Heh, this is entertaining.
While Bill Nye argues for “in whose best interest is denial?” and brings up the ridiculous CO2 on Venus argument, Joe Bastardi runs circles around him with technical graphs and explanations on forcing factors and their magnitudes.
Warmists scream “weather is not climate!”. We need to shout back “Venus is not Earth!” since the Venusian atmosphere is entirely different in compositions and forcings, and we understand it far less than Earth’s.
Meanwhile, Bill O”Reilly seems more concerned about making his commercial break on time than saving the planet.
Nye needs a better argument, as Fox News viewers can see past the appeal to emotion. Bastardi while far more technically competent than Nye, needs to focus on explaining a bit about natural cycles, since few viewers would know what the “PDO” is.
A caveat for both men, doing live TV debate by the seat of your pants is tough. You can’t see each other, and you are communicating via earpiece audio. Live TV is never easy, live via satellite interlinks is even tougher.
Watch the segment => here.
h/t to WUWT reader “pwl”
Point #1. Phil, Phil, Phil. Frozen ball? Hardly. Let me refer to that bastion of global warming articles known as Wiki. “Earth’s surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F) colder than at present…” without greenhouse gasses. Pick your current tropical hotspot and move there when the temps around 110 get dropped 59 degrees. It would be about right. At least for me. I can’t stand hot. Cold is better. But the Earth would not be a “frozen ball” without greenhouse gasses. It would depend on where you are and what angle the Sun is at. At least let’s be accurate.
Point #2. The correlation of temperature with oceanic/atmospheric cycles has been done so I don’t need to handwave.
See this site and stay a while. http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/PDO_AMO.htm
Point #3. As to the Sun not being a driver. I said it is NOT a driver of TRENDS. It certainly DOES provide the continuing source of heat energy we need. But it is a relatively steady state compared to the marvelously, chaotic, cyclic, oscillating oceanic/atmospheric system we have. The correlation to Sunspot and any other Sun statistic has been posted before. No correlation.
Point #4. Come on people. To err is human but to grasp at straws is beneath us. On both sides of the debate. CO2er’s and Sun Worshippers need to check their science.
Changing the subject only slightly — let me go on for a minute about AGW, “basic physics” and the “what ELSE could it be?” argument.
In the 19th century, the science was settled. Neither matter, nor energy could be created or destroyed. Any denial of the basic physics was rank nonsense and utterly unscientific.
However, this presented a problem. The sun. What in the name of Isaac Newton made the sun shine? (Or, warm, for that matter?)
Well, basic physics, and what else- Gravity. Obviously the gravitational infall of matter from the earliest times of the solar systems formation had heated the sun to an incandescent mass. By the 19th century, some million or hundred million years later, the sun was slowly cooling, but it was still good for several million years. So said Lord Kelvin. So accepted the public, such as Mark Twain.
The problem was that geologists and biologists, notably Charles Darwin, argued that the rocks and fossils indicated that the earliest days of the EARTH’s formation were not millions, or even hundreds of millions, of years ago. Geological evidence “proved” creation had begun some BILLION or more years ago. At least a billion. Perhaps ten billion. According to the science of the geologists, the astronomers and physicist were “out” in there calculations by several orders of magnitude.
It is in this climate of dispute that Percival Lowell conducted his astronomy. And (while I don’t speak of Lowell himself, but of the general mindset of the time) IF astronomers were correct and life were possible in only millions, and not billions, of possible times, then why NOT seen life arising on Mars? And, perhaps, if the sun had persisted longer than some believed, then, perhaps, the infall of matter had not ended with the original creation. Perhaps there were still lots of other bodies — Planet X beyond Neptune, the hypothetical planet Vulcan inside the orbit of Mercury — lurking in space, waiting to be discovered.
In fact as observations became more common and timekeeping became more precise, astronomers discovered little wobbles and variations in the calculated orbits of planets and satellites. Lowell used such in his search. The once-planet Pluto, (partly named for Percival Lowell =P.L.uto) was found while looking for a BIG perturber. Various observers reported moons around Venus, a second small moon around Earth itself, and of course, like Twain, all amateur astronomers were crazy for comets. To account for the persistantly incandescent (warm) sun, theorists believed, with all their hearts and backed by the best of scientific evidence, that the solar system was jam packed with matter– constantly infalling into the sun and keeping it inflamed.
What else could it be?
IN fact, the odd variations from Newtonian orbital predictions and the incandenscence of the the sun were explained by Einstein. The solar system, in fact, is not jam packed with dark matter. It’s nearly perfect vacuum. Solar “infall” is nearly non-existant, and explains nothing at all about the energy the sun releases.
Darwin was right, the Earth is billions of years old, and Percival Lowell and Lord Kelvin were wrong.
When a modern warmist asks you to explain climate and asks “what else” could be responsible for rising temperatures, remember the history of science.
The failure of your imagination is not evidence supporting your hypothesis.
Phil
I neglected to add that there is also no surface evidence of wind erosion or the transportation of sand and dust like there is on Mars.
There is no comparison in credentials,
Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Expert Senior Forecaster AccuWeather
Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Bill Nye the Science Guy
For those who are complaining about O’Reily, he has always been ignorant on global warming. He has idiotically repeated for years that he is against “pollution” not realizing the debate has nothing to do with pollution. His climate stance is almost as bad as his massive economic ignorance thinking “speculators” drive up the price of oil. Bill is scientifically and economically illiterate.
> I’ve always liked Bill O’Reilly, and found him both sensible & honest and
> entertaining. That’s why I was kind of surprised that he wasn’t a
> full-fledged climate skeptic
Bill has an entertaining show (usually) but what he knows about science could be written on the head of a pin with a blunt Sharpie. He had a “real scientist”on once, sorry I don’t recall his name, to rebut Intelligent Design. Bill changed the topic to abortion. Huh??? Somehow, Evolution science is a cause of abortion. Bill also like the “it’s only a theory” line to rebut evolution.
His apparent lack of science skill cause him to be influenced by the X out of the last Y years are the hottest on record argument. “Correlation is not causation” was not part of his education.
I completely agree about Bill. He would fail any science test I gave him at the middle school level.
Sean Peake (12:03:34) :
“… I think we should start a new game: Whack-a-Troll.”
Actually, Sean, it was more water-boarding that I had in mind, but Anthony and his moderators insist that we be civil and treat them as if they were sentient.
Pamela Gray: “Point #4. Come on people. To err is human but to grasp at straws is beneath us. On both sides of the debate. CO2er’s and Sun Worshippers need to check their science.”
To err is human…is a correct statement, Pamela.
I think you have erred here making a comparison to the “CO2er’s” and the so-called “Sun Worshippers.”
I know your position on the sun’s effect as a driver. I know Leifs (10% max.)
But as Stephen Wilde and Tallbloke and others in different ways and to different degrees, are trying to sniff out….perhaps the sun is a “driver behind the driver.”
The oceans are the primary driver. And that I think is what Bastardi is saying too. He makes his long-range forecasts based upon ENSO variations, the PDO, and the AMO…etc….and rightly so.
(Bastardi, with clairvoyant accuracy, forecasted this VERY winter for the US and Europe, way back in July 2009, when the CFS and the UKMet were way off base).
But when looking at secondary….or tertiary drivers….or “drivers behind the driver” so to speak….the jury is still out on the sun.
And so making this rhetorical (and unequal) comparison to the silliness of CO2 as a driver, to the thing that occupies much of the mass of the solar system….this is not a fair comparison.
Anyone that still listens to the scientists in the world (including the Russian ones who give much weight to Sol) is not a “Sun Worshipper” as you call them. Neither are “rogues” like Piers Corbyn or scientists like Nikola Scafetta.
They…(and many curious laypeople like myself)…we are all just trying to figure out the answers in areas of science and complexities of climate that, in our limited understanding and evolution, we have barely scratched the surface.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bill Nye laughs off ClimateGate and worships the IPCC.
PUTZ!!
Luboš Motl (23:37:42) :
I think Bill OReilly is more concerned with ratings than picking a side right now. I think he doesn’t know how to present what he thinks of global warming so that it will only help his ratings. He is probably waiting it out to see what “the folks” are saying about global warming before he makes a clear statement one way or the other.
Bon mot! LMAO
All that’s needed is one of those signature Bob and Ray deadpan deliveries.
Bill Nye should change his knickname. For a “science guy” he was repeating all of the discredited information from Al Gore’s movie. For any scientist, as this stage of the game, to not want to step back and rethink CO2 as a pollutant, is just foolish.
It’s really tough for guys like Nye and Gore to give this thing up. I don’t know about Nye, but Gore was so close, so close, to becoming a very rich man, with his little carbon trading scheme, and now it’s all blown up to pieces.
I saw something that said Carbon Trading was worth $300 billion on the world market but, if the U.S. got in on it, it could easily go to $3-4 trillion. Does anyone wonder why the Democrats are so anxious to pass cap and tax? There’s money to be made and they want to be the ones making it.
Great effort Joe,
although I’m highly technical – and hence a long way from the average audience of the O’Reilley show, I thought you did quite well – at least at my level and NYE was Sesame Street grade.
Actually, I was wondering what Nye’s qualifications are – other than having some A.D.D. oriented version of Watch Mr Wizard on PBS.
also glad to see you dropped by here.
one thing I didn’t see early on the comments was the simple horrifying fact that the venus is about 200 earth days long – talking about that long hot afternoon.
Phil,
I’m back during a battle with the blue screen of death due to some driver problem. Anyway, of that 17,000 W/m^2, how much is in CO2’s narrow absorption band? 5%, 10%? So you’ve got less than 100 W/m^2 down from the sun, and… What keeps the surface hot?
Venus is a horrible case for the greenhouse effect because it’s so poorly lit down below. Fortunately, it’s interior isn’t nearly as hot as any of the gas giants that receive a trivial amount of sunlight, or a protostar that doesn’t receive any sunlight at all yet whose atmospheric temperatures get hot enough to ignite nuclear fusion reactions – all due to pressure. Ideal gas laws are way cool.
1DandyTroll (15:02:26) :
It appears you are appropriately named!
matt v. (15:46:39) :
PHIL
The temperature on the surface of Venus is extremely hot and unlikely to have winds .[Magellan Orbiter data] .I am referring to surface winds.
Which are not particularly relevant to the fact that the atmosphere does a complete circuit of the planet in 4 days (earth).
Pamela Gray
I disagree in substance but agree in general 😀 The oceans are chaotic compared to what? Jupiters Atmosphere? Depending on your frame of reference you could say the expanding and contracting magnetosphere of Earth is far more dramatic than a cyclone. It seems every mistake is made by putting us in the middle and assuming we have something to do with what surrounds us. We are a side show … a consequence/biproduct of chemistry … nothing more.
Greenhouse is an unfortunate name because I can find no information that shows the radiative effect by experiment empirically. It’s all BS. It would be better named the ‘Blanket Effect’ and we could discuss heat transfer between layers of fluid … Oceans, layers of Atmosphere, and finally space.
The Sun is extremely variable and our exposure to it while our Atmosphere’s constituents have remained relatively the same for over a Billion years. The Oceans moderate but they do not force. I think it was the other ocean zealot with the same surname that I admire who said his data ‘suggests’ the Oceans delay Solar Forcing by a decade give or take a couple years.
What I’m more interested in now are phenomena like the direct coupling of our atmosphere with the Sun’s atmosphere magnetically and electrically and the heat/energy transfer in those less understood phenomena. So far its been observed in the upper atmosphere in a couple of papers. I believe somewhere outside poorly measured light/radiation ‘energy’ is the key. I am also skeptical that present TSI measurements are ‘total’.
HAVE BEEN AN O’REILLY FAN FOR YEARS.
HE IS KNOWN TO BE A BELIEVER IN “GW”, BUT I’M NOT SURE WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE “A” PART.
I THINK HE WANTS THE WORLD TO BE LESS STINKY, AND THAT’S ABOUT IT
Pamela Gray (16:03:23) :
Point #1. Phil, Phil, Phil. Frozen ball? Hardly. Let me refer to that bastion of global warming articles known as Wiki. “Earth’s surface would be on average about 33 °C (59 °F) colder than at present…” without greenhouse gasses. Pick your current tropical hotspot and move there when the temps around 110 get dropped 59 degrees. It would be about right. At least for me. I can’t stand hot. Cold is better. But the Earth would not be a “frozen ball” without greenhouse gasses. It would depend on where you are and what angle the Sun is at. At least let’s be accurate.
At least think about what you’re saying, what would happen to the ocean (even in the tropics). Wiki leaves something to be desired as a scientific source, that temperature assumes that the albedo will remain at 0.30, a substantially ice covered earth would have a higher value and therefore a lower temperature. Also with no GHGs night-time radiational cooling would be rapid, you can freeze a bowl of water at night in the Sahara now.
Point #2. The correlation of temperature with oceanic/atmospheric cycles has been done so I don’t need to handwave.
What you said was: “To break the CO2 connection, I would post the correlation between CO2 and the atmospheric/oceanic coupling. The correlation will be dismal.”
Don’t forget to do the correlation with ln(CO2).
It would have been nice if Bill Nye would have been paying attention throughout.
Joe already showed the co2 correlation for both the last century and for the last decade as compared to the alternatives.
I noticed someone attributed a max. of 10% impact caused by the sun on the Earth system to Leif. I haven’t seen him make that statement. However, 10% coming in the form of cloud cover modulation would be quite substantial. Since EArth has about a 62% covering of clouds, their effect is quite dramatic, especially compared to the surface albedo of a planet with 70% ocean water. Breaking it down, one has 0.31 total albedo where 0.23 is cloud cover and 0.08 is all surface contribution including the poles and glaciers. Cloud albedo reflects around 78 w/m^2 so a 10% variation in cloud albedo is almost 8 W/m^2 in forcing – the equivalent of over 2 doublings of co2 even though it’s only around 2% of the incoming solar power.
Given the presence of a snowball earth or even a major ice age, the effect of reasonably fresh snow and ice glaciers totally changes the situation and regardless of the presence of clouds, the surface albedo is far higher and so the effects of the cloud albedo is much less. In warmer times such as now, the clouds form a feedback control system that tends to regulate temperatures. Lindzen has been looking at this sort of concept for some time. Of course, clouds have factors associated with their presence and formation that cause them to have some sensitivity to such things as cosmic rays, pollution, volcanic erruptions, etc. The cosmic ray tie in is what Svensbeck and the CLOUD experiment at CERN are about. Clouds are also highly affected by internal oscillations and the weather.
When one considers all the large variations in incoming (and outgoing) power associated with clouds and how unpredicatable they tend to be and then look at the pathetically small effect of what changes have occured so far due to co2 concentration and to how much annual variations of incoming power between NH summer versus SH summer it should be apparent there’s some serious fundamental problems with the co2 proponents. It’s either a religious cult or an unpopular political movement (unless it’s a combination of both).
Curious.
Phil. (22:02:22) :
And yet…
Phil. (08:19:41) :
Phil. (10:06:01) :
So even with the CO2 and methane blanketing the Earth, there is extreme radiational (radiative?) cooling at night in the Sahara. What gas does the atmosphere lack above the Sahara, as in the troposphere? Water vapor. Thus under the CO2 and methane “blanket” things get rather chilly at night, but with a water vapor blanket the heat is retained, smoothing out the daytime to nighttime temperature variations.
Which strongly suggests that CO2 and methane have very little effect with regards to heat retention. And even with these “permanent GHGs” it is still cold enough at night that water would condense out of the atmosphere and freeze if enough humidity was present near and at the surface.
Going further, soil likes to retain moisture. So in the morning, the frozen precipitation starts melting, and the portion that doesn’t change into vapor becomes liquid and soaks into the ground. The heat from sunlight only penetrates so far, so only so much heat is available to dry the soil out, and that heat has to warm the ground back up again from the previous night’s cold, which yields a period of time where liquid water can soak deep into the soil without enough heat to convert it to vapor. Thus over time there would be a reduction of moisture available above the ground, humidity would decline.
Thus on a dirt-ball Earth, without large bodies of liquid water to keep the atmosphere humid enough to retain heat and with nighttime freezing temperatures as found in the Sahara, the atmosphere would dry out to some minimum level as water is retained in the soil under the surface, and with the axial tilt yielding seasons with freezing temperatures during the daytime you would get frozen ground and permafrost in the more polar latitudes, and an equatorial zone where there are freezing temperatures at night, like the Sahara.
I suppose you could talk about a CO2 and methane “blanket” retaining heat and keeping the Earth warm. Likewise there are those who may call a sheet of taffeta a blanket. Good luck staying warm with either at night.
I believe Leif has given us the calculation for the Sun’s variant properties on Earth’s temperature trends and it is much less than 10%.
Phil, when I look at the correlation of CO2 to temperature I work only with the anthropogenic CO2, not natural sourced CO2. It makes no sense to correlate all CO2 with temperature change if the focus of the study is on anthropogenic emissions causing the planet to heat up. If one were to correlate naturally occurring CO2 and temps you would discover a lag with temps leading CO2. Warmer is better for specie survival in the animal and plant growth zones (which would exclude the poles and other low growth environs). CO2 will naturally rise as this lush growth cyclically decays.
So lets focus here. In what “scientific” circle have you been around that says the temperature trend of the last century has been due to manmade CO2 emissions? You already know that the correlation between ALL CO2 and temperature trend is FAR down the list (so anthropogenic CO2 emissions would be even LESS), but oceanic oscillations are nearly 1 to 1 with temperature anomaly. What part of this high school statistics discussion escapes you?
The null hypothesis is confirmed over and over again. Total CO2 is not the leading correlation of temperature variance. And anthropogenic correlations aren’t even 50/50.