DailyClimate.org is pleased to offer two opinion pieces by notable climate scientists commenting on the recent release of the climate science emails.
Get a load of this headline:
Opinion: Snippets of stolen emails cannot make the Earth flat
Wow, make the earth flat? That has to be some sort award winning headline for the most stupid strawman argument ever. But then, look who is writing it – Supermandia
The first paragraph sets the nauseating tone:
Here is what we know: The Earth is round, smoking is linked to lung cancer, and humans are changing the climate by emitting massive amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases. Like extra blankets at night, those emissions are warming the planet. The physics of greenhouse gases has been understood for more than 100 years. It is not new science.
[Update: Hmmm, commenter John-X points out this reference from Mike Mann’s PSU meteorology dept (shown below) which really throws a wet blanket on that statement.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does the atmosphere (or any greenhouse gas) act a blanket?
At best, the reference to a blanket is a bad metaphor. Blankets act primarily to suppress convection; the atmosphere acts to enable convection. To claim that the atmosphere acts a blanket, is to admit that you don’t know how either one of them operates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, the rest of this is just a BS strawman argument, most skeptics (and certainly no skeptical scientists) don’t dispute the greenhouse effect, only the magnitude of the effect and confounding factors such as feedbacks and sensitivity. The phrase about smoking and lung cancer is right out of the slimer playbook championed by people like Romm and Gore, who have used such tactics before. The only purpose for it being there is to tar people you disagree with a broad brush.
But wait, there’s more sliminess. How about we link the climate debate to illegal steroid use too?
… Killer heat waves, devastating droughts and wildfires, and unprecedented floods are expected in our warmer world and we are witnessing these events now. Climate is the canvas and weather is what is painted on that canvas. Change the canvas and all weather is affected. The extra heat and moisture that human-caused warming is adding to the climate is like injecting steroids into our weather.
Scott Mandia must think everyone is stupid except him, because time and time again it can be demonstrated that there is no trend in severe weather that links to climate. Even NOAA puts the kibosh on such linkages, such as with the Russian heat wave wrongly blamed on climate change.
But hey, if you think of yourself as “superman of climate” I suppose supersized-ego powers come with the cape. You can read Scott Mandia’s super opinion here.
From the press release:
John Abraham is an associate professor of Thermal Sciences at the
University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn. He teaches and carries
out research in the areas of thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid
mechanics, and climate monitoring. He is co-founder of the Climate Rapid
Response Team.
Scott Mandia is Professor of Physical Science at Suffolk County
Community College, Long Island, New York. He has been teaching weather
and climate courses for more than 20 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder if this clueless clown can get a refund on his 3rd grade Egmacation?
This is one of the brightist they have??
Some Fools will say anything to make a buck.
We should be careful when dealing with metaphors and similes.
I don’t read that headline as posing a ‘straw-man argument’. It’s merely colourful language. Rather than being any sort of argument, it’s a paen to his conviction that we know enough to be certain that thermageddon is coming.
There are much better grounds for critiquing his response.
What he thinks he knows is opinion, not scientific knowledge, a fact disclosed by the e-mails he dismisses.
His article is non-quantitative. What he calls ‘massive’, I call ‘minute’. The proportion by which CO2 has changed the atmosphere is smaller than the ratio of my income to that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. As I said, minute.
Calling the analogy between CO2 and a blanket ‘a bad metaphor’ fails on two grounds. Trivially, because it is a simile. Significantly, the aptness of a metaphor depends on which aspect of the comparison the speaker wishes to imply. It would be a bad metaphor if he wished to distinguish between convection and radiation, but it’s a good metaphor for something(s) that keep things warm without themselves generating energy.
Colourful language makes for easier reading. I’m rather fond of my own turn of phrase, that ‘foretelling the future from the entrails of a computer has proven as inaccurate as foretelling it from the entrails of a goat.’
There’s something about the nature of the internet that makes it easy to miss metaphor and simile. It leaves us looking as if ewe’re insanely literal, and therefore somewhat stupid. There’s lots more to be critqued about this article than merely his word-choice!
So why should this denial of confirmed information be taken more less seriously than unconfirmed opinion?
Am I losing my mind?
These so-called scientists say time after time that they have absolutely no convincing evidence of AGW.
And this moron wants us to think that such is irrelevant?
If carbon dioxide emissions are like injecting steroids does that mean there will be ‘shrinkage’ or perhaps just outbursts of irrational anger?
James Sexton calculates
So, 239.7 X 0.0004 X 0.15 X 0.5 = 0.007191w/m2 That is the non-blanket warmth we get from our CO2. It must be panic time!
————
James this calculation is utterly wrong.
Here is proof by performing a simple thought experiment: remove all of the oxygen and nitrogen from the air, but leave the partial pressure of CO2 the same. In other words the number of CO2 molecules per cubic metre is not changed.
That 0.0004 becomes 100% of the atmosphere. And your calculation now produces a much higher degree of absorption. That is not correct.
“John Abraham is an associate professor of Thermal Sciences at the
University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn. He teaches and carries
out research in the areas of thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid
mechanics, and climate monitoring. He is co-founder of the Climate Rapid
Response Team.”
Maybe this guy could find a way to heat and cool a home based on CO2.
Well if that’s the calibre of scientist that has been teaching weather and climate courses for 20 years then no wonder a certain group of climatologists are suffering from a massive failure in logic…
LazyTeenager says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:25 pm
James Sexton calculates
So, 239.7 X 0.0004 X 0.15 X 0.5 = 0.007191w/m2 That is the non-blanket warmth we get from our CO2. It must be panic time!
————
James this calculation is utterly wrong.
Here is proof by performing a simple thought experiment: remove all of the oxygen and nitrogen from the air, but leave the partial pressure of CO2 the same. In other words the number of CO2 molecules per cubic metre is not changed.
That 0.0004 becomes 100% of the atmosphere. And your calculation now produces a much higher degree of absorption. That is not correct.
==============================================
LT, you’re not looking at the percentage properly….. the 0.04% is by volume, not as percentage of the various molecules out there. Maybe this will help you….. Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary.
Try again, sparky!
The earth is round? Really? Does he mean like a disk, or perhaps a coin, which is a very short cylinder? If you ask me, the earth is spheroidal.
Last month Physics Today, a monthly popular journal for professional physicists, had two pro-AGW articles. The first one tried to relate not believing in global warming to not believing in Copernican theory or relativity, even bringing in a short snippet about flat earthers. The second tried to explain how this problem could be fixed with better communication. (It even had a pathetic word cloud for the article, which was another new low for our professional journal.)
It seems like they are passing around a set of standard rebuttal arguments.
Also, I am trying to get the journal to reprint the Matt Ridley text. I think it is imperative that scientists start talking about ethics issues.
“Is there a greenhouse effect? Huffman’s write up seems reasonable, though I do not go along with his other ideas. Any thoughts out there?”
Does atmosphere cause nights to be warmer as compared to having no atmosphere?
If that is what is meant by greenhouse effect?
If so, there is a greenhouse effect.
But no one claims the atmosphere functions in same way that a greenhouse functions-
a greenhouse reduces heat losses by inhibiting heat loss via convection.
So a greenhouse like effect does not occur in regards to planet Earth.
But like a greenhouse the planet is kept warmer at nite.
And gases are responsible.
CO2 isn’t involved in as significant factor in retaining
most of this heat during the nite. Also not disputed.
Is water vapor [a gas and called a greenhouse gas] a significant factor in retaining
most of this heat during the nite. Yes, it is. Again, not a disputed fact.
Is greenhouse effect a lousy term.
Yes. As it is misleading. And has been misused.
What other term is there, so we don’t need to continue to use the term “greenhouse effect”.
Someone needs to coin one. Not me.
John-X says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:51 pm
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” – Svante Arrhenius, “Worlds in the Making,” 1908
Thanks for introducing this, John. Interesting that so many from the pro camp refer to Arrhenius’ work without quoting his conclusions – more equable and better climates.
“The ‘Dragon Slayers’ are scientific fundamentalists, who have chosen to memorize cute slogans and magic formulas, and to dogmatically defend their misunderstandings, rather than to do the hard thinking that’s necessary for mastering the essence of their subject matter. The fact that they are AGW skeptics does not imply that they are automatically right about everything.
Scientific laws are not holy writ. A typical scientific law has a certain range of applicability; outside of that range, it is Peter Principle material. We’re talking Scientific Literacy 101 here. Repeat after me:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to MACROscopic phenomena, not to microscopic ones.”
Your first paragraph amounts pretty much to an Ad-hom attack on the Slayers and reads as though you have not read and digested (or possibly just not bothered to understand!) the Slayer arguments. As it happens, I am a scientist, and I can assure you that science IS about fundamentals. In this case the Slayers have gone right back where no-one else dared to tread to the fundamentals of physics and found the AGW theory to be baseless. So-called “Climatologists” seem to have forgotten basic physics in their headlong rush to promote their agenda.
Your second paragraph is also “post normal” science nonsense. holy writ, indeed, please leave the religious connotations out of this! The laws of science, in particular those of physics and thermodynamics ARE well understood, proven and fundamental. The second law of thermodynamics applies throughout the universe, on all scales.
Sorry, your comment is complete nonsense; please repeat after me:-
AGW from Back IR is impossible because the laws of thermodynamics do not allow it.
On the microscopic scale this is because the IR emitted from the ground is merely scattered throughout the atmosphere. It cannot heat the system as it is already a result of the heat in the system, not the cause of it. If the Back IR heating theory were true, then water should flow up hill and perpetual energy from nothing would be possible.
Here is the link to a paper that explains far better than I can why heat transfer from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earths surface via IR back radiation is impossible!
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IRabsW23112011.pdf
‘Understand the Greenhouse Effect for 100 years or more!!
Understanding does not come into it because the GHG effect does not exist. Nothing can store heat, much less a trace gas, because heat will always escape from an area of warmth to one of cold regardless of insulation. Insulation slows heat loss but cannot stop it. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states this quite clearly. Any gas warmed at the surface WILL convect to a cooler area and lose heat by conduction with cooler gas molecules and by adiabatic expansion. It cannot, if cooler than the surface, radiate heat to the hotter area. The 2nd Law also clearly states this. So re-radiated heat from the CO2 is out as well.
So failed theory of the GHG effect.
Superman’s sidekick, Abrahams has form. He had a pretty unsuccessful dust up with Monckton:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/
or:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/
Doesn’t look like they were in the front row when brains were given out.
AlJaBeeba indeed !
I saw that blanket last year when it fell out of the sky. It was white and freezing cold.
Ok – so I may be an intellectual Oxford educated snob, and I know little of academic rankings in the US, but does a Community Collecge merit having a Professor in Physical Sciences? Does the same need to know any physics? Is this the same as a Prof at Princetonor MIT? And is he like Prof Jones – made a prof in a subject needing statistical analysis but unable to use Excel? I left the academic world in 1973 despite offers to remain in it – and find that its intellectual capability has been ever eroded since that time. And predictably so.
To be fair, he is not dressed as Superman as that’s a C on his shirt. Now if only I could think of a word beginning with c that might be appropriate.
Please can Professor Mandia specify the tog rating of the atmosphere?
nc says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:02 pm
I read this in John-X link
HUH
how did the atmosphere get twice as much energy?
______________________________
That is the most idiotic statement I have ever seen. Did some one explode several nuclear bombs while I wasn’t paying attention and turn the atmosphere radioactive?
Aside from a tad bit of Radon, the energy come from the SUN all of it!
I found another reference to the quote over at Judith Curry’s site. The block of ice referred to is the atmosphere.
James Sexton says:
November 23, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Sigh, —– CO2′s contribution to energy being returned to earth. I’ll use a ridiculously high number foregoing other energy ridding mechanisms we know about.
Energy reaching the earth is …..239.7w/m2(well, that’s what I just read) ….
_______________________
The Climate Scientologists messed with that number too. Recently NASA cites TSI as “1361 W/m2
Just checked the wiki entry for “buffoon”, thinking the Supermandia would be a good replacement for the, alas, now overidden MM. .
gbaikie says:
November 24, 2011 at 12:44 am
“Is there a greenhouse effect? Huffman’s write up seems reasonable, though I do not go along with his other ideas. Any thoughts out there?”….
_____________________________
You might want to look at some actual data. SEE: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html