy poll, a pure PR-stunt, no science….
P@ Dolan says:
July 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm
————————————
Did you mention my name in vain? Try that three times and the results may be … legion.
Allow me to introduce myself. I am not a “slayer” or a “sky dragon”. I just work in engineering. Any claims I make are supported by empirical experiments that I have simplified so others may build and run them for themselves. No harm in that surely?
Most of those branded “slayer” or “skydragon” were not. They were “false flag”
That operation was a dead end. Yet the warmists still pin their sorry hopes on it.
Any who now question the idea of a net radiative GHE at WUWT may now be branded “slayer” and silenced. Funny thing, that tactic has not worked at Talkshop, Jo Nova or Climate etc..
You just received high praise from –
A. Sleeper
B. False flag
C. Snow-stormer
This one shouldn’t be too hard….( I mean it’s multiple choice and “C” clearly wasn’t the answer).
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 6:24 pm:
“Oh I am reading what you’re writing.”
Obviously, you’re not. If you did, you wouldn’t keep repeating your completely unsubstantiated tripe.
Again, be a sceptic, not a useful idiot.
“Of COURSE there is a “mean radiating level”. How could there NOT be one?”
Yes, we get it. You base this ‘mean radiating level’ on the purely mathematical 255K BB temp of Earth as ‘seen’ from space. Even though we all know the radiative flux to space (the 240 W/m^2 one) in reality is a final, cumulative flux with contributions from ALL layers of the Earth system, from solid surface to ToA. It isn’t related to any one temperature at all. It is just the flux that the Earth system as a whole needs to shed to balance the incoming from the Sun. No matter where it’s being radiated from. Most of it is emitted from layers at temperatures much warmer or much colder than your 255K. Because the surface emits a fair bit directly out to space. And because convection brings water vapour from the liquid surface high up into the troposphere, towards the tropopause, for it to release its latent heat to warm the tropospheric column, from where it can then be radiated to space.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/surface-1/rain_ANN.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/column-1/hatm_ANN.png
And you still don’t see the logical short circuit going on in trying to relate this purely theoretical construct of yours directly to the physical mean temperature of Earth’s surface.
I say good luck to you, David. Because I have no patience with people like you, totally blinkered by dogma. Try to think. That’s what sceptics do. The dogmatic don’t think. They don’t need to. They already ‘know’ the answer. Because it’s been handed to them.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 14, 2014 at 9:14 am
————————————–
Well step up to the plate!
Are you good enough? Did you make the idiot mistake of thinking I’m a “slayer” or “sky-dragon”?
Let’s look at the idea of a polished aluminium planet receiving an average of 240 w/m2, without atmosphere. After mistakes and discussion at Talkshop, the average temperature of such a surface is probably around 450K*. ( lower than what I had previously indicated)
What would that look like from space? Well, with reflection and emission combined, about 240 w/m2 outgoing ( like 255K from a blackbody).
Let’s add a thick methane atmosphere. Now the surface cools by conduction and convection. For surface pressure of 1 bar, surface temp is now below 450K.
And from space? 255K.
The reason? UV/SW absorption is almost 10 times greater than IR emissivity of aluminium.
Aluminium is a “selective surface” not a “near blackbody”
But we don’t live on planet aluminium, we live on planet ocean. Are the oceans a “near blackbody” or are they a selective surface?
Please, show me your “sleeper powers”. Go on, dreg up those papers measuring apparent emissivity for water and claim that equals the effective emissivity of water.
Have you, like me, empirically checked with background IR minimised? I bet you haven’t. You’re just another light weight aren’t you?
The plate. Step up. I’m swinging. Come on, you have the advantage. I am permanently on moderation delay at WUWT because some people have jelly for spines. Have a free swing. WUWT won’t censor you because they have to hide their burning “lukewarmer” shame….
(awww, come on, it’s good bet. WUWT is now entirely aligned with the ‘softlanding” hopes of the warmists.)
And
– – – – – – – –
To P@ Dolan – Yes, I have had many extensive dialogs with richardscourtney going back several years that have been the basis of fundamental disagreements on a wide range of topics. OTHER NOTE: My initial comment on this thread was responding directly to a Monckton comment that seems quite out of place on this venue.
To F. Ross – Monckton knows of Jennifer Marohasy’s observation. Here is Monckton’s comment on Marohasy’s observation:
F. Ross, so, a Monckton update to the main post does seem to be an appropriate step to me.
John
From Konrad on July 15, 2014 at 4:25 am:
Thank you for confirming the state of debased debauched decrepit devolved deviant deficient neo-science rumored to be found at ShortSheila’s Gabfest, a site of “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”, where after group discussion it was decided you can get 2,330W/m^2 coming out of a polished metal sphere with only 240W/m^2 going in.
At an almost ten to one ratio, you should all be seeking investors for research and development as what you have discovered has far more potential than eCats and similar devices.
@ Konrad says:
July 15, 2014 at 3:27 am
Whups— Please, simmer down. I didn’t call anyone anything, other than saying Mr Whitman was an “obvious-seeming troll”. I was pointing out that you quoted CM of B accurately about “interentially paid” and then in your remarks to his words, said “paid directly”. The way I read the original, it means they got something from it, but not money. I infer it to mean a quid pro quo, but not of the mercantile sort—in the way that some people will not accept gratuities, but will thank you for making a charitable contribution in their name/memory. For some, and in certain situations, has the power to make a quid pro quo which, if consumated with money would seem wrong, perfectly acceptable.
I merely pointed out that your quote was not the equivalent of what he said, and I infer very different meanings of both, and so might others.
I in no way meant to claim you were anything, since I don’t know you or anything about you. For all I know, you consider yourself the Lost Dauphin and a non-skeptic. I sorta think not, but how would I know? I meant no insult, meant no implication in my communication with you.
So I’ll kindly ignore your question, if that’s ok. I prefer not to answer hypotheticals or leading questions generally speaking.
And not speaking of you specifically at the moment, so again, no offense intended, but what I see in the last few hundred posts or so is not only a lack of civility among responses, but an almost eagerness to be provoked in most everyone else. The environment on this thread has been toxic almost from the first. I’m no scientist, but this is not how intellectual inquiry is performed, that I’ve ever heard.
I don’t have any answers for you. And speaking for myself, I don’t see that anyone else has, either. People have lots of data, but haven’t hit upon the hypothesis to string them all together.
@ John Whitman, my apologies. While I still think it appears that you threw excrement in the game for your own purposes, I don’t generally go in for name-calling. I was rude. Please forgive me. But if you would, in the future, please quote what it is to which you comment? As Willis says, that helps eliminate misunderstandings. A little.
@ richardscourney, I will take your suggestion under advisement. I consider myself a neutral party among those that are not alarmists; I don’t need a label for myself, and what others have called me over the years… Well, one thing the Navy does is cure a sailor of being thin-skinned!
One thing to note about alarmists: they’re very united in their beliefs and cause. This is their strength: not their dogma, or the non-thinking adherence to whatever the high-priests of Green say, but perhaps because of this, they aren’t fragmented into groups, and present a very united front. In my estimation, were it not for this, their entire argument would’ve long-since been swept away by the plethora of evidence that suggests or in some cases proves many of their theories are wrong.
But a lack of cohesion among “skeptics” doesn’t help rid us of the problems the alarmists are creating.
Let us be clear here: the BIG problem is not whether or not the globe is warming. It will do what it will do with little we can do about it. The big problem is what the policymakers are doing, armed with a “crisis” to exploit. Another big problem is corporations (like Big Oil, those guys who supposedly pay our host so much) who exploit the situation. All exacerbated by academics who exploit the situation either for grants or for their ego. And I don’t simply mean the obvious characters—all those unknowns who submit papers which give lipservice to “climate change” in order to get published, even though they don’t really have anything to do with the subject (h/t to @ Brandon Shollenberger who first brought this problem to my attention)…each and every one who bows to peer pressure in order to get through peer-review furthers the cause of the alarmists, the policymakers, the corporations, and everyone else who exploits this situation.
That is, in my estimation, the true problem. The science is never a problem: sooner or later, someone will, willy-nilly, accidentally or of a purpose, discover a new theory, and life will go on.
I see the agenda of those who are NOT exploiters as two-fold: to help end the hoax so as to remove the tool which the exploiters are harming people, to the point of freezing, starvation and abject misery, an we do that by proving the alarmists wrong.
Hard to get where we need to go if we’re fighting with ourselves every step of the way.
Duh… Mods, can you fix my unintentional boldness?
Thanx…
P@ Dolan:
In your post at July 15, 2014 at 10:09 am you say you don;t intend to provide a lead post. I regret this because you make a very good case.
I especially like your concluding statement that says
And that is why the comment of Monckton of Brenchley at July 14, 2014 at 9:11 am is so important.
Richard
@richardscourtney
I’m not saying no, more like, I would like to, and will if I can arrange the time. I feel very strongly on the subject, as I believe you have demonstrated you do as well.
@ kadaka (KD Knoebel),
I am schooled. I’ve seen them addressed that way before, and seen their replies that way, and simply followed example. I’ll keep your advice in mind. Regarding the mistakes; I’m a some-time coder who has done webdesign; force of habit using tags on the fly without preview. Pride, and stupidity, I may add, go-eth before the fall…
Cheers to you both!
p@
@ P@ Dolan:
If you wish the attention of the moderation staff, it is best to use their full title in your comment as that automatically sends it to the filter for review by one of them.
I usually start off my polite requests with:
Dear Moderators,
Using “please” in your request doesn’t hurt.
BTW, that error would have been apparent if you were using CA Assistant which gives you a Preview function. I can catch practically all my formatting mistakes by using it.
John Whitman says:
July 15, 2014 at 5:34 am
“…so, a Monckton update to the main post does seem to be an appropriate step to me.”
Update to what point? Lord M simply says he is aware of Ms Mahorasy’s post;, he can’t go back and retro-actively count unseen raised hands that might change a spoof poll by some few percentage points. After all, his point was to show how ridiculous Cook et al. “consensus” paper is, and he did just that.
P@ Dolan (@7:20pm),
Well said. I wish I (still) had your patience.
Keep paying attention. I look forward to your continued input here.
– – – – – – – –
P@ Dolan,
Your response appreciated.
I was not offended by any of your comments directed at me. Your apology was well intended and sincerely done, so even if unnecessary it was a very nice gesture.
Please note in my comment to Monckton that I did reference his comment header so it was known clearly which comment of his I was talking about and I was talking about his whole comment.
Also, please understand that I think calling people trolls (as Monckton and richardscourtney did on this thread and which they often do on WUWT threads) is the most inanely juvenile type of namecalling I see here at WUWT. My evolved concept of troll makes me see essentially no trolls at WUWT in the last year or two.
Finally, richardscourtney and I can and often do have profoundly incompatible fundamental concepts (philosophies) while it can also be possible we both often find some key aspects of CAGW false / unsubstantiated but for different reasons. : )
[ NOTE: I have never found substantiation in the aggregate views which some refer to as the so-called ‘Dragon Slayer’ position. ]
John
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:49 am
————————————-
Well, you swung and you missed 😉
“Thank you for confirming the state of debased debauched decrepit devolved deviant deficient neo-science rumored to be found at ShortSheila’s Gabfest, a site of “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”, where after group discussion it was decided you can get 2,330W/m^2 coming out of a polished metal sphere with only 240W/m^2 going in.”
Well you have just confirmed much about those supporting the AGW hypothesis 😉
Perhaps a little brush up on your spacecraft thermal control reading will help –
http://www.tak2000.com/data/Satellite_TC.pdf
– try page 53.
Your claim “where after group discussion it was decided you can get 2,330W/m^2 coming out of a polished metal sphere with only 240W/m^2 going in.” is utterly false. I was never claiming 2330 w/m2 leaving a polished metal sphere for 240 w/m2 entering.
Is this your best way to combat the evil “no net radiative GHE” sceptic? Lying?
Polished metals have very low absorptivity and emissivity. However for many polished metals, their ability to emit IR is lower than their ability to absorb SW/UV/SWIR. It is this difference in absorptivity to emissivity that allows polished metals to achieve high temperatures when exposed to sun in a vacuum.
Many polished metals are effectively “selective surfaces”. Polished nickel would be an extreme example. In full sun at 1AU in a vacuum it can heat to incandescence.
My “Planet Aluminium” example is valid. Why? Because the oceans on our planet are also a “selective surface” with UV/SW/SWIR absorptivity greater than their IR emissivity.
So for “Planet Aluminium” surface temp in absence of an atmosphere would be around 180C for an average of 240 w/m2 of solar radiation. Add a highly radiative methane atmosphere and that surface temperature would drop. From space planet aluminium would now appear to be emitting 240 w/m2 from its methane atmosphere. For planet aluminium, a radiative atmosphere reduces surface temperature. The same is true for our planet, Planet Ocean.
From Konrad on July 15, 2014 at 5:03 pm:
http://www-eng.lbl.gov/~dw/projects/DW4229_LHC_detector_analysis/calculations/emissivity2.pdf
Polished Aluminum at 100°C has a total emissivity of 0.095.
Polished Nickel at “low” temperature has a total emissivity of 0.12, at 1204°C it is 0.32.
If polished nickel is an “extreme example” while it has a higher emissivity than polished aluminum, then a polished aluminum planet would be hotter than a polished nickel planet.
As you believe your polished aluminum planet would only reach 450K, then polished nickel must reach incandescence at considerably lower temperatures.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:15 pm
————————————
Nope, no way out there.
The table you linked to shows emissivity only. It is for calibrating IR instruments. (It does give you a clue to one important thing though – emissivity is not constant with material temperature)
You need to know both absorptivity AND emissivity to work out the temperature response of polished metals in a vacuum. And when you look you will find the ratio is more extreme for nickel than it is for aluminium. So no, a polished aluminium planet would not be hotter than a nickel planet.
The point of the “Planet Aluminium” thought problem is to demonstrate two things –
A. A radiative atmosphere can cool a planet.
B. Errors in the basic assumptions about surface properties can cause alarming errors in calculations.
AGW and indeed the entire radiative GHE hypothesis is invalidated by just such an error. Every single claim of AGW has the same foundation – that the average surface temp would be -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. This claim depends on the surface being a “near blackbody” and the oceans most assuredly are not. They are instead a “selective surface”.
The selective surface problem for the oceans is twofold. First like some polished metals they have a UV/SW/IR absorptivity higher than their IR emissivity. (empirical experiment shows that the effective, not apparent, emissivity is far lower than the 0.95 figure used by climastrologists).
Second they are semi transparent to UV/SW and opaque to IR. This causes a second selective surface effect not encountered with polished metals. It can be demonstrated by this very simple experiment you can build and run for yourself –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Illuminate the blocks equally with IR and they will both rise to the same temperature. However illuminate with SW and block A will exceed the temperature of block B. Use 1000 w/m2 of SW and you can create a temperature differential of 20C in 3 hours.
These two selective surface effects combined mean that 71% of our planets surface would not be at -18C in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. Average temperatures for the oceans would be well above their current temperatures. Ocean surface Tmax could exceed 80C. That means our atmosphere is cooling the oceans. And the atmosphere in turn has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases.
Climastrologists have not just gotten it “a little bit wrong”, they have gotten it totally and utterly wrong. The lukewarmer and AGW believer hopes of “warming but less than we thought” are in vain. AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility on Planet Ocean.
From Konrad on July 15, 2014 at 9:13 pm:
It is a known corollary of Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation that at thermodynamic equilibrium (aka radiative equilibrium, thermal equilibrium) emissivity and absorptivity are the same. In understandable language, energy out equals energy in at equilibrium, therefore the ability to emit must equal the ability to receive.
You are discussing the final temperatures these planets will reach, that is at thermal equilibrium, not temperature response on the way to thermal equilibrium. Therefore the lower emissivity planet would be hotter, the polished aluminum planet would be hotter than the polished nickel planet.
Now for the bonus question. Emissivity and absorptivity are surface effects. Therefore a polished aluminum foil planet, a hollow sphere of thin material around vacuum, should likewise attain a 450K average surface temperature, as the energy that would be retained by a solid sphere would necessarily be retained within the hollow sphere as the only way for it to be lost either way is through a polished aluminum surface. True or false?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 15, 2014 at 10:19 pm
———————————-
Still not winning?
“It is a known corollary of Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation that at thermodynamic equilibrium (aka radiative equilibrium, thermal equilibrium) emissivity and absorptivity are the same. In understandable language, energy out equals energy in at equilibrium, therefore the ability to emit must equal the ability to receive.”
No, at equilibrium temperature energy absorbed equals energy radiated. Emissivity and absoirbivity need not be equal. The issue is the temperature that the material needs to rise to to effectively radiate at the rate it is absorbing. For polished nickel this temperature is higher than polished aluminium.
“Therefore the lower emissivity planet would be hotter, the polished aluminum planet would be hotter than the polished nickel planet.”
Again, false. You need to know the ratio between absorptivity and emissivity. Emissivity alone is no good for polished metals.
“Now for the bonus question. Emissivity and absorptivity are surface effects. Therefore a polished aluminum foil planet, a hollow sphere of thin material around vacuum, should likewise attain a 450K average surface temperature, as the energy that would be retained by a solid sphere would necessarily be retained within the hollow sphere as the only way for it to be lost either way is through a polished aluminum surface. True or false?”
Actually false. The calculation for ~450K is actually one for surface only, effectively a foil planet. It ignores mass and speed of internal conduction. A solid aluminium planet would actually be hotter than the ~basic S-B calc of 450K.
This is important because this is in part what is behind the second selective surface effect for the ocean I described. The thermal capacity and speed of internal non-radiative transport become serious factors in semi transparent UV/SW selective materials.
The simple response for those who doubt a human contribution to climate change. You simply say you are agnostic and there is nothing Leif or Mosher can do about it, as it is a completely legitimate scientific position to take.
Poptech says:
July 17, 2014 at 6:19 am
———————————
Pretty good. Not good enough.
Fair effort thought. The whole “sceptics need to be pal-reviewed to be credible” thing.
I won’t say “you almost got away with it”, because YOU didn’t 😉
Oh, in case you missed it, your lot just exposed and lost another “sleeper” debating on this thread 😉
You personally blew it way back attacking “pattern recognition”. Smoke and flames. Visual to impact. No chutes…
Do you have anyone left? Anyone I haven’t already marked?
20mm hexolite. Don’t leave home without it…;-)
Konrad, so you did not understand basic logic about PRP? I take it I have to do a write up about this to make it more clear. Not to mention your comment is incoherent.