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”
No canals? Nothing for Jim and Frank to skate back home on, to warn the colonists about the evil Beecher? Probably no Willis, either (the most engaging extra-terrestrial critter ever reported—I won’t say ‘imagined’).
Wonderful though Viking and Spirit and Opportunity have been, the reality of Mars was something of a disappointment to those of us who had been brung up on Heinlein’s Red Planet.
And Venus, too, for that matter—remember all the stories about the steaming hot jungles of the second planet?
But I must say, two great posts, Pouncer, reminding us of the fervent history of egregious science. Print this out, everyone, and put it on your office doors:
/Mr Lynn
I don’t think it’s productive to try to attack Bill Nye as clueless or a “junk science” guy. He has done his fair share of real science folks. He is, however, compulsive-obsessive about AGW and has demonstrated it repeatedly. If you want to criticize him, point out that for a “science guy” to constantly fall back on emotional rather than scientific arguments shows there’s something lacking in the science.
His near-religious exhortations on AGW really annoyed me at the US Space Symposium’s Space Technology Hall of Fame dinner last year. The question in my mind is whether he’s falling back on simplistic emotional arguments because he’s so accustomed to dealing with science novices on TV now or is it because he inherently understands the problems with tree ring proxies and data manipulation but he’s emotionally wedded to being part of “saving the planet”?
Taking a cold hard scientific approach to the facts and the data isn’t as impressive in a 30 second sound bite but I think it’s starting to sink in with the public — and the public can also tell (eventually) when they’re getting pulled by emotional rhetoric. I’d advise skeptics just keep telling the facts calmly, keep it unemotional, and watch the circus as the AGW proponents go frantic trying to tell us Black is White and Right is Left.
‘Warmists scream “weather is not climate!”. We need to shout back “Venus is not Earth!” ‘
That cracked me up. Great one.
“in whose best interest is denial?”
Those would be the people living in 3rd world countries who need the energy from cheap fossil fuels in order to stay alive and slowly become more productive and improve their economic status. “Warmers” would deny these people a key asset (cheap energy) they require and consign them to shorter, harsher lives.
How’s that for a “save the kids” style response?
[snip – OTT personal]
Pamela Gray (06:51:21) :
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%
Yes, Lief. Yes, the Hale Cycle does not directly correlate with very much but that is a ruse for us ‘sun worshipers’ when any hobbyist can get the data for the entire sunspot cycle and then take any temperature record because over that period of time the fudging over the last 30+ years (with land based measurements) is irrelevant … and behold you get a correlation just like that, I believe, Lindzen has cited of 0.97 (give or take a few). The Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, Modern Maximum, Gleissberg Minimum … all show up in the temperature record. Also, unlike the Goracles simplistic analysis, the causal relationship squares with the time stamp.
For every Lief, there are 10 Willie Soon’s who argue its all about the sun.
With all the complicated internal systems on Earth and all the energy transfer mechanisms we are just starting to understand, the time frame I’m using is, I think, a better gauge of the signature of the relationship.
If you go over paleo lengths of time, past the Milankovitch cycle, the relationship to the Sun to proxy evidence of surface temperatures is muddied as well. You can still find those who argue for solar forcing with other factors such as continental drift, et cetera.
Nye is a big wheel in CSICOP (now CSI), a group that has an emotional need for an essentially infallible process to replace religion and keep the superstitious, irrational rubes in their place. It’s found it in “scientific method,” peer review, and the consensus of scientists. The idea that their emperor might be naked or that a rude rube could rightfully call him out would turn their experts-on-top world-view upside down. That’s what’s bugging him.
Mark T (07:01:08) :
This world is so mixed up when Republicans (who claim theyre just objective journalists) are presenting the counter side to an important debate which offsets the attempt at malevolent mass mind control of the population..
O’Reilly claims no such thing. He is intentionally on Fox to offer an opinion.
Mark
O’Reilly claims when he presents the ‘news’ he does it objectively and that they have no agenda to push. I’ve seen him say it so many times or things to that effect (when I used to watch it a lot). However, the selection of ‘news’ articles, the concoction of fake news, yes they produce the reality to many stories, and the omission of the entire story is what makes Fox an agenda driven organisation. It’s clearly intentional when it occurs to such an extent to work the interests of a Republican view point. The interviews with Palin as opposed to Obama made me want to wretch when I saw them. Anyone who can’t see the difference, just can’t see the difference. But I wonder why that is?
Also, I don’t like Obama he let down the people when he had the chance to do a lot.. and yes he damn well did have the chance e.g. public option. MSNBC enjoy painting pictures and sticking with it as well. There’s no ‘maybe we are wrong’ in any tone of any of the networks.
Mark I didn’t claim
Nice hair dye job there, Science Guy.
Bastardi did a good job but he didn’t go far enough in refuting the Science Watermelon Guy.
Consider, in Science Guy’s demo of ink and water – he showed water with 280 PPM of ink and 380 PPM of ink – “See there, the coloration is perceptible.”
The ink is absorbing about 95% of visible light in water, and the amount of absorption of CO2 in the near IR that contributes to a “greenhouse effect” is (not even 10%. Call it 10%, then the EQUIVALENT AMOUNT of dye to be added to the water to make the comparison accurate isn’t 100 PPM it is 10 PPM.
The accuracy of Science Watermelon’s dilution technique was probably 10 PPM of dye
All of Science Watermelon’s logic was as refutable as that
Marvin (17:28:55) :
If story omission makes a network agenda driven then ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and MSNBC are all agenda driven as well. I love how people think there is some objective non-biased news source. All the networks except FOX are left wing biased. FOX is no more right-wing biased then the rest are left-wing biased. I don’t have a problem with O’Reilly because he is right-wing (he is a social conservative – I’m not) but because he doesn’t understand free-market economics or science. The Republican party is full of fiscal conservatives and libertarians who are in no way represented by O’Reilly but rather people like John Stossel on FOX Business (formerly on ABC and 20/20).
Nothing is funnier then the clueless who voted for our current unqualified empty-suit president and are now having voters remorse. What did he have the chance to do? Increase government to astronomical sizes? Spend us into oblivion? You got your “change”, big government change. Now his EPA wants to take a wrecking ball to the economy via CO2 regulations. Thanks Obama supporters! Thanks a lot!
That’s what the Obama Hope Change Green Job crowd THINKS, Marvin, but they aren’t going to get there.
It’s not just the “buyer’s remorse” crowd who is turning against this flea bag – it’s everybody, people can see that this hope change windmills solar panels forced no choice health care give the country away to the Communists because they hate America program is going to total the country even before his four years are up.
He’s going down the drain fast, and he’s not taking the rest of the country with him
“Derek H (07:04:09) :
I don’t think it’s productive to try to attack Bill Nye as clueless or a “junk science” guy. He has done his fair share of real science folks. He is, however, compulsive-obsessive about AGW and has demonstrated it repeatedly
”
I’m sorry, I must’ve missed something. what real science was that? I hope you’re not talking about that pbs program for kids with ADD.
Pamela Gray (06:51:21) : “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%.”
He admitted that on here one time many blogs ago, as the greatest possible percentage….while implying that the actual percentage was much lower.
I have sent Leif an email with the question and will report back if my recollection is in error.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bill Nye was good enough to take the time to read the questions at one DOE Science Bowl competition.
He stumbled over the pronunciation of words as common as “mitochondria,” and when challenged by any of the HS students about anything, he was as clueless as a cow in front of a new gate, he had to leave every last bit of controversy to others to take care of.
Admittedly, few of the Science Bowl questions were particularly easy – they were probably at the level of second-year college science major, but as far as being the Science Guy goes, he is, as far as I can discern, anybody’s fool.
Pamela Gray (06:51:21) : “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%.”
I emailed Leif and this is his response:
LEIF [Begin Quote]
“I have two answers:
1: variations in TSI would amount to no more than 0.1 K, which is
0.1/288 as a fraction
2. Correlations between solar activity and observed temperatures show
that no more than 10% of the observed changes in T are due to the Sun.
There is NO DOUBT that the Sun has an influence. There is also NO
DOUBT [at least in my mind] that it is minor.The very fact that this is discussed shows how insignificant the influence is. If it was clear, big, and glaring, and the MAJOR driver,it would so clear that no discussion is needed.”
[End quote.]
He is always good like that about responding!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The Royal Danish Observatory demonstrated, to an error in 1 part in 10, that ALL apparently anomalous warming between the years 1978-2000 were the result of solar variation.
It’s not just the solar output, gang, it’s the apparent incidence too.
savethesharks (19:40:15)
2. Correlations between solar activity and observed temperatures show
that no more than 10% of the observed changes in T are due to the Sun.
Thanks for getting that.
I found the article I referred to earlier and erred in that it largely refers to Lindzen (and not his) but is by Richard Sanford (written in 1992, Global Warming All Smoke and no Heat). In tracking this down I discovered Lindzen apparently leans toward Liefs view but he has co-authored a paper linking solar activity cycles to atmospheric cycles and in a video I watched of him he says something to the effect that the climate does not vary significantly in temperature over the geological record … another perspective/reference. The paper referred to in the article I referred to, looking at solar activities link to earth was “Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated With Climate, Science, 1991 … E. FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN and K. LASSEN”.
After reading Lief’s quote again and reminding myself of a promise to myself to stop obsessing with this subject, the nuance/detail of this discussion is getting tiring. The only outlier here is Bill Nye, the ‘pop-religion’ Guy.
Outside of that it looks like Lief would even expect a Solar Grand Minimum to have an effect on conditions here, however significant you deem it or how you’d measure it … that is for all those who have the time and resources to pick over the crumbs of data and quibble about it.
In general though, I’ll stick with the Sun. The Space Weather articles on WUWT are becoming more interesting and the observations dealing with the Solar System moving through the galaxy et cetera simply are more fun. The AGW zombie is losing coherence and discussions of climate like Bastardi implies are sometimes best left in the ‘Farmer’s Almanac’ perspective (an art). Weather is not Climate and we haven’t a clue about Climate, but I can still chear for the Solar System Barycenter Forcing model for Gleissberg period variations.
Unfortunately, the time devoted to these types of “debates” by all of the networks is so short that it is bound to produce strange arguments and mistakes. But the Venus canard played by Bill Nye, along with the absurd logical errors littered throughout his presentation, takes the cake for me.
It is a sad day to see Bill Nye become this little pompous, arrogant fool, because my son and I used to watch “The Science Guy” when he was starting school, and it was very informative and entertaining. Nye is neither of those now.
len (22:24:10) :
savethesharks (19:40:15)
2. Correlations between solar activity and observed temperatures show
that no more than 10% of the observed changes in T are due to the Sun.
Thanks for getting that.
I found the article I referred to earlier and erred in that it largely refers to Lindzen (and not his) but is by Richard Sanford (written in 1992, Global Warming All Smoke and no Heat). In tracking this down I discovered Lindzen apparently leans toward Liefs view but he has co-authored a paper linking solar activity cycles to atmospheric cycles and in a video I watched of him he says something to the effect that the climate does not vary significantly in temperature over the geological record … another perspective/reference. The paper referred to in the article I referred to, looking at solar activities link to earth was “Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated With Climate, Science, 1991 … E. FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN and K. LASSEN”.
Unfortunately that paper contains an error in the plotting of the data such that the correlation between cycle length and T is greatly overstated.
The clouds near the Venusian surface (the reason why the Venusian surface is invisible from a height of about 10m or greater) are composed of nearly pure sulfuric acid, the clouds are continuously formed by the condensation of sulfur trioxide in water vapor, the solution heat alone of sulfur trioxide in water is hundreds of kJ per gm mol; obviously this solution heat is contributing a substantial amount of heat to the Venusian lower atmosphere
“No it isn’t!” howls Ray Pierrehumbert
[um, Ray, we like, can’t even SEE Venus because of the sulfuric acid and you’re telling us to ignore the sulfuric acid clouds?]
His bow tie has become, to me, symbolic of junk science; all junk science ought to be packaged and tied with a Bow Tie
Pamela Gray (06:51:21) :
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.
You mean this imaginary correlation which you keep talking about but avoid giving any reference to? How can you possibly correlate with anything but total CO2 when thr effect is nonlinear?
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?
I know no such thing, support your handwaving with data and references.
Phil:
If you follow the analysis of Michael Beenstock, et al. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/) or my less sophisticated version of the same thing (http://www.2bc3.com/warming.html), you will see that the temperature increase correlates to the rate of increase of CO2, not the level of CO2. This is certainly non-linear, but the contribution of natural sourced CO2 would be zero, since it isn’t changing.
If you could figure out the feedback mechanism that makes the CO2 contribution temporary, you would be making a real contribution.
Brian G Valentine (05:54:55) :
The clouds near the Venusian surface (the reason why the Venusian surface is invisible from a height of about 10m or greater) are composed of nearly pure sulfuric acid, the clouds are continuously formed by the condensation of sulfur trioxide in water vapor, the solution heat alone of sulfur trioxide in water is hundreds of kJ per gm mol; obviously this solution heat is contributing a substantial amount of heat to the Venusian lower atmosphere
“No it isn’t!” howls Ray Pierrehumbert
[um, Ray, we like, can’t even SEE Venus because of the sulfuric acid and you’re telling us to ignore the sulfuric acid clouds?]
He’s probably objecting to the SO3 dissolving in water bit. The cloud droplets (particularly in the lower and mid troposphere) are composed of almost pure H2SO4, not SO3 dissolving in water. H2SO4 vapor condenses to form the clouds (latent heat ~50kJ/mol), any water would be H2O dissolved in H2SO4.
Hunh?
Sulfuric acid forms in one way ONLY, and that is from SO3 combining with water vapor, the heat of that reaction (which is a “heat of solution” if you want to call it that) is immense – haven’t been in a college chem lab? You can boil water that way
The vapor condenses to form droplets, evidently resulting from particulate impurities in the atmosphere because, the vp of sulfuric acid (enhanced by drop curvature) exceeds the ambient atm pressure at the T of the atmosphere
A more interesting question is, what catalyzes SO2 oxidation to SO3 …
oh skip it
Suffice to say, all that “feedback” crud from CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere is just that, total crud.
And you can take that right to the bank, Lon!