Josh writes:
There is a lovely cartoon over at Roger Pielke Jr’s which, delightful though it is, helps perpetuate the myth that Global Warming is somehow an issue for climate skeptics. It isn’t. The issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic, and specifically that singularly caused by CO2, Global Warming and the alarmist hype surrounding the lack of science and the punitive energy policies that have been pursued in response to a non problem.
So I decided to do my own version of the cartoon – with apologies to the other cartoonist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Moderator (my comment at 9.17). Yes, sorry….I did reply a bit quickly.
“Obviously”? Based on what evidence? Century-old lab experiments? It isn’t obvious at all to many; rather it looks like a speculative hypothesis that both paleo-climatic and recent data have falsified.
/Mr Lynn
Greg House says:
May 3, 2012 at 8:42 am
pochas says:
May 3, 2012 at 8:26 am
Skeptics are merely those whose BS detectors sounded loudly after Hanson’s 1988 Congressional testimony and have been ringing loudly ever since.
=====================================================
But not loudly enough to check this, apparently: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf
____________________________________________________
Why ever would anyone look at a anything with Hansen’s name on it? He is a proven radical and a proven liar and a proven propagandist. Hansen’s A/C stunt during the congressional hearing in 1988 was enough to show he is an activist and not a scientist . His changing US temperature graphs just add icing to the cake.
Graph and Graph
Monty says:
May 3, 2012 at 8:50 am
….See this isn’t about science for you at all, is it? It’s about politics. The problem is…understanding climate change is a science. What we do about it, is politics. I’m talking about the former. You are fixated about the latter…..
_________________________
No, it is the IPCC that changed climate science into a political football. In 1988, the governments of the world instituted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to look at the scientific evidence that man made emissions caused climate change. From that point on the blinkers were placed on science so the ONLY control knob for climate that was studied was CO2 and man-made aerosols.
Notice that the IPCC statement STARTS with assessments of emissions scenarios and that has been the emphasis from day one. POLITICS (and money) not science.
If ‘Monty’ is a scientist, his employer is being swindled, because Monty has shown that he does not understand the issues. I think Monty may be a tax-sucker on the public gravy train. How about it, Monty? Is part or all of your income from public funds?
Also, I showed conclusively, using verifiable links, that the long term temperature trend remains unchanged, whether CO2 is 208 ppmv, or 392 ppmv. CO2 makes no measurable difference. None at all. How do you explain that?
And there is no tropospheric hot spot, the so-called “fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming”, as was universally predicted by the alarmist crowd. How do you explain that failed prediction?
Monty says:
May 3, 2012 at 10:04 am
“Climate scientists are well aware that lots of things cause climate change….and an enormous increase in a known GHG (C02) is obviously one of them.”
Which is known would cause a negligible increase in temperatures unaided by positive water vapor feedback, the necessary level of which has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with the data.
“We also know it’s not solar that is driving recent warming as the stratosphere is cooling, which is a fingerprint for GHG and the opposite that would be expected if the warming was driven by solar variation.”
Only with inappropriate statistical analysis, i.e., drawing a trendline for the entire series when there is no reason to expect linear behavior. In fact, the data show essentially piecewise constant intervals broken up by volcanic activity (El Chichon and Pinatubo). It’s hardly budged since 1995, in a period when atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued rising steadily.
Moderator: my post has been lost. Any idea why?
[REPLY: It was stuck in the spam filter. That happens, but I fished it out before this query arrived. I trust you will note the fairly quick response you get here at WUWT compared to some other sites we could mention. -REP]
Moderator: thanks.
[REPLY: Service with a smile. -REP]
Monty,
“What I am asking is how the climate warms when: TSI shows no trend, cloudiness shows no real trend, GCRs show no real trend……and yet C02 shows a consistent year on year increase?”
Since when has a near 5 percent change in global cloud levels been no real trend?
Don’t look now, but “Monty” has snuck a hockey stick onto the blackboard.
I really do not want to argue about this, as we’ve beat it to death on other threads, and I know this thread is not necessarily the appropriate place to bring it up. However, I did want to toss out something I just noticed fooling around at the Wood for Trees site.
It appears the CO2 rate of change is very closely correlated to global temperature.
This rather strongly suggests that temperature is driving CO2 concentration, and not the converse, and that the expandable permanent sinks are rather handily sequestering our emissions with barely a shrug. I’m not going to argue with anyone about it -in the past, that has proven futile. If anyone disagrees, he or she disagrees.
But, it will be very interesting to see what happens to the CO2 curve as we enter the incipient global cooling phase.
Of course, you just want to find ANY driver other than C02 to be the one that the climate is responding to. Climate scientists are well aware that lots of things cause climate change….and an enormous increase in a known GHG (C02) is obviously one of them.
=======================================================
No, it is physically impossible, that CO2 can cause any significant warming by trapping IR radiation. It was clearly demonstrated by professor R.W.Wood in 1909: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html .
Besides, there is no physical proof, that “greenhouse gasses” cause NET warming. This is important, because they block some IR radiation coming from the Sun.
Now, if a statistical calculation results in something physically impossible, then the calculation is wrong.
Even those who have no idea about the Wood’s experiment, can look into the calculations like this one: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html . Their method of assigning temperature to areas has no basis in science, hence the result is a pure fiction.
Greg House says:
May 3, 2012 at 2:14 pm
To be fair, Wood’s experiment is not entirely representative. With a stationary enclosure, the lines of absorption are extremely narrow, hence the lid cannot carve a substantial notch out of the outgoing spectrum. (Note, however, that the common reference to the windows of hot cars in sunlight acting similarly to the heat trapping action of so-called GHGs is similarly fallacious.)
But, in the atmosphere, you have spectral line broadening due to doppler and pressure effects. These allow absorption of a non-trivial band of outgoing frequencies.
The reason the global warming hypothesis has failed is not because the effect does not exist. It is because the heat trapping mechanism is opposed by other feedback mechanisms (e.g., clouds) which substantially reduce the overall effect.
Bart says:
May 3, 2012 at 2:42 pm
To be fair, Wood’s experiment is not entirely representative.
=================================================
Yeah, I knew that would come… (sad).
The Wood’s experiment was not meant to be representative in sense of representing atmospheric processes etc. It is a kind of “overkill” experiment. It demonstrated, that a much stronger effect of glass then the one of the “greenhouse gasses” is extremely WEAK. That is all we need.
After that experiment the “greenhouse gasses” hypothesis of Arrhenius died and remained buried for like 70 years, until James, Phil, Al and other culprits dug it out.
Monty says:
May 3, 2012 at 10:04 am
Hi Gail
So you find papers that show that solar variability has an effect on climate…..
____________________________________
So when I show you are wrong you change the argument. YOUR statement was
You also left out the greenhouse gas water, otherwise known as the elephant in the room. But then the CAGW activists ALWAYS leave out water because it varies up to 4% not up to 400 PPM like CO2. Water has much wider IR absorption band in the atmosphere ( alternate graph and there is also the solar absorption band of water as ocean (70%) of the surface of the earth. (More detailed graph of wavelengths at various depths)
The changes in earth’s Sources of Energy (NASA) that would effect the huge energy sink call the ocean.
OH and here is another paper in Physics World (2003) Solar activity reaches new high “Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years….”
And of course there is the Milancovitch cycle. In defense of Milankovitch, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817, 2006
…..
When I read this statement of yours “But of course, you are only ‘skeptical’ when it concerns AGW aren’t you.” out loud to my husband he nearly bust a gut laughing.
I had my first run in on the subject of integrity barely a month out of school at my first job in 1972. The plant manager told me to change the results on a certificate of analysis, I told him NO! and put my resume out the next day. I have had a running battle with management and other scientists about changing data to match politics at various companies ever since. I have been passed over for premotion a nuimber of times, been subject to a “one man layoff,” been fired twice and finally black balled. CAGW is just more of the same ~ crap masquerading as science to promote money making politics.
Greg House says:
May 3, 2012 at 3:17 pm
” It demonstrated, that a much stronger effect of glass then the one of the “greenhouse gasses” is extremely WEAK.”
It doesn’t matter how strong it is. If it absorbs every single photon in the bandwidth, and the bandwidth is extremely narrow, then the overall energy intercepted will be negligible. If you put a 100 foot thick concrete wall which is only one foot wide in the path of a stream, it will not change the flow much. Turn it 90 degrees, though, and you’ve got a dam.
Bart says:
May 3, 2012 at 5:36 pm
It doesn’t matter how strong it is. If it absorbs every single photon in the bandwidth, and the bandwidth is extremely narrow, then the overall energy intercepted will be negligible. If you put a 100 foot thick concrete wall…
====================================================
Common, Bart, glass traps much much more IR than the “greenhouse gasses”.
Have you missed these words of Wood’s: “From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely.”
The Wood’s article is an easy reading, just make a little effort.
Sorry for “common” in my previous post, it was “come on”.