Note – this will be pinned as a top post for a few days. Other posts will appear below this one.
UPDATE: Josh weighs in with a Friday Funny.
UPDATE2: McKibben has a Forrest Gump moment with his latest propaganda video
I’m doing something I’ve never done before, I’m asking every reader of WUWT to write a letter to the editor this weekend. I don’t take this step lightly, but given what I’ve observed the last few days, I think it is time to stir the power of our collective WUWT community for the common good.
Readers may recall the debunkings I regularly put forth any time paid activists like Bill McKibben, Joe Romm, David Suzuki, or Brad Johnson (and others) try to make claims that human induced climate change is making our daily weather “more extreme”. You know and I know that this is “garbage science” (even worse than “junk science”) because it is an attempt to twist science to strike fear over climate into the hearts of the average citizen. It is an act of desperation, rooted in the fact that the modeled warming scenarios described by the scientist activist high priest of the global warming movement Dr. James Hansen, just have not come to pass. Climate feedbacks don’t seem to be strong, climate sensitivity doesn’t seem to be high, there’s been no statistically significant warming in the last decade, and thus the only thing left is to blame bouts of normally occurring severe weather on climate change. The level of thinking sophistication here isn’t much different from blaming witches for bad weather in medieval times, but the sophistication of telegraphing this message to the weak-minded is far more sophisticated than in those days.
And, yesterday, we saw a message similar to calls made during those dark times “she’s a witch, BURN her!” in Steve Zwick’s rant on Forbes.com where he says:
We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. … They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?
The level of delusional fail here is off the scale. If this were an isolated incident, we could simply laugh it off as the hateful rantings of a person afflicted with climate derangement syndrome. But there’s more.
Yesterday, it entered my children’s school (see below), and this week, we saw a survey on “extreme weather” conducted by Yale, use a phrase in the press release that is straight out of a propagandist organization, Bill McKibben’s 350.org. The heat is on to make climate all about the weather for propaganda purposes, and there’s no data to support it. It is a lie of global proportions. We need to step up. Here’s what I found in my children’s school yesterday:
At my children’s school yesterday, they had a book fair. In that book fair was this display from the publisher of a new book INsiders – Extreme Weather.
Of course you know what book I picked up to look at first, and it took me all of about 15 seconds to find this (I highlighted the relevant part digitally):
“Some scientists”? I think the author really meant “some activists”.
To be fair, there are some very good sections of the book well rooted in science, for example this one on lightning:
I know the author, H. Michael Mogil, who is well rooted in science, and who is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. I can’t imagine him fully signing off on the climate=severe weather idea as McKibben et al put it. But, I think there was pressure from publishers to include the section on climate linkage, and I think he hedged his statement as best he could. My point is that is it beginning to pervade children’s books.
Also this week we had this poll released from Yale University, which got a ton of press thanks to it being carried in the Associated Press. It even made my own local newspaper.
The poll itself is a logical fallacy, with sloppy questions like this one:
I give it a thorough debunking here with a strong emphasis on the reporting bias introduced by our technologically saturated society. Anyone with a cellphone can report severe weather now and within minutes it can be known worldwide.
Here’s a quote from the lead author that was carried in news stories, bold mine:
“Most people in the country are looking at everything that’s happened; it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll. “People are starting to connect the dots.”
At the time, I didn’t note the significance of the “connect the dots” meme, but one of our sharp WUWT readers pointed out that this is the new catchphrase of Bill McKibben’s 350.org movement.
In tips and notes this morning, Nick Ryan confirmed this for me with this letter from McKibben he posted.
Subject: Good news.
From: organizers@350.org
To: nick_ryan@xxxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:57:30 +0000
Dear friends,
Good news this time.
At some point every one of us at 350 has thought to ourselves a little despairingly: is the world ever going to catch on to climate change? Today is one of those days when it feels like it just might happen.
A story on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times described a new poll — Americans in record numbers are understanding that the planet is warming because they’re seeing the “freaky” weather that comes with climate change.
And the story ends by describing the next step in this process: May 5, the giant Connect the Dots day that people are joining all around the globe: http://www.ClimateDots.org
When the zeitgeist conspires to help our efforts, we need to make the most of it. Two weeks is plenty of time to organize a beautiful photo for May 5, one that will help spread this idea. Are you in a place where flood and rain have caused havoc? Ten people with umbrellas can make a memorable “climate dot” for all the world to see. You’ll think of something appropriate for your place — and you can find lots of examples and ideas here.
This movement is growing quickly, and with not a moment to spare — new data from scientists like Jim Hansen at NASA shows that our carbon emissions have already made extreme weather many times more likely. We can’t take back the carbon we’ve already poured into the atmosphere, but if we work together hard and fast then we can keep it from getting steadily worse.
Earth Day is coming up this weekend, and there will be thousands of events across the US. Each one of them is a great place to spread the word about the big day of action on 5/5. When you’re on the front page of the Times it’s a sign that the message is starting to get through — but only one American in 300 reads that newspaper. Now it’s up to all of us to make sure that everyone around the world gets the message, and Connect the Dots day on 5/5 is our best chance to do that. Please join us.
Onwards,
Bill McKibben for 350.org
P.S. It is key to remember that these photos from May 5 are not just for their effect on that day. We need a bank of images showing the human face of global warming — pictures we’ll use for the hard and direct political work of the next few years. If people don’t know there’s a problem, they won’t try to solve it. So let’s show them on 5/5. Here’s a heartbreaking example, from some local activists in Texas:
Climate Activists in Texas
Clearly, due to the timing and the reference he made to “People are starting to connect the dots.”, the poll conducted by Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University is just a tool that is connected to this 350.org “climatedots.org” campaign, it isn’t science, it is blatant advocacy disguised as science of the brand Dr. James Hansen practices.
So looking at what is going in total this week, I think it is time for us to exercise our own rights to free speech, and thus I’m asking WUWT readers to write letters to the editor to your local newspapers and magazines to counter what will surely be a blitz of advocacy in the coming days.
This tactic is used by these NGO’s so there is nothing wrong with it. It is free speech in the finest American tradition. There is one hitch though, and that’s the newspaper editors back-channel.
You see, one of the perks of being a journalist in the TV and radio news business is that I’m privy to how things work. In print media, editors have established a back-channel to alert each other of potential letter writing campaigns, such as those form letters like we see from “Forecast the Facts”.
The key is to make this your own letter, in your own words. While I can suggest topics, the letters need to be written in your own words for them to be accepted.
You can start here with this essay, and draw from it.
Warren Meyer made some excellent points yesterday in his Zwick rebuttal at Forbes:
A Vivid Reminder of How The Climate Debate is Broken
I really liked this part, which speaks to reporting bias (like we have with severe weather):
In the summer of 2001, a little boy in Mississippi lost an arm in a shark attack. The media went absolutely crazy. For weeks and months they highlighted every shark attack on the evening news. They ran aerial footage of sharks in the water near beaches. They coined the term “Summer of the Shark.” According to Wikipedia, shark attacks were the number three story, in terms of network news time dedicated, of the summer.
Bombarded by such coverage, most Americans responded to polls by saying they were concerned about the uptick in shark attacks. In fact, there were actually about 10% fewer shark attacks in 2001 than in 2000. Our perceptions were severely biased by the coverage.
How to write a letter:
1. Go to your local newspaper website, locate the guidelines for letters to the editor. Typical letter policies limit letters to 200-250 words.
2. Do your research, craft your letter carefully. Cite facts, cite statistics such as I offer on WUWT. Use your own words, don’t quote me, though quoting people like Professor Grady Dixon “…it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes” is fine.
3. [added] Readers are submitting content ideas in comments, have a look at those. Fr example Steve E. writes: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr’s posting on the IPCC SREX Report, “A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change” here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html is also a good source for letter content.
4. Send it, being mindful of length and guidelines.
Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm
“You and your fellow “skeptics” are simply ignoring or denying the evidence that scientists have provided.”
This is rich.
You’re confusing your causes with your effects. If [something] caused CO2 to rise, which caused Earth’s temperature to rise, but then the Milankovitch cycle causes temperature to drop… what makes the CO2 drop again? Since of course, it is not related to the Earth’s temperature, but a forcing of it.
Please don’t presume that I am unfamiliar with such basic chemical processes. I have a degree in geology, which required classes in chemistry and physics. The problem your statement demonstrates is that under global warming “theory” there are no negative feedbacks to stop the runaway greenhouse condition — at least, none that you’ve offered. When [something] causes CO2 to increase, raising the global temperatures and starting up all the positive feedbacks, and also reducing the ability of seawater to absorb CO2, then how does the influence of the Milankovich cycles cooling the planet cause the CO2 to drop?
Are you offering as explanation that the cooling brought about by the M-cycles drop the ocean temperatures enough for them to re-absorb the CO2, thus saving the planet from the greenhouse effect? Would this describe your model?: [something] raises atmospheric CO2. Temperatures rise. Positive feedbacks reinforce the effect, driving more CO2 out of the oceans and raising atmospheric water vapor. Then, before catastrophe can occur, the Milankovich cycles cool the earth again, overriding the effects of the greenhouse gases, and allowing the oceans to reabsorb the CO2 and the excess water vapor to fall out as precipitation, leading to new glaciers and another ice age?
jaschrumpf says:
April 22, 2012 at 4:23 pm
” Please don’t presume that I am unfamiliar with such basic chemical processes. I have a degree in geology, which required classes in chemistry and physics. The problem your statement demonstrates is that under global warming “theory” there are no negative feedbacks to stop the runaway greenhouse condition — at least, none that you’ve offered. When [something] causes CO2 to increase, raising the global temperatures and starting up all the positive feedbacks, and also reducing the ability of seawater to absorb CO2, then how does the influence of the Milankovich cycles cooling the planet cause the CO2 to drop?
Are you offering as explanation that the cooling brought about by the M-cycles drop the ocean temperatures enough for them to re-absorb the CO2, thus saving the planet from the greenhouse effect? Would this describe your model?: [something] raises atmospheric CO2. Temperatures rise. Positive feedbacks reinforce the effect, driving more CO2 out of the oceans and raising atmospheric water vapor. Then, before catastrophe can occur, the Milankovich cycles cool the earth again, overriding the effects of the greenhouse gases, and allowing the oceans to reabsorb the CO2 and the excess water vapor to fall out as precipitation, leading to new glaciers and another ice age?”
What you have forgotten about is that eventually a balance between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation establishes an equilibrium. When the temperature gets high enough, the energy radiated by the surface increases so much that the radiation escaping to space equals the incoming solar radiation, and no further temperature increase will occur. So no more CO2 will be emitted from the oceans and reduction in snow and ice cover ends. This is what limits the temperature increase.
Finally, as you stated, the temperature drops as the insolation goes away when the tilt toward the sun no longer is coincident with the northern hemisphere summer, causing an increase in snow cover which causes a further decrease in temperature causing absorption of CO2 etc. The feedback works in both directions. You ask if this is my model. It is not my model, it was developed by Arrhenius in 1896.
I did forget to address this point. The paper you reference makes some fascinating points regarding CO2 levels and ice ages, and solar radiance levels. I found this in the abstract to be very interesting:
Eric Adler says: @ur momisugly April 22, 2012 at 1:57 pm
…There are two problems with your argument. Positive feedback does not imply a runaway condition. It implies amplification of forced excursions….
______________________________
ERRRRrrrr. I thought this was your (CAGW) cycle of positive feed back.
^CO2 causes ^temp -> increases in H2O evaporation -> ^temp -> increase ocean temp -> ^CO2 and the cycle repeats -> run away warming.
Willis E. (and my own observations) show as temperature increases from 90F to 100F thunderstorms form causing direct transport of heat to high altitudes. This causes cooling. A negative feed back effect.
But if you are agreeing that “Positive feedback does not imply a runaway condition.” Then there has to be another factor that kicks in (like tropical thunderstorms) that prevents run away warming. If that is the case what the heck is the problem?
Warmer is “wetter” (more evaporation) and warmer is better because plants love it, plants also love CO2 and it is a win win for farmers and for feeding an increasing population.
The real catastrophe waiting was the gradual reduction of CO2 to levels too low to support life. If the Ice Core CO2 measurements were correct, then the next glaciation with cooler water and more absorption of CO2 could have pulled the atmospheric CO2 below critical levels. The fact the earth has developed a couple alternate photosynthesis pathways in the “recent past” shows just how critical the problem was becoming. The earth was getting too darn close to the 200 ppm critical point (270 ppm). ..plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels of below 200 ppm will generally cease to grow or produce.. Even without approaching 200 ppm, the low levels of CO2 were limiting the amount of CO2 converted into biomass. We now produce the same amount of wheat from three acres as we did from 5 acres a hundred years ago thanks to CO2 and fossil fuel based farming.
Just in case you missed it, there is a “new” addition to the Milankovitch cycles, the rate of change in the ice volume is the correct parameter to compare to the calculated insolation. (Nigel Calder had it correct back in 1974) http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/Roe_Milankovitch_GRL06.pdf
David Ball says:
April 22, 2012 at 4:05 pm
“Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm
“You and your fellow “skeptics” are simply ignoring or denying the evidence that scientists have provided.”
This is rich.”
Earlier in this thread, you quoted a post by Tim Ball about Rossby waves, claiming they were the reason for the recent heat wave in the Eastern US and this had nothing to do with global warming. I pointed out that he is neglecting the work of Francis and Vavrus published on March 17 :
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051000.shtml
“Key Points
*Enhanced Arctic warming reduces poleward temperature gradient
* Weaker gradient affects waves in upper-level flow in two observable ways
* Both effects slow weather patterns, favoring extreme weather”
You ignored the link that I provided and the argument I made. How can ridicule my point about skeptics ignoring evidence? You should be embarrassed. I have learned not to expect an apology.
Werner Brozek says:
April 22, 2012 at 3:55 pm
“Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:57 pm
For the most part, to the best of our ability to measure proxies, we find that high CO2 concentrations and high temperatures were well correlated.
“True, but in the past, CO2 rose AFTER temperatures went up since warm ocean water dissolves less CO2 than cold water. See the following which shows carbon dioxide and methane and temperature on the same graph.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html
Note the spikes every 100,000 years or so. A perfectly natural explanation is Milankovitch cycles which causes warming and as a result of warming, the warmer oceans release all gases such as CO2 and CH4. Then when the cycle is in a cool phase, the oceans absorb these gases again to a greater degree.””
The problem with the graphs that you point to is that it is the Antarctic temperature is what is shown in the graphs. Recently global temperatures in the most recent deglaciation period have been extracted from proxies. It turns out that the Antarctic temperature increase leads the increase in average global temperature. When global temperatures are plotted versus CO2 increase is plotted, it becomes clear that CO2 increase can be responsible for the global temperature increase.
http://blogs.nature.com/from_the_lab_bench/communications/
“It was really simple science,” he said. “We said, we’ve got 80 records from around the world, let’s just slap them together, average them into a reconstruction of global temperature.” What a fabulous idea, for such “simple science”!
“What you see when you put them all together is a pattern of global warming at the end of the ice age that really strongly mirrors the rise in CO2 at the end of the ice age. Even more interesting, you find that the global temperature started warming a bit after the CO2 rose.” This is very different from the view that many people currently hold that temperature changed first during the last glacial melt. “That is true for Antartica, but if you look globally, that’s not the case,” Shakun said. “Global temperatures are following CO2.””
Your point about no warming in the last 11 years has no meaning in the context of the debate about global warming. Analysis of the data shows that the noise due the usual suspects will drown out a long term trend with a slope of 0.15C/decade. It is of no consequence which version of HADCRUT you decide to use.
Just what we need, another global warming alarmist’s Rorchach test, propagandizing people in the absence of scientific evidence.
…Measurements of the atmosphere show that water vapor has been increasing with increasing temperatures…..
_____________________
The correct tense is “WAS increasing” water vapor started declining in 2000 But Mauna Loa CO2 data shows a steady rise in CO2. Since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century, therefore temperature is also dropping.
Your “wiggle matching” of CO2 to H2O vapor and temperature no longer fits. Therefore your hypothesis of CO2 as the “Control Knob” is disproved.
Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum published a paper The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24 Looks like they got it correct…. so far.
@ur momisugly Eric Adler
The problem here is that you are not engaging your own brain – you are solely relying on others brains. I challenge you to drop all your preconceptions and do the math yourself. We will use round numbers to make it simpler
For example, a simple bounds test
Earth system observation suggests the earth is about 33 degrees warmer than it would be without an atmosphere – this includes the effects of all the GHGs as well as Nitrogen and Oxygen and all feedbacks. Given that CO2 is at 85% saturation, assume that CO2 drives the whole box and dice – ludicrous I know, but this is a bounds test. Calculate the maxmum effect on the climate if the remaining 15% of activity is included (the atmosphere becomes opaque at the CO2 wavelengths) ?
Noting, that your calculation above is making the implicit assuption that our atmosphere is now 100% CO2 at 1 atm – How does this compare with the IPCC worst case for a mere doubling ( 400PPM ) of CO2 rise, is the IPCC worst case scenario reasonable?
Or a simple extrapolation.
Take the temerature rise posited for the last 100 PPM of CO2 rise since the little ice age – you find a value dont trust me. Calculate the temperature rise for the next 100PPM and a doubling (400PPM) (noting than ln 0.75 = -0.28 ln 5/4 = 0.22 and Ln 2 is 0.69) hint 0.22/0.28 = 0.78 and 0.69/0.28=2.46 – You will need these ratios because Temperature responds to the natural logarithm of the CO2 rise.
Now, take a thought experiment.
Discount this value for the estimate that less than 100 percent of that warming was CO2 induced – Use your own percentage that you think is reasonable- well discuss it later
So, What worst case order of magnitude would you therefore expect A) the next 100PPM warming to deliver B) The next doubling (400 PPM warming) – Contrast this with the IPCCs worst case of 5 degrees C and the Australian Governments over 6 degrees C for the next 400PPM?
Now the IPCC has said that the next 2 degrees of warming is likely to be Nett beneficial to mankind, can you now estimate what that optimal CO2 level is and when that will be acheived using your estimate above
Go-on I challenge you – do the math, post it here and we can all take a look.
jaschrumpf says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:27 pm
You need to read more closely. The 6.8% or 23% increase in insolation does not represent the average over the entire year. It is the increase at the point of closest approach. The increase in solar radiation between the Phanerozoic times and the present does represent an average over the year. So you need a more detailed calculation than that which you have provided in order to compare the solar heating of the earth in the Phanerozoic and modern era.
Such mistakes are common in comments on blog posts. They are much rarer in peer reviewed publications. I expect that the scientists who wrote the paper knew enough to do such a calculation properly.
Eric Adler says:
“It turns out that the Antarctic temperature increase leads the increase in average global temperature. When global temperatures are plotted versus CO2 increase is plotted, it becomes clear that CO2 increase can be responsible for the global temperature increase.”
Wrong. Real world evidence shows that both hemispheres warmed and cooled together.
If it were not for citing grant-trolling papers based on models, you wouldn’t have much to say.
Gail Combs says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:42 pm
“Eric Adler says: @ur momisugly April 22, 2012 at 1:57 pm
…There are two problems with your argument. Positive feedback does not imply a runaway condition. It implies amplification of forced excursions….
______________________________
ERRRRrrrr. I thought this was your (CAGW) cycle of positive feed back.
^CO2 causes ^temp -> increases in H2O evaporation -> ^temp -> increase ocean temp -> ^CO2 and the cycle repeats -> run away warming.”
The source of negative feedback is simple. As the earth warms, the increase in temperature causes in increase in radiation to outer space. When the outgoing radiation equals the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth atmosphere system, the temperature increase stops. This seems like such an obvious point, I didn’t think it needed to be mentioned, but I see I was wrong about that.
Eric Adler, you have the platitudes and talking points down pat, now how about backing it all up with data. Others seem to have been doing the work for you which you simply ignore and reply with more psychobabble. .
jaschrumpf says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:27 pm
…I did forget to address this point. The paper you reference makes some fascinating points regarding CO2 levels and ice ages, and solar radiance levels. I found this in the abstract to be very interesting:…
_____________________
Quite interesting indeed. Given all the hype I find it interesting how very level the temperature has been during the Holocene. Given man has been around for the entire time, about all you can say is the temperature has not varied as much as it did during previous interglacials. Kinda hard to tag us for disrupting the temperatures based on the Ice core data.
Greenland Ice Core
EPICA & Vostok Ice Cores
Eric Adler says:
“The source of negative feedback is simple. As the earth warms, the increase in temperature causes in increase in radiation to outer space. When the outgoing radiation equals the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth atmosphere system, the temperature increase stops. This seems like such an obvious point, I didn’t think it needed to be mentioned, but I see I was wrong about that.”
LOL, great point, that’s what skeptics have been saying for years:
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/clip_image001_thumb1.jpg
Now, if you could just get that simple mechanism into the computer models.
I just discovered this truly troubling website, posted by Keith Farnish on Apr 15, 2012 #273
Hi Clyde, this is what some people are up to:
http://www.underminers.org
Nothing symbolic or conversational about it – real people doing real things (as opposed to, say, 350.org)
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6599
don’t be disappointed if u don’t get published. it takes something really big to get the attention of the MSM:
22 April: UK Daily Mail: Katherine Faulkner: Why the cardboard in your loo roll is being slashed: Sainsbury’s trims size in bid to reduce environmental impact
Each roll will be 11 millimetres slimmer – 112mm instead of 123mm – while the number of sheets will remain as 240…
Sainsbury’s claims the move will avoid 500 annual lorry trips from suppliers to stores and save 140 tons of carbon dioxide…
It insists customers will not struggle to squeeze the new toilet rolls onto holders…
Miss Tucker said the change would give ‘an essential household product a lower carbon footprint.’ …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133643/Why-loo-roll-getting-smaller-Sainsburys-cuts-size-attempt-reduce-environmental-impact.html
Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:45 pm
“You ignored the link that I provided and the argument I made. How can ridicule my point about skeptics ignoring evidence? You should be embarrassed. I have learned not to expect an apology.”
Look back up the thread. You did not respond until the very end. Are thinking of a post you made to someone else? Did you even look at that paper or read Dr. Ball’s article? More importantly, do you understand what either article is saying? I am not the one who should be embarrassed. Another historical revisionist.
Connecting the dots: If I wanted America to fail
Eric Adler says:
April 22, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Your point about no warming in the last 11 years has no meaning in the context of the debate about global warming.
I agree with you only to a certain extent. To be truly meaningful, it should be longer, but on the other hand, I DO think it is long enough that I would want to wait and see what happens in the future before committing to spending trillions of dollars to capture carbon and the like. Eleven years of no warming certainly does not put me into a panic mode that something has to be done quickly.
P.S. Thank you Smokey!
Eric Adler says: @ur momisugly April 22, 2012 at 6:41 pm
…..The source of negative feedback is simple. As the earth warms, the increase in temperature causes in increase in radiation to outer space. When the outgoing radiation equals the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth atmosphere system, the temperature increase stops. This seems like such an obvious point, I didn’t think it needed to be mentioned, but I see I was wrong about that.
________________________________
HUH? The incoming radiation and the outgoing radiation are going to be balanced. That goes without saying because of Kirchoff’s Law. Absorptivity and emissivity at all wavelengths must be equal at equilibrium and by conservation of energy it’s not possible at equilibrium to emit more than is absorbed. Before Kirchhoff’s law was even formulated, it was experimentally determined that a good absorber is a good emitter, and a poor absorber is a poor emitter. A temporary inbalance, yeah, long term NO!
By the way it is YOUR theory not mine that has an increase in CO2 increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and therefore causing “Runaway Global Warming” see Figure SPM.5 From IPCC 4th Assessment Report or CMIP5 Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Simulations Multi-Model Mean At Different Scenarios I do not see “the temperature increase stops” in those models.
Eric Adler says: @ur momisugly April 22, 2012 at 6:41 pm
…..The source of negative feedback is simple. As the earth warms, the increase in temperature causes in increase in radiation to outer space. When the outgoing radiation equals the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth atmosphere system, the temperature increase stops. This seems like such an obvious point, I didn’t think it needed to be mentioned, but I see I was wrong about that.
___________________________________
By the way you do not mention a mechanism for the earth to dump the extra heat to outer space. It was I who mentioned thunderstorms.
As jaschrumpf says, Sagan’s “baloney detector” requires that “all of the links in a chain or argument have to work (including the premise) — not just most of them.” The CAGW argument chain seems to have links that are missing entirely…” I guess you just proved it since you gave a hand wave instead of an actual mechanism. And then you wonder why people are skeptical….
R. de Haan says: April 22, 2012 at 8:47 pm
“Connecting the dots: If I wanted America to fail”
An interesting video. Watch it and make up your own mind.
You may also want to read a history of the rise of eco-extremism, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
As your Canadian next-door neighbour, I do not want America to fail. I want America to succeed and prosper. In my previous career, I did my bit to help.
http://www.OilsandsExpert.com
I do not like conspiracy theories, and consider them with great reluctance. Nevertheless, I recently wrote this, based entirely on the evidence:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/#comment-956136
[excerpt]
The CAGW scam is not, as many of us originally believed, the innocent errors of a close-knit team of highly dyslexic scientists.
The evidence from the ClimateGate emails and many other sources, and the intransigence of these global warming fraudsters when faced with the overwhelming failures of their scientific predictions, suggests much darker motives.
Why not write a letter which connects the most rediculously normal weather numbers and say that is proves there is climate change- e.g. 30 C summer max in Perth, 0C in Siberia, -30 C in Antarctica.