From Climate Depot, read more here
INTRODUCTION:
More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320–page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol lead author grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report.
Other UN scientists were more blunt. South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring,
“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004” by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
End Selected Excerpts
#
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process – LINK)
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
The NAS has come under fire for its lobbying practices. See: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’ MIT’s Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked NAS president Cicerone in his Congressional testimony in November 2010. Lindzen testified: “Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.” [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]
While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) “Consensus” has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.
Scientists caution that the key to remember is “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables,” not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]
# #
Read Full Report: Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smokey, if you leave out ‘catastrophic’ in that quote, we would be less tempted to envisage Venus’s hell and are left with a quote that might be a little easier to do away with. The fact that climate change will not range into the hundreds of Kelvin per year does not mean that there will be zilch change. -> Ritter: Gray! The world is gray, Jack! (the bad guy speaks a truth in ‘Clear and Present Danger’).
Oh I have no doubt that what you say is technically correct as I’ve seen the film. I also have no doubt that you’re being entirely dishonest by blaming those who were being fed a reason to fear for feeling the fear they were fed. It’s kind of like saying, “Oh wait, no I said there *MAY” be a fire when I yelled fire! You shouldn’t have run like you did, it’s all your fault.” It’s absurd to blame them entirely.
It’s nice that you discussed what I said tangentially. Now how about addressing the dirty-money reference directly? Do you consider money freely given to companies/corporations more or less “tainted” than money taken from you by force? As you said, democracy is compromise, so some people regardless of how they feel about taxes will be compelled to pay taxes or face jail because enough people vote for those who make taxes. So what is you answer? Do you feel that freedom to choose what I spend my funds on is greater than forcefully removing money, or vice versa? Is the money that is willingly handed to someone for a specific product or service a more or less positive use of earned representative national production (currency) than that same money locked into a budget that is 60% non-discretionary spending created by people I and many others were not alive to vote for? I await you direct response, and in this light I sincerely doubt you can call oil company money more “dirty” than the social security tax, which is taken from me by force by a law made by people who are now dead and which I will NEVER see a dime back from.
I wont pull back the troll response, you have not directly answered my points, which indicates you’re only on this thread to generate response and not to address the points made. That is what trolls do.
RR Kampen,
You don’t understand. The climate alarmist crowd MUST try to scare people with tall tales of climate catastrophe – and all of them fabricated.
If they were honest and admitted that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate, then all we are left with is the prospect of a *slightly* warmer, milder and more beneficial climate, which translates into more land available for growing crops to feed a hungry world.
So climate alarmists have no choice: they must continue their runaway global warming canard, or the other physical sciences that are being starved of funding will begin to question why an upstart young science like climatology gets so many $Billions every year, based on exactly zero testable, empirical evidence.
So the term “catastrophic” is owned by the alarmist contingent, which continues to lie through their teeth about a completely imaginary threat. The whole thing is so completely bogus that only someone with a devious ulterior motive would perpetuate the CAGW lie.
The UN/IPCC comes to mind, eh? Without any testable, physical evidence, it all amounts to red faced, spittle-flecked arm-waving by dishonest opportunists who are out to rob us blind.
/rant
All debates about climate completely ignore the most basic physical fact: heat can be accumulated in this planet in a form in which it can not be measured, and released into atmosphere by natural processes to affect measuring devices. Ocean heat capacity is more 1000 times higher that of atmosphere. It means that 1 degree of atmospheric warming corresponds to less than 0.001 degree of ocean cooling – an immeasurable quantity. Ocean is 13 C degree cooler than atmosphere (global averages both), so heat must be permanently pumped out of it into atmosphere. This heat pump is thermohaline circulation – oceanic flows conveyer belt. When it becomes stronger, more heat is pumped out; temperature rises. When it became slower, temperature falls. So no greenhouse effect is needed to explain climate change: this natural variability is enough to account for all observable cooling and warming.
In case anyone is interested here is the home page of one of Morano’s ‘international scientists’.
http://www.alantitchmarsh.com/
It is Alan Titchmarsh (Morano gets his name wrong), popular TV Gardening Presenter. A charming man, his scientific credentials extend to a diploma in Horticuture. Ask anyone from the UK if he qualifies as a prominent international scientist. Here’s part of the quote that Morano likes:
“I wish we could grow up about it,” he explained, “I’m sure we are contributing to global warming, and we must do all we can to reduce that ….
Not the most sceptical of sceptics then …..
Wait a minute. Marc Morano ?
Isn’t that Inhofe’s (“global warming is a hoax”) PR man ?
And isn’t he the biggest “hoax” creator as a source for Limbaugh’s conspiracy theories and misinformation that created the swift boat hoax and the climategate hoax ?
Skeptics should be on the alert for any story that this guy pens out. You need to double and tripple-check anything that he writes.
It probably makes little difference here, but for the record, the paper mentioned above by Marc Morano by William C. Gilbert and Hans Jelbring (entitled “Politics and Greenhous Effect”) is scientifically laughable.
http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
This paper dismisses GHGs as a source of global warming, which by itself should have triggered at least some skeptic thoughts.
The paper discusses the lapse rate in the atmosphere, but completely ignores the fact that the upper troposphere is cold because it looses heat by radiation from GHGs.
Without GHGs in the atmosphere, radiative cooling would only be from the surface, which would then be the 33 C colder than it currently is.
To display such a lack of basic scientific competence is not speaking in favor of these two scientists on Morano’s list.
Smokey says:
December 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm
RR Kampen,
You don’t understand. The climate alarmist crowd MUST try to scare people with tall tales of climate catastrophe – and all of them fabricated.
Smokey, I distance myself from that and I said so before on this forum. You will not find announcements of future catastrophe from my hand here – or anywhere on the blogosphere (where I actually sometimes moderate screaming alarmist comment). I’ve announced sea ice-free Arctic summer soon but I have never associated this with catastrophe. I did remark it opens up the possibility of exploiting new oil fields and trade routes.
You said:
If they were honest and admitted that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate, then all we are left with is the prospect of a *slightly* warmer, milder and more beneficial climate, which translates into more land available for growing crops to feed a hungry world.
I disagree on the nature of a GHG whose concentration is rising. As for your prospect, I suggested as much in a post on this forum. If I knew how to retrieve my posts from say a couple of months ago, I could show you easily. The argument I made ran as follows: AGW-skeptics shouldn’t deny established knowledge, because it will sooner or later lose them all credibility; but they should indeed point to the prospect of a *slightly* warmer, milder and more beneficial climate, which translates into more land available for growing crops to feed a hungry world.. I might agree, although rapid climate change, including rapid warming, is never beneficial during the change simply because ecosystems and agriculture need to adapt which is a very ‘costly’ process. Example: those tending reindeer now will lose this way of living while a new way, e.g. woodmanship in those new forests that have grown over the tundra, takes time and investment to establish (this is the actual situation of Arctic Europe).
Jeremy, forget the ‘dirty money’ (I don’t like the phrase either); instead look coolly at the numbers cited and see for yourself what you are paying for. Whether it’s worth it or not for you is not for me to say. The dirty thing is maybe just the fact that energy companies et cetera don’t tell you what you are paying for. So I gave a reference for that, with a hint to the ‘follow the money’-argument. If you ‘follow the money’, IPCC and climate science will really be the last place you’ll arrive on a trip that will have taken you to, e.g., Saudi Arabia.
… taken from me by force by a law made by people who are now dead and which I will NEVER see a dime back from.
How can I not agree? Man, I have even far worse grudges. Dutch State took away more than a year of MY life by obligatory military service! Things like that. Now what – viva la revolución?
You know what really costs all of us big money for which we get nothing back at all? The priest caste of the modern age – I mean the bankers, Greenspan et cetera. Any drop in your or my income will be caused by that. Climate taxing is half a peanut in comparison.
Trolls aim to destroy a forum. I am no troll. You cannot call anyone a ‘troll’ merely by picking out one of my rare posts here and feeling misunderstood by that response. I am entirely willing to try to clear such misunderstanding as I am trying now. I may not succeed this time again but it would still make me no troll. So say sorry, please.
Rob, that is you who demonstrate scientific ignorance by this common fallacy about 33 C colder surface in absence of GHG. All atmospheric gases radiate into space, not only GHG, with the same efficiency. And they radiate at the tropopause at temperature -18C, which is maintained by adiabatic convection, the main mechanism of heat transfer in atmosphere. This temperature would be just the same, with or without GHG, according barometric formula, defined by universal gas constant R. Atmosphere of arbitrary composition will work as insulation due necessity to maintain linear vertical gradient, supporting convection and maintained by it. So these 33C, difference between surface temperature and tropopause temperature, is the result of adiabatic convection, and GHG do not enter in this process in any way.
Ah yes, discredit early, discredit often. Without ad-hominem, you believers would not have a case. As I recall, it didn’t take a team of international scientists to embarass Steig, just a few amateurs without PhDs as I recall.
Mark
Sergey,
I am not sure where you obtained the information you stated but it seems that you also have fallen pray to an old ‘skeptics’ myth.
First of all, the tropopause has a temperature of -50 C or so, not your -18 C.
It can only be so cold there because something there radiates to space.
Second, the major constituents of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) do NOT radiate in the IR spectrum. Radiation from top of atmosphere is thus reserved for GHGs. Since water-vapor is almost absent at that altitude (10-15 km) , the main radiating gas there is CO2, followed by methane and ozone.
Change CO2, and you will tweek the knob by which the upper troposphere is cooled, which changes the amount of heat that escapes to space.
Roy Spencer has a pretty decent article on this basic GHG effect, where he also addresses some of the common misconception that you and many other skeptics seem to hold.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect
As skeptics, let’s at least agree on which parts of the GHG effect we dispute. If you believe in the myth that it is nonexistent then you look like an idiot.
Every gas radiate in infrared (every body, solid, liquid or gaseous): this is the basic law of thermodynamics. According your own statement, the more CO2 is in upper atmosphere, the more effective is radiation cooling. As far as I know, GH effect hypothesis postulates just the opposite: CO2 hinders radiation cooling! So, “tweeking the knob” by increasing CO2 concentration would cool the Earth! Hail CO2!
As for source of information about relative importance of convection and radiation in cooling the surface, there was a famous direct experiment by physicist Robert Williams Wood, in which he tested Arrenius hypothesis of greenhouse effect of CO2. He made 2 identical calorimeters, that is, wooden boxes with thermally insulated sides and bottoms, one covered by glass (which is opaque in infrared), the other with a slate of halite (NaCl), transparent in both wisible light and infrared. In each he placed a thermometer to measure the trapped heat. After exposure to direct sunlight for a while, the readings of both thermometers were identical. So the only possible conclusion is that in normal conditions (athmosperic pressure and near 20c temperature) all cooling is due to convection, and greenhouses are warmer not because of suppressed radiation, but because of supressed convection. Thin films of plastic used in modern greenhouses (completely transparent in infrared) work just as well as glass. If there is some radiation contribution to cooling, it is so weak that can not be measured, so the the name “greenhouse effects” attributed to trapping of infrared radiation by so-called greenhouse gases is a phoney term: it does not work at concentrations 1000 times lower than in Arrenius experiments (compared to convection).
You are right, though, that my using of the term “tropopause” was a mistake: I meant the altitude at which ambient themperature is equal to radiative themperature of the Earth measured from the space, that is, to -18C. This altitude is 4000 m, which is lower, of course, than a tropopause (9-12 km).
I could not find in Internet a description of Wood’s experiment, only a source of original work: “Wood, R. W. (1909). “Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse”. The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Vol. 17, pp. 319-320.”
Here is a rather detailed description of Wood experiment:
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
There is also theoretical discussion of conclusions from this experiment. But, do you accept these conclusions or not, you should at least understand that radiation cooling becomes important only above the midpoint altitude 4000 m, where almost nobody lives. For us, mortals, all these above-the-clouds physics is irrelevant, since themperature lapse between surface and this midpoint, 33 C, is already explained by adiabatic convection. GH effect need not to apply.
The essence of Roy Spenser’s post is its last paragraph:
“So, until someone comes along with another quantitative model that uses different physics to get as good a simulation of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, I consider objections to the existence of the ‘greenhouse effect’ to be little more than hand waving.”
That is exactly what I did: indicated alternative quantitative physical model for simulation of observable temperature profile of atmosphere, namely adiabatic convection. This is not my invention, this explanation of barometric formula is known for decades in physics of atmosphere. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
I copied/pasted this article (with references) in an AGW article posted in San Diego’s “Union-Tribune” ~~~~ and was promptly banned from making any further comments on their site. Pravda comes to America!
For anyone who dislikes this “AmericanPravda” motiff, the General Manager, Opinion Editor, and Alleged Science Editor are:
GM: Mike Hodges mike.hodges@signonsandiego.com
Op. Ed: William Osborne bill.osborne@uniontrib.com
Alleged Science Editor (an AGW Priest): Gary Robbins gary.robbins@uniontrib.com
@Sergey,
Seldom have I read more misinformation than in your (4) consecutive posts.
I seriously suggest that you take a university course on radiative theory of gases.
According to your theory, wrapping oneself in aluminum foil would not be better than wrapping yourself in plastic foil. I can assure you from experience that you are mistaken.
Then, the Wood experiment.
First of, in your link it is explained by the article by an Australian Petroleum Geologist. That should have triggered some skeptic thinking.
In case you did not catch this, then consider this :
What was the material on the inside of the boxes that Wood used ?
If it was anything short of a mirror, then both boxes radiate as a black-box and thus no difference in box temperature would have been noticable.
And you know why right ?
Finally, regarding Spencer’s post ; I’m not sure why you think that Spencer (and pretty much every other scientist on this planet) would have somehow overlooked thermodynamics and radiative theory of gases and Wood’s experiment.
I’m really not sure why you cling to an experiment done more than a hundred years ago that does not even say anyhing about GHGs. In short, I’m not sure why you seem to think that a theory that appears in you mind has not appeared in the minds of all the scientific institutions on this planet. I wish you luck with your beliefs, but meanwhile, I prefer to follow science and the scientific method to assess the relevance of GHGs in our atmosphere.
@ur momisugly Rob
I need not university course of radiative theory of gases, since I had one, and I have master degree from Moscow University, Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, Chair of Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics. I was educated as a rocket scientist, my field is numerical simulation of supersonic and hypersonic flows with chemical reactions and heat transfer – radiative and convective. Applications include numerical simulations of nuclear blasts, aerodynamics and thermal shielding of re-entry bodies, internal dynamics of rocket engines, physics of combustion and explosion.
Your comparison of aluminum foil (which absopbs nothing and reflects everything) with semi-transparent medium like glass or GHG, that absorb some and re-radiate some of the absorbed heat, is absolutely irrelevant. The question is not what is better for insulation from radiation (of course, for this purpouse foil is better than plastic), but what are relative contributions of convection and radiation in cooling of gases under normal conditions. Wood’s experiment was crucial to correct error of Arrenius, but mass perception lags behind real science by decades. Millions of school textbooks slavishly repeated Arrenius explanation of greenhouse effect for almost a century, and only recently this error was corrected in Wikipaedia!
Materials used in calorimeters in Wood experiment was, of course, black paper, like in all calorimeters, and radiation from them was black body radiation in equilibrium with themperature (Stefan-Boltzman radiation). The Earth radiative temperature -18C is also blackbody, Stefan-Boltzman radiation, and was calculated according this formula. No need even consider any resonance spectral lines, their contribution in this temperature range is negligable. Radiation from stars is also almost exclusively black body radiation (helium and hydrogen), and as all blackbody radiation does not depend on chemistry of radiating bodies, only from their temperature.
Robert Wood was not an ordinary scientist, he was a founder of spectroscopy and theory of radiation measurments in all bands of electromagnetic spectrum, inventor of infra-red and ultra-violet photography and the most authoritative expert of his time in optics of gases and thermodynamics of radiative heat transfer. That is why his experiment was so important.
I do not think that theory that appeared in my mind was never considered by scientific institutions. Of course it was, but not by those who call themselves “climate scientists”. They are mostly meteorologists with some amateurish attempts in statistics and computer modelling. They do not understand physics. Russian astrophysicists and astronomers do understand it, that is why they are very sceptical about AGW. And I gave links to popular sources supporting my “theories”. Again, they are not mine: this is quite traditional and mainstream views of physicists, they are just unknown to meteorologists.
Apologies to Anthony for getting into a more in-depth discussion of the basic GHG effect here. I’ll try to be as brief as possible, and return to the subject of this post (Marc Morano’s list of ‘dissenting scientists’) when I have a chance.
@Sergey,
The core of the mistake you make is in the sentence “The Earth radiative temperature -18C is also blackbody. No need even consider any resonance spectral lines, their contribution in this temperature range is negligable”.
This statement is verifiably false. The Earth does NOT radiate as a black-body. When you look at Earth from a distance, every wavelength has it’s own radiation level, reflecting the temperature (altitude) from which it emerged. Here is a graph of the full IR spectrum as radiated by planet Earth for clarification :
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
It’s NOT a simple black-body radiation spectrum. There are areas of the spectrum (water window) that rediate from the surface (@280 K), and there are areas (CO2 absorbtion spectrum) that radiate from 10 km altitude (@220 K) . Your 4000 meter altitude is only the average.
Notice the huge dip (to a 220 K envelope) which is marked “CO2″ ? That is CO2 radiating from around 10 km altitude (where CO2 becomes opague as seen from space). Since the temperature is so low there, radiation is low as well. If CO2 were completely absent from the atmosphere, that part of the spectrum would be transparent until much lower altitude, and radiation would increase dramatically. Thus the Earth would cool rapidly, evaporation (and thus water-vapor) would reduce, until surface temperature drops to -18 C, where SB radiation equilibrium is achieved again. By that time Earth is a flozen ball of ice. That’s simple physics, and that (33 C difference with current +15 C average) is the essence of GHG effect caused by that trace gas CO2.
Really no climate scientist disputes this effect, so I’m not sure why you put your own and Wood’s creadibility on the line, as well as poo-poo the knowledge of climate scientists. And may I remind you that for example Dr. Spencer is not just a good climate scientist, but also a skeptic. If anyone would dispute this effect, it would be him. But he does not, and I recommend you re-read his post (link above).
Finally, while you are running your MODTRAN simulations that will confirm exactly the effect I describe above, I’d like to move on to the next ‘scientist’ mentioned in Marc Morano’s list :
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin
Now I’m not sure if deliberate misinterpretation of the GHG effect is a Russian thing, but this guy really has no clue what he is talking about. This issue is NOT the amount of energy (heat) that we create, the issue is CO2 (and other GHGs) that warm our planet according to the GHG effect very compactly described above.
Now, I’ll probably get everyone to bark at me this time, but I’m sorry guys. GHG theory is basic physics, and anyone disputing this is not focusing on the right issue.
As Roy Spencer said : As skeptics, let’s at least agree on which parts of the GHG effect we dispute.
If you believe in the myth that the GHG effect is nonexistent then you look like an idiot.
I never asserted that Earth radiate as black body, I asserted that -18 C is the temperature of equivalent blackbody with the same integral (through all wavelength) intensity of radiation as the Earth radiate. This is the DEFINITION of radiative temperature: this concept applies only to Stephan-Boltzman spectral distribution. To resonance wavebands the concept of radiation temperature does not apply, since there is no universal relationship between their intensity and ambient temperature, while for black body such relationship holds.
So you assert that if there were no GHG gases in atmosphere there would be zero lapse rate and no convection? But convection itself gives -18 C at 4000 m, according barometric formula, for atmosphere without water vapor and other GHG gases. Again, see the link I provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate. (dry adiabatic lapse rate, equal to 9,8 C/km). Notice that no greenhouse effect is involved in derivation of this formula. See also the definition of radiation themperature:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/R/radiation_temperature.html
More detailed derivation of adiabatic lapse rate and its real-world application see in
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node56.html.
See also the opinion of the leading Russian physisict of atmosphere and ocean from Moscow Oceanology Institute, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Rob says on December 13, 2010 at 12:41 am
Is this really accurate? The reason I ask is that the surface air temperature seems to be a different thing from the surface temperature. That is, my understanding is that some of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the surface and the oceans, and since the oceans have something like a 1000 fold greater heat/energy capacity than the atmosphere, how much of the atmosphere’s energy is coming from radiative transfer of energy from the vs conduction and convection?
@richard
Indeed most of solar radiation (in visible spectrum) gets absorbed by the surface. It needs to get rid of that energy, or else the planet would heat up.
Without any GHGs in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would not be able to radiate at all, so radiative cooling of the planet would have to come ONLY from the surface. Simple SB physics shows that the average surface temperature of the planet loose as much heat to space by radiation as it receives by direct solar irradiance if the surface is on average -18 C.
With GHGs in the atmosphere, the surface can’t radiate that heat directly (since GHGs like water vapor and CO2 are opague in the IR spectrum), so the surface heats the atmosphere mostly by convection. As the air rises, it cools, by adiabatic expansion, just like Sergey mentions, until it reaches the upper troposphere. From there until space, GHGs are transparent, so the heat radiates away from high altitude. Unfortunately, since the air cooled so much, radiation is much reduced, which cause the surface to heat up (about 33 C) before an equilibrium (between incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation) is achieved again.
That’s the GHG effect is just two paragraphs. The heat capacity of the oceans does not change much about this picture, since it would only slow down the process (of heating/cooling) but not affect the equilibrium temperature of the surface.
For Sergey, the lapse rate is important to determine the difference between the surface temperature and the upper troposphere, but it does not by itself change the radiative properties of the planet as a whole. That depends on the GHGs in the atmosphere and from which altitude they radiate to space. Change CO2 levels, and you change that altitude, which in turn moves the whole system (difference between surface and upper troposphere temperature) to a changed reference point.
You have a scientific education, so please re-think this process. Please do not hide behind the opinions of people that do not understand such basic physical concepts. Think for yourself. For example, if the lapse rate is fixed (and enforced by convection) why would the surface of this planet be +15 C (and the tropopause at -50C) and why are these numbers not 0 C and -65 C respectively ? Same difference, same lapse rate, same convection, different surface temp. Why ? Because GHGs determine the altitude from which this planet cools to space. Change the concentration, and you change the reference point, and thus the surface temperatures.
“Without any GHGs in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would not be able to radiate at all”
Why, for God’s sake? Any body radiates accordingly its own temperature, as Stefan-Boltzman formula shows. That is why stars (and Sun) are visable to us. Atmospheres of most stars completely lack GHG, but radiate nevertheless, and we judge their temperature from spectral distribution of this radiation. Radiation of GHG in their respective wavebands has fixed frequencies and does not depend on temperature. There is no such thing as altitude at which atmosphere radiates: it does this from all altitudes, from the surface to tropopause and beyond. To calculate integral radiative flux into space, we must integrate fluxes from all these layers. It is impossible to calculate complete heat tranfer balance of real atmosphere with convection, wet lapse rate depending on geographic and altitude distribution of moisture, clouds, heat transfer due evaporation, condensation, freezing and sublimation: this problem is mathematically untractable, even if we had all needed information (which we do not have). So actual contibution of GHG is everybody’s guess, it can be everywhere from zero to several percents. No real theory of greenhouse effect actually exists, and these oversimplistic explanations containing absurd assertion that atmosphere can not radiate without GHG makes every literate physicist deeply sceptical about very existence of greenhouse effect.