SMPTE color bars - Click for your own test pattern kit
This page is for posters to test comments prior to submitting them to WUWT. Here is a list of common formatting and special characters. You can try testing your comments below.
h/t to Ric Werme for compiling these tables.
Formatting in comments
Neither WUWT nor WordPress provide much documentation for the HTML formatting permitted in comments. There are only a few commands that are useful, and a few more that are pretty much useless.
A typical HTML formatting command has start and end pieces and has general form of <name>text to be formatted</name>.
A common mistake is to forget the closing tag like </b>. This can have consequences for the entire thread, so please be careful.
Also, WordPress does provide an autolink feature if you simply type in the URL into the comment form, there’s no need to use tags, but you can if you want. The risk is high, in that if you forget to close the tag, or format it improperly, you can cause you entire comment to become a link.
Don’t want to use codes? Try Comment Preview/Editing with Greasemonkey/CA Assistant
If you use Firefox, you can install Greasemonkey, and you can use it to do formatting and test it prior to submitting comments. Combine Greasemonkey with the CA Assistant (developed for Climate Audit by Mr. Pete) and you have a way to fully preview and edit comments prior to submitting – see details here
Commonly used codes for embedding in comments
| Name | Sample | Result |
|---|---|---|
| b (bold) | This is <b>bold</b> text | This is bold text |
| i (italics) | This is <i>italicized</i> text | This is italicized text |
| a (anchor) | See <a href=http://wermenh.com>My home page</a> | See My home page |
| blockquote (indent text) | My text<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>
More of my text |
My text
More of my text |
| strike | This is <strike>text with strike</strike> | This is text with strike |
| code (use for monospace display) | <code>Wordpress handles this completely differently</code> | WordPress handles this completely differently |
Special characters in comments
Those of us who remember acceptance of ASCII-68 (a specification released in
1968) are often not clever enough to figure out all the nuances of today’s
international character sets. Besides, most keyboards lack the keys for those
characters, and that’s the real problem. Even if you use a non-ASCII but useful
character like ° (as in 23°C) some optical character recognition software
or cut and paste operation is likely to change it to 23oC or worse,
230C.
Nevertheless, there are very useful characters that are most reliably entered
as HTML
character entities:
| Type this | To get | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| & | & | Ampersand |
| < | < | Less than signLeft angle bracket |
| ° | ° | Degree (Use with C and F, but not K (kelvins)) Alt + numeric keypad 0176 also works |
| ⁰¹
² ³ ⁴ |
⁰¹
² ³ ⁴ |
Superscripts (use 8304, 185, 178-179, 8308-8313 for digits 0-9) |
| ₀₁
₂ ₃ |
₀₁
₂ ₃ |
Subscripts (use 8320-8329 for digits 0-9) |
| £ | £ | British pound |
| ñ | ñ | For La Niña & El Niño Alt + numeric keypad 0164 also works |
| µ | µ | Mu, micro |
| ± | ± | Plus or minus |
| | Like a space, with no special processing (i.e. word wrapping or multiple space discarding) |
|
| > | > | Greater than signRight angle bracket
Generally not needed |
Happy commenting!
⁰⁴⁵⁶⁷⁹
¹² ³
Superscripts (use [alt]8304, 0185, 0178-179, 8308-8313 for digits 0-9)
Nifty.
Thank you for adding this information on how to format our posts! I was thinking of asking for it, looks like some others did.
On a side note, does anybody know of a Mac OSX program where you can type in formatted comments for forums like this and then hit ‘run’ to see what it looks like?
Being able to post graphs would be great they would need to be posted online.
Posting Images
You can use HTML code to post an image (eg – a graph). The image needs to be hosted online. The HTML code is:
Here is a try
you should add the “/sarc” also.
In order to display images and graphs in the comments a plugin must be installed by the administrator. See http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/comment-image
This would be very useful.
REPLY: Sorry, not gonna happen. wordpress.com hosting does not allow plugins for security reasons – Anthony
a href=”http://www.wattsupwiththat.com”>link</a
link
I am going to try a whack of code here. Please bear with me. Just trying some variations.
I wonder if I can have raised text? Like; testing testing 1,2,3. Maybe sub and super text? Testing, testing, testing.
I also want to test -10° C, or does that have to have end pieces like -10C ?
Testing to see if a
link anchor works.
Perhaps something big will catch the eye.
Maybe I want to centre my comment?
Like this
Maybe I want to separate some text with a line?
Like this?
Why do I like WUWT?
Interesting articles?
Thoughtful commentary?
Easy to navigate?
Pictures of naked science?
Maybe I want to quote someone?
50¢ Or does there need to be a space? 50 ¢
El Niño
This has been a test of the emergency commenting system. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
I didn’t realise just how much noscript was interfering with the code. Also, using greasemonkey and Mr Petes script has made a world of difference. Testing testing.
Example 2:
List item 1
List item 2
List item 3
List item 4
That concludes our broadcast day. Be sure to tune in tomorrow for more of your favourite programming.
bold on & off Thanks, Anthony!
H2O
¡
¢
£
¤
¥
¦
§
¨
©
ª
«
¬
®
¯
°
±
²
³
´
µ
¶
·
¸
¹
º
»
¼
½
¾
¿
€
≤
≥
≠
÷
×
−
&frasl
√
∞
ƒ
∴
¹
²
³
‰
≅
≈
H2O
H&178;
H&8322;
₂
Peter Plail writes:
Peer review is intended and designed to exclude only the most ridiculous errors and excursions. Peer review, when it works, should assure you only that reading the paper is not a complete waste of time.
Peer review does not, cannot, and should not act as a seal of approval from any authority. Any one who appeals only to the authority of the peer review is either lazy or incompetent or both. You have to read and understand the paper and form your own judgement. That is why people get so exercised about full disclosure, or the lack of it.
System reinstall. Testing CA assistant plugin.
A test
double line break commands
test website
While it is a well written article and does discuss a (potentially) much better alternative to energy future than windmills, etc… he does show his true colours and rather spoil the article with this statement:
I think that the first job climatologists need to actually prove is that CO2 (and other GHGs) will actually lead to a runaway super-hothouse.
For me that still hasn’t been proven.
test
Following John from CA
February 3, 2011 at 5:37 pm
¡
¢
£
¤
¥
¦
§
¨
©
ª
«
¬
®
¯
°
±
²
³
´
µ
¶
·
¸
¹
º
»
¼
½
¾
¿
€
≤
≥
≠
÷
×
−
&frasl
√
∞
ƒ
∴
¹
²
³
‰
≅
≈
empty links: #23
Embedding images?
http://ber.parawag.net/images/CRUTEM3-HadSST2_1969-2010.jpg
This is a sample link. Testing testing…
more testing…
test italics
Ahahahahaha! Andy G wins the thread.
strikeno strike throughmods,
Just a test for linking properly.
———-
Alec Rawls says:
March 24, 2011 at 1:25 am
- – - – - – -
Alex Rawls,
Regarding your discussion of the ideas that solar activity levels and variations may be a significant cause of average earth surface temperature levels and variation, here is a relevant presentation (Dec 2010) by Prof. Vincent Courtillot. He touches on several aspects of solar variations versus climate. I found his talk to have some merit.
What are your views on his ideas?
John
mods,
Just testing my html tags.
——-
John
Testing the mighty greasemonkey.
http://www.bmreports.com/bwh_Indo.htm
Myrrh says:
March 27, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Myhrr,
Without reopening the whole discussion again, here a few remarks:
- That pre-Mauna Loa CO2 levels were higher in some years is based on the work of the late Ernst Beck. I have read his work in detail. The main problem with his work is that many of the historical measurements were done over land, where you can measure any level of CO2: extremely high at night and near huge sources, very low during daylight near vegetation. The 1942 peak value is mainly from two long series over land (Giessen, Germany and Poona, India), with huge variability (Giessen: 68 ppmv – one sigma). In the same year at the other end of the world (US) values of 250 ppmv were measured. Both series and the value from the US can’t be used to estimate backgound CO2 levels of that period. Measurements on ships over the oceans and coastal with wind from the seaside show values around the ice core CO2 levels for the overlapping periods. There is no 1942 “peak” visible in ice cores, neither in stomata data or d13C values of coralline sponges.
- Segalstad is wrong on many counts: there is not the slightest connection between residence time and excess CO2 decay time. Residence time only shows how much CO2 is exchanged over the seasons, but that has nothing to do with how much CO2 is added or removed at the end of a full seasonal cycle. That is what counts, not which molecules (human or natural) are left. And as humans add twice the amount which is measured as increase, that makes that humans are fully responsible for most of the increase.
- new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques.
How can you validate a new technique with an accuracy of +/-0.1 ppmv against a wet chemical method “accurate” to +/-10 ppmv? Keeling validated the new method against an extreme accurate manometric method (1:40,000).
- Jaworowski tells stories from 1992, which were fully refuted in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a.: Etheridge measured CO2 levels top down in the firn from near the surface to closing depth. That shows that the CO2 levels at 72 m depth in average are some 10 years older than at the surface (with similar levels in ice and firn), while the ice is already 40 years old. Thus Jaworowski is completely wrong that there is no difference between ice age and gas age in ice cores. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
Further, it is physically impossible to measure lower CO2 levels in ice cores, if the outside CO2 level is much higher and there would be cracks in the ice which allow exchanges with the outside world.
- Volcanic CO2 is estimated less than 1% of human emissions. Even the largest volcanic eruption of the past 50 years, the Pinatubo, caused a drop in CO2 increase rate, as the cooling resulting from the ash cloud caused more absorption than the extra addition of CO2 from the eruption. Moreover, what Timothy Casey missed is that volcanic CO2 is higher in d13C than the atmospheric CO2, but we see a decrease in d13C, not an increase.
About your own objections:
- Mauna Loa was not the first station where CO2 was measured, the South Pole was first. Mauna Loa only confirmed the South Pole measurements.
- Mauna Loa monitors the CO2 levels continuously. If there is a huge variability within an hour of the 10-second samples, then the data are not used for averaging. That happens with downwind conditions. In fact these data (some +4 ppmv) are used to calculate the emissions from the volcano. The same for upwind conditions, where slightly depleted levels (-4 ppmv, caused by vegetation in the valley) are found. Taking these values into the averaging doesn’t change the average with more than 0.1 ppmv, neither changes the trend. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo2004_hr_raw.jpg and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo2004_hr_selected.gif
- and all the data is now co-ordinated to fit
This is pure nonsense. The only thing that is coordinated by the WMO via NOAA is the preparation and calibration of calibration mixtures (even so, Scripps has its own calibration mixtures). The 70 baseline stations are operated by different people from different organisations in different countries. Nobody tells them to “fit” some agenda. Or do you think that not one of the hundreds of people involved would bring that out?
- Oh right, the old “well-mixed” meme. And somehow large amounts of CO2 are sticky? Or what?
It is a matter of mixing speed: If you release a huge quantity at once, that amount is residing near ground, eventually killing trees (Mammoth Lakes) and humans (African lake). But within hours, the wind disperses and mixes CO2 within other molecules. To distribute that worldwide needs time: days to weeks within one latitude and altitude, weeks to months within one hemisphere for different altitudes and latitudes and some 14 months between the hemispheres. That are the differences you see in the monthly satellite data: some +/-8 ppmv over the seasons (look at the scale!). If that isn’t well mixed, then I don’t know what is well mixed according to you.
And the trend everywhere is +60 ppmv over the past 50 years, far beyond the temporary differences over the seasons.
- Brownian motion: If molecules can transport heavier items over any distance, then there is no reason that they can’t carry much smaller molecules to any place in the atmosphere, even if these are relative heavier than the average. CO2 levels at 3,400 m at Mauna Loa are the same as at sea level on Hawai. While wind and convection are the main mixing items, Brownian motion is what keeps CO2 and any other gas in the mix.
For CFC’s in the stratosphere, see:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=9549
CO2 levels are amongst the best measured and quality controlled data I know of. It doesn’t matter if you use the Mauna Loa data or any of the other baseline stations (“global” CO2 data is the average of several sealevel stations, Mauna Loa not included). All show the same trend. One can only hope that one day the temperature data will be of the same quality…
MAKING COMPLAINTS TO THE BBC
Do you want to complain to the BBC?
One thing to get straight from the start: – responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content within their Editorial Guidlines rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief. This may save complainants a great deal of frustration as the vast Kafka-like bureaucratic monster that the BBC has become will have you pushed from pillar to post as each department asserts that their department is not the one to deal with your complaint, and fobs you off to yet another department or the BBC’s “complaints” web page. Having had a long experience of dealing with BBC producers and editors, I can say with some authority that complaints are routinely ignored, dismissed, or, as in the case of emails, deleted by one of their army of “screeners” who filter out all averse comments from their boss’ Inbox.
So write a letter to this bloke, who’s supposedly running the operation -
Mark Thompson, BBCDirector-General
Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
UK
020 7580 4468
Fax 020 7637 1630
Contact the BBC directly
The BBC Trust
“Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.”
– Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.
Re. AGW bias:
Last year, Alison Hastings said this:
“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”
Contacting her directly -
Alison Hastings
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
UK
Telephone: 03700 100 222
Textphone: 03700 100 212
Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
For the record, I have written to Alison Hastings myself about the BBC’s coverage of AGW, and I can tell you that she did not reply. Instead, I got a letter from her Correspondence Manager, Bruce Vander. He said that the Trust has no role in editorial matters, which are the domain of the BBC’s management. The Trust’s role is to set out the overall framework, known as the BBC’s Editorial Guidlines, which set out the values and standards that all BBC output should meet. He also pointed me to the complaints page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints and said the Trust conducts regular impartiality reviews of BBC editorial content. The current impartiality review concerns science coverage, including global warming, and its findings are due to be published later this year.
From all that, I conclude the way to complain is firstly via the complaints page, then to the management, then finally to the Director-General himself.
The BBC will only change their behaviour on this subject if they get a regular avalanche of complaints from the public. They are an insulated, self-serving, arrogant, incestous bureaucracy which ignores the very public it proclaims itself to serve. The more you let them get away with it, the more they will get away with. If the BBC knows their biased and unfair treatment of AGW and the participants in their programs will invoke an avalanche of objections from viewers and listeners, they may well alter the content of their programs to make them less biased and unfair.
Also write to the BBC Complaints department
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UT
UK
There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
make a complaint via this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code
Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
(UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)
or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR
There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/
or write to -
Feedback
PO Box number 67234
London
SE1P 4AX
telephone 03 333 444 544
feedback@bbc.co.uk
You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not about online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBC Statement:
We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.
Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?
We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.
If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.
If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.
Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?
If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days
If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.
Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml
Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?
The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.
Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.
You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.
We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email other BBC programs directly:
Storyville
storyville@bbc.co.uk
Broadcasting House
broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight Investigations
NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight
newsnight@bbc.co.uk
Horizon
horizon@bbc.co.uk
Emma Jay
Producer/Director BBC Vision Productions (Horizon)
emma.jay@bbc.co.uk
The Today Program
todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commissioning Editors
The British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning
Knowledge
George Entwistle
Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
(Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)
Emma Swain
Head of Knowledge Commissioning
emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.
Krishan Arora
Independents Executive
krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.
Mary FitzPatrick
Executive Editor Diversity
mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.
Documentaries
Charlotte Moore
Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
Room 6060
BBC TV Centre
Wood Lane
London
W12 7RJ
UK
charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk
Emma Willis
Commissioning Executive Producer
emma.willis@bbc.co.uk
Maxine Watson
Commissioning Executive Producer
maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC, if it were needed, that their daily alarmism is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC, if it were needed, that their daily alarmism is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
Help! This page isn’t working!
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
HTML tags will get the submission deleted.
HTML tags are deleting comments.
…except this one.
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
THIS IS A TEST HEADLINE
Previous attempts to make this comment have not worked, so let’s have another try.
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
WHY WON’T THIS WORK?
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
This page is interesting. Sometimes it displays comments with html tags and other times the comment just vanishes…
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
Why are HTML tags making comments vanish?
Try it yourself!
New Attempt
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
Attempt to get this comment posted
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
THE BBC IS IN THIS HEADLINE
Let’s see if it appears as formatted.
This is odd. If you use HTML code on your first line followed without a break with the letters BBC, (like this: BBC) the entire post vanishes. But if you use the same tags with a word in front of BBC (like this: THE BBC the post appears as formatted.
["Kate" seems to be a single issue spammer trying to get her message out through us . . I approved one of her posts and then told her to stop spamming and she reacts with more and more . . does Anthony have an opinion?]
[Reply to the mod's comment above: Who are you? You need an identifier, it's in the rules for moderators. Like this: ~dbs, mod.] [I am sorry , my name is kab]
What can we conclude from all this?
There is a serious flaw in the blog script which does not allow HTML tags to be followed by the letter B. You should be able to use whatever letter you want after a formatting instruction such as “” continuing to the end of the tag ““, and if using the letter B (or any other particular letter) immediately following the HTML tag makes the entire post disappear, it’s the blog software itself that’s flawed.
THE BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
BBC TEST
Body text.
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
“Why make a game about climate change?
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
More info on this page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
THE BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
TEST THE BBC BRAINWASHES KIDS
body text…
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat – Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own climate change game. I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
Test this out; A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat.
- Hitler was not alone in brainwashing vulnerable young people.
Hitler.
The last several tests have proven that this site will delete all posts containing the word H i t l e r.
If they said that before, it could have saved me a lot of time finding it out.
BBC BRAINWASH FOR KIDS ABOUT AGW
A survey conducted among 24,000 schoolkids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
THE BBC BRAINWASH FOR KIDS ABOUT AGW
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
ATTEMPTED BBC BRAINWASH FOR KIDS ABOUT AGW
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
Goebbels
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of the BBC’s climate lies?
How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of the BBC’s climate lies?
The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam.
The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society
- our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious scam.
- our kids – are the victims of this
horrendous, vicious scam.
horrendous, vicious
scam.
[Kate, if you use a word like "fraud," the post will be automatically diverted into the spam folder. That's really not a problem, if the post is reasonable. It will just take longer for it to appear because it's another step for the moderator to go through the spam folder and mark it "not spam." Then it appears as a public comment. ~dbs, mod.]
s c a m.
Will someone post a list of words that will be censored on this site? The latest word I’ve found which gets my entire post deleted is S C A M.
- and while we’re about it, I would like an explanation as to why this word is considered so offensive.
fraud
f r a u d
[Kate, WUWT doesn't bar certain words. A WordPress algorithm does. They don't tell us what those words are. But you can figure some of them out. I've unapproved this post so only you can see it. But it made it through moderation without any problem. ~dbs, mod.]
There’s another one – F R A U D
THE BBC’s AGW BRAINWASH FOR KIDS
A survey conducted among 24,000 school-kids by the BBC has found that 49% of them rate climate change as the second biggest threat facing humanity. Confirmation for the boys and girls at the BBC that their daily alarmism and constant drip-feed of lying propaganda is working a treat
If that wasn’t enough, there’s another nice scarefest wheeze afoot – the BBC’s very own “Climate Change” game, I kid you not. They’ve spent God knows how much of our money devising it, and this is how it is introduced:
“Why make a game about climate change?
“Currently there is a growing consensus amongst climate researchers that Earth’s climate is changing in response to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The main debate amongst scientists is focused on the amount of climate change we can expect, not whether it will happen. With the current level of debate in mind, the BBC decided a game might be a good introductory route into climate change and some of the issues this creates for governments around the world.
“The producers’ primary goal was to make a fun, challenging game. At times it was necessary to strike a compromise between strict scientific accuracy and playability. For this reason, Climate Challenge should not be taken as a serious climate change prediction.
“Wherever possible, real research has been incorporated into the game. This document describes the scientific sources used to create Climate Challenge and some of the compromises made by the producers. These sources are a good starting point for someone interested in learning more about climate change. This document also describes some of the compromises the producers made for the sake of playability.”
…etc
It goes on using such liberal dollops of cod science, vapid generalisation and crass misinformation. And it also betrays the BBC mindset in all this. They are actually playing a huge propaganda game with us in which they treat us all like morons. The most vulnerable and impressionable in our society – our kids – are the victims of this horrendous, vicious s c a m. How many of them lie awake in their beds worrying at night because of BBC climate lies?
Shame on every one of the BBC staffers involved in this. Goebbels would have been proud of them.
The BBC’s Climate Change game (flash-based)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/index_1.shtml
find it on the page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/
“Earth’s future is in your hands
A game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.”
More info on this -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/aboutgame.shtml
Myrrh says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Keeling wasn’t interested in real observation, he said that – my geologist link above.
Well your geologist is wrong at least on one important point: volcanic CO2 is not the cause of the increase of CO2, simply because its 13C/12C ratio is the other way out, compared to the observations. That shows to me that he either hasn’t looked at the data or simply ignored them.
Moreover, if volcanic activity was the cause, why would there be an increase at exactly 53% of human emissions? CO2 levels didn’t peak at Mauna Loa when the volcano there erupted, neither showed a decline after the eruption.
I didn’t find any remark on Keeling’s attitude: Keeling was hardly interested in “global warming”, as far as that was an item at all in the 1950′s, it was seen as something beneficial! The only interest of Keeling was good, continuous, measurements of CO2, which costed him a lifetime of struggle against several administrations. See:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf
Keeling decided that the Antarctic wasn’t good enough for his purpose, not enough change
What a nonsense: The measurements at the South Pole still are done since the start: continuously from 1957 to 1963, before (1956) and after that with (bi-)weekly flask samples, later again with continuous equipment. The variability indeed is less than at Mauna Loa, simply because the SH has less vegetation, thus less seasonal variability. And less outliers (except for mechanical problems in the harsh conditions there), because there is no vegetation and no volcano at least 1,300 km away. Even so the the trend is exactly the same as at Mauna Loa (except for a lag of about 14 months). Here a plot of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa and the South Pole since 1960, versus the human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_2006.jpg
If you think that the increase is from some natural source, I am very curious which one can follow the human emissions in such an exact ratio.
And indeed, Keeling could declare that there was an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere after only two-three years of measurements (at Mauna Loa and the South Pole): his new method was accurate enough to detect the increase (which was already presumed, but couldn’t be confirmed with the wet chemical methods).
your dismissal of all previous studies of the variable local production of CO2, as Keeling et al did
Keeling did eactly the opposite: he observed a huge variability in local CO2 levels in the Big Sur forest (California), but also measured the 13C/12C ratio, so he did know that vegetation was the main cause of the variability. He also found that in the afternoon, levels were leveling everywhere, showing about the same CO2 level over fields, in deserts and over the oceans. That was the reason for him to look at places where the least contamination of sources and sinks of CO2 were.
CO2 levels in the first 200 meters above land are extremely variable, simply because CO2 sinks and sources are adding and substracting CO2 and the air mass is not mixed. Even so, some 400 CO2 monitoring stations (including tall towers) are trying to establish CO2 fluxes over large areas. Above 500 m over land and everywhere above the oceans, deserts and icefileds, air masses are well mixed, be it with a delay for the huge seasonal exchanges from oceans and vegetation. That is for 95% of the atmosphere. The 5% of the atmosphere with high variability is of no interest at all for any discussion about the greenhouse effect. Even if there was 1,000 ppmv CO2 in the first 1,000 meter, the radiation absorption effect would give less than 0.1°C increase. For 95% of the atmosphere, the CO2 levels are within +/-3 ppmv worldwide for yearly averages. Confirmed by stations, ships, airplanes and nowadays satellites. That are solid data, unlike temperature data.
It takes energy to move something heavier than air into the mid and upper atmosphere, neither CO2 nor CFC’s have any ability to do this of their own volition.
Brownian motion takes the energy from collisions with air molecules. It carries much heavier stuff than CO2 or CFC molecules and keeps them within the air, without dropping out. It is the wind and convection which mixes CO2 into the rest of the air and everywhere around the world, but Brownian motion keeps the CO2 in (only in total standstill, some small increase – ~1% – at the bottom of 72 meter of firn after 40 years can be measured). Please consult anyone familiar with gases and vapours about this item, he/she will confirm what I say.
And this is based on observations, not any theoretical consideration.
I had some figures about how much CO2 is absorbed in rain, but lost them, all I remember is that it was negligible for CO2 level measurements.
Ah, the science of medieval times, ocean currents?
@StevenInBrooklyn says:
April 1, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Neil Jones says:
ZeZm7KQJT1o
Testing:
Table Test
Earth’s
Albedo=
0.3129
0.3129
0.3129
0.3129
0.3129
Surface Emissivity=
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Atm. Emissivity=
1.00
1.00
0.3997
1.00
0.3997
“Jeff Carlson says:
April 18, 2011 at 8:29 am
Same thing occurs in the ocean with sonar and sounds waves … it allows for some long range tracking but also short range dead zones …”
When I started doing acoustic predictions in the `80 while on the USS Midway I was shocked to discover how limited the ranges were most of the time. Sure you could get a nice duct occasionally and catch a sub out at 60nm but most of the time a sub could be in periscope (and torpedo) range but sonar would not pick it up. We spotted a periscope once between us and another ship (about 200yards) but the sub wasn’t on sonar.
That was a test
testing 012135432642536-------
-------5345t234t3wedf43564326
test
Costing Capslx.exe
Oh godͣ̋̏̀ͨ̿͒̚,̷̐͡ W̢͉̘͇͙͂̇͒ͩ̚͝Ḩ̛̖̪͈̘̥̏̎̑̾̈́͆͞Ă̧̧̮̯̰͎͈̘̱ͯŢ̳͈̹̲͈̩̤̪̅ͣ͠ ̛̞̖̮ͣ̉̋̀ͦ͛̊̚ ̧̛͇͈͕̣̟̣̠ͪ̉ͯͫ̾̒ͭͫ͡H̨̳̯̲̻͖̫̒ͯͅͅA͐͋̽̌V͌ͦ̂̀̉ͤ͛͛̌͆̈̊ͯ̓͂͂̒͝҉̭̦̗͕͔̜E͈̩͎̜̙͖̘̺͓̋ͮͤͮ͊̔ͭͧ͑ͩ͗͛̀̀͘ͅ ̎̽ͯ͂͒ͤͭ̃͗͌̐͛͆͛̉̊̃̾ͩ҉͖̲͈̲͎͓͔̫̭̫̼̩̫͈͈̜̭ͅI̴̶̶̗̯̳͍͕̼̭̰͍̥̼͙̬̩̼͎̞͑̿ͭ̏ͣͧ̍̾ͦ͆̓ͦ͘ ̵̣̹̜̗̩̻͇̱̖̻̈́ͣ̍̂̊͋͟͞ͅD̢̮͖̬̫͍̳̱̦̬̤ͤ̃ͪ̊̔̓̽ͦͩͩ̊̈ͣ̀̀͢ͅÔ̴ͯ̀ͬͮ҉̧̳̪̲͔̙͓͔̲̼̼͈̜̀͜ͅN̷̳͕̱̞̪̹͙̲͇̙͓͈̫ͥ̃ͥ́̿̐̎́ͫ̐̍̓̌ͦ͌͢͡E̷̴̛͉̩̦̻̦̯̠̬̭͙̞ͮ̓̀͌ͩ̐ͯ̈̅̄ͧ̐̈͛̒̅̾́?̌͗
Here is a block of text for your viewing pleasure
testing:
Beerling and Berner 2005
I’ll try again:
Beerling and Berner 2005
A different comment area with a different layout has shown up, CA Assistant does not work with it, and the first comment I tried making with this new thing has disappeared somewhere, hopefully no further away than the spam bucket! And without CA Assistant, I Have Lost My Preview Function!!
I’m trying to post here to see if “lost post” is going to happen again!
Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
June 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Great comment. As a whole scientific research communitues across biology, physics, engineering etc. pay lip service to nonlinear dynamics and chaos but stick to linear systems for the vast majority of their working models. Science remains too compartmentalised. The field of study of chaotic / nonlinear systems is well developed and such systems despite their “chaos” label display conformity to a number of rules and patterns and types of analysis. Such insights need to be communicated to fields where they are needed, e.g. climate, physiology, biology etc. in a qualitative manner. FWIW my own attempt to do so was posted here on WUWT in January this year:
&
Test
cliche´
&supTM
TrademarkTM
Good day! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this write-up to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!
Maybe I’ll get it right on the 3rd try!
By this response, KR fails to provide the citation I had requested to the statistical sample by which AGW might be refuted. The unavailability of such a citation would prove AGW to be irrefutable, thus lying outside science.
KR’s discursion on modus ponens and modus tollens is flawed and misleading and does nothing to diminish the requirement for refutability by reference to a statistical sample. His statements that If A then {B, C, D, E…} and If not {B, C, D, E…} then not A match the pattern of neither modus ponens nor modus tollens unless the set {B, C, D, E…}represents a proposition (such as B AND C AND D AND E but if it represents a proposition this proposition can be represented by a single symbol such asB; replacement by a
B leaves my argument intact.
While KR claims AGW to be obvious to all who view the observational data with an open mind, what he has succeeded in doing is helping me to prove AGW to be a pseudoscience.
Maybe I’ll get it right on the 3rd try!
By this response, KR fails to provide the citation I had requested to the statistical sample by which AGW might be refuted. The unavailability of such a citation would prove AGW to be irrefutable, thus lying outside science.
KR’s discursion on modus ponens and modus tollens is flawed and misleading and does nothing to diminish the requirement for refutability by reference to a statistical sample. His statements that If A then {B, C, D, E…} and If not {B, C, D, E…} then not A match the pattern of neither modus ponens nor modus tollens unless the set {B, C, D, E…}represents a proposition (such as B AND C AND D AND E but if {B, C, D, E…} represents a proposition this proposition can be represented by a single symbol such asB; replacement by a B leaves my argument intact.
While KR claims AGW to be obvious to all who view the observational data with an open mind, what he has succeeded in doing is helping me to prove AGW to be a pseudoscience.
I conducted an experiment tonight investigating whether the date of the first hurricane or named storm has anything to do with the number of named storms expected in the year.
I could determine no trend at all! Frankly, I was floored.
Here is the sample using the storms from
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/tracks1851to2010_atl_reanal.txt
Grouped into the past 31, 61, and 160 year sets
Column A: the date of the storm of the year.
Column B, C, D are formated as
Number of Storms per year | Number of years where the first storm was on that day or later.
Column B covers 1980-2010,
Column C covers 1950-2010,
Column D covers all years in the nhc database.
*A”————– “B” ————- “C” ———- “D”
Date_____30yr text_____60yr text________ 160yr text
01/01_____ 12.0| 31_____ 10.9| 61________ 9.0| 160
05/01_____ 12.0| 29_____ 10.9| 57________ 9.0| 155
05/10_____ 11.9| 27_____ 10.8| 55________ 8.9| 152
05/20_____ 11.9| 27_____ 10.9| 53________ 8.7| 145
06/01_____ 11.9| 25_____ 10.9| 48________ 8.6| 136
06/05_____ 11.6| 24_____ 10.7| 44________ 8.5| 130
06/08_____ 11.9| 23_____ 10.8| 43________ 8.6| 127
06/11_____ 11.2| 21_____ 10.5| 40________ 8.4| 121
06/15_____ 11.2| 20_____ 10.6| 36________ 8.4| 108
06/19_____ 11.5| 17_____ 10.8| 33________ 8.3| 100
06/23_____ 11.5| 17_____ 11.0| 31________ 8.3| 93
06/27_____ 11.1| 15_____ 10.7| 27________ 8.1| 84
07/01_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.9| 25________ 8.3| 80
07/05_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.8| 24________ 8.2| 73
07/09_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.8| 24________ 8.3| 71
07/13_____ 11.6| 13_____ 10.8| 24________ 8.3| 69
07/17_____ 11.6| 11_____ 10.8| 22________ 8.2| 65
07/21_____ 11.6| 11_____ 10.8| 21________ 8.2| 64
07/25_____ 11.4| 10_____ 10.7| 19________ 8.0| 60
07/29_____ 11.1| 09_____ 10.1| 17________ 7.7| 57
08/02_____ 10.8| 08_____ 9.8| 13________ 7.4| 46
08/06_____ 8.8| 05_____ 8.6| 10________ 6.8| 39
08/11_____ 9.3| 03_____ 8.6| 07________ 6.5| 29
08/15_____ 8.5| 02_____ 7.2| 05________ 6.0| 25
08/17_____ 13.0| 01_____ 8.0| 04________ 6.0| 23
08/22_____ .0| 00_____ 6.3| 03________ 5.2| 14
for instance for Aug, 11, there are three years where the first named storm happened on or after Aug. 11: They were 1980, 1983, and 1984, with 11, 4, and 13 storms.
Today, on June 23, about half of the previous years would have had their first storm by now. Even so, it makes little difference in the number of storms to be expected in the rest of the year. It is not the way I would have bet.
I have not stratified for AMO state or USA Landfalls.
http://www.viddler.com/player/5471cb07/
Θ/360 x 2 x Π x Γ
θ/360 × 2 × π × r
((2 × π) × r) × (θ/360)
Wow! Great thinking! JK
John B: skeptics are not scientists
Now that statement begs a host of questions and observations.
Let’s look at the Wiki definition of scientist and (for argument) engineers.
So to be a scientist, one must use the scientific method. I note in passing there is no mention of “post-normal scientific method”.
Also in the definition of scientist, the activity to find solutions to practical problems seems to fall into the realm of the engineer. So when it comes to proposals to fight CAGW, engineers, not scientists, ought to be in the driver’s seats. [Question: what percent of the IPCC are engineers?]
Now let’s consider Scientific Skepticism, something that is “part of the scientific method”. “Sceience itself may be … thought of as an organized form of skepticism.” Can you be a scientist and not be a skeptic at the same time? If you are not a skeptic, you are only masquerading as a scientist.
To close the circle, indeed all scientific skeptics need not be scientists. Many, a great many, are people trained in engineering. Engineers must always be skeptical of their own work. To double check for errors, for it is drilled into them in training that errors cost time, money and sometimes lives. Engineers are always trying to find a better, easier, less costly way to deliver the solutions to problems that meet the needs of society.
If it takes an engineer to point out a error of a scientist, such as the Causation of LOD in Mörner above, that is skepticism at its best.
Stephen Rasey, Ph. D.
B.Sc. Geophysical Engineering
Ph. D. Mineral Economics (Operations Research)
Colorado School of Mines.
Got it. Kind of new to this, so appreciate the test page.
That Global temperature records show that the world has suffered an unprecedented and fast warming over the last fifty years.
[Reply] Do not adjust your goggles. TB-mod
Excuse me for assuming the error in attribution was your fault.
But it had been in place for 2 hours before I replied, and you apparently had seen no need to correct the error.Thankyou Moderator TB for those few kind words.
But the quote was merely a test to see how WordPress handles certain types and formats of text. It does not represent my views. I am sorry I did not make this clear but did not imagine that anyone would take a text test as being an opinion.
This is why it is called test I believe.
Or as handled by WordPress:
STARTIT
That Global temperature records show that the world has suffered an unprecedented and fast warming over the last fifty years.
[Reply] Do not adjust your goggles. TB-mod
ENDIT
Kindest Regards
Moderators,
Just a test of some html commands before I actually post it in a thread.
John
*******************
Dave H says:
July 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm
“”"”"”Many, many Monckton apologists here.”"”"”"
= = = = = =
Dave H,
Likewise I think my paraphrase of your quote is true.
Many, many
MoncktonGoreapologistsacolytes here.Missing heat found in oceans .
Tracing the upper ocean’s ‘missing heat’
28 juli 2011
Caroline Katsman and Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, KNMI
Against expectations, the upper ocean (from 0 to 700 meter depth) has not warmed since 2003. A recent KNMI study shows that an eight-year interruption of the rise expected from global warming is not exceptional. It can be explained by natural variability of the climate, in particular the climate oscillation El Niño in the Pacific Ocean and changes in ocean currents in the North Atlantic Ocean. Recent observations point to an upcoming resumption of the heating of the upper ocean.
These question cannot be answered using observations alone, as the available time series are too short and the data not accurate enough. We therefore used climate model output generated in the ESSENCE project, a collaboration of KNMI and Utrecht University that generated 17 simulations of the climate with the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model to sample the natural variability of the climate system. When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well.
read more:
http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat
http://earthsky.org/space/jupiters-secrets-to-be-revealed-by-juno-spacecraft Jupiter new mission
I wrote:
It was a loaded question since I knew one of the answers. I had written a post about the lack of a 60-
Flooding in the Australian Interior: Natural hazards
Smokey says:
August 13, 2011 at 11:08 am
phlogiston,
No doubt. click
Looks like even his cheek muscles have definition.
Testing to see if blockquote tags work…
Mean Low (min var 0.1)
Jun Jul Aug Jun Jul Aug
--- Unchanged since June
Peterson et Al 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.8 2.8 2.8
Hamilton 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.5 3.5
Stroeve et al 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6
Morison and Unt. 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
Anderson 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0
Grumbine 4.4 3.9
Tivy 4.5 3.9
Wang 5.0 4.5
Egan 5.6 5.5
---June, July, Aug revisions
Lindsay and Zhan 4.9 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.7 3.7
Folkerts 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.0 4.0
Lukovich et al 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4
arbetter et al 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.4
Beitsch et al 4.8 4.7 4.6 3.1 4.2 4.3
Zhang 4.1 4.3 4.6 3.5 3.8 4.0
WUWT 5.5 5.1 5.0 5.1 4.7 4.6
Kauker et al 5.4 5.5 5.2 4.8 5.0 5.1
Canadian Ice Ser 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.5
Wadhams 4.1 0.0 4.0 4.0 3.9
--- July, Aug
Randles 4.4 4.3 4.3 3.5
Meier et al 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.1
Blanchard-Wigg. 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.1
--- July, Aug, only
Liljergren 4.6 3.7
Wu et al 4.6 4.4
Shibata et al 5.4 5.3
__________________Mean________________Low (min var 0.1)____
__________________Jun__Jul__Aug______Jun__Jul__Aug
--- Unchanged since June
Peterson et Al____4.0__4.0__4.0______2.8__2.8__2.8
Hamilton__________4.4__4.4__4.4______3.5__3.5__3.5
Stroeve et al_____4.7__4.7__4.7______4.6__4.6__4.6
Morison and Unt.__4.8__4.8__4.8______4.7__4.7__4.7
Anderson__________4.1_______4.1______4.0_______4.0
Grumbine__________4.4________________3.9__________
Tivy______________4.5________________3.9__________
Wang______________5.0________________4.5__________
Egan______________5.6________________5.5__________
---June, July, Aug revisions
Lindsay and Zhan__4.9__4.1__4.1______4.5__3.7__3.7
Folkerts__________4.7__4.2__4.2______4.5__4.0__4.0
Lukovich et al____4.6__4.6__4.5______4.5__4.5__4.4
arbetter et al____4.4__4.3__4.5______4.3__4.2__4.4
Beitsch et al_____4.8__4.7__4.6______3.1__4.2__4.3
Zhang_____________4.1__4.3__4.6______3.5__3.8__4.0
WUWT______________5.5__5.1__5.0______5.1__4.7__4.6
Kauker et al______5.4__5.5__5.2______4.8__5.0__5.1
Canadian Ice Ser__5.0__4.7__4.7______4.9__4.5__4.5
Wadhams___________4.1_______4.0______4.0_______3.9
--- July, Aug
Randles________________4.4__4.3___________4.3__3.5
Meier et al____________4.7__4.5___________4.1__4.1
Blanchard-Wigg.________4.6__4.6___________4.1__4.1
--- July, Aug, only
Liljergren__________________4.6________________3.7
Wu et al____________________4.6________________4.4
Shibata et al_______________5.4________________5.3
“I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”
Michael E. Mann to Phil Jones
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1076359809.txt
“There is no reason why we should wait to get started down this path,” said Abkowitz. “As long as our approach remains flexible, we can adapt as better information becomes available.”
“There is no reason why we should
wait toget started down this path,” said Abkowitz. “As long as our approach remains flexible, we can adapt as better information becomes available.”Testing Youtube embed:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-6321342126954230709&hl=en&fs=true
READ The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19EFUyhhch8&version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzcLQRXW6B0?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=window
testIs there a way to ‘bookmark’ the last comment on a thread so as to return to it at a latter time without chasing through all the comments?
Thanks
;,_ ,
_uP~"b d"u,
dP' "b ,d" "o
d" , `b d"' "b
l] [ " `l, d" lb
Ol ? " "b`"=uoqo,_ "l
,dBb "b "b, `"~~TObup,_
,d" (db.`" "" "tbc,_ `~"Yuu,_
.d" l`T' '= ~ `""Yu,
,dO` gP, `u, b,_ "b7
d?' ,d" l, `"b,_ `~b "1
,8i' dl `l ,ggQOV",dbgq,._" `l lb
.df' (O, " ,ggQY"~ , @@@@@d"bd~ `b "1
.df' `" -=@QgpOY"" (b @@@@P db `Lp"b,
.d( _ "ko "=d_,Q` ,_ " "b,
Ql . `"qo,._ "tQo,_`""bo ;tb, `"b,
qQ |L ~"QQQgggc,_.,dObc,opooO `"~~";. __,7,
qp t\io,_ `~"TOOggQV"""" _,dg,_ =PIQHib.
`qp `Q["tQQQo,_ ,pl{QOP"' 7AFR`
` `tb '""tQQQg,_ p" "b ` .;-.`Vl'
"Yb `"tQOOo,__ _,edb ` .__ /`/'| |b;=;.__
`"tQQQOOOOP""`"\QV;qQObob"`-._`\_~~-._
"""" ._ / | |oP"\_ ~\ ~\_~\
`~"\ic,qggddOOP"| | ~\ `\~-._
,qP`"""|" | `\ `; `\ `\
_ _,p" | | `\`; | |
unknown "boo,._dP" `\_ `\ `\| `\ ;
`"7tY~' `\ `\ `|_ |
`~\ |
Well, looks like that won’t work – unless the actual post winds up different than the test version shown pre-moderation, but I suspect not. I was trying to see if the “code” tag would work to display a bit of ASCII art so I could add a cat to the cat’s eye view photo of Charles the Moderator on Anthony’s recent post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/21/our-own-ctm-is-a-nasty-cruel-man
Ah well, so it goes. Sneaky kitties can’t be counted on to appear on command!
One more try on images…
re post by: eyesonu says: September 5, 2011 at 6:52 pm
I would LOVE to hear how others deal with this same issue and hope someone has a more convenient method than I’m about to mention, although this is better than nothing.
For whatever it’s worth, in Firefox v. 3.6 (and I suspect other versions too), if you bookmark the page with the last comment you read showing when you add the bookmark it will often (/usually/always?) bookmark with the /#comment-123456 in the bookmark. When you select the bookmark it will load the tab at that comment (or very very close to it).
Drawback, of course, is then when you read more later, you’d have to delete the bookmark, and then add a newer one before you left again, or you’ll just reappear at the previous post you ended on rather than the last one.
Or, I think you can right click bookmark on the date of the last comment you’ve read, and create the bookmark that way – but there’s still the problem of having to delete and recreate the bookmark each time you return to the thread and read more.
I don’t see how to find the comment number without bookmarking – if there IS an easy way to discover the comment number, then you could manually cut/paste & change the comment number in the first bookmark link you made, rather than deleting and re-bookmarking. If anyone knows a way, please post it!
I really wish there was a simple way to track and return to the last post read also!!!
To Anthony or Moderator: Just a suggestion… please consider adding the image and code tags I tried in my posts above to the main article under a catagory of basic html commands that don’t work as of xyz date…(e.g., the date would be useful, because with time some may become available that weren’t previously as the comment system with wordpress gets upgraded/modified – so people could see if it’s been a long time since it’s been tried and check for changes that way). Thanks for considering an addition of this nature.
testing firefox addon bbcode for formatting links:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-made-to-measure-social-network-academic-world.html
Mods,
Just check html tags in a draft post.
John
——————–
DRAFT POST
Anthony,
Out of respect for you as a gracious host here, I will not in the future on WUWT use the acronym SS for Skeptical Science. I will use no acronym at all for Skeptical Science here at WUWT. Instead I will refer to it as Skeptical Science with the bold first letters. OK?
dana, surely you cannot whine about that?
John
Modulation of wind ripples…
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/09/gatekeeping-at-grl-you-be-judge.html?showComment=1317131365111#c3404949375883628626
CaCO&8323;
CaCO8323
CaCO3
Gee…calcium carbonate…..at last….(CaO + CO2)…
Testing the HTML code for degree…
25°C (77°F)
strikeno strikeRational Debate @ September 21, 2011 at 11:04 am
Nothing could be simpler! Just click on the date stamp directly below the poster’s name.
e.g. September 21, 2011 at 11:04 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/test-2/#comment-748972
& September 5, 2011 at 6:52 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/test-2/#comment-737079
Hmm, this messed up: You can write CO₂ as CO₂
Space after amp;: CO& #8322; Hash as #35: CO₂.
U+0021
!
¡
¿
æ
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=toronto+pearson+airport&hl=en&ll=43.665342,-79.636352&spn=0.007792,0.021973&hq=toronto+pearson+airport&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=43.665439,-79.636194&panoid=SRSWGaafQcAyu96QsJPo_g&cbp=12,268.16,,1,3.75
http://g.co/maps/tyu6b
Hmm, this messed up: You can write CO₂ as CO₂
Space after amp;: CO& #8322; Hash as #35: CO₂.
CO& #8322
O8322
O&8322:
O&8322;
O₂
Took long enough….
Three blind mice, three blind mice,See how they run, see how they run,
They all ran after the farmer's wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
As three blind mice?
Three blind mice, three blind mice,See how they run, see how they run,
They all ran after the farmer's wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
As three blind mice?
Three blind mice, three blind mice,See how they run, see how they run,
They all ran after the farmer's wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
As three blind mice?
Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. A second study finds College students lack scientific literacy …by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. and another study finds href=”http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htmf”>Every Textbook Left Behind
But then it now IS a joke and corporations are no longer willing to hire US grads. Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. A second study finds “College students lack scientific literacy” …by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. and another study finds Every Textbook Left Behind
As you read this look at the whole picture including the land grab by Al Gore’s New Forest Co. funded by the World Bank and HSBC. Consider David Rockefeller’s PRIVATE annual luncheons at his family’s Westchester County estate with the IMF and World Bank and the world’s finance ministers.
Consider Clinton’s admission that he in part through ratifying the WTO and NAFTA, was responsible for the 2008 food riots and the annihilation of Haiti’s farming.
At this point I rather FOLLOW THE MONEY then be hoodwinked by pretty words.
David Rockefeller from his 2002 autobiography “Memoirs”, page 405:
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.
If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
From Rockefeller family friend, Sir Julian Huxley, Director-General of the United Nation’s human-rights organization. His document UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy (1946)
“The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background…its education program can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to world organization…Political unifications in some sort of world government will be required…Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenics problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
From the United nations on the subject of seeds:
“FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia in order to stimulate the development of a vibrant seed industry[/b]…An effective seed regulation harmonization process involves dialogue amongst all relevant stakeholders from both private and public sectors. Seed quality assurance, variety release, plant variety protection, biosafety, plant quarantine and phytosanitary issues are among the major technical areas of a regional harmonized seed system. The key to a successful seed regulation harmonization is a strong political will of the governments involved…” (quote is several years old and may have been changed) http://www.fao.org/ag/portal/archive/detail/en/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=5730&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1886&cHash=7f04326e35
Direct from the Rockefeller Foundation:
A Timeline of Dr. Norman Borlaug’s Work Involving the Rockefeller Foundation
1944. Dr. Borlaug joins the Foundation as the plant pathologist in the Rockefeller Foundation-Mexican Ministry of Agriculture Cooperative Program….
1960. Under a joint UN Food and Agriculture Organization-Rockefeller Foundation training program, Dr. Borlaug begins training Asian wheat scientist in Mexico…..
1961. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation establish the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines to do for rice what Dr. Borlaug has done for wheat.
1963. Building on the Rockefeller Foundation’s agriculture program in India, Dr. Borlaug begins testing Mexican semi-dwarf wheat varieties in India and Pakistan…..
1966. The Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation establish the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico, building on the Rockefeller Foundation cooperative program. Dr. Borlaug is seconded by the Rockefeller Foundation to CIMMYT as Director of the International Wheat Improvement Program.
1968. William Guad, Director of USAID declares a “Green Revolution” is occurring in South Asia, based on Dr. Borlaug’s wheat varieties and IRRI’s rice varieties.
1970. Dr. Borlaug is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the Green Revolution…..
1983. Dr. Borlaug retires from the Rockefeller Foundation and CIMMYT at age 65 and is made a Lifetime Fellow by the Rockefeller Foundation Board of Trustees……
The AGW proponents have often tried to beat back skeptics, using “peer review” as a club.
Therefore today’s a href=”http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/our-blogs-ourselves/”>comments</a by Nobel Economist Paul Krugman are of interest.
He says "the journals ceased being a means of communication a long time ago – more than 20 years ago for sure. New research would be unveiled in seminars, circulated as NBER Working Papers, long before anything showed up in a journal. Whole literatures could flourish, mature, and grow decadent before the first article got properly published [...]. The journals have long served as tombstones, certifications for tenure committees, rather than a forum in which ideas get argued."
testtesttestTherefore today’s comments by Nobel Economist Paul Krugman are of interest.
NeedleFactory
Text
Oops!
Link text
Same as above without spaces.
Link text
Link text..
[i]a href=”url”>Link text[/i] wrapped in <…
a href=”url”>Link text wrapped in <…
Ok, no more beer for me tonight. Hic.
1800-2010 comparison, BEST-Hockey Stick
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-4Dh1Y372UOA/TqWneo5mo9I/AAAAAAAAAKQ/7Z_bkgvMt2g/s800/bestHSanim.gif
Here is some text before image.
Here is some text after image.
Text before link …
http://s1039.photobucket.com/albums/a477/kulaki/Climate%20Change%20Science/?action=view¤t=TestImage.gif
Text after link …
Text before …
See Test Image.
And text after …
Mods,
Just testing an embedded link;’
When Scott Mandia and his fellow ‘Rapid Response Climate Team’ come, who you gonna call?
Call Anthony’s Skeptical Ghostbusters!!!
John
Test
The megafauna of Africa and human ancestors had co-existed for at least several hundred thousand years. As humans spread out through Africa and South Asia, the megafauna had time and space to adjust to human predation. The megafauna of North America, Europe and North Asia had far less time and space to adapt to human predation.
The Clovis people did not go extinct…
Mods,
Just checking some nested ‘blockquote’ tags
————-
Yes, the scientific method depends upon the assumptions that (a) there is a real world ‘out there’, and (b) we can improve our always-imperfect understanding of that world by propounding falsifiable hypotheses about it, and testing them. I suppose you may say that the empiricist ‘believes’ in these assumptions; I prefer to say that he accepts them as a rational, practical basis for action.
The epistemological assumptions underlying the scientific method are different from the axioms of mathematics, which are purely logical constructs.
/Mr Lynn
This is an example of the use of the HTML codes that specify ‘preformated text’ beginning with angle bracket contents “pre” and ending with “/pre”
<pre>
Non-Harmonic Cosine Approximation of HadCRUT3v Data 1860-2011 Data to Error Ratio (dB): 11.71 Offset Constant (deg C): -0.0093 Element Element Element Element Period Base Date Amplitude Number Years Year deg C 1 12.937 1929.870 0.0194 2 14.910 1928.137 0.0324 3 20.786 1941.038 0.0484 4 32.612 1936.867 0.0284 5 49.041 1932.746 0.0338 6 63.325 1944.482 0.1098 7 88.105 1921.076 0.0495 8 285.262 2040.054 0.1877 9 300.799 2042.613 0.1878</pre>
Just testing a virtual keyboard. ➸✬❓➝❗➙✢➵. ♪♫♬♿♍☯☗♠☛☨ Seems to work with CA Assistant, but will it make it through WordPress’s code? ១២៣៤៥៦៧៨៩ цфк ши кгыышфи ۱۲۳۴۵۶۷۸۹ ぬふあうえおやゆよわほ Just for the record, that is 1 through 0 in other languages. Just testing if it makes it through WP.
Cheers☺
Just testing whether I can post or not.
Ummm…. weird… I tried to post on the carbon article, but It seems I couldn’t. I tried 3 times, so maybe I posted 3 posts in a row saying essentially the same. Sorry ’bout that.
Image Test
code
<img src=”http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png/800px-ModtranRadiative%20ForcingDoubleCO2.png” alt=”Modtran3 v1.3 Upward Irradiance at 20 km” width=”800″ height=”513″ />
OK, I see this is not supposed to work as a matter of policy. No problem.
http://sll.kewego.com/swf/kp.swf
http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoafYtDe.html
♫
™
►
◄
²
[very good! ~jove, mod]
Three Strikes Against the IPCC’s Asia Group
Here’s a bone for the gang to gnaw on and flesh out (to mangle a metaphor). I haven’t fully researched the matter, but what I’ve noticed is intriguing.
During a dispute with one of the one-star Amazon-reviewers (T. Bruner) of Donna Laframboise’s Delinquent Teenager book about the IPCC, I wrote:
Bruner pointed out that the Stern Review in turn had cited, as its authority for that statement, Barnett et al., which, unlike Stern, was a peer-reviewed and before-the-deadline publication. He added that the Fresh Water Group had cited Barnett alone, in Section 3.4.3 (of AR4).
This made me wonder: Why had the Asia group taken the risk of violating the IPCC’s rules by citing Stern alone? Wouldn’t citing Barnett in addition, or instead, have been prudent?
It’s unlikely that the group hadn’t been aware of the Barnett paper, given that it was cited by Stern, and given its relevance, recency, and prominent & prestigious source, which could be found in Stern’s bibliography:
So this relevant, recent, and prestigiously published primary source was omitted in favor of citing a gray, secondary, after-the-deadline (2007, hence unpublished per the IPCC’s rules) source. (It’s not cited anywhere in the Asia Group’s chapter, per its References section.)
Why? Let’s get started by looking at what the two sources and the Asia Group said. I’ve emphasized the most pertinent passages. (h/t to T. Bruner for the quotes.):
Strike one: If the Asia group had cited Barnett at all it would have exposed its claims about “¾ billion” and “seriously affected” as being hyperbole. (Barnett et al. had used the less-exaggerated, less-alarmist words, “hundreds of millions” and “negatively affected.”) It’s not a big leap to infer that that was the motive for its omission. What other motive could there have been?
(“Hundreds of millions” suggests the lower end of the one-hundred-million-to-one-billion range. If Barnett et al. had had three-quarters of a billion in mind when they wrote “hundreds of millions,” they’d likely have indicated that they were thinking of the upper part of the range by saying something like “over a half-million” or “many hundreds of millions.”)
Strike two: The Asia Group lied by omission by omitting Stern’s key qualification, “during the dry season.” Including it would have muted the alarmist impact of their sentence. It’s not a big leap to infer that that was the motive for its omission. What other motive could there have been?
Strike three: The Asia Group’s gray-lit-backed claim of a 2035 melt-by date now looks likely to be a similarly culpable instance of cherry-picking in the service of alarmist hyperbole, rather than clueless unfamiliarity with the dynamics of glaciers. They were likely knaves, not fools, in other words.
One reason it’s “likely” is the context provided by the two “strikes” above. Another reason is the context provided by their refusal to correct the error in their 2035 melt-by date when reviewers pointed it out to them, and their turning a deaf ear to Dr. Georg Kaser’s subsequent attempts to have it corrected.
(I’m skeptical of the IPCC’s excuse that Kaser sent his first complaint to the wrong department—wouldn’t they have forwarded it?—and that his second letter wasn’t received—a “likely story.” It seems more likely to me that the group couldn’t possibly admit to ignoring his letters—so it didn’t.)
Strike four: The three strikes above suggest that the IPCC has been infected by gang-of-green alarmism. The IPCC’s apologists have spun a deceptive damage-control message about the 2035 error by attributing it to ignorance, not malice—to cluelessness, not culpability. In the context of the deceptive pattern described above, that’s hard to believe.
Obviously, it would be awkward for the IPCC if the second interpretation gained traction, because that would raise the questions, “Where did the gangrene start?”, “How far has it spread?”, “Is amputation needed?”, and “Or maybe a mercy killing?”.
Paging Dr. Kevorkian!
========
Activists and NGOs
Several years ago I looked into NGOs because of the WTO/Food/Animal ID issue. Here is some relevant stuff from my notes. (The links may no longer work)
BACKGROUND:
From a history blog:
Remember the Students for a Democratic Society on campus when you were in college?
THE ORIGINS OF NGOs
Remember Maurice Strong, Chair of the First Earth Summit in 1972 that started CAGW? The guy who said “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” in his opening remarks at Earth Summit II in 1992.
In brief Maurice Strong worked in Saudi Arabia for a Rockefeller company, Caltex, in 1953. He left Caltex in 1954 to worked at high levels in banking and oil. By 1971, he served as a trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and in 1972 was Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. He was Co-founder of the WWF and Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN.
Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
NGOs REPLACE VOTERS in USA
By Presidential Executive Order the USA was divided into ten regions. These regions are governed by an unholy mix of unelected government bureaucrats and NGOs. The regions were set up by President Nixon but the implemention of the “regional governance concept began in earnest with the Clinton-Gore administration. “On the heels of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development , came the President’s Community Empowerment Board, chaired by Vice President Al Gore,” [ http://www.rense.com/general63/ree.htm ] These quasi-governmental regional authorities are slowly transforming the US from representative government to government by United Nations sponsored and directed NGOs and appointed bureaucrats.
THE BEHIND the SCENES PLAYERS
Alternate links: http://www.livescience.com/9704-world-stocks-controlled-select.html
http://wprorev.com/2009/08/scientific-study-find-just-few-funds.htm
The whole Rockefeller/Strong/Saudi/Khashoggi/CIA/Bush/oil/banking interconnections are worth pursuing considering the 1973 Oil Crisis bankrupted third World Countries so they had to get World bank/IMF loans with SAPs strings controlling their governments. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance, Maurice strong of course was a member, was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International.
Kissinger/rockefeller/Saudi Royal Family connection: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch27.html
Strong’s web site: http://www.mauricestrong.net/ in google states: Maurice Strong globalized the environmental movement.
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEA LEVELS
An interesting article in the Spectator by Nils-Axel Morner trashes completely all the scare stories about rising sea levels from the BBC, Gore, and the IPCC.
See it here http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml
Here is part of it -
“…But the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) tells a different story about sea levels worldwide and is worth quoting in some detail: ‘Even under the most conservative scenario, sea level will be about 40cm higher than today by the end of 21st century and this is projected to increase the annual number of people flooded in coastal populations from 13 million to 94 million. Almost 60 per cent of this increase will occur in South Asia.’
This is nonsense. The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.
So any of the trouble attributed to ‘rising sea levels’ must instead be the result of other, local factors and basic misinterpretation. In Bangladesh, for example, increased salinity in the rivers (which has affected drinking water) has in fact been caused by dams in the Ganges, which have decreased the outflow of fresh water.
Even more damaging has been the chopping down of mangrove trees to clear space for shrimp farms. In one area, 19 square miles of mangrove vegetation in 1988 had by 2005 decreased to barely half a square mile. Mangrove forests offer excellent protection against the damage of cyclones and storms, so inevitably their systematic destruction has drastically increased local vulnerability to these problems.
At Tuvalu in the Pacific, I found no evidence of flooding — despite claims in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth that it was one of those ‘low-lying Pacific nations’ whose residents have had to ‘evacuate their homes because of rising seas’. In fact the tide gauge of the past 25 years clearly shows there has been no rise.
But the best-known ‘victim’ of rising sea levels is, without doubt, the Maldives. This myth has been boosted by the opportunism of Mohamed Nasheed, who stars in a new documentary called The Island President. The film’s tagline is ‘To save his country, he has to save our planet’. It is a depressing example of how Hollywood-style melodrama has corrupted climate science. Nasheed has been rehearsing his lines since being elected in 2009. ‘We are drowning, our nation will disappear, we have to relocate the people,’ he repeatedly claims.
If this is what President Nasheed believes, it seems strange that he has authorised the building of many large waterside hotels and 11 new airports. Or could it perhaps be that he wants to take a cut of the $30 billion fund agreed at an accord in Copenhagen for the poorest nations hit by ‘global warming’? Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister Ahmed Shaheed wrote to the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to express support for the accord.
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that ‘there is strong evidence’ of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: ‘Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.’
Almost every word of this is untrue.
Satellite altimetry is a wonderful and vital new technique that offers the reconstruction of sea level changes all over the ocean surface. But it has been hijacked and distorted by the IPCC for political ends.
In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.’
This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.
If the ice caps are melting, it is at such a small rate globally that we can hardly see its effects on sea level. I certainly have not been able to find any evidence for it. The sea level rise today is at most 0.7mm a year — though, probably, much smaller.
“…The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections. There are many urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth — tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions not least among them. But the threat of rising sea levels is an artificial crisis.”
Strangely, although this article was published a while ago, there has been no mention of it anywhere in the British MSM.
Format test.
Deg C Kelvin SB-Constant Wm^2
30 303.5 5.67E-08 481.08
20 293.5 5.67E-08 420.74
10 283.5 5.67E-08 366.26
293.5 422.69 Averages.
Trademark symbols: ™ … ™
String:
Science™ – extrapolating
More facts needed on bear population
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO8vD0ClzbE&w=560&h=315
Poster says: Month D, YYYY at HH:MM XM
My Answer
It struck me when I read the post as one of the most bizarre bits of Warmist
mathdigital manipulation I’ve ever seen. It makes no sense to me at all. But I realized after Climategate I that Warmist spewings must get increasingly detached from reality. The actual science is so far at odds with AGW science fiction that Warmists must go further and further into the Twilight Zone every month to keep the hoax going. It’s a Trenberthsty.Hey, <h2> worked. Lessee,
Testing h0
Regular text
Testing h1
Regular text
Testing h2
Regular text
Testing h3
Regular text
Testing h4
Regular text
Testing h5
Regular text
Testing h6
Regular text
Testing h7
Regular text
this 1956 essay
Try to instert photo of cool picture of James Hansen in Raider’s hat:
<
< %gt;
>
ferd berple says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.
I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with WIllis that my proof is incomplete.
To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,
space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space
I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.
I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:
space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space
Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:
H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C
Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:
(result a) H < C
Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:
space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
However, since F = 0, this becomes
D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space
and from above:
A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Therefore we can say
A + C = D
and from (result a) above
D = A + C > A + H
therefore
D > A + H
Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp
Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
since
Temp(D) = earth without GHG
Temp(A+H) = earth with GHG
Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
QED
ferd berple says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is
absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a
result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.
I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with Willis
that my origional proof was incomplete.
To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,
space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space
I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this
allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.
I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:
space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space
Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed
directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:
H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C
Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG
atmosphere, that:
(result a) H < C
Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:
space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
However, since F = 0, this becomes
D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space
and from above:
A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Therefore we can say
A + C = D
and from (result a) above
D = A + C > A + H
therefore
D > A + H
Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp
Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
since
Temp(D) = earth without GHG
Temp(A+H) = earth with GHG
Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
QED
While I agree with Willis that the inclusion of H has allowed the surface temperature of the GHG surface to come closer to the surface temperature of the non GHG planet, the GHG planet still has a lower surface temperature.
ferd berple says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.
I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with Willis that my origional proof was incomplete.
To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,
space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space
I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.
I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:
space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space
Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:
H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C
Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:
(result a) H < C
Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:
space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
However, since F = 0, this becomes
D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space
and from above:
A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Therefore we can say
A + C = D
and from (result a) above
D = A + C > A + H
therefore
D > A + H
Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp
Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
since
Temp(D) = earth without GHG
Temp(A+H) = earth with GHG
Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
QED
While I agree with Willis that the inclusion of H has allowed the surface temperature of the GHG surface to come closer to the surface temperature of the non GHG planet, the GHG planet still has a lower surface temperature.
ferd berple says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm
That’s why the surface can get hot, because some of the energy radiated by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere so we’re not emitting to space more that we’re absorbing. As a result, the last step of your proof is incorrect.
I disagree with Willis. I believe he is double counting. However, I do agree with Willis that my origional proof was incomplete.
To answer Willis more completely, here is the GHG model I described,
space <==A== surface <==B==> ghg ==C==> space
I believe Willis is saying that because the surface radiates both through A and B, this allows the surface temp in the GHG model to increase.
I agree with Willis, so lets replace the net flow B with H as follows to see what happens:
space <==A== surface ==H==> ghg ==C==> space
Flow C takes part of its energy from the surface to ghg H, plus the net energy absorbed directly from the sun by the GHG that re-radiates as C. Thus we can say that:
H + net solar absorbed by GHG reradiated as C = C
Since net solar absorbed by GHG > 0, then we can say than in all cases with a GHG atmosphere, that:
(result a) H < C
Here is our other model, the non GHG atmosphere, that does not radiate:
space <==D== surface <==E==> no ghg ==F==> zero radiation to space
D + F = solar energy in = radiation out to space
However, since F = 0, this becomes
D + 0 = solar energy in = radiation out to space
and from above:
A + C = solar energy in = radiation out to space
Therefore we can say
A + C = D
and from (result a) above
D = A + C > A + H
therefore
D > A + H
Since D and (A+H) vary as 4th power of Temp
Temp(D) > Temp(A+H)
since
Temp(D) = surface temp of planet with non GHG atmosphere
Temp(A+H) = surface temp with GHG atmosphere
Therefore the surface will be hotter on a planet with a non radiant (non GHG) atmosphere.
QED
While I agree with Willis that the inclusion of H has allowed the surface temperature of the GHG surface to come closer to the surface temperature of the non GHG planet, the GHG planet still has a lower surface temperature.
Re: Residence time of carbon dioxide,
Dr. Lacis’ argument,…
The paper also says the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is “measured in thousands of years”. Even the IPCC, prone to exaggeration as it is, puts the residence time at 50-200 years. On notice I can cite three dozen papers dating back to Revelle in the 1950s that find the CO2 residence time to be just seven years, though Professor Lindzen says that for various reasons 40 years is a good central estimate.
There is so much misdirection about this – the IPCC hides the figures in the bulk of the reports..
From:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html
ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
For a bar chart of residence times from various papers: http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/09/the-liberal-attack-on-science-acorn-style-the-ipcc-fabrication-of-atmospheric-co2-residency-time.html
The IPCC is using deliberate misdirection because it needs to pretend that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere when it is physically impossible, so even thousands of years gets bandied around and picked up and repeated by politicians and others as ‘well known’, and, that misdirection is in many forms and subtle and easily missed because the IPCC needs to blame it on man’s input. An example from the Glassman piece:
So the real story hidden in the IPCC is that “CO2 naturally cycles rapidly among the atmosphere, oceans and land”.
Dr. Lacis says ModelE is rooted in well-understood physical processes. If that were so, one would not expect such large fudge-factors (mentioned and quantified in the model’s operating manual) to be necessary.
It will be helpful to introduce a little elementary climatological physics at this point – nothing too difficult (otherwise I wouldn’t understand it). I propose to apply the IPCC/GISS central estimates of forcing, feedbacks, and warming to what has actually been observed or inferred in the period since 1750.
What interests me is the “rooted in well-understood physical processes” – because this is where the bs begins – the misdirection is in the constant claiming, as is done with “consensus”, that the gobbledegook they then spout is “well-known physics” – when it is nothing of the kind, and actually full of properties and processes not known in the physics of our real world.
First of all – the “well-known” that carbon dioxide is well mixed and accumulates in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and so is not like the condensable water vapour is misdirection, because it isn’t physically possible, carbon dioxide is heavier than air. One and a half times heavier. Therefore, it will always displace air in the atmosphere to come down to the ground unless work is done on it, and so also will not readily rise up into the atmosphere. The AGW Science Fiction department has created a whole new fictional physics to explain this impossible claim, (I wrote something about it the other day here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/#comment-864575 from: [This teacher was first adamant that carbon dioxide could not separate out from the atmosphere in which it had spontaneously thoroughly mixed as per ideal gas law. ).
Also, the ‘well-mixed’ has been debunked by the AIRS data – the team, believing the misdirection from the fiction meme producing department that carbon dioxide was “well-mixed”, were shocked when they found it wasn’t, when they found it lumpy instead.
This too hides more, they haven’t released the upper and lower troposphere figures for CO2 – years of data missing from our knowledge base, and what they have given from the mid troposphere is in difficult to access and analyse form, the couple of pictures they’ve released chosen to hide the fact that they found lumpy.
So, even though a ‘non-condensing gas’, carbon dioxide isn’t a supermolecule which can defy gravity, but, is it ‘non-condensing’? In itself yes, it doesn’t go through the phase changes like water vapour to condense out into a fluid liquid from a fluid gas, but, all pure clean rainwater is carbonic acid. Water vapour and liquid and carbon dioxide have irresistible attraction for each other, water vapour will mop up any and all carbon dioxide around and as it condenses out into rain the two will come down to Earth together as rain. Also in dew, fog and so on is carbonic acid. For all practical purposes, carbon dioxide is a condensing gas, because fully part of the Water Cycle.
Which brings me to the final point – the greatest misdirection here to promote AGW is to exclude the Water Cycle, as above:
higley7 says:
January 16, 2012 at 7:56 am
What is missing from this very nice discussion is the huge heat engine in the form of the convection of warm, humid air to altitude where it cools, condenses, and cool rain falls back to Earth. This is responsible for about 85% of energy transfer to altitude, away from the surface, and is the missing heat Trenberth agonizes over.
The standard figures for the cooling role of water in the water cycle is:
Earth with atmosphere as is: 15°C
Earth without any atmosphere: -18°C
Earth with atmosphere but without water: 67°C
The Water Cycle cools the Earth 52°C ! – to bring the temperature down to 15°C
No wonder they do everything they can to distract and misdirect from this!
What they do is use the final figure of 15°C, which is only achieved by the water cycle first cooling the earth, and take the difference between that and the -18%deg;C of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, and then say the 33°C rise is due to greenhouse gases blaming it all on carbon dioxide!
So, carbon dioxide with its great affinity for water is fully part of the cooling cycle in the atmosphere. Think deserts here without the water cycle.
The misdirection is simple, but now ubiquitously promoted and so believed as “well-known”, they just keep repeating that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere and it would be colder without them, but, they exclude water vapour in its own right and water vapour is the main greenhouse gas and water vapour cools the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere is real world physics. And carbon dioxide is fully paid up member of the cooling team.
So, there’s more background than first apparent about this claim:
Dr. Lacis’ argument, then, is that the radiative forcing from water vapor should be treated as a feedback, because if all greenhouse gases were removed from the atmosphere most of the water vapor now in the atmosphere would condense or precipitate out within ten years, and within 50 years global temperatures would be some 21 K colder than the present.”
Total junk science because devoid of any reference to real world physics, real properties and real processes.
And even worse than the Gore documentary you had a hand in debunking – this junk physics is being taught in schools, a whole generation of children who have a very confused idea about the world around them. :)
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 16, 2012 at 10:19 am
Myrrh says:
January 16, 2012 at 1:59 am
Whoa, back up. There is generally no special thermal radiation that occurs at phase changes. Why would a phase change cause thermal radiation(not the release of latent heat that simply warms the surrounding air, but thermal radiation)?
? The release of latent heat can be by conduction, convection or radiation – if by radiation then the latent heat IS thermal radiation, thermal infrared. Thermal infrared is heat energy, thermal energy, on the move.
Myrrh, you are claiming that;
1. The imaginary planet described in the head post has nitrogen that for some reason will liquify in the atmosphere. I don’t know why it would do that, but that is your claim.
2. You also claim that the latent heat from the liquification of nitrogen is emitted as thermal radiation.
Bro’, you desperately need some citations for those claims. I think both of those things are fantasies. Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat. Since what we’re talking about is nitrogen liquifying at something like -170C or wherever nitrogen liquifies, the amount of radiation will be microscopic.
===========
Quote my words Willis!!
You may well be talking about it with someone, but I’ve said nothing about nitrogen liquefying or claimed that it’s in the head post’s atmosphere…, at any temperature.
My post was referring to your exact words as I quoted them. Nothing more.
If it wasn’t becoming so irritating, it would be still be funny, but you are making the same mistake which has been promoted as a fisicsfiction meme by those pushing AGW – you think heat is something different from thermal infrared radiation.. That’s why so many here can’t tell the difference between heat and light.
So, to quote your words again exactly, I’m now referring to what you said here: “Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat.”
If that latent heat is released in a vacuum where it must be radiated out, you and your ilk think it isn’t heat!
What is it then?? A few squiggly lines?
If you would all just stick with basic physics about this you wouldn’t get so confused.
Latent heat is called latent heat because it is the heat released or absorbed because of a phase change. It’s the latent that’s descriptive here, about which process, form, state the heat is in. Heat is heat, how it’s transmitted doesn’t change it. Conduction, convection and radiation are likewise such descriptions. The heat is the same.
So, to quote your words again exactly, I’m referring to what you said: “Latent heat is called latent heat and not latent radiation for a reason. It comes out as heat.”
Is gobbledegook.
Here, for anyone interested to learn something about HEAT:
Italics as used in the piece.
Further:
So, heat is the same thing in all of this! It is the kinetic energy of some system in the random movement of atoms and molecules. Heat is the thermal energy as in the Sun, it is the thermal energy leaving the Sun in the form of radiation. These are not different kinds of heat, they are different descriptions about heat, just like latent is a description about heat. The HEAT they are describing is the SAME THING.
“Thermal energy and heat are often confused. Rightly so because they are physically the same thing”
Thermal means of heat, that’s a description of the energy. The energy described is that which is heat.
Kinetic means of or due to motion, it’s a description of the energy Kinetic energy is thermal energy is heat in the total of the random movement of atoms and molecules.
“Young just called it energy. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) added the adjective “kinetic” to separate it from “potential energy”, which was named by William Rankine (1820-1872) in 1853.
http://physics.info/energy-kinetic/
Same page this is what it says about latent heat:
“Heat absorbed or released as the result of a phase change is called latent heat. There is no temperature change during a phase change, thus there is no change in the kinetic energy of the particles in the material. The energy released comes from the potential energy stored in the bonds between the particles.”
So, Heat in the form of radiation is thermal infrared. Thermal infrared is the thermal energy of the Sun which has left the Sun and is on the move, it is the HEAT of the Sun on the move.
Visible Light is not Heat. Visible, Light, is not the thermal energy of the Sun, is not the total kinetic energy of the Sun, it is not heat of the Sun on the move. If it was, it would be called Heat.
The visible light is being created by the heat in the Sun, it’s an effect of heat.
Thermal infrared is the thermal energy of the Sun which has left the Sun and is on the move. The thermal energy of the Sun is Heat. Therefore, thermal infrared which is thermal radiation is HEAT ON THE MOVE.
Heat, thermal infrared, thermal energy in the form of radiation, is what you can feel radiating out to you from a stove even if the stove isn’t hot enough to produce visible light; the heat you feel radiating out to you from a hot pavement; the heat you feel from the Sun. It is invisible.
You cannot feel visible Light.
Apologies for the italic gone haywire in my last post, it’s something to do with using blockquotes, but I haven’t yet fathomed it. I was going to offer to repost it to make it easier to read.
Alright then, seems as though I don’t know how to post within the constraints of the moderators parameters.
Eight years of climate study in N WI, 35 years experience in geodesy, remote sensing.
Twenty-two degrees below zero this morning.
DRZ
[REPLY: Still cryptic. Just how does this relate to SOPA/PIPA, the topic of the thread? The "dr" part is, I gather, an honorific, and the actual initials are "J.P."? If you have an answer to the question, then say it. -REP]
Aquaint, which stands for “Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence” may be the intrusive tool to determine “contrary thinking”. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/nsa-police.html
also the AQUAINT site www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/aquaint/
Remember that Samantha Power is the spouse of Sunstein. I wouldn’t like to disagree with her.
test
BIG
superscript
what’sthis
check
one
too many parameters relative to the number of observations.
Does this link work http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010LPICo1530.3008N
Test test
A second test
test
above generated by $\latex \Int_{-1}^1 x^2 dx$ without the \ on latex
Testing blockquotes
end test
Test end test
past within a deck changes the odds in the rest of the deck. That’s how it is possible to turn the odds in your favor. Sampling without replacement. Of course, it take a lot of knowledge aforehand about the domain and behavior of the deck.
What if, mind you: If, If, If If…., you had some 8 parameter Bessel function that had uncanny ability to predict ocean temperatures given (Lat, Long, Z, t). You use a random sample of 1/2 of your argo measurements to calibrate the 8 parameters. This then specifies the 4-D temperature profile of the ocean in the domain of the data. You then take the other 1/2 of the data points, calcullate the residual (measured – prediction) and you show that the model accounts for 99.99% of the measurement variance. If, If, If. If you had such a model, then your ability to evaluate the mean temp could be quite high.
Mind you, this is all theoretical. You must first show that magical predictive function, do uncertainty analysis on each of the parameters. But my point is that the measurement of the mean is not simply a function of the standard deviation of the measurements: It really should be the standard deviation of the error (measurement-prediction), which can be a small number.
Even with the theoretical model in mind, Willis’s 100 x more measurements for an other significant digit still stands. The theoretical model is critically based upon George E Smith’s observation that the sampling methodolgy passes the Nyquest test or the theoretical model is a bunch of hooey from the start.
Brilliant contribution, George E. Smith; 1/27, 8:16 pm
Bringing in Nyquest into the argument is going for the jugular! You have Nyquest issues simultaneously in time, lat, long and depth. “The emperor has no clothes.”
Going back to Willis’s illustration of Accuracy vs Precision, I just want to point out that when looking at the data, all you have are the shot groupings — you don’t have the bullseye or the scope picture to go on. So the “More Precise” grouping will naturally be seen as “More Accurate” without very careful, very often, recalibration. A broken clock is a very precise time measurement device, worthless for accuracy, but very precise.
Finally, I want to tie the issue of independence of the measurments and covariance I brought up concerning Valdez and with Willis card counting at the top. I believe that the Argo buoys are probably positivly corelated in nearby measurements and that far away they are likely independent. That however, is a hypothesis on my part.
Willis’ card counting example is one of negative correlation: What has happened in the past within a deck changes the odds in the rest of the deck. That’s how it is possible to turn the odds in your favor. Sampling without replacement. Of course, it take a lot of knowledge aforehand about the domain and behavior of the deck.
What if, mind you: If, If, If If…., you had some 8 parameter Bessel function that had uncanny ability to predict ocean temperatures given (Lat, Long, Z, t). You use a random sample of 1/2 of your argo measurements to calibrate the 8 parameters. This then specifies the 4-D temperature profile of the ocean in the domain of the data. You then take the other 1/2 of the data points, calcullate the residual (measured – prediction) and you show that the model accounts for 99.99% of the measurement variance. If, If, If. If you had such a model, then your ability to evaluate the mean temp could be quite high.
Mind you, this is all theoretical. You must first show that magical predictive function, do uncertainty analysis on each of the parameters. But my point is that the measurement of the mean is not simply a function of the standard deviation of the measurements: It really should be the standard deviation of the error (measurement-prediction), which can be a small number.
Even with the theoretical model in mind, Willis’s 100 x more measurements for an other significant digit still stands. The theoretical model is critically based upon George E Smith’s observation that the sampling methodolgy passes the Nyquest test or the theoretical model is a bunch of hooey from the start.
Test of image
end test
Testing html tags.
Summary:
Un-alarmingRobert Brown says:
January 30, 2012 at 7:07 am
myrrh said some things about You haven’t even read his explanation for writing it the way he did as your diabribe against him showed.
That’s because I don’t care why he wrote it badly. You show me one single original contribution in
this article! It isn’t even a valid review article. I reiterate: He says “I’m going to prove that
there is a stable thermal lapse in thermodynamic equilibrium”.
Where does he say that?
He quotes a textbook that derives
the DALR in a section on climate dynamics, atmospheric flow. He states “this is thermal
equilibrium”. He concludes “I’ve proven that the DALR is thermal equilibrium and will heat an
absolutely static, stable, isolated atmosphere with a fixed total energy content differentially
after all thermalizing processes are finished.”
Where does he say that?
No he hasn’t, no it doesn’t. He hasn’t proven anything at all — he just begs the question by
restating his assertion as his conclusion with a “QED”, and the conclusion he asserts violates the
second law of thermodynamics.
I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re arguing about. I can’t find any of that in his paper.
Myrrh said: “I think you should begin again, Take II, and stick to his thought experiment and not your strawman silver wire deflection.”
By all means, let’s. That way we won’t be able to trivially prove that his assertion that the
system is in equilibrium is false.
He set out what he meant by equilibrium here:
The silver wire is hardly a “straw man”, of course. It is just a proxy for heat conduction,
something that he seems to have left out of consideration when he listed the agents responsible
for establishing thermal equilibrium in his “thought experiment”. Unless you can show that no
irreversible transport of heat energy is possible — even in fluctuations — within this gas, which
is prima facie absurd, it is trivial to show that moving heat from the bottom to the top increases
the entropy of the closed system. I’ve done so several times above.
You introduced “thermal equilibrium”.
You went off on a completely different tangent, and began arguing against something he hadn’t said and which has nothing to do with the poser he sets.
If you want to publish a paper for lay people to help them understand something, it helps to
explain how the result doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics when obviously it does.
Even for lay people. I mean, all it takes is a single course in introductory physics to see how
his assertion fails. You don’t need a physics Ph.D, you just need to stop burying your head firmly
in the sand because you don’t want to face the fact that a thermodynamically stable, DALR undriven
by a thermal differential maintained by other means is bullshit magic.
rgb
Well, I’m a lay peeps, and I think I understand what he’s saying (I’ve explained myself in a post above), you however, don’t make any sense at all.
You’re quoting stuff I can’t find, you’ve ditched his scenario and put your own in its place, changing energetic equilibrium for thermal equilbrium you then spend your whole time arguing that he can’t get an adiabatic lapse rate from a thermal equilibrium which he never said he could, and, you bring in conduction, the wire, when he is explicitly talking about gases. What the has solids to do in this? This is about our fluid gaseous atmosphere.
Now, if you can sort that out, where you’re getting his quotes, maybe I’ve missed them, why you’ve totally ignored his scenario, why you’re arguing against a straw man of thermal equilibrium of your own invention and brought in the totally irrelvant conduction through solids and all the arguments about the 2nd law with respect to that, maybe you could write something worth reading about his paper. But at the moment, all you’re arguing with everyone about is your own imagined paper.
Guest post by Robert G. Brown
Duke University Physics Department
The Problem
In 2003 a paper was published in Energy & Environment by Hans Jelbring
You still haven’t fixed the link.
that asserted that a gravitationally bound, adiabatically isolated shell of ideal gas would exhibit a thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate. No plausible explanation was offered for this state being thermodynamically stable
Yes he did. Newton’s gravity. And note, thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate, not your ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’.
Jelbring said: “The more atmospheric mass per unit planetary area, the greater
GE has to develop. Otherwise Newton’s basic gravity model has to be dismissed.”
– indeed, the explanation involved a moving air parcel:
An adiabatically moving air parcel has no energy loss or gain to the surroundings. For example, when an air parcel ascends the temperature has to decrease because of internal energy exchange due to the work against the gravity field.
This is standard meteorological background. For example:
“Thus, rising air is said to cool or warm adiabatically when its temperature changes are due entirely to pressure changes. In reality, some degree of energy exchange will always take place, but these are generally small on short timescales.”
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html
This argument was not unique to Jelbring (in spite of his assertion otherwise):
The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been acknowledged by climate change scientists for unknown reasons.
He’s not saying it’s unique to him, he’s saying that this “has rarely been acknowledge by climate change scientists for unknown reasons”
Real scientists, such as meteorologists, know this.
The adiabatic lapse rate was and is a standard feature in nearly every textbook on physical climatology.
That the adiabatic lapse rate is standard in “climatology” textbooks is irrelevant, he’s referring to real science and the point he’s making is that it is pressure related and that there is no energy exchange in the process.
It is equally well known there that it is a dynamical consequence of the atmosphere being an open system.
Yeah, well, what do you mean by “well known”? Like, ‘well known that carbon dioxide is well-mixed and accumulates in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years’? Like, ‘well known that shortwave visible heats oceans’?
But anyway, as I said in my post it’s good enough to approximate a closed system, and I’ve only just found the page I quoted from, so my imagined cap to make it a closed system wasn’t quite accurately imagined, there is a cap on the dynamic system, it’s the inversion layer below the stratosphere.
There’s no reason to deviate from his scenario.
Those same textbooks carefully demonstrate that there is no lapse rate in an ideal gas in a gravitational field in thermal equilibrium because, as is well known, thermal equilibrium is an isothermal state; nothing as simple as gravity can function like a “Maxwell’s Demon” to cause the spontaneous stable equilibrium separation of gas molecules into hotter and colder reservoirs.
The scenario which you have deviated from, and then continued to argue, and argue, and argue that he got wrong, when you imagined it yourself. That is straw man.
I suggest, again, that you go back to the beginning and make some effort to understand what he is saying first, before you think you’re refuting him. At the moment, you’re simply arguing against yourself.
The link to his paper should be: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
For some reason it’s put this discussion url in front which messes it up.
Robert Brown says:
January 30, 2012 at 7:07 am
myrrh said some things about You haven’t even read his explanation for writing it the way he
did as your diabribe against him showed.
That’s because I don’t care why he wrote it badly.You show me one single original contribution in
this article! It isn’t even a valid review article. I reiterate: He says “I’m going to prove that
there is a stable thermal lapse in thermodynamic equilibrium”.
Where does he say that?
He quotes a textbook that derives the DALR in a section on climate dynamics, atmospheric flow.
He states “this is thermal equilibrium”. He concludes “I’ve proven that the DALR is thermal
equilibrium and will heat an absolutely static, stable, isolated atmosphere with a fixed total
energy content differentially after all thermalizing processes are finished.”
Where does he say that?
No he hasn’t, no it doesn’t. He hasn’t proven anything at all — he just begs the question by
restating his assertion as his conclusion with a “QED”, and the conclusion he asserts violates the
second law of thermodynamics.
I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re arguing about. I can’t find any of that in his paper.
Myrrh said: “I think you should begin again, Take II, and stick to his thought experiment and not
your strawman silver wire deflection.”
By all means, let’s. That way we won’t be able to trivially prove that his assertion that the
system is in equilibrium is false.
He set out what he meant by equilibrium here:
The silver wire is hardly a “straw man”, of course. It is just a proxy for heat conduction,
something that he seems to have left out of consideration when he listed the agents responsible
for establishing thermal equilibrium in his “thought experiment”. Unless you can show that no
irreversible transport of heat energy is possible — even in fluctuations — within this gas, which
is prima facie absurd, it is trivial to show that moving heat from the bottom to the top increases
the entropy of the closed system. I’ve done so several times above.
You introduced “thermal equilibrium”.
You went off on a completely different tangent, and began arguing against something he hadn’t said
and which has nothing to do with the poser he sets.
If you want to publish a paper for lay people to help them understand something, it helps to
explain how the result doesn’t violate the second law of thermodynamics when obviously it does.
Even for lay people. I mean, all it takes is a single course in introductory physics to see how
his assertion fails. You don’t need a physics Ph.D, you just need to stop burying your head firmly
in the sand because you don’t want to face the fact that a thermodynamically stable, DALR undriven
by a thermal differential maintained by other means is bullshit magic.
rgb
Well, I’m a lay peeps, and I think I understand what he’s saying (I’ve explained myself in a post
above), you however, don’t make any sense at all.
You’re quoting stuff I can’t find, you’ve ditched his scenario and put your own in its place,
changing energetic equilibrium for thermal equilbrium you then spend your whole time arguing that
he can’t get an adiabatic lapse rate from a thermal equilibrium which he never said he could, and,
you bring in conduction, the wire, when he is explicitly talking about gases. What the has solids
to do in this? This is about our fluid gaseous atmosphere.
Now, if you can sort that out, where you’re getting his quotes, maybe I’ve missed them, why you’ve
totally ignored his scenario, why you’re arguing against a straw man of thermal equilibrium of
your own invention and brought in the totally irrelvant conduction through solids and all the
arguments about the 2nd law with respect to that, maybe you could write something worth reading
about his paper. But at the moment, all you’re arguing with everyone about is your own imagined
paper.
Guest post by Robert G. Brown
Duke University Physics Department
The Problem
In 2003 a paper was published in Energy & Environment by Hans Jelbring
You still haven’t fixed the link.
that asserted that a gravitationally bound, adiabatically isolated shell of ideal gas would
exhibit a thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate. No plausible explanation was offered for
this state being thermodynamically stable
Yes he did. Newton’s gravity. And note, thermodynamically stable adiabatic lapse rate, not your
‘thermodynamic equilibrium’.
Jelbring said: “The more atmospheric mass per unit planetary area, the greater
GE has to develop. Otherwise Newton’s basic gravity model has to be dismissed.”
– indeed, the explanation involved a moving air parcel:
An adiabatically moving air parcel has no energy loss or gain to the surroundings. For example,
when an air parcel ascends the temperature has to decrease because of internal energy exchange due
to the work against the gravity field.
This is standard meteorological background. For example:
“Thus, rising air is said to cool or warm adiabatically when its temperature changes are due
entirely to pressure changes. In reality, some degree of energy exchange will always take place,
but these are generally small on short timescales.”
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html
This argument was not unique to Jelbring (in spite of his assertion otherwise):
The theoretically deducible influence of gravity on GE has rarely been acknowledged by climate
change scientists for unknown reasons.
He’s not saying it’s unique to him, he’s saying that this “has rarely been acknowledge by climate
change scientists for unknown reasons”
Real scientists, such as meteorologists, know this. “Climate change scientists” use a lot of
fictional fisics, besides such obvious boo boos like missing out the Water Cycle.
The adiabatic lapse rate was and is a standard feature in nearly every textbook on physical
climatology.
That the adiabatic lapse rate is standard in “climatology” textbooks is irrelevant, he’s referring
to real science and the point he’s making is that it is pressure related in the atmosphere and
that there is no energy exchange in the process.
It is equally well known there that it is a dynamical consequence of the atmosphere being an
open system.
Yeah, well, what do you mean by “well known”? Like, ‘well known that carbon dioxide is well-mixed
and accumulates in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years’? Like, ‘well known that
shortwave visible heats oceans’?
But anyway, as I said in my post it’s good enough to approximate a closed system, and I’ve only
just found the page I quoted from, so my imagined cap to make it a closed system wasn’t quite
accurately imagined, there is a cap on the dynamic system, it’s the inversion layer below the
stratosphere.
There’s no reason to deviate from his scenario.
Those same textbooks carefully demonstrate that there is no lapse rate in an ideal gas in a
gravitational field in thermal equilibrium because, as is well known, thermal equilibrium is an
isothermal state; nothing as simple as gravity can function like a “Maxwell’s Demon” to cause the
spontaneous stable equilibrium separation of gas molecules into hotter and colder reservoirs.
The scenario which you have deviated from, and then continued to argue, and argue, and argue that
he got wrong, when you imagined it yourself. That is straw man.
I suggest, again, that you go back to the beginning and make some effort to understand what he is
saying first, before you think to refute him. At the moment, you’re simply arguing against
yourself.
The link to his paper should be:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
For some reason it’s put this discussion url in front which messes it up.
Flight Number: AC 400Airline: AIR CANADA
Date: 01.02.2012
Departure: 07:00 from YYZ ( Terminal 1 )
Arrival: 08:13 at YUL ( )
Aircraft type: 321
Duration of travel: 01:13 hours
Jan 29 00:01 19:01 19:01 Schedules RecordCreatedJan 30 12:05 07:05 07:05 Airline Gate Adjustment
* Departure Gate Changed To 122
Jan 30 12:06 07:06 07:06 FAA Time Adjustment
* Scheduled Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
* Estimated Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
* Scheduled Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
Jan 31 08:31 03:31 03:31 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:57 AM To 01/31/12 07:56 AM
Jan 31 12:16 07:16 07:16 Airline STATUS-Active
* Actual Gate Departure Changed To 01/31/12 06:59 AM
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:09 AM
* Status Changed From Scheduled To Active
Jan 31 12:30 07:30 07:30 Airline Time Adjustment
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:09 AM To 01/31/12 08:38 AM
Jan 31 12:42 07:42 07:42 FAA STATUS-Flight Plan Filed
* Estimated Runway Departure Changed From 01/31/12 07:10 AM To 01/31/12 07:37 AM
* Status Changed From Active To Scheduled
Jan 31 12:43 07:43 07:43 Airline STATUS-Active
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:38 AM To 01/31/12 08:30 AM
* Status Changed From Scheduled To Active
Jan 31 12:44 07:44 07:44 FAA Time Adjustment
* Actual Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:38 AM
Jan 31 13:00 08:00 08:00 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:56 AM To 01/31/12 08:23 AM
Jan 31 13:15 08:15 08:15 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:23 AM To 01/31/12 08:20 AM
Jan 31 13:26 08:26 08:26 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:20 AM To 01/31/12 08:21 AM
Jan 31 13:30 08:30 08:30 FAA STATUS-Wheels Down
* Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:22 AM
* Status Changed From Active To Landed
Jan 31 13:47 08:47 08:47 Airline Time Adjustment
* Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:37 AM
Jan 29 00:01 19:01 19:01 Schedules RecordCreated
Jan 30 12:05 07:05 07:05 Airline Gate Adjustment
* Departure Gate Changed To 122
Jan 30 12:06 07:06 07:06 FAA Time Adjustment
* Scheduled Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
* Estimated Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
* Scheduled Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
Jan 31 08:31 03:31 03:31 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:57 AM To 01/31/12 07:56 AM
Jan 31 12:16 07:16 07:16 Airline STATUS-Active
* Actual Gate Departure Changed To 01/31/12 06:59 AM
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:09 AM
* Status Changed From Scheduled To Active
Jan 31 12:30 07:30 07:30 Airline Time Adjustment
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:09 AM To 01/31/12 08:38 AM
Jan 31 12:42 07:42 07:42 FAA STATUS-Flight Plan Filed
* Estimated Runway Departure Changed From 01/31/12 07:10 AM To 01/31/12 07:37 AM
* Status Changed From Active To Scheduled
Jan 31 12:43 07:43 07:43 Airline STATUS-Active
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:38 AM To 01/31/12 08:30 AM
* Status Changed From Scheduled To Active
Jan 31 12:44 07:44 07:44 FAA Time Adjustment
* Actual Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:38 AM
Jan 31 13:00 08:00 08:00 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:56 AM To 01/31/12 08:23 AM
Jan 31 13:15 08:15 08:15 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:23 AM To 01/31/12 08:20 AM
Jan 31 13:26 08:26 08:26 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:20 AM To 01/31/12 08:21 AM
Jan 31 13:30 08:30 08:30 FAA STATUS-Wheels Down
* Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:22 AM
* Status Changed From Active To Landed
Jan 31 13:47 08:47 08:47 Airline Time Adjustment
* Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:37 AM
test
Jan 30 12:05 07:05 07:05 Airline Gate Adjustment* Departure Gate Changed To 122
Jan 30 12:06 07:06 07:06 FAA Time Adjustment
* Scheduled Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
* Estimated Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:10 AM
* Scheduled Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 07:57 AM
Jan 31 08:31 03:31 03:31 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:57 AM To 01/31/12 07:56 AM
Jan 31 12:16 07:16 07:16 Airline STATUS-Active
* Actual Gate Departure Changed To 01/31/12 06:59 AM
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:09 AM
* Status Changed From Scheduled To Active
Jan 31 12:30 07:30 07:30 Airline Time Adjustment
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:09 AM To 01/31/12 08:38 AM
Jan 31 12:42 07:42 07:42 FAA STATUS-Flight Plan Filed
* Estimated Runway Departure Changed From 01/31/12 07:10 AM To 01/31/12 07:37 AM
* Status Changed From Active To Scheduled
Jan 31 12:43 07:43 07:43 Airline STATUS-Active
* Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:38 AM To 01/31/12 08:30 AM
* Status Changed From Scheduled To Active
Jan 31 12:44 07:44 07:44 FAA Time Adjustment
* Actual Runway Departure Changed To 01/31/12 07:38 AM
Jan 31 13:00 08:00 08:00 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 07:56 AM To 01/31/12 08:23 AM
Jan 31 13:15 08:15 08:15 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:23 AM To 01/31/12 08:20 AM
Jan 31 13:26 08:26 08:26 FAA Time Adjustment
* Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 01/31/12 08:20 AM To 01/31/12 08:21 AM
Jan 31 13:30 08:30 08:30 FAA STATUS-Wheels Down
* Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:22 AM
* Status Changed From Active To Landed
Jan 31 13:47 08:47 08:47 Airline Time Adjustment
* Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 01/31/12 08:37 AM
Last two posts from flightstats
The following illustration is projections of the impact on global temperature in millionths of a ºC of each country by either:
(A) closing down their entire economy (100% reduction)
or
(B) cutting their carbon dioxide “emissions” by 20%, which would, in any case, destroy any western-style developed economy.
For example: if Britain had a 20% reduction = 348/1,000,000ºC (348 millionths of a ºC).
COUNTRY A. (100% REDUCTION) B. (20% REDUCTION)
Brazil 2787 / 1 000 000 ºC 557 / 1 000 000 ºC
Britain 1738 / 1 000 000 ºC 348 / 1 000 000 ºC
Canada 1665 / 1 000 000 ºC 333 / 1 000 000 ºC
China 18662 / 1 000 000 ºC 3732 / 1 000 000 ºC
France 1172 / 1 000 000 ºC 234 / 1 000 000 ºC
Germany 2462 / 1 000 000 ºC 492 / 1 000 000 ºC
India 4618 / 1 000 000 ºC 924 / 1 000 000 ºC
Iran 1428 / 1 000 000 ºC 286 / 1 000 000 ºC
Italy 1450 / 1 000 000 ºC 290 / 1 000 000 ºC
Japan 3955 / 1 000 000 ºC 791 / 1 000 000 ºC
Mexico 1334 / 1 000 000 ºC 267 / 1 000 000 ºC
Russia 4784 / 1 000 000 ºC 957 / 1 000 000 ºC
South Africa 1268 / 1 000 000 ºC 254 / 1 000 000 ºC
South Korea 1453 / 1 000 000 ºC 291 / 1 000 000 ºC
USA 17558 / 1 000 000 ºC 3518 / 1 000 000 ºC
Rest of the World put together 20437 / 1 000 000 ºC 4087 / 1 000 000 ºC
TOTALS 86771 / 1 000 000 ºC 17371 / 1 000 000 ºC
Notice that in order to achieve the “No more than 2ºC warming” so frequently declared by politicians and world leaders as their target for CO2 reductions, the total projected temperature drop in the table above would have to be 2,000,000 (2 million) / 1 000 000 ºC. But the total for 100% CO2 reduction is only 86,771 / 1 000 000 ºC and for a 20% the reduction is a mere 17,371 / 1 000 000 ºC.
SUMMARY
The Total Greenhouse Effect on Climate 33.0ºC
Non-water Greenhouse gases ~5% 1.65ºC
CO2 ~75% of Total Greenhouse gases 1.24ºC
Man-made CO2 – under 7%* of the Total CO2 0.087ºC
* This is being generous. The latest figures show Man-made CO2 at about 3.2%, which would reduce the total man-made Greenhouse Effect to 0.0405ºC.
Britain’s Total CO2 “Effect” on the Climate 0.00174ºC
- or as expressed as Millionths of a ºC 1740 / 1 000 000 ºC
…or to put it another way: If Britain produced no carbon dioxide at all (0 %), the Earth’s climate would cool by 0.00174ºC.
Even if the defunct Kyoto Protocol was implemented in full world-wide, it would only delay by a matter of days an inevitable temperature rise by 2100 (assuming that a temperature rise was occuring at all).
Water vapour, the most significant Greenhouse gas of all, comes from natural sources and is responsible for about 95% of the “Greenhouse Effect”. This is common knowledge amongst real scientists, but is ignored by all those with financial interests, certain governmental groups and so-called news reporters. Conceding that it is “a little misleading” to leave water vapour out of their pronounciations, they defend their practice by saying that it’s “customary” to do so.
Much of the scientific establishment and all the green “activists” have forgotten their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide to be a “dangerous pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. Have they gone collectively insane? The other thing they “forget” to mention is that carbon dioxide has a half-life of just five years, which means that nearly all the CO2 produced over five years ago has disappeared into the sea and Earth’s biosphere. Those talking about how the West’s developed economies have been wrecking the atmosphere “for centuries” are either ignorant of that scientific fact or just plain lying.
The plain truth is that whatever the climate is doing it is neither caused by or can be influenced by any so-called “remedial” action by humans. “Fighting climate change” is probably the stupidest phrase in the English language, and is only used by those with a financial or other interest in perpetuating the biggest fraud in history.
The following illustration is projections of the impact on global temperature in millionths of a ºC of each country by either:
(A) closing down their entire economy (100% reduction)
or
(B) cutting their carbon dioxide “emissions” by 20%, which would, in any case, destroy any western-style developed economy.
For example: if Britain had a 20% reduction = 348/1,000,000ºC (348 millionths of a ºC).
COUNTRY A. (100% REDUCTION) B. (20% REDUCTION)
Brazil 2787 / 1 000 000 ºC 557 / 1 000 000 ºC
Britain 1738 / 1 000 000 ºC 348 / 1 000 000 ºC
Canada 1665 / 1 000 000 ºC 333 / 1 000 000 ºC
China 18662 / 1 000 000 ºC 3732 / 1 000 000 ºC
France 1172 / 1 000 000 ºC 234 / 1 000 000 ºC
Germany 2462 / 1 000 000 ºC 492 / 1 000 000 ºC
India 4618 / 1 000 000 ºC 924 / 1 000 000 ºC
Iran 1428 / 1 000 000 ºC 286 / 1 000 000 ºC
Italy 1450 / 1 000 000 ºC 290 / 1 000 000 ºC
Japan 3955 / 1 000 000 ºC 791 / 1 000 000 ºC
Mexico 1334 / 1 000 000 ºC 267 / 1 000 000 ºC
Russia 4784 / 1 000 000 ºC 957 / 1 000 000 ºC
South Africa 1268 / 1 000 000 ºC 254 / 1 000 000 ºC
South Korea 1453 / 1 000 000 ºC 291 / 1 000 000 ºC
USA 17558 / 1 000 000 ºC 3518 / 1 000 000 ºC
Rest of the World put together 20437 / 1 000 000 ºC 4087 / 1 000 000 ºC
TOTALS 86771 / 1 000 000 ºC 17371 / 1 000 000 ºC
Notice that in order to achieve the “No more than 2ºC warming” so frequently declared by politicians and world leaders as their target for CO2 reductions, the total projected temperature drop in the table above would have to be 2,000,000 (2 million) / 1 000 000 ºC. But the total for 100% CO2 reduction is only 86,771 / 1 000 000 ºC and for a 20% the reduction is a mere 17,371 / 1 000 000 ºC.
SUMMARY
The Total Greenhouse Effect on Climate 33.0ºC
Non-water Greenhouse gases ~5% 1.65ºC
CO2 ~75% of Total Greenhouse gases 1.24ºC
Man-made CO2 – under 7%* of the Total CO2 0.087ºC
* This is being generous. The latest figures show Man-made CO2 at about 3.2%, which would reduce the total man-made Greenhouse Effect to 0.0405ºC.
Britain’s Total CO2 “Effect” on the Climate 0.00174ºC
- or as expressed as Millionths of a ºC 1740 / 1 000 000 ºC
…or to put it another way: If Britain produced no carbon dioxide at all (0 %), the Earth’s climate would cool by 0.00174ºC.
Even if the defunct Kyoto Protocol was implemented in full world-wide, it would only delay by a matter of days an inevitable temperature rise by 2100 (assuming that a temperature rise was occuring at all).
Water vapour, the most significant Greenhouse gas of all, comes from natural sources and is responsible for about 95% of the “Greenhouse Effect”. This is common knowledge amongst real scientists, but is ignored by all those with financial interests, certain governmental groups and so-called news reporters. Conceding that it is “a little misleading” to leave water vapour out of their pronounciations, they defend their practice by saying that it’s “customary” to do so.
Much of the scientific establishment and all the green “activists” have forgotten their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. The US Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide to be a “dangerous pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. Have they gone collectively insane? The other thing they “forget” to mention is that carbon dioxide has a half-life of just five years, which means that nearly all the CO2 produced over five years ago has disappeared into the sea and Earth’s biosphere. Those talking about how the West’s developed economies have been wrecking the atmosphere “for centuries” are either ignorant of that scientific fact or just plain lying.
The plain truth is that whatever the climate is doing it is neither caused by or can be influenced by any so-called “remedial” action by humans. “Fighting climate change” is probably the stupidest phrase in the English language, and is only used by those with a financial or other interest in perpetuating the biggest fr@ud in history.
COUNTRY A. (100% REDUCTION) B. (20% REDUCTION)
Brazil 2787 / 1 000 000 ºC 557 / 1 000 000 ºC
Britain 1738 / 1 000 000 ºC 348 / 1 000 000 ºC
Canada 1665 / 1 000 000 ºC 333 / 1 000 000 ºC
China 18662 / 1 000 000 ºC 3732 / 1 000 000 ºC
France 1172 / 1 000 000 ºC 234 / 1 000 000 ºC
Germany 2462 / 1 000 000 ºC 492 / 1 000 000 ºC
India 4618 / 1 000 000 ºC 924 / 1 000 000 ºC
Iran 1428 / 1 000 000 ºC 286 / 1 000 000 ºC
Italy 1450 / 1 000 000 ºC 290 / 1 000 000 ºC
Japan 3955 / 1 000 000 ºC 791 / 1 000 000 ºC
Mexico 1334 / 1 000 000 ºC 267 / 1 000 000 ºC
Russia 4784 / 1 000 000 ºC 957 / 1 000 000 ºC
South Africa 1268 / 1 000 000 ºC 254 / 1 000 000 ºC
South Korea 1453 / 1 000 000 ºC 291 / 1 000 000 ºC
USA 17558 / 1 000 000 ºC 3518 / 1 000 000 ºC
Rest of the World put together
20437 / 1 000 000 ºC 4087 / 1 000 000 ºC
TOTALS 86771 / 1 000 000 ºC 17371 / 1 000 000 ºC
Robert Brown says:
February 3, 2012 at 8:51 pm
“Air has low thermal conductivity, and the bodies of air involved are very large, so transfer of heat by conduction is negligibly small.”
Yes, but that is just a matter of time scales of relaxation. You really are almost there now. Jelbring explicitly — and I do mean explicitly — states that he is supposedly waiting for relaxation to occur on all available time scales. He is supposedly describing thermal equilibrium in a static column of gas that has been sitting around long enough for even radiation to equilibrate, and for non-GHGs that is a very, very long time, much longer than the time required for thermal conductivity to equilibrate temperatures.
We really are reading him from two completely different positions, I see this as just the ‘chuck everything out and get to the basics’, so if it takes that aeons of time, so be it, but at the end of that, etc.
In other words, there is no “negligibly small” when discussing thermal equilibrium timescales. Relaxation to thermal equilibrium occurs on many timescales. Who determines which ones are “negligible”? What are these timescales?
“Take two identical volumes (parcels) of air, taken from somewhere at a midlevel in the
troposphere, with each parcel containing an identical number of gas molecules and the
same amount of heat energy to start. Mentally place one parcel higher in the troposphere and
one closer to the surface of the Earth, without allowing any molecules or heat energy to enter or
leave each parcel of air. The parcel of air that you placed in the lower atmosphere is going to
compress and warm because it finds itself in a place with higher pressure. The parcel of air that
higher in the atmosphere is going to expand and cool because it finds itself under lower pressure.
This kind of process, one which takes place without heat energy entering or leaving the parcel, is
called an adiabatic process.” http://education.sdsc.edu/teachertech/downloads/climate_answ.pdf
That’s the time scale, it doesn’t matter. That is always going to be the underlying skeletal structure onto which all else is built.
To put it another way, if one constructed a system with an isothermal air column in force balance — something one certainly can do, just by taking an insulated tower of air and mixing it well and letting it stop moving — what will make it depart from isothermal and relax towards a DALR? There are no air parcels moving up or down, so the entire argument concerning adiabatic lapse and isoentropic mixing is moot. There is nothing but diffusion and conduction, and they if anything maintain the air in an isothermal state. I’ve already argued that taking any gas and without doing any work causing it to separate into hotter and colder gas is a horrible, egregious violation of the second law, yet the entire gas column is by construction hydrodynamically stable, with a density strictly decreasing with height and without the slightest thing to cause bulk convection or other movements of air where “work” can be done.
That’s all irrelevant, it’s already the adiabatic lapse rate as a creation of gravity in that pressure does the work, more or less work as it’s greater or weaker.
You’re thinking of gravity as ‘doing work’ in an odd way, istm, and it could be because you’re not relating gravity to its own processes. For example as you say here:
“and that gravity does no work on things that are not moving. There are no adiabatic expansions or contractions — why would they occur?”
Gravity ‘works’ on mass not on movement, it’s the relationship of mass of objects meeting in gravity which creates movement, two gases of different mass in the same parcel of space will separate out as gravity has a greater pull on the one with more mass.
What you are saying is just a restatement of what I’ve been saying all along. Jelbring is incorrect, but if you neglect thermal conductivity and dynamical relaxation processes other than slow convection, an atmosphere with a DALR can be hydrodynamically stable and can exhibit a lapse rate (once one is established) for a long time. But that moves us into another discussion — one of atmospheric dynamics, not atmospheric statics, the explicit milieu of Jelbring’s paper.
No, I’m saying it’s why Jelbring says conduction is negligible, because it is, dynamically or statically, it can be discounted, air is a very poor conductor of heat.
It’s just to get back to the difference in pressure which is a ‘function’ of gravity, the higher the pressure the more the molecules are heated, the more they’re heated the lighter and less dense they become and so rise as the denser above them bully their way down through them, well, the actual term is displace, like carbon dioxide being heavier displaces the lighter nitrogen and oxygen to sink to the ground. The action of gravity.
There I think that it is pretty obvious what actually establishes a lapse rate — differential heating of the air column at the bottom, followed by a rough equilibration due to approximately adiabatic convection. The air column is always moving, always heating or cooling, so the milieu of Jelbring’s paper and his conclusions are not only incorrect, they are irrelevant. He didn’t discover, invent, derive, meaningfully discuss, measure, draw pictures of, or even present an heuristic argument for the DALR in his paper. All he did is assert that it is a feature of completely isolated, static atmospheres so that just having a gas in a gravity well equals a DALR in the gas.
You continue to prove my point.
I’m trying very hard not to… :)
“Why is air at elevation cooler as the pressure becomes less? The temperature of air is cooler at elevation in response to the vertical pressure changes that happen to occur because of the Earth’s gravity.” (same link as last)
He went well out of his way to isolate the gas and leave it alone so it would reach “energy equilibrium”, whatever that is supposed to mean, but there you have it. If you want to assert that energy equilibrium isn’t thermal equilibrium, well then, you and he can make it anything you like but it won’t be the state the system spontaneously evolves to. If you want to say that no, he meant to describe a non-equilibrium gas, then reread his paper.
Thermal equilibrium doesn’t mean the same temperature, if for example, a gas in getting hotter expands and rises becoming less dense and under less pressure it can move faster, it’s using thermal energy to move, there’s no energy lost, it’s just become something else, or, as temperature relates to kinetic energy not thermal energy then heat capacity comes into play, as water can absorb a huge amount of thermal energy before there’s any rise in temperature, or whatever, but if you’re equating all ‘energy’ to ‘heat’ as thermal energy then that’s a different idea altogether, not all energy is heat. I think he means here energy equilibrium as in different processes can be happening within the volume of gas, I think you keep misreading him. As you misread him here:
“An adiabatically moving air parcel has no energy loss or gain to the surroundings. For example, when an air parcel ascends the temperature has to decrease because of internal energy exchange due to the work against the gravity field.”
When you read that he was somehow ‘proving’ that it was adiabatic, but he’s only saying that adiabatic is the default and a parcel of air rising in it will change its energy states, the equilibrium is in the total energy of the processes.
Others have explained what that means is happening to the gaseous atmosphere as it goes from high to low pressure, and it has to be understood by first taking into account the particular properties of gases, and, these in the actual processes of gravity.
I’m sorry, but this is really all Jelbring is saying, that when we get back to the basic mechanism we get the adiabatic lapse rate, yer basic gravity.
“But, they have actually excluded the Water Cycle. Without water the earth would be 67°C, that is 52°C hotter – think deserts to get some idea of what the earth would be like without the main greenhouse gas water vapour in the Water Cycle.”
You also continue to throw red herrings into the soup. Jelbring’s paper explicitly excludes the Water Cycle (or adiabatic moving air parcels). It is a pure ideal gas. So why do you keep bringing them up?
It’s a running continuation on the theme of you misreading him in thinking he was claiming an insight unique to him, when you said it was also in text books, but what he meant was “climate” scientists don’t acknowledge this. As you show here. “Climate” scientists are a breed apart. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear as a theme in my replies. I’ve just been giving different examples of how “climate” scientists have a completely different fisics of the basics. The absence of the water cycle in the KT97 and ilk energy budgets the most obvious. But “climate science” has done this across the range of basics in changing, tweaking, eliminating and so on to the point where it describes a non-existant world, and as you show here, doesn’t know it, so thinks it’s something ‘new’ or ‘wrong’ as it’s trying read it from a different fisics, trying to make it fit into a different fisics.
I’m glad you asked.
Heating the atmosphere at the bottom more than the top seems important as well, and you know what? It isn’t that surprising that something heated at the bottom and cooled at the top exhibits a thermal gradient from the bottom to the top.
No, it exhibits a temperature gradient.
The interesting question is, what cools it at the top?
Same thing that heats it at the bottom..
..pressure, i.e. gravity, weaker at the top, stronger at the bottom.
Cooling requires the actual physical removal of heat.
Requires a change in temperature. Removing thermal energy can do that. By changing it to a different energy, etc.
Could it be — gasp — radiation? Could we — possibly — measure it? Can we — I know it is a crazy, crazy, idea — determine the temperature of the source of the radiation, and from the spectrum the probable source of the radiation, the particular species of molecules that are emitting it? Could those molecules be — I hate to even say it out loud — CO_2?
Sigh.
We know the temperature of the Sun. What “climate” scientists have done is change the spectrum. The claim is that no thermal energy direct from the Sun heats the Earth, the real thermal energy that is, thermal infrared radiation which is heat on the move. Instead “climate” scientists have given its properties, being heat, to shortwave, claiming visible light heats the oceans and land, even though water is a transparent medium to it.. And then, ignoring that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared so does reach us, say that carbon dioxide a trace gas, and already fully part and parcel of the cooling cycling of the Earth in the Water Cycle, is responsible for raising the temperature of the Earth from -18°C to 15°C, without ever giving any rational explanation as to how it actually does this, and, that doubling it will cause catastrophic runaway global warming, doubling a trace gas it still remains a trace gas.
You do have such an amazing molecule in your fictional world, defying gravity it can stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years accumulating though it’s one and a half times heavier than air, and, with no heat capacity to spit at, it can trap heat, or, heck you can’t even get your stories to say the same thing consistently, it becomes this great thermal blanket stopping heat escaping… just how much of that blanket is holes?
Anyway, thanks for your post on Clifford, I enjoyed reading it.
Robert Brown says:
February 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Myrrh says:
February 4, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Adiabatic Cooling…
Nice picture, and nice article. Note well that the figure clearly labels the wall of the balloon as being a thermal insulator — that’s the adiabatic part, actually. Suppose that it wasn’t really a perfect thermal insulator? Hmmm, would the gas precisely follow the adiabatic PV curve if heat could flow into the contents of the balloon from the gas surrounding it?
I’ve already noted it well…, glad you noticed. But, don’t worry about what would happen etc. just yet, get yourself firmly acquainted with the basic concept first. The Adiabatic Process is fully understood in the real world. Adiabatic means without heat entering or leaving the system. Familiarise yourself with that picture.
Note well that the article clearly states that the air takes on an adiabatic lapse as it is being uplifted. It even offers pretty much the only two mechanisms for uplift, and truthfully that can be reduced to one. The first is differential heating leading to convection, the second is the deflection of lateral air movements as they go up or down a mountainside. The second, of course, requires pressure differences to generate the wind and pressure differences are only created by differential heating. No differential heating (on Earth or anyplace else) — no ALR.
I’ve already noted it well.. You need to note well that “takes on an adiabatic lapse rate as it is being uplifted” is because it is within the adiabatic process, that’s what it will do. Do try to refrain from interpolating your own version into this – this is one of the basic constants of our physical world, like heat always flowing from hotter to colder, because that is the way it is. Gases with extra heat input might well rise faster, and chinook winds speed up the heating of its air as it comes into greater pressure from the heights, but we are talking about the basic process here, to which all these relate, created by gravity. What this is saying is that these will act according to the basic structure. The adiabatic lapse rate exists without any extra heat coming into or leaving the system, it’s created by gravity. From that we can understand our winds, our weather systems. Parcels of air moving through the atmosphere are called wind, convection, I’m glad you have heard of convection, it is one of the three modes of transport for heat, as thermal energy on the move.
Air uplifted will cool as the air pressure decreases, and will heat up as it descends as air pressure increases, it takes on the adiabatic lapse rate up and down, remember the picture. Moved higher it will expand as it becomes less dense and will cool, moved lower into higher pressure it will become more dense and will heat up. That is the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, it is a constant. That is the process created by gravity. That’s what Adiabatic Lapse rate means, relating to a specific process and not to anything else some might want to imagine.
From: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
[bold as on original page]
["The process of convection causes air warmer than its environment to rise, and cold air to sink. Convection thus transports heat upward, making it warmer aloft than it would be in the absence of convection. However, in the atmosphere, in contrast to what happens in a kettle filled with water and set on the stove to boil, convection does not lead to a temperature profile that is uniform with height. This is because the rising air cools adiabatically. Dry convection will tend to create an adiabatic temperature profile in which the temperature falls at a rate of 9.8 °C per kilometer." ]
Next step:
["But what the ideal gas law can not tell us is what will happen to the temperature. To find that out we need to consider the first law of thermodynamics - a physical law that extends the principle of conservation of energy to include the concepts of heat and work.
"In thermodynamics the simplest form of energy conservation is the balance between internal energy (the kinetic energy of the body's internal molecular motion - directly proportional to its temperature), and the amount of heat added to the body minus the work done by the body on its surroundings.
"As our air parcel expands in response to the lowering of the outside pressure, the force of its internal pressure is moving the walls of the container outwards. When a force is moving an object over a given distance it does work. Thus the expanding air parcel does work on its surroundings. This work must come at the expense of internal energy (remember, heat is neither added nor taken away from the parcel in this experiment). Thus the molecular motion within the parcel will slow down, and the parcel's temperature will drop.
"The expanding parcel will experience not only lowering of its pressure and density, but also of its temperature. All three state variables: pressure, density, and temperature will remain in balance as described by the ideal gas law. The process described above is called adiabatic expansion, implying the change in parcel density without the exchange of heat with its surroundings, and its consequential cooling. The opposite will occur when the parcel is compressed. Adiabatic compression leads to warming".
..
IV. Atmosphere under gravity - hydrostatic balance.
Hydrostatic balance
"In the vertical direction, gravity is by far the most important external force acting on the atmosphere. It is the reason for the existence of this crucial envelop of gases around the Earth."
..
"We can now combine the thermodynamic laws with the effect of gravity on pressure. Using the equation of state, the first law of thermodynamics, and the hydrostatic equation we can find that the rate of adiabatic temperature change in an ascending air parcel (also termed the adiabatic lapse rate and denoted Γd) is constant: .."]
Last bold mine..
An interesting question is then — suppose one starts with an air column (Jelbring conditions, dry ideal gas, no mountains, wind, or sources of heat) but select as an initial condition hydrostatic equilibrium with a thermal profile somewhere in between the classic DALR and isothermal. Which way (to which profile) will this air column go? etc.
You’re still not getting hydrostatic balance, it doesn’t mean nothing is happening and you have to bring in another idea into the system to work out what will happen…, the adiabatic lapse rate will happen.
[Hydrostatic balance
"In the vertical direction, gravity is by far the most important external force acting on the atmosphere. It is the reason for the existence of this crucial envelop of gases around the Earth.
"The atmosphere does not collapse under the downward pull of gravity because of the energy embedded in the movement of the air molecules. This movement creates the force of pressure which counters the gravitational pull on the atmosphere. The balance between the force of pressure and gravity is the hydrostatic balance.
To find the expression for the hydrostatic balance, we first note that atmospheric surface pressure is due to the weight of the entire atmospheric column above. As we ascend, there is less of an atmosphere above us, and hence the pressure drops."]
The adiabatic lapse rate is within the hydrostatic balance because of the properties of gases which create the pressure. And it’s temperature profile..
["To understand the equation of state, assume that you have a fixed mass of air enclosed in a container with rigid walls (hence with fixed volume). If we warmed the container, say by putting it over a flame, the temperature of the air (i.e., kinetic energy of the air molecules) will rise and the pressure (i.e., the force exerted by these molecules on the container walls) will increase. The density of the air will not change since we are not increasing the amount of gas in the container nor the volume of the container. The ideal gas equation states that the increase in pressure is directly proportional to the increase in temperature.
"Lets replace the rigid wall of the container with flexible ones, that are allowed to stretch freely if the pressure inside rises above that on the outside. In that case, when we raise the temperature, the pressure inside will remain constant (and equal to the outside pressure), but the container's volume will increase. This means that the density will decrease (because the mass inside does not change). The ideal gas law states that the density decrease will be inversely proportional to the increase in temperature." ]
Now you know what the adiabatic lapse rate is, why don’t you try answering the posers Jelbring set?
Two Sides of the Albedo; The Problem with 240 W/m^2.
by Stephen Rasey
240 Watts/m^2 is an important number in climate science[4]. People use it to calculate the black body temperature of the Earth ( Tbb=255 K = -15 C) and compare it to some measured average temperature, (Tm = 285K = +15C) which converts back to a blackbody heat of 390 W/m^2. The difference between 240 W/m^2 and 390 W/m^2 is explained as the Green House Effect.
There is a big problem here. Along the pathway from the sun to the surface of the Earth in this algebra, we have violated the laws of Thermodynamics several times.
Let me be clear at the beginning. I believe in a Greenhouse Effect (GHE). I am questioning the physical model and the arithmetic used to calculate the size of the GHE. In the end, I hope to convince you that a more useful estimate for solar heating of the Earth’s surface is 341 W/m^2, equivalent to about 279 K, not the 240 W/m^2 and 255 deg K generally assumed.
How people get to 240 W/m^2 is that take a solar constant (So = 1364 +/- 3 W/m^2) as the energy received full on at the distance of the earth. They then divide by 4 to spread that energy evenly over a sphere representing the earth’s top of atmosphere, yielding 341 W/m2.[4] THIS is the ORIGINAL SIN! Dividing by 4 leads to a dead planet; it is an isothermal planet without net heat flow, anywhere. Next, this 341 W/m^2 is passed through an albedo mechanism, reflecting 30% and transmitting a net 240 W/m^2 to the ground. At this point, it is equivalent to a Blackbody at 255K and thus the second sin against thermodynamics is committed.
In the past month on WUWT, there have been several highly enlightening posts by Brown, and Eschenbach [3] that have made clear that when any non-greenhouse gas[1] is in a gravity field of a planet, and the surface of the planet is isothermal, then the atmosphere must be isothermal at the temperature of the ground. The purpose of those posts was to refute the theory that a gravitational field can cause the lower part of the atmosphere to be warmer than the upper part. Until the temperature lapse rate goes to zero, work can be extracted from the temperature difference. Therefore, the atmosphere at equilibrium must be isothermal if the heating of the ground is uniform. There is no net heat flow. There is no convection, no net conduction, no latent heat exchange, no heat of vaporization or of fusion because there is no temperature differences to drive the heat flow. It’s a dead planet.
For proof, I ask you to imagine 4 concentric spherical shells, from inner to outer, call them G, B, T, S. G is the Earth Ground, a solid sphere with a gravitational field.. B is the Albedo layer. T is the Top of the Atmosphere with an ideal gas between T and G. S is the surface of solar irradiance. These shells are all spherically symmetrical with a common center. Why do we have S as a sphere? Because we divided solar insolation by 4 !! The only way to uniformly heat G is to have a spherically uniform radiator. When we do that, using the inverse square laws, we see that in order to irradiate G with X W/m2, surface S must also radiate at X W/m^2. S and G must be at equal Black Body temperatures for any X! We have not specified radius of S or G or T, except by “concentric” Rg .LT. Rb .LT. Rt .LT. Rs. Therefore, the temperature at T must also be equal to S. The Atmosphere between G and T is isothermal with everything at the same temperature. The Atmosphere has a pressure gradient, but is without a temperature lapse rate.
Wait a minute! What about the Albedo layer B? Don’t we have to multiply the Energy flow from S through T to G by the albedo fraction “A”, call it 30%. So, to plug in some numbers, S is radiating by 341 W/m2 at 279 K. T is at the same temperature. 341 W/m2 encounters the Albedo B, and only (1-A) or 240 W/m2 get through to the Ground. Therefore Ground must be bathed in 240 W/m2 that implies a black-body temperature of 255 K. Oops! Suddenly, we are confronted with a non-isothermal system, with the ground colder than the top of the atmosphere. Thermodynamic alarm bells should be going off in your heads.
We can plug Dr. Brown’s silver wire into the atmosphere near T and the other end into the Ground G and extract work from the temperature difference, warming Ground G until it warms back to near temp of T. We then unplug the wire. Ground G is again only receiving 240 W/m2 again. But who here believes that Ground G will drop in temperature again back to 255 deg K? How can it get colder than its surroundings? Of course, it will not.
At thermal equilibrium the Temp of G must be the same as T and S. Otherwise we could use the silver wire to extract work. The Albedo fraction (A) of Albedo B must make no difference in the temperature of G! Remember, this is a DEAD PLANET we are considering here. We made the Original Sin of dividing by 4 long ago.
Something is missing. There is an albedo layer. It is blocking about 100 W/m2 of downward solar irradiance heat flow. But, the albedo has two sides. It also blocks 100 W/m2 of heat flow upwards. It is serving as an insulator, a device that reduces the transmission of heat in both directions, but cannot by itself change the ultimate temperature on its two sides. An albedo is not a Maxwell’s Demon.
Don’t believe me? Try this on your next campout or hike. In the morning, fill your water bottle. Wrap it in a “space blanket” with an albedo at least 90%. So little of the sun’s heat will get to the bottle that the temperature of the water should plummet. By noon, you should have a welcome block of ice to cool you down. Read the directions of the space blanket carefully! If you put it on wrong side out, you’ll heat the water to boiling instead of freezing it. — No. Space Blankets don’t work that way. They have two equal sides. They cannot refrigerate their interiors; they can only retard the heat flow.
Albedo’s have two sides, too. They reflect heat away. They reflect heat back to the ground. They insulate. They retard the heat flow, not change the temperature of the end state. They do this without GHG’s (2). But an Albedo, whatever it reflectivity, cannot change the temperature of the ground —- ON A DEAD PLANET.
Put an Albedo on a rotating planet, illuminated by a near-point-source sun, possessing a night and a day, equator and poles, and make the albedo time varying by the minute and hour – it will make all the difference in the world! Solar insolation is anywhere from 1365 W/m2 to zero and all manner of heat capacity mechanisms come into play. But on that world, you don’t divide the solar irradiance by 4.
Stephen Rasey
Notes:
(1) The same is true if the atmosphere contains GHGs for the same reasoning, but I don’t want to go there, yet.
(2) But Albedo is from clouds and ice, and H2O is a powerful GHG! I’ll concede the point, but maintain we are talking about two separate properties of the same compound. Either way, a GHG driven albedo cannot act as a Maxwell’s Demon and keep the concentric spheres at different temperatures.
(3) Other relevant WUWT posts:
Brown, Jan 24, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
Eschenback: Jan 19, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/perpetuum-mobile/
Eschenback: Jan 13, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/
Brown, Jan 12, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/
Rasey, Jan 21, 2012: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/perpetuum-mobile/#comment-872239
[4] Just a small sample of references:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Earth’s Climate History, Antón Uriarte
Image: Uriarte: Appendix 1 [Note Thermals and transpiration on an isothermal uniformly-insolated dead planet.]
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/POPP/Lecture2.ppt [same dynamic weather systems on a 342 W/m2 isothermal dead planet.]
Alley, Earth: The Operator’s Manual Page 352 #9
Anderson, Decadal Climate variability: dynamics and predictability. Pg. 296-7. The Figure 2 on 297 with “Surface temperature without Greenhouse effect” – Venus = (minus 46 deg C)
Wendisch-2012, “Theory of Atmospheric Radiative Transfer: A Comprehensive Introduction. Fig. 1.2 after Trenberth et al 2009. Same diagram as Uriarte above.
[Note: Submitted on "test" page. Robt]
Robt: the Stephen Rasey comments above was a test of format. I posted it slightly modified as a comment at in Perpetuum Mobile where I had earlier suggested a topic on the Two-Sided Albedo. It is that version that should be used for a new top level post.
</rant>
Tim, you bring up an excellent point that the spectrum of the energy received is significantly different than the energy emitted. Thank you.
I thought about this, too in a comment from Jan 12. (quote shortened, full comment here)
It is the value of “a=0” people use to get to 255 K if they assume A=30%
In the next comment, I showed that the total energy leaking through the albedo is the same (1-A) regardless of the value of “a”.
You discuss in Point 2 the issue of spectrum conversion very well. It is a serious issue, but I don’t think you can just assume the 255 K value is correct. “a = A” might not be right, but “a = 0” is quite likely wrong. For one then, even at night, we can look up and see the bottom of the clouds from scattered light from the ground. There has to be some return.
Four thoughts:
1. There still exists the argument of the Isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field and Dr. Brown silver wire which we bridge across the albedo layer. If “a” does not equal “A”, then we have a perpetual temperature difference across the albedo with which the silver wire can extract work. That is a good reason to say “a” must equal “A”. But it is not proof. Well, maybe it is, and I just don’t grok why, yet.
2. In your million star suns, the total energy may average 340 W/m^2, but spectrum will not be a 340 W/m^2 = 279 K blackbody, but a black body of much higher temperature and heat flux attenuated by distance (or spacing of the stars). So now we have 340 W/m^2 hitting the TOA, but not blackbody spectrum. How does that change arithmetic or Brown’s isothermal atmosphere? Does the albedo become a Maxwell’s Demon?
3. The literature doesn’t seem to spend much time on this spectrum conversion. Yes, solar energy is converted to heat. But at the same time, they talk of “thermals”, “latent heat”, “convection” in a model that needs to have an isothermal ground. At equilibrium there must be no net energy flow. There is no day and night, everywhere it is the same grey illumination. No wind, no weather. A significant piece of the literature is inconsistent in this regard.
4. The whole “divide by 4” average insolation is a bad idea to try to explain climate mechanisms. Might as well divide by zero. It is better to scrap it rather than fix it. Climate is a dynamic equilibrium, not a static one. Day and night cannot be averaged.Eppur si muove.
Tim, you bring up an excellent point that the spectrum of the energy received is significantly different than the energy emitted. Thank you.
I thought about this, too in a comment from Jan 12. (quote shortened, full comment here)
It is the value of “a=0” people use to get to 255 K if they assume A=30%
In the next comment, I showed that the total energy leaking through the albedo is the same (1-A) regardless of the value of “a”.
You discuss in Point 2 the issue of spectrum conversion very well. It is a serious issue, but I don’t think you can just assume the 255 K value is correct.
On the one hand, you argue that an Albedo of clouds lowers the blackbody temperature of the Earth, but then GHG’s ride to the rescue to raise its temperature. Wouldn’t make more sense to net out the change? “a = A” might not be right, but “a = 0” is quite likely wrong. For one thing, even at night, we can look up and see the bottom of the clouds from scattered light from the ground. There has to be some return.
Four thoughts:
1. There still exists the argument of the Isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field and Dr. Brown silver wire which we bridge across the albedo layer. If “a” does not equal “A”, then we have a perpetual temperature difference across the albedo with which the silver wire can extract work. That is a good reason to say “a” must equal “A”. But it is not proof. Well, maybe it is, and I just don’t grok why, yet.
2. In your million star suns, the total energy may average 340 W/m^2, but spectrum will not be a 340 W/m^2 = 279 K blackbody, but a black body of much higher temperature and heat flux attenuated by distance (or spacing of the stars). So now we have 340 W/m^2 hitting the TOA, but not blackbody spectrum. How does that change arithmetic or Brown’s isothermal atmosphere? Does the albedo become a Maxwell’s Demon?
3. The literature doesn’t seem to spend much time on this spectrum conversion. Yes, solar energy is converted to heat. But at the same time, they talk of “thermals”, “latent heat”, “convection” in a model that needs to have an isothermal ground. At equilibrium there must be no net energy flow. There is no day and night, everywhere it is the same grey illumination. No wind, no weather. A significant piece of the literature is inconsistent in this regard.
4. The whole “divide by 4” average insolation is a bad idea to try to explain climate mechanisms. Might as well divide by zero. It is better to scrap it rather than fix it. Climate is a dynamic equilibrium, not a static one. Day and night cannot be averaged. Eppur si muove.
The ABC’s form on brainwashing kids and others with man-made warming propaganda goes way back.