Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
Seinfeld fans will remember how proud Kramer was when he thought he had slipped one past the goalie. Well, I’ve managed to slip a few comments onto RealClimate’s discusion of the Times Atlas “Greenland Meltdown” fiasco.
Those of us who have followed the story here on WUWT (1, 2, 3, 4) know the basic facts. (1) The 13th edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World was published this past September, (2) The Atlas includes a misleading map of Greenland ice cover, (3) Publicity for the Atlas hyped a non-existent 15% meltdown in Greenland, (4) The Atlas has withdrawn the bogus claim, and (5) They will create a corrective insert for the Atlas and make it available online.
RC’s 08 November 2011 post on this issue Times Atlas map of Greenland to be corrected, said the original claims were “rather bizarre” but -amazingly to me- they did not not mention that the error was in the direction of excessive warming. Comment #1, by a seemingly misled RC reader, blames the error on the fact that “Harper Collins is owned by Rupert Murdoch.” The RC moderator cautions against personal attacks, and notes that such a claim wouldn’t make any sense, but he does not acknowledge why – because the error was in the Warmist direction!
To be fair, RC did include a link to another posting that, after a bunch of Warmist hype, is pretty clear on the direction of the original error. However, that link was misleadingly titled “Greenland Meltdown” (since changed to “reported earlier”).
So I posted my first-ever comment to RC, and they published it, in an edited manner that partly reverses my point, as follows:
(Comment #7) Ira Glickstein says: 8 Nov 2011 at 4:54 PM
Thanks for reporting “… the first edition was completely in error, and led to some rather bizarre claims about the amount of ice loss in Greenland.”
However, you do not
acknowledgereiterate the direction of the error, which was to report an impossible, way overstated 15% ice loss.An interested reader would have to follow your link to the
misleadinglybrilliantly, amusingly and accurately titled Greenland Meltdown to learn that: “…, the large exaggeration of that loss rate by Harper Collins in the press release for the 2011 edition of the Times Atlas was of course completely wrong. … the confusion came most likely from a confusion in definitions of what is the permanent ice sheet, and what are glaciers, with the ‘glaciers’ being either dropped from the Atlas entirely or colored brown (instead of white) … there is simply no measure — neither thickness nor areal extent — by which Greenland can be said to have lost 15 % of its ice.[Response: edits in italics 😉 –eric]
Well, an attentive RC commenter followed the link from my name to my personal blog, and from there learned I am a “guest contributor to the denialist disinformation blog WUWT”. I thought that might end my new career as a commenter at RC, but the Moderator passed my second comment (# 12), unedited, even though I challenged the use of “denialist” with respect to WUWT, and included five WUWT links to my “Visualizing the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” series to prove that we skeptics accept the basic science. Perhaps the comment was passed because I also approvingly quoted James Hansen on the Carbon Tax.
My third comment (# 22) was also passed unedited, but the Moderator said my claim that “despite the steady rise in CO2 over the past decade, there has been no statistically significant mean warming” was “simply false”.
My fourth comment (#31) explained what “statistically significant” means (less than a 5% chance it is wrong), and noted that Phil Jones, head of the Climategate Research Unit said as much in his well-publicized BBC interview. The RC Moderator cut my Climategate jibe, but passed the rest unedited. Further discussion has been shunted over to RC’s Open Thread sidelines, where I am attempting to continue it.
The point of this posting is that, whatever the difficulties, it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC, so long as we are not too blatant about it, and if we are not too sensitive about our words being edited.
The WUWT links in my comments have generated some traffic back here, which is evidence some RC readers are open to reasonable discussion. I urge my fellow skeptics to open-handedly accept this opportunity.
Seems like I have been granted comment access to RC, at least in their Open Thread sideline. A couple of my rather lengthy postings, each replying to several comments by RC readers, have passed their Moderation unscathed. No snips no edits, nothing!
So, WUWT readers, I think it is time for you to try commenting over there. I suggest you avoid personal attacks, do not regurgitate the slings and arrows of the past, and stay on topic. Let us see if valid, serious, and well-intentioned comments are allowed on the main topics over there, as they are on WUWT. Good luck.
Also, be aware that they have implemented the Re-CAPTCHA spam blocker, so remember to type in the words and letters before you submit your comment.
And, keep a copy of what you post so, if you are impeded over there, you can let us know about it in this topic thread.
Dr Ira Glickstein, PhD,
[ ” So, WUWT readers, I think it is time for you to try commenting over there. I suggest you avoid personal attacks, do not regurgitate the slings and arrows of the past, and stay on topic. Let us see if valid, serious, and well-intentioned comments are allowed on the main topics over there, as they are on WUWT. Good luck. ” ].
Hmmmmm…how do I say this and still be respectful to you?
Here goes……………. You don’t make much sense , to me.
You started this post, here…telling us of “edits” to your comments by RC.
[ ” The point of this posting is that, whatever the difficulties, it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC, so long as we are not too blatant about it, and if we are not too sensitive about our words being edited.”]
You talk of – “slipping past the goalie” ………….
You talk of posting – ” as long as not to blatant about it”…………
You talk of – “And, keep a copy of what you post so, if you are impeded over there, you can let us know about it in this topic thread.”
AND then you state – ” it is possible for skeptics to post over at RC” …..
Frankly, Dear Dr… Your logic fails me.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
November 18, 2011 at 9:00 pm
[ ” If WUWT true believers only post here to those who agree with us, and the RC true believers do the same over there, all we will have is two echo chambers.” ]
Philosophically, your statement would have merit – if both WUWT and RC were equal.
A Pascal’s Wager………type statement..
A “what do we have to lose” argument.
Pascal’s Wager works somewhat well, in religion.
Are there, ” true believers”?
I would agree, that there are.
BUT your logic fails when you compare skeptics of the scientific [ lack ] evidence – with those who religiously believe in an unproven hypothesis.
You, and others, have proved that RC is tied, hoof and mouth, to their dogma.
One clear example, the use of the terminology to describe skeptics as “deniers”. Contrary to what RC and SkS try to say that the term is benign – It is invoked as a social [ Holocaust ] – religious [ Thomas the Apostle ] cast out. Especially when other descriptives are available to acknowledge the skeptics of the hypothesis, as presented. When one defends the use of the term “denier” you step from science [ which depends on skepticism ] into clergy gowns and a religious / dogma belief.
Science can exist within religion – BUT a religious belief of a hypothesis – can not exist within science.
You state: [ “It is better to light one little candle than curse the darkness. You seem to take the opposite course, as is your right.” ] Actually, you assume – and assumptions are dangerous in science and debate 😉
Albeit; your quote has merit – when one finds the light has flicked off while in the room – BUT one normally doesn’t enter a dark room on purpose. It would be akin to participating in a Jim Jones [ Guyana ] survival course.
.
Nah! I’ll pass! See my above comment on sign-up info. GK
I’ve been taught that… no one has the right to abuse me – Not molesters – not teachers – not bullies – not people who claim authoritarian positions.
Should I allow a molester to grope me just a little bit?
Should I allow a teacher to berate me?
Should I allow a bully to hit me?
Should I allow authoritarians to rule me without representation?
What are you trying to teach?
Personally, Dear Dr…..If I ever feel the need for abuse…I’ll buy me a hair shirt. 🙂
Hey, Kim2000, my recommendation that skeptics might post over at RC was just a suggestion. I will not think any-the-less of you or others who ignore the idea.
If WUWT true believers only post here to those who agree with us, and the RC true believers do the same over there, all we will have is two echo chambers.
It is better to light one little candle than curse the darkness. You seem to take the opposite course, as is your right.
The comment I posted at RC yesterday, providing links to Lindzen and Choi’s paper as well as to Dr. Roy Spenser’s blog seems to have been lost in cyberspace or perhaps censored. So, I just posted a modified version to see if that gets through. If any more of my serious, non-confrontational replies to specific questions by members of the RC community get censored, I will post them here where MARodger and Ray Ladbury and others from RC who seem to be following this thread may see them, and recognize specific cases were RC may be restrictive.
I have no doubt that Willis, Dave Hoffer and other WUWT regulars have had their serious postings rejected by RC in the past, as they claim in this thread. But, they have not published contemporary proof, in real-time, as I have, and as I plan to continue to do. Either RC will prove that serious, on-topic skeptic comments are allowed over there, or we will have a documented, contemporary case study on the public record over here. IMHO a win for skeptics either way.
[UPDATE 19 Nov – My modified version was passed by RC today, http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=9601#comment-219497 unedited and unsnipped, with a Response by Gavin noting “acknowledged” errors in the Lindzen and Choi paper.]
“It is better to light one little candle than curse the darkness.”
Ira: “Thanks for your opinion, RJ, but I get the impression that most “real skeptics” do accept the fact that Atmospheric water vapor, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” are responsible for the Earth being ~33º C warmer than it would be if the Atmosphere was pure N2 and O2. So you can put yourself down as what I call a “disbeliever”.”
When are you going to acknowledge that your statement I’ve bolded above is a science lie?
The atmosphere would be around 52°C HOTTER if it wasn’t for these ‘so-called’ greenhouse gases; water vapour accounts for 52°C cooling through the Water Cycle.
Greenhouse gases COOL the Earth. The Earth would be 67°C not the 15°C it is in an atmosphere of N2&O2 without the water cycle.
Real sceptics don’t accept the science because the science is junk.
Well stated and valid reasons for you and others who take your view to refrain from doing what I have done at RC (and here at WUWT). I do not pretend to judge those, like you and others here at WUWT, who have reasoned objections to boosting the readership of RC and imputing validity to their “religious” adherence to the school of strict CAGW (Catastrophic human-caused warming).
On the “denier” issue. When that was raised in the mainline Times Atlas thread at RC, I replied (and my comment was passed) “… When it comes to the Atmospheric ‘Greenhouse Effect’, some of the commenters on that blog [WUWT] are ‘disbelievers’ (the term I prefer to the non-PC ‘denialist’). …”
One of the RC commenters later wrote “…The proper term for WUWT is ‘denier’ or ‘denialist’. And for the record, the implicit allusion to Holocaust denial is entirely intentional on my part.” [Emphasis added]. Of course that made me very angry, but I refrained (with difficulty) from blowing my stack. Later, the RC moderator added the following: “[Response: Please don’t give fodder to the idiots that think they get called ‘deniers’ because of some relationship to Holocaust denial. That’s inflammatory and in any case ridiculous. People get called deniers because they are denying something, plain and simple. It’s a word, that’s it.–eric]”
Have I accomplished anything over at RC? You and others are free to doubt it, but I think I have. Although several of my postings were lost in cyberspace (probably censored completely), and one was edited, another snipped, and others diluted by RC Moderator Reponses, and the discussion side-tracked to the RC Open Thread sidelines, some things we skeptics hold as true did get through.
My most recent posting did get through at RC totally intact and it included the following:
WOW! Now RC readers know about the internal NASA-GISS FOIA email that acknowledges that they re-re-re-re-re-re-re analyzed the 1934 and 1998 US mean data until they got the right result for them that 1998 was warmer than 1934! They even published a link back to WUWT that includes my graphic depiction of that email:
My most
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
November 20, 2011 at 10:35 am
[ ” Well stated and valid reasons for you and others who take your view to refrain from doing what I have done at RC (and here at WUWT). I do not pretend to judge those, like you and others here at WUWT, who have reasoned objections to boosting the readership of RC and imputing validity to their “religious” adherence to the school of strict CAGW (Catastrophic human-caused warming).” ].
Thank you 🙂
[ ” On the “denier” issue. When that was raised in the mainline Times Atlas thread at RC, I replied (and my comment was passed) “… When it comes to the Atmospheric ‘Greenhouse Effect’, some of the commenters on that blog [WUWT] are ‘disbelievers’ (the term I prefer to the non-PC ‘denialist’). …” ]
Dear Dr. Ira,
It is ironic, to me, that a blog that advertises themselves as ” Climate Science by Climate Scientists ” resort to such terms… [ I have to include you, as you term ” ‘disbelievers’ (the term I prefer to the non-PC ‘denialist’).” ].
Is Climate – a Science?
OR a religious belief?
Are they – Scientists?
OR Clergy?
Many, Scientist in AGW profess themselves to be Agnostic or Atheist [ Non-theists ], and go to great lengths to distance themselves from religious. Even critical / criticizing of those that do hold religious views [ not saying that you do ].
Then along comes the unproven hypothesis.
Scientifically – what would I term an unproven hypothesis? Would I not term it – an unproven hypothesis?
Scientifically – how would I treat an unproven hypothesis? Would I not treat it for what it is?
Sans any religious connotation / implications but strictly scientifically – what would I be when acknowledging the unproven hypothesis? What terminology would best describe me scientifically?
Realist?
It’s an hypothesis seeking evidence, but without, at the present. Evidence that stands the tests against it – backed with observations.
Scientifically factual – how can I have an unbridled “belief” or label “disbelief”? How can I label “denialist ” OR even “skeptics”, scientifically, without invoking “faith” and giving way to the scientific principles that make me a scientist?
Until I prove my hypothesis – I have no ground to label / fault anyone…but if I feel the need… let me use the correct scientific terminology – they are “realists”. They acknowledge the scientific fact that I present an unproven hypothesis. At least, that way, I’ve kept my “scientific credibility”. How can I expect people to take me seriously, as a scientist, when I create a “faith based” environment around my unproven hypothesis?
I repeat: Science can exist within religion – BUT a religious belief of a hypothesis – can not exist within science.
Either they are a scientist… or not.
Either the study of climate is a science…or not.
If they are scientists – remove their dogma [ preaching ], political agendas.
If a science – keep it scientific.
[ “[Response: Please don’t give fodder to the idiots that think they get called ‘deniers’ because of some relationship to Holocaust denial. That’s inflammatory and in any case ridiculous. People get called deniers because they are denying something, plain and simple. It’s a word, that’s it.–eric]’ ]
AND this is why I refer to them as Mr…. instead of Dr. 🙂 [ It isn’t disrespect on my part – they chose to abandon the science of their degree ].
How can one deny something that is shrouded in political and faith based dogmas? It doesn’t scientifically exist!
[ “Have I accomplished anything over at RC? You and others are free to doubt it, but I think I have” ]. I think you have 😉
Thanks Kim2000 for engaging me and others at a high intellectual level. Thanks for agreeing that I have accomplished something over at RC. Furthermore, I agree with almost all you say in the previous comment.
On my use of the word “disbeliever” (aka “denier”) – I reserve that term exclusively for those who do NOT accept:
(1) The undoubted scientific fact that there is an Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect (i.e., that the presence of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other so-called “greenhouse” gases in the Atmosphere causes the Earth surface to be about 33ºC warmer than it would be otherwise).
(2) That additional carbon dioxide in the Atmosphere, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, will result in some increase in surface temperatures (at least 0.5ºC per doubling, and perhaps up to 2ºC), than would occur absent that extra carbon dioxide.
(3) That human activities in the Industrial Age, including unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has reduced albedo (reflectiveness), are responsible for some fraction of the increase in mean temperatures experienced over the past decade than there would have been, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, absent that human activity.
(4) That multiple forms of radiation, whether we call them “light” (“shortwave” ~0.2μ to ~4μ) or “heat” (Longwave ~4μ to ~50μ), contain energy that raises the temperature of material they happen to fall on, if and when they are absorbed.
I DO NOT use the term “disbeliever: for those who doubt the IPCC estimates of CO2 sensitivity, for those who doubt the official climate Team estimate of 0.8ºC increase in mean temperatures over the past century, or for those who doubt that humans are responsible for virtually all of the increase in mean temperatures.
I use the term “Alarmist” for those who embrace what you call a “religious belief” – namely that human-caused warming will lead to catastrophic consequences (CAGW) in the relatively near future.
Ira, I see you were still posting here on November 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm, so hopefully you are still checking up on any new comments.
I understand quite well that I am one among those people you look upon as “disbelievers”.
I don’t mind that word, or name, as when it comes to warming by Long Wave Infra Red (LWIR) radiation exchange between the Earth’s surface and the so-called Greenhouse gases (GHGs) present in the atmosphere; I can only say that – “I don’t believe it!” –
John Tyndall did not, back in 1859 – 61, as far as I am concerned, prove that CO2 was, or is, “a Greenhouse gas” (GHG). All he proved was that CO2 did either: a) block, the path of certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic signal we now call LWIR radiation, or: b) that CO2 absorbs the said signal.
But – as he never incorporated a thermometer in his “brass tube” that contained the CO2 gas he could only “assume” that heat from his “right hand heat source” was transferred to the said gas present in his brass tube.
If however you do not agree, then at least take a close look at the 2nd part of the “warming by GHGs theory” which says that the heat-energy is “backradiated”, or radiated back downwards from the GHGs to the surface which thus is further warmed – or receives “extra heat” – or words to that effect.
We know, from the AGW theory that LWIR radiation from the surface, which has an average temperature of ~ 15 deg. C or K, reaches all the way out to space. – We know that because some radiation which GHGs cannot stop or absorb is escaping to space, unhindered, through the “Atmospheric Window”. Therefore “heat-energy” from, a LWIR source, say 10 times hotter than the Earth’s average surface temperature should have no problem reaching downward to the surface from a position of say around 2.5 -3 feet above it and thus warm that surface from there. – Or what do you think?
To answer that particular question on “Back-radiation” why not do a small and very simple – as well as inexpensive experiment?
Do the experiment indoors thus minimizing drafts and other unwanted air interferences.
Items needed are 2 thermometers, one to register/check any rise or fall of air/ground temperatures as a direct consequence of LWIR radiation. And – one to check that room temperature stays steady during the experiment.
You will also need a hot-plate (not the infra-red variety as that type produces short wave infra red (SWIR) radiation which does transport energy that is known to be capable of inducing “Increased Molecular Movement” (IMM) of which heat is a bi-product.
If you do not possess an “ordinary (old fashioned) hot plate, your wife’s (or your own) smoothing iron will do as a substitute. – (You may recall some time ago when Anthony Watts was replicating Al Gore’s Climate experiment 101. – He, just as Al did, used two infra-red light bulbs as “heat-sources.” Therefore the experiment showed Al up for what he is, but apart from that, it had nothing to do with AGW as that is purely, and only, down to CO2 and LWIR radiation.) What happens to “– or + feed-backs” is irrelevant, so long as AGW does not happen. But anyway, I do digress, so let’s return to where I left off, and:
Think up a way, of your own choice (it’s your hot-plate, floor and thermometer), as to how to securely suspend the hot-plate (or smoothing iron) horizontally level and approximately 2.5 – 3 feet above the floor, in such a way that the flat/heated side/disc is facing downwards. – Now place one of the thermometers directly below and in line (plum) with the hot-plate. Leave this set-up until you are satisfied that the temperatures as shown on the 2 thermometers have settled at the ambient temperature;
Now, “energize” the hot-plate. – Check and record the temperatures as displayed on the thermometers every 15 minutes until you are satisfied the temperatures have settled.
Armed with your newly gained knowledge write an essay on how “Backradiation” raises the Earth’s temperature by 33 deg. Kelvin.
[O H Dahlsveen, sorry you cannot accept the Atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ Effect. I know you are aware that other skeptics at WUWT do accept the basic science. You are certainly entitled to your opinions which you courteously express over here. Good luck. Ira]
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
November 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm
[ “Thanks Kim2000 for engaging me and others at a high intellectual level. Thanks for agreeing that I have accomplished something over at RC. ” ]
You are very welcome 🙂
From your statements, can I take it that you believe in the basic hypothesis of AGW, as presented?
To do so, would one not have to agree that Stefan-Boltzmann Blackbody Equations have been properly verified and applied to this hypothesis?
That this is a verifiable equation for Earths Energy Budget?
[ ” Surface: S + \lambda A = G
Atmosphere: \lambda G = 2 \lambda A
Planet: S = \lambda A + (1-\lambda) G
The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down. From those equations you can derive the surface temperature as a function of the incoming solar and the atmospheric emissivity ” ]
That Ludwig Boltzmann’s law, lambda’s value is 0.22-0.3C per watt… BUT needs to be higher?
These are the “basics” used in support of the AGW hypothesis, aren’t they?
Is there empirical evidence that supports the way these are used?
Does observational [ climate ] evidence support the way these are used?
[Sorry Kim2000, but I do not understand what you are getting at. Please restate it in simpler terms and perhaps provide a reference where your point is described in more detail. If other WUWT commenters understand what Kim2000 is getting at, please chime in. advTHANKSance. Ira]
RC STATUS UPDATE #3 – Summary
This topic has been going for nearly two weeks as has my experiment posting very restrained skeptic comments over at RealClimate.
During that time, I had four comments passed by the Moderators on their Times Atlas thread.
Early on, an alert RC commenter identified me as a WUWT Guest Contributor. A couple comments later, I was shunted off to RC’s November Open Thread sideline where I have had ten comments passed.
My first posting was edited, using
strikeoutto show my actual words and italics to mock them. My second posting got a minor snip (of my use of Climategate Research Unit instead of the correct Climactic). All the rest were passed intact, with some interpolated Responses by an RC Moderator.Along the line, a few of my comments were lost in cyberspace, most likely censored. So, after waiting a day or two, I re-posted modified versions that were passed by the Moderators. Persistence pays off (if you consider having comments on RC to be of value :^) I believe my subsequent comments would probably have been blocked had RC commenter MARodger not noticed my accounting here at WUWT and intervened.
Virtually all the replies to my comments were in opposition and some were hostile and even included personal denigration. I ignored the negative stuff and, in my subsequent replies, I stuck to climate science facts and studiously avoided any appearance of having been insulted, other than quoting William Cowper (~1763): “A moral, sensible, and well-bred man, Will not affront me, and no other can.”
BOTTOM LINE: It is possible for moderate skeptics to post over at RC if they are persistent and not overly sensitive, particularly if they have a way to report edited, snipped, or censored comments as I did here at WUWT, where RC commenters could see my reports and intervene. I would like to see more WUWT readers commenting over at RC and vice-versa. Otherwise, we will have two separate echo chambers with no possibility of serious cross-discussion. Did I do any good over there? Based on the replies I got, no. However, there may be a silent majority at RC that read and understood some of the factual information I posted about the 0.4ºC uncertainty out of the supposed 0.8ºC warming, and how that gives wiggle room used by warmist analysts to exaggerate the amount of warming and the level of human responsibility for it. But, who knows for sure?
Ira says:
“I would like to see more WUWT readers commenting over at RC and vice-versa. Otherwise, we will have two separate echo chambers with no possibility of serious cross-discussion.”
I usually agree with you Ira, but WUWT is certainly not an ‘echo chamber’. All points of view are welcome here [subject to site Policy]. An echo chamber blog is one that actively censors or otherwise impedes or deletes legitimate opposing comments, as RC and similar alarmist blogs constantly do. They end up with a small coterie of mouth breathing head-nodders; an echo chamber, where they emit the same talking points. The only skeptical comments allowed contain something they can immediately jump on, or posts that are otherwise easy to dispute. Do you think someone like the always polite and to the point Steve McIntyre would be allowed unrestricted postings at RC??
As you’re finding out, RC is a heavily censoring blog owned by the smarmy, debate-fearing charlatan Michael Mann. RC must censor to stay in business. If RC allowed a fair back and forth debate with all reasonable, polite points of view posted they would lose, because they have no testable, empirical evidence to support their catastrophic global warming claims. They have computer models and appeals to authorities like the IPCC, and that’s about it.
Don’t fool yourself, Ira. Blogs like RC must censor. They have no other choice. You don’t think they’re going to allow long-running debates that encourage different points of view like we see at this non-censoring site, do you? They have a gravy train to protect, and they’re not going to derail it by being fair and open minded. RC is the definition of “anti-science”.
Of course you are right, Smokey, to note the vast differences between RC and WUWT in terms of censorship of legitimate, serious comments, as I found out.
When I said “two separate echo chambers” I did not mean to suggest that WUWT blocks any comments (unless they contain personal attacks or are genuine spam, etc.)
On the other hand, except for some cross-discussion between those I call “disbelievers” who do not accept the reality of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect and those of us who do, and occasional visits by some warmists, WUWT does tend to center on moderate, science-based skepticism, with some back and forth among different wings of that general grouping. I think there are more warmists who could add to the discussion here and benefit us, and, perhaps, they could learn something by actively joining the cross-discussion here.
Having been subjected to the slings and arrows over at RC, I have been sensitized to the sometimes snarky, mean, and hostile comments made to warmists who have the temerity to venture over here. For that reason, I will try to be kinder to warmists who post here (as well as disbelievers :^), and I urge my fellow WUWT commenters to do the same. I think that will make our message more effective. And, we may even learn more.
Thank you Ira Glickstein, for your input added at the end of my previous comment.
I have no real “axe to grind” when it comes to those skeptics who believe that there is a natural Greenhouse effect (NGHE) due to radiation We are, as Jo Nova once told me, friends and on the same team. –
I too believe there is “a NGHE” of some sort, but – there ends my agreement with those who say – believe – or insist, call it what you will, that the NGHE is due to the fact that LWIR radiation is absorbed by GHGs and then re-emitted to the surface which in turn absorbs and re-emit, et cetera, et cetera.
You see, apart from the ‘Grenhouse Gas Theory’ (GHGT) there are a few other theories ‘milling around. – Some of them have stood the ‘test of time’ and are therefore by now looked upon as “Laws of Physics”, or in our special case they have become “Laws of Thermodynamics”
The very first, and the most basic of those laws is; “The zeroth law of thermodynamics which recognizes that if two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other, thus telling us that, in our case, if all (or two) things; A and B are in thermal equilibrium with the C (the air pocket in which they reside), then everything is at, say ”room temperature” and are also therefore in thermal equilibrium with each other.
One other such law deals with energy, and it says in part; that energy cannot be destroyed, but – the first law of thermodynamics distinguishes between two kinds of physical process, namely energy transfer as work, and energy transfer as heat. It tells how this shows the existence of a mathematical quantity called the internal energy of a system. The internal energy obeys the principle of conservation of energy but work and heat are not defined as separately conserved quantities. Equivalently, the first law of thermodynamics states that perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible. Therefore, once the Sun’s energy effects on the surface has been converted to molecular motion – producing the bi-product we call heat, the bi- product “heat” (LWIR radiation) can not produce energy capable of producing more heat. (LWIR radiation is therefore, I am sorry, impotent and not capable of any further heating – or perpetual motion.
As I interpret it, – You either ditch the 1st law of Thermodynamics or you ditch the notion that the Atmosphere can somehow rise The Globe’s temperature by 33 Kelvin. – Those two theories do not interact.
By the way Ira, what you call basic science, seems to me to be science gone wrong, or pure science fiction – Just look at Kiehl & Trenberth’s (K&T) 1997 energy flow chart. (I use that one as, as far as I know, it was their first one.)
Apart from the fact that they give GHGs some kind of mechanism whereby it is possible to radiate 324 W/m² in one direction only, or if I am very generous; 324 W/m² in one direction and 165 W/m², in the other, their “energy flow chart” use as its “Solar Irradiation” (SI) 1/4 of the so called “Solar Constant”, thereby bestowing 24 hour sunshine on the entire planet. This kind of thing does not happen anywhere else in the entire “Solar System” which is just another reason why I cannot trust K&T to get things completely right, thou I do understand that the entire global surface emits radiation 24/7.
And,for another – by the way Ira, why do the gases Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon not enter the K&T plan, as radiating energy towards the Earth’s surface? – After all, they all have a temperature warmer than absolute zero
O H Dahlsveen, please have a look at my series on the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect (1 – Physical Analogy, 2 – Atmospheric Windows, 3 – Emission Spectra, 4 – Molecules and Photons, 5 – Light and Heat) and you should see that there is no perpetual motion machine at work.
As for why Nitrogen, Argon, and Oxygen play less of a role than Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide and certain other gases, it is well known that certain wavelengths of radiation are absorbed by certain gases and others are not (see my #2 and #3). It turns out that Nitrogen and Argon pass the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth Surface and Oxygen only absorbs a very small portion of the spectrum. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other so-called “greenhouse” gases absorb larger portions of the longwave spectrum. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, when “greenhouse” gas molecules absorb that energy, they become excited and may move and collide with other molecules and/or re-emit the energy as photons in random directions, some of it downwards back towards the Surface where it may be absorbed.
If you read my series and still cannot accept the fact of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, there is nothing more I can add. Good luck!
Once again Ira, thank you for your input to my last comment. I have, as you asked, once again studied your “Visualizing series” and yes, I must say you do a very good job of explaining what your interpretation of the “Global Warming theory” is (anthropogenic and/or natural).
That however only adds one more of many personal opinions which only says: “If the modern version of the “Global Warming theory” is correct then my explanation or conception of it is very likely to also be correct.
The scientific way is not to try to prove the theory to be right, but to do you very best to falsify it.
In 5 – Light and Heat – you say: “The Earth may be approximated as a sphere, with the Sun shining on only half of it at any given time.” – With that I agree completely. – Then you go on to say: “The adjustment factor for this correction is 0.25.”
Why blindly follow Kiehl&Trenberth (K&T)? – If you know that the Sun only shines on 50% of the planet, then to what purpose do you “adjust the real data by a factor of 0.25”?
Yes, I know that solar irradiation that falls on our planet must be “imagined” as falling “perpendicularly” on the square area of a disc, but that it “in fact” falls on the square surface-area of a sphere, with the same diameter. And therefore as the difference between the two formulas used to calculate the two different areas – is ¼ (0.25).
As I also know that the Sun, not just “at any given time” as you say – but always, relentlessly and without any pauses shines on only one half of, and never, on the entire globe.
Therefore to use a “correction factor” of 0.25 is to cover the Earth’s complete surface with 24 hour sunshine. Albeit at half the strength – or power – Reality is that the “correction factor” must be 0.5 or ½.
This 0.25 “adjustment factor” also has the effect of completely disregarding the fact that half the globe receives no solar irradiation what so ever. The only fact, and it is a known fact that changes this scenario, is that the Earth turns around its own axis 24/7, year after year.
Doubling the time the Sun irradiates the Earth at half power does not; to me anyway, seem to be the answer. – If you then add to that, that air – which is known to be the one, out of earth, water and wind – that is least able to hold on to heat, is the one element that causes “Global Warming” then as you say: “If you read my series and still cannot accept the fact of the Atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, there is nothing more I can add. Good luck!”
I can only reciprocate; Ira, all the best, good luck and – in a way I hope you are right as the alternative is that the Earth continues along its cooling phase.
RC STATUS UPDATE #4 – SPAM I AM !
Seinfeld fans will remember that the greatest complement for any of Elaine’s boyfriends was to be spongeworthy. Well, the greatest compliment from RC is to be spamworthy – and, SPAM I AM !
Since my last update (25 Nov) I have been involved in a nice conversation on RC’s November Open Thread Sideline with a few RC commenters, and I thought we were making some nice progress. (Just click on the prevous link and then do a find for “Glickstein” to see the 47 mentions of my name in my comments and those by others.)
However, RC seems to have put me on a spam list because my 27 November posting (reproduced below – see Exhibit “A”) was automatically rejected with a spam warning message (also reproduced below, see Exhibit “B”). I followed the instructions in the spam warming message and sent an email to contrib@realclimate.org but have not heard from them as of today (2 Dec). Over the next few days, I tried posting the same comment several times to be sure their re-CAPTCHA spam stopper was not blocking my postings. I kept getting the automatic spam warning.
On 29 Nov I posted the first part of my comment and it went through, but, as of today, it has not been published, so I guess an RC Moderator blocked it.
So, I guess this ends my career as a commenter at RC. I did successfully post over a dozen comments and got some good discussion going over there. I also confirmed the truth of the warnings from WUWT commenters who had bad experiences over at RC, and I documented, in real time over here how I was treated over there.
Exhibit “A” – My 27 Nov posting that got the automatic spam warning. (The numbers refer to comments by Ray Ladbury in RC’s November Open Thread Sideline)
Exhibit “B” – The spam warning message I got in return. (Notice that they say they look for words like “mortgage”, and “loan” and they say that socialism is not permitted because it contains the name of a drug.)
Dr Ira,
Environmental Media Service >> Fenton Communications >>> Tides Foundation >>> Soros.org.
Are lobbyists groups directly tied to RC –
I have been posting on these connections since 2008
IMO – What you’ve attempted to do – isn’t doable…. akin to trying to sell Bibles at an Atheist Convention –
Mormon’s at The Vatican’s World Youth Conference – Catholics at a Mormon Wedding.
You may get in the door.
RC is the church of CRU / AGW / IPCC.
Did you honestly doubt what commenter’s here, have stated?