PRESS RELEASE August 2, 2012
Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Katie Brown Katie_Brown@epw.senate.gov
Inhofe Exposes Another Epic Fail by Global Warming Alarmists
Photo Posted by KFOR and Think Progress
The dumpster fire that caused the melting lights
Photo Provided by KFOR
Link to Think Progress Blog Post
Link to Watts Up With That: Alarmist fact checking – street lights don’t melt at 115°F
Washington, D.C. – Today the far-left blog Think Progress posted a photo (originally posted on KFOR’s facebook page) of street lights in Oklahoma that had melted, they claimed, because of extreme heat. Global warming alarmist Bill McKibben took to Twitter immediately to publicize what he believed to be proof of global warming, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
Not long after the picture surfaced, Oklahomans posted comments on Think Progress’ blog saying that these lights had melted due to a fire – which makes sense considering that the two front lights were melted while the two back lights remained unscathed. Once this news came to light, Think Progress immediately removed the post and provided an update that reads: “After we published this piece, we saw reports from people on the ground in Stillwater that the melting streetlights were due to a nearby fire. The person who took the photo, Patrick Hunter, described the scene: ‘Being the person that actually took this photo, I’d say that this was due to a fire semi-close by coupled with the unbelievable heat we are experiencing.’ Still an amazing photo and not fake as many are saying on here. Enjoy!”
This afternoon, KFOR confirmed that the melted lights in the photo were not caused by hot temperatures but a nearby dumpster fire.
“Poor Bill McKibben – he’s been trying to get something to melt for ages but it keeps backfiring,” Senator Inhofe said. “These alarmists never learn their lesson. Remember Bill McKibben was the one who was going to melt a giant ice sculpture in the shape of the word ‘hoax’ on the national mall, but his group had to cancel because there wasn’t enough interest. Now, after proclaiming that street lights in Oklahoma are melting because of global warming, we have confirmation that a fire caused this scene.
“Amid the resurgence of hysteria from my friends on the left, I appreciated climatologist Dr. John Christy who testified this week before the Environment and Public Works committee saying that instead of proclaiming this summer is ‘what global warming looks like’ it is ‘scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.’
“This isn’t the first time alarmists have tried these stunts and it certainly won’t be the last – when will they finally realize they’ve lost this debate?”
Sen Inhofe is basically saying “Bazinga!” to McKibben. 🙂
Answer: No they won’t ever admit to losing anything. The left never gives up. If this issue wasn’t so important, it would be a lot of fun to sit back and watch their antics.
I would say that you are lucky in the US because you have high profile sceptics in the Senate and in acadenia. Contrast this to the UK where every MP is a “believer” (with 3 honourable exceptions).
Europe is doomed to go through an increasing period of poverty and rocketing energy prices due the Global warming hysteria and there seems to be no mainstream politician who will stick his head above the parapit.
Ipso Facto
Comedy gold 🙂
Eventually the left will just get another tool, something different to beat the drum about. It is really all about them finding the right scare topic, to get the world to let them have more power. Sounds like a good book or movie topic, except that it’s already been done. I’ll just have to stick with what I’m writing.
Trivial. Irrelevant to the scientific debate. But FUNNY!
Weepy Bill and Think Progress with the Gore all inserting their foot in their mouths. Talk about jumping the gun!
Another reminder why it’s a really good idea to engage the brain before hitting “send”. Now I’m curious to know whether Bill McKibben really believes streetlights could melt in a Summer heat wave (maybe he knows the person with the city contract to supply them ???), or that he just believes that the general public will believe that, or possibly that he was simply so eager to ring any alarm on global warming that he didn’t think at all.
Now maybe these are new-fangled “green” streetlights which use CFL bulbs or LEDs and wimpy plastic covers, but for most streetlights in the US today the bulbs inside get much hotter than any exterior temperature ever recorded anyplace on this planet which actually has streetlights. Even with using cooler bulbs, streetlight covers tend to be fairly tough to resist casual vandalism.
Senator Inhofe, You have to be the most scientifically illiterate and brain-washed-with-oil excuse for Senator that the USA has ever seen. I wish that you would agree to take my “short course” on climate change that is available free of charge on my web site, ericgrimsrud.com. Mother Nature is going to do things one way – Her way – in response to the impacts of Man and the field of Science has historically provided our best means of predicting what that way is. Senator Inhofe, in addition to my website, read the position statements of all of the scientific professional organizations of your country. If you don’t, I need not wish your grandchildren to go to hell, they will because of their grandpa and his ilk.
Eric Grimsrud, Author of “Thoughts of a Scientist, Citizen and Grandpa on Climate Change”, website: ericgrimsrud.com
In the UK, local governments have switched-off many street lights, ostensibly to reduce carbon emissions as well as saving money.
Truly, the lights are going out over Europe.
Think Regress headline: “UPDATE: In Oklahoma City, It’s So Hot And Dry There’s Mandatory Water Rationing”
No they’re not; those are watering restrictions .. watering even/odd street addresses and certain days of the week on account of increased DEMAND by citizens to keep lawns green!
Silly alarmists; it’s like they just woke up today and traversed straight out of adolescence into senility (having skipped an intervening period of rational adulthood) …
.
BUT…. the fire was caused by global warming just like all those forest fires.
Shocking propoganda. It is publicise, not publize.
Even worse it is propaganda.
Considering they’ve monkeyed around with photos of polar bears and Photoshopped flooded homes, this should come as no surprise.
RCS says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Europe is doomed to go through an increasing period of poverty and rocketing energy prices due the Global warming hysteria and there seems to be no mainstream politician who will stick his head above the parapit.
Now, Václav Klaus is pretty mainstream, isn’t he? While Europe is a bit more than its Western fringe. Mitteleuropa, anyone?
“Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
To quote a character wiser than I, “What a maroon!”
Tim Walker: “Sounds like a good book or movie topic, except that it’s already been done.”
Yep. Ming the Merciless to Doctor Evil. You only have to read a few of the plots and character quotes to realize how much of this has been predicted.
Once again, the Left is incapable of accurate observation. Seeing a photo of two melted light covers next to two unmelted light covers, they conclude that Global Warming caused the melting. I would really like to know the thought process that took place from observation to conclusion.
Senator Inhofe is brilliant (in my humble opinion all the way from Australia).
Sanity spreads. The whole world is turning and waking up. This is exciting to watch. Yes, it may take an age, and yes, there is plenty of damage to repair, but it’s starting. As all countries are watching all other countries, it will spread and cannot be stopped. It’s already sneaking in everywhere. Skeptical views are getting into main stream newspapers here in Australia and I understand New Zealand has some good news, too, in their court case.
It’s happening, folks. 🙂
I know this may be a little OT. But NOAA has been touting this crazy drought for July being US wide.. Being an AZ resident currently tying to not float away by the amazing rains we have gotten. This graph showing AZ in a severe drought peaked my interest. http://www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_west.htm I looked at the rain totals for July throught AZ and most are above average.. Some by a lot. What gives? Did NOAA forget to check the rain gauges? Are they averaging that for the entire year?
That is all almost too good to be true !!!
Priceless !
eric grimsrude, you forgot your /sarc tag.
@ Tim Walker
The left has a new drum to march to, sustainability. The left politicians have given up on Global Warming, it has played out its purpose of moving their agenda along. Obama’s last major energy speech didn’t even mention [Global] Warming. The left is now into wind power and solar because that is where the money is. And they call it sustainability as a handy catch phrase to sell it to the public.
My belief is that climate and global warming will soon be left to the scientists to sort out and all the alarmists will soon see their grants and paid vacations dry up unless they are wise enough to move to the new scam.
Alarmists – wise, not very likely.
How far into data free kooksville zone will the, ignorance is bliss gang willing to go…. Only time will tell…. wowzer…SQUARED…
This is so stupid its hilarious!!! These people have lost it.
Hilarious! The technocratic elite of Think Progress (sic) and the McKibbenites, who claim to know exactly what mix of solar and wind ‘power’ will save us all, have no idea about simple street lights!
Josh! Oh Josh!
PS: _Jim says (August 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm)
Think Regress headline: “UPDATE: In Oklahoma City, It’s So Hot And Dry There’s Mandatory Water Rationing”
—
That’s nothing. We had a full-on outdoor water use ban in parts of the UK until recently, despite the same parts of the UK being virtually underwater due to the wettest Spring evah.
@RCS
AGW alarmism not withstanding, I’d say Europe is doomed, as you say, simply on the basis of its affection for socialism, progressivism, etc., and slogans such as “Forward,” which is a slogan for lemmings, best I can tell.
We seem to be similarly doomed, however.
Eric P. Grimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
—–
I see you went to University of Wisconsin, Madison. My brother went there for M.S. in physical therapy. Anyways, I’ve always found some people with Ph.D to be one of most most scientifically illiterate and brain-washed when it comes to nutrition.
Don’t be such cocky like that… There are people with ordinary people with undergraduate degrees or didn’t even finish college, etc can completely kick people’s asses with Ph.D.
Ph.D means nothing sometimes…
1) Sun scare… now we have a widespread vitamin D deficiency that is much more worse than trying to prevent skin cancer… Oh yeah, http://www.naturalnews.com/032202_vitamin_D_deficiency_disease.html considering that it came from University of Wisconsin, Madison!
2) Cholesterol and saturated fat causing heart disease… turned out to be completely false… it has much more to do with chronic elevated blood sugar level that leads to high small particle LDL level (doesnt show up on traditional calculated cholesterol test; only on NMR test) that speeds up plaque build up in the arteries.
I am sure there are many more examples but nutrition is what I am most familiar with.
“””””……sadbutmadlad says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Sen Inhofe is basically saying “Bazinga!” to McKibben. :-)…..”””””
I believe that “Bazinga !” is some kind of antisocial network app for your iPud .
Well, it only got up to 113° here, today. Maybe we’ll break the 1936 records.
http://climate.ok.gov/index.php/site/page/climate_of_oklahoma/for_tourists_visitors_new_residents
“””””…..Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Another reminder why it’s a really good idea to engage the brain before hitting “send”…….”””””
Excellent advice; who for example, has green instant on CFL “bulbs” ? And have you ever noticed how easy it is to provide secondary optics for CFL bulbs, for excellent beam control.
I’d try GaN/InGaN LEDs , before I’d consider CFLs. Come to think of it, I think somebody else thought of that before I did.
George
What does McKibben think they are made of? Chocolate? What an idiot. They are a commercial-grade fixture fergawdsake. They probably wouldn’t melt at 300 degrees.
I just looked up the temperature needed to melt glass: 2600-2900 degrees F.
Global warming is worse than we thought. It is now causing dumpsters to spontaneously combust!
RCS
You do have Vaclav Klaus. Desmog clearly dislikes him so he must be good. PhD in economics.
“””””…..Eric P. Grimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Senator Inhofe, You have to be the most scientifically illiterate and brain-washed-with-oil excuse for Senator that the USA has ever seen. “””””
Well I wouldn’t be so flaming self promoting, as you are Mr Grimms; if you think Inhofe is illiterate (in any sense), you just haven’t listened enough to Senatore Babs (I worked hard for that Title) check bouncing expert , Boxer, who actually IS the Chairman of The Senate EPW Committee; and she is flatly as dumb as a box of rocks.
Senator Inhofe is one of only two Senators, who represent the State of Oklahoma, in the [Senate], and Oklahoma is known to be an oil and gas producing State; which is why he represents those people in his State.
If for example, he was from a different State like Vermont, he would likely defend the vandals, who go around mutilating Maple trees, for their sap; when the midwest States, can grow all the high fructose corn syrup the entire world needs for their pancakes.
It’s kind of the way government operates; working for the people who elected them.
George, I also live in a fossil fuel state, Montana, but that does not mean I have to be brain-dead with respect to the harm CO2 emissions will be doing to our future generations. Eric
We need a good laugh, after that AWFUL Senate EPW hearing, plus now another fine upstanding, scientifically literate Senator introduces a Carbon Tax bill. Fun, fun, fun.
Global warming alarmist Bill McKibben took to Twitter immediately to publicize what he believed to be proof of global warming, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”
Hey, Bill McKibben – it looks more like God may be trying to make you look like a fool.
Although, I’m not so sure you need God’s help.
LOL
The desperation of the alarmists is the gift that keeps on giving…
Amazing how they just change the article, apparently remove the comments, and go on like nothing happened. A perfect example of Orwellian Doublethink at work.
Eric Grimsrud, Author of “Thoughts of a Scientist, Citizen and Grandpa on Climate Change”, website: ericgrimsrud.com
+++++++++++++++
That website don’t hunt
As important as Watts et al 2012 is, THIS is the stuff that must reach the general public. Not to diminish your excellent work, but the back & forth of claims of contradictory evidence has become meaningless, I fear. Opinions about stuff like this, though, there can be NO doubt….
Sometimes all you can say is…
lulz.
Eric P. Grimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
” . . . I need not wish your grandchildren to go to hell, they will because of their grandpa and his ilk.
Eric Grimsrud, Author of “Thoughts of a Scientist, Citizen and Grandpa on Climate Change””
======
If we’re all going hell, why should I be bothered to read your book. I think your marketing strategy needs some work.
Reg Nelson, Author of “Why Your Marketing Strategy Needs Some Work.”
Reg, At my age I am no longer trying to “sell something” and realize that there are more important things that I can leave for my grandchildren than money. Why not have a go at my short course at ericgrimsrud.com – its free. Eric
Global warming has gotten so bad that it is setting random dumpsters on fire.[/sarcasm]
@charlie A who said :”Trivial. Irrelevant to the scientific debate. But FUNNY!”
The “debate ” is no longer scientific (that debate was won).
The debate is now political.
Eric P Grimsrud says on August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm:
“Senator Inhofe, You have to be the most scientifically illiterate and brain-washed-with-oil excuse for Senator that the USA has ever seen. I wish that you would agree to take my “short course” on climate change that is available free of charge on my web site, —- —-.”
===========
I “like and admire” all you guys out there who have written courses on the physics and other related reasons as to how we humans have finally managed to warm the Earth’s surface and atmosphere by anything from 1 deg. C – and, potentially, right up to the melting point of Lead, and beyond. – Having studied your own courses, you have realized you have all become specialists. – Even on “the question of” who is “the most scientifically illiterate and brain-washed-with-oil excuse for Senator that the USA has ever seen” you are an expert. – Is “all that” because he (Senator Inhofe) hasn’t “taken your short course”, or did you use some other “Scientific Method” to come to that conclusion?
It’s on the front page at Yahoo now…
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/oklahoma-hot-street-lamps-melting-203656312.html
“…It’s possible the heat itself isn’t responsible for the event — it’s being reported on Facebook that a nearby dumpster fire may have been the cause of the melting plastic light housings. Still, that dumpster fire was caused and aggravated by the record heat and dryness. And if dangerous, spontaneous fires aren’t reason enough to go green, we don’t know what is…”
How pathetic is our education system?
“Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention.” First post
and I been lurking here for years. I’ve read all the posts, too. AGW is
a serious topic with serious comments, right up there with religion.
It’s said we are all made in God’s image. I tried to melt the cover on
a street light and staring at it hard as I could I failed. Now I’m depressed
while waiting for one of you commenters to throw a few hysterically
funny words about the absurd tweet from Bill Mc Kibben. Please. I have
a glass of beer and a roll of paper towels when I spew wash and dry my
monitor and keyboard. Please advise Josh or Fenbeagle to handle the
visual art. Thank you. JMS
‘Being the person that actually took this photo, I’d say that this was due to a fire semi-close by coupled with the unbelievable heat we are experiencing.’ Still an amazing photo and not fake as many are saying on here. Enjoy!”
===============
Enjoy, what ?
The utter collapse of credibility ?
Done.
Just goes to show.
Bill McKibben has cooked his brain with all his overhyped AGW/CC beliefs. He needs a vacation to cool off in the nearest funny farm.
That’s what I thought … but, no, it looks like he’s serious. 🙁
I have a suggestion for meatheads on both sides of the issue, it’s called civil discourse.
I’ll skip the rest of the sermon. Bah Humbug! A pox on all their houses.
Since the alarmists are unlikely to fact check any piece of evidence purported to demonstrate dangerous, unprecedented, man-made climate change, as shown by the melting streetlight example, the “drowning polar bears” example, the Himalayan glacier example, etc., maybe we can organize a kind of honey pot sting operation by flooding the web with obviously bogus, staged photos and stories of “unprecedented” warming events to see how many Bill McKibben and friends will pick up and run with. Then we point and laugh.
Warmists are still claiming (connecting the dots) the melted lights are a result of man-made global warming. High temps. (because of humans ) caused the dumpster fire which caused the lights to melt.
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is the plastic that these covers where made of. Sustained,continous(yeah,I know it’s the same) heat of 110*C/230*F without melting or deformation of any kind. I guess the McGibbon(isn’t that a monkey breed) and at least one of his Gibbonites (Grimsrud),either failed chemistry,or can’t do a Google search,OR,have just drank to much Kool-Aid(TM).
And for at least 4 billion years,heat has been causing ALL fires,pipples.This one has a name,spontaneous combustion(Google that,McGibbon).
So this is flaming rubbish?
The left\green extremists scraping the bottom of the barrel, or should I say dumpster?
If I were Bill McKibben I would take a very long walk on a very short plank and hide my face for ever.
To paraphrase McKibben: I think God is giving a signal to the warmists that they are all stark raving………….
Just another microclimate.
Hey! Proof of Catastrophic Manmade Warming, albeit highly localized. Didn’t even make it to the next two lamps. (Dang! I just realized that if CO2 levels would have been much, much higher, there would have been no fire at all.)
_Jim says:
August 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Think Regress headline: “UPDATE: In Oklahoma City, It’s So Hot And Dry There’s Mandatory Water Rationing”
No they’re not; those are watering restrictions .. watering even/odd street addresses and certain days of the week on account of increased DEMAND by citizens to keep lawns green!
=============================
Jim, 7 out of every 10 years we have the same water restrictions. It is the norm for us. While getting this drought two years in a row has dropped the lakes that supply most of the local water supply sucks. As soon as the heat dome gets pushed off we will get rain again. Stupid super La Nina….
http://think-progress.tumblr.com/post/28562214038/wow-its-so-hot-in-oklahoma-that-the-streetlights reports a correction, saying “Correction: The lamp was standing pretty close to a recent fire, so it’s likely they didn’t melt from the heat.”
Only ‘”likely” they didn’t melt from the heat?’ So they are not ruling that possibility out!
The drought wouldn’t be so bad if some tropical storms or hurricanes would’ve moved up that way and dumped rain in recent years. Weren’t we supposed to have more frequent and more severe such events?
The melting point of glass is 1425 degrees Celsius… I’m not sure of the temp that it becomes plastic and deformable, but it would have to be up around 1000 degree C.
Yet McKibben didn’t pause for breath, didn’t reflect on what he was looking at. Didn’t engage his skeptical mind…. He just believed because he wanted to.
Let’s hope this little lesson in humility will give him pause now when heating claims are made about the climate….. Maybe he will engage his skeptical mind and ask some pertinent questions.
From Yahoo News: (after they reported the original story)
“Still, that dumpster fire was caused and aggravated by the record heat and dryness. And if dangerous, spontaneous fires aren’t reason enough to go green, we don’t know what is.”
@Theo Goodwin says:
August 2, 2012 at 4:21 pm Theo, as you know, based on your many thoughtful posts here, the “thought process” was non-existent.
It cant be a dumpster fire, because I am pretty sure that Bill McKibbed calculated the odds of that happening as being greater than the number of stars in the universe.
My dad reported two 120°F thermometers (alcohol in glass) broke one day in northeast Oklahoma during his childhood (probably that summer of 1936). On a farm, with one on the porch and one on a tree trunk. He never thought it was overly hot after that.
This year is much better than last, but it is a bit hotter. Our water supplies are stressed, but not in danger. The reason for the outdoor watering restrictions is due to pressure issues, not supply issues. When so many people are watering their yards, it is hard to have enough pressure for more important things, fighting fires for instance.
As to our Senators, I am proud of them. Also, the honorable Mr. Inhofe does it for his grandchildren, and mine. I am grateful.
Eric P. Grimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
I actually kinda like that. I’ve seen a dumpster fire in the middle of the night, some guy lit up that paper recycling container and the flames were 6 meters high and while I was thinking about calling the fire brigade cops already arrived. According to Grimsrud that’s Nature’s Way.
Really, kinda like an eye-opener. Seeing the ways of Nature in the dumpster fires around you.
Pardon my language, but that is the dumbest sh[*]t ever.
[No, we don’t pardon your language. Robt]
Nerd –
1) Ever cared for a patient dying from metastatic melanoma? I have. Just take a vitamin D capsule.
2) You don’t know squat about the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease.
As an Okie supporter of Sen. Inhofe, I hope that he has better things to do than read the pathetic rants of Eric P. Grimsrud. Grimsrud’s understanding of atmospheric science is far below what it should be for someone with a chemistry Ph.D and long years of experience.
Yahoo News is still reporting the lamps melted due to Global Warming!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/oklahoma-hot-street-lamps-melting-203656312.html
Truly ignorant.
@ericgrimsrud.
While the “course” you are offering is free, the level of vitrol you exhibit and your inability to consider someone else opinions and/or dissenting evidence, makes you appear to be less along the lines of “scientist with a conscience offering a free education” and more along the lines of “snake-oil salesman.”
An excellent example of confirmation bias in action.
“ericgrimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Reg, At my age I am no longer trying to “sell something” and realize that there are more important things that I can leave for my grandchildren than money. Why not have a go at my short course at ericgrimsrud.com – its free. Eric”
If you are not trying to sell something,go away.And if your course is soooooo great,why are you using your computer and inputting CO2 into our eco-system? Practice what you preach.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Reg, At my age I am no longer trying to “sell something” and realize that there are more important things that I can leave for my grandchildren than money. Why not have a go at my short course at ericgrimsrud.com – its free. Eric
===
Eric, actually you are (trying to selling something). Did you not read your original post plugging your book? How is that not “selling something?
Dementia is a difficult thing thing to deal with I know. We went through this with my father. I hope you have a great support group and God bless you.
ericgrimsrud says (August 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm): “Why not have a go at my short course at ericgrimsrud.com – its free. Eric”
Did Bill McKibben take the class?
ericgrimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Reg, At my age I am no longer trying to “sell something” and realize that there are more important things that I can leave for my grandchildren than money. Why not have a go at my short course at ericgrimsrud.com – its free. Eric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I waded through a couple of chapters and a couple of power points and I can say with some measure of confidence that you are charging a price commensurate with the quality of the material.
I love how the only things that never change are the deletion patterns of alarmists who always seem to get it wrong..
@ericgrimsgrud: “..At my age I am no longer trying to “sell something” and realize that there are more important things that I can leave for my grandchildren than money..”
How about leaving them your body? It’s chock-full of your precious carbon which should be released into the air when you’re cremated, or released into the soil if you’re buried, to be released into the air again eventually.
Wait for a few hours while the warmies sulk over being pwned — by Sunday, they’ll have forgotten all about it. But someone will post a pic of the toasted dumpster on Monday and McKibben will panic and scream it’s so hot that paint is blistering…
Eric P. Grimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Senator Inhofe, You have to be the most scientifically illiterate and brain-washed-with-oil excuse for Senator that the USA has ever seen.
A really “scientific” argument in the ad hominem genre.
I see your blog, if that is what it is, has 2 (yes TWO) comments, both by someone named “Priss.” surely a typo as presumably it should “Prissy!”
ericgrimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 9:06 pm
George, I also live in a fossil fuel state, Montana, but that does not mean I have to be brain-dead with respect to the harm CO2 emissions will be doing to our future generations. Eric
_____________________
Well, Eric- if you don’t have to be brain- dead, then which is it? Do you appear to us to be, or not to be (brain- dead)?
The global warming equivalent of the bleeding picture in the piece of toast.
Eric, from what I can see of the comments your posting got here, I think we’ve found a new measurement: the grimsrud. I’m not sure what that measurement actually applies to in AGW thought, but then, we’re never quite sure what thoughts, if any, go thru a True Believers’ mind.
Say, how about ignorance?
Inhofe initially went along with the warmist crowd, then boned up on the subject and changed his mind. That undermines your implication that his position is dictated by bias/vested interest.
NOAA seems to be a major source of misrepresentation, as though it falsified its data sets to generate graphs-to-order for stupid alarmism. A simplistic hypothesis, I know, but it seems to do pretty well as a predictor.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 2, 2012 at 9:06 pm
George, I also live in a fossil fuel state, Montana, but that does not mean I have to be brain-dead with respect to the harm CO2 emissions will be doing to our future generations. Eric
No but, evidently, it does help. I hope the dementia gets better.
If the temperature had been ten degrees lower that spontaneous combustion would only have occurred ten minutes later. If the temperature had been lower by the amount of rise attributable to global warming–a tenth of a degree–the spontaneous combustion would have occurred a second later.
With apologies to all the PhD’s here, I have a farm neighbour and ex-bull rider with 4 brothers and two sisters with PhD’s and he always calls them “Piled Higher and Deeper”. Somehow whenever I see some of the reports coming out the University of Colorado/Boulder and others these days, I can’t help but think of that phrase.
A cynic would wonder if Senator Inhofe is protecting his campaign funding by promoting an anti-cAGW agenda in the Senate, since his most generous supporters are the Koch brothers.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582&cycle=2012
Dear Eric,
you obviously care deeply about the ‘AGW issue’- however, in order to be taken seriously, perhaps you should care a bit more & correct the sloppy grammar on the first page of your pre-determined polemic. Sloppiness pervades the AWG landscape doesn’t it?
“We are now live in critical moment in the history of human civilization and have a choice of monumental importance to make”
Further, is it not a basic requirement -indeed professional- to cite references for all your
assertions? I assume these are to be found in the power-point presentation? I would have liked seeing something in the intro to give me confidence that you actually know what you are banging on about, & not just repeating all those simplistic & unfalsifiable claims made by the usual
hysterics.
Alas, why would I pursue such a one-sided rant, where you have already decided that the
point-whatever-degree C in 100 years is absolutely, catastrophically, unequivocally, due to humanity & CO2
The whole site reads like zealous creationist dogma.
Eric Grimsrud said….
—-
What is this about grandfathers? You make much of being a grandfather. Hansen says he’s doing what he does for his grandchildren.
Does this mean that anyone who isn’t a grandfather is a self-serving short-sighted sybaritic parasite who can’t see past the end of their nose, and cares nothing about the future?
Please can this grandfather-ism cease immediately? I have nothing against grandfathers, until they start spouting holier-than-thou nonsense with the implication that somehow their relations make them morally superior to the rest of us.
rogerknights says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:00 am
If the temperature had been ten degrees lower that spontaneous combustion would only have occurred ten minutes later.
It could also have been caused by the sun’s rays being focused on some crumpled newspapers or oily rags through a half-full water bottle someone tossed — I’ve seen that happen when temps were in the low 70s.
Yeah, I used to work in a landfill — long time ago…
Brian H says:
August 3, 2012 at 1:31 am
NOAA seems to be a major source of misrepresentation, as though it falsified its data sets to generate graphs-to-order for stupid alarmism. A simplistic hypothesis, I know, but it seems to do pretty well as a predictor.
Jane Lubchenko’s held the reins at NOAA since 2009, and when someone as amoral as Barney Frank thinks you’re corrupt, that says something:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/07/frank_calls_on.html
I am reminded of the Walrus and the Carpenter:
“The sun was shining on the sea
Shining with all his might;
Doing his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright.
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.”
Just like the dumpster fire …
Maybe very slow-acting sun’s rays?
😉
;p
Entropic man says:
August 3, 2012 at 3:05 am
“A cynic would wonder if Senator Inhofe is protecting his campaign funding by promoting an anti-cAGW agenda in the Senate, since his most generous supporters are the Koch brothers.”
Shall we start enumerating the environmental groups receiving money from the Rockefeller foundation now? Let’s start with 350.org…
Eric Grimsrud said….
If Eric is so worried about the future state of this marvelous planet what is he doing clogging it up with children and grandchildren? Wouldn’t it have been better to leave that to people who show some ability to absorb information from both sides of an argument and come to rational conclusions.
***********************************************************
Wayne Delbeke says:
August 3, 2012 at 2:42 am
With apologies to all the PhD’s here, I have a farm neighbour and ex-bull rider with 4 brothers and two sisters with PhD’s and he always calls them “Piled Higher and Deeper”. Somehow whenever I see some of the reports coming out the University of Colorado/Boulder and others these days, I can’t help but think of that phrase.
I heard from a certain Mr Ken Dodd that PhD stood for prepares hot dinners, some may be better off doing just that.
Steve
RCS says:
August 2, 2012 at 3:22 pm
“I would say that you are lucky in the US because you have high profile sceptics in the Senate and in acadenia. Contrast this to the UK where every MP is a “believer” (with 3 honourable exceptions).
Europe is doomed to go through an increasing period….”
Skeptics, adventurers, the persecuted, independent thinkers and those seeking a better life left Europe in droves once the New World had been discovered. Its not too late to come on over! (Of course, once the place was cleared and paved, other types came over, too!)
You can’t put a price on the notion of alarmists being able to feel sanctimoneous. What wouldn’t we give to help them maintain that special feeling?
Entropic man says:
August 3, 2012 at 3:05 am
A cynic would wonder if Senator Inhofe is protecting his campaign funding by promoting an anti-cAGW agenda in the Senate, since his most generous supporters are the Koch brothers.
A cynic would wonder why E-man posts links to papers hidden behind paywalls when he’s offering a “contribution” to the scientific debate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/pielke-jr-demolishes-ipcc-lead-author-senat-epw-testimony/#comment-1049570
but posts links to open source material when it comes to politics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/pielke-jr-demolishes-ipcc-lead-author-senat-epw-testimony/#comment-1050272
His selective cynicism is amusing, considering he avoided commenting on Big Oil’s $225 million donation to Christopher Field’s employer for “research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/pielke-jr-demolishes-ipcc-lead-author-senat-epw-testimony/#comment-1049785
Field has to maintain that AGW is both real and a threat, E-man – if it doesn’t exist, or if it’s not a threat, all those lovely hundreds of millions of petrodollars will go to someone else, and Field will be out on the street…
“I’m melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world!”
Steve Thatcher says:
August 3, 2012 at 4:50 am
I heard from a certain Mr Ken Dodd that PhD stood for prepares hot dinners, some may be better off doing just that.
A PhD I knew for 30-odd years referred to himself as a “Phony Doctor” – but said he was authorized to prescribe alcohol for medicinal purposes…
Bill Tuttle says:
August 3, 2012 at 5:26 am
“A PhD I knew for 30-odd years referred to himself as a “Phony Doctor” – but said he was authorized to prescribe alcohol for medicinal purposes…”
Isaac Asimov used to teach biochemistry at Boston College medical school before he became a full time science fiction writer. He said one of his students asked him,
“Dr Asimov, are you a real doctor or a PhD.”. Asimov said that after this, he referred to PhDs as
Phony Doctors.
Well, somebody was trying to get the Senator’s attention. Does this McKibben chap frequently confuse himself with God – or is it just once and forever?
As should be no surprise at all, this story has made it to Yahoo’s front page.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/oklahoma-hot-street-lamps-melting-203656312.html
The left wants an end zone dance. If they can’t get it they change fields.
This common association of environmental concerns with the “left” is most unfortunate and it is a shame that the “right” is, indeed, brain-dead on the subject. Who in American history was perhaps most important in starting the “environmental movement” of the 20th Century? Republican President Teddy Roosevelt certainly comes to my mind. There was a time when those most sensitive to the “conservation” of our natural world were “conservatives”. Now, it seems that our misnamed “conservatives” are those that only care about money they can make by not being conservationist and by undermining the public’s confidence in modern environmental science. So “Watts Wrong With That?” While it might make some of us short term winners, it will make us all long term loosers.
Maybe the dumpster fire was caused by global warming?
Ever think about that? Hmmm??
A PhD in science does not impress me when it comes to common sense. I once had a VP of Research bring me a paper prepared by one of his PhDs to analyse a proposal by a person outside the company. After four pages of discussion showing that the proposal wouldn’t work, he suggested that we hire the guy as a consultant to look into it further.
The VP and I had a quiet laugh over that one.
WTF, these people are really THAT stupid? I don’t know if I should laugh or kick a cat.
To Reg and others – who have claimed that I am just trying to sell a book:
I have encouraged people here to have a look ONLY at my free “short course” on climate change that is available on my web site, ericgrimsrud.com. My own approach is to make the science as clear as “is the world flat or round” so that individuals do not have to rely on just the bottom-line opinions of their preferred “experts”, one now being the recent author of a new book on AGW by Senator Inhofe – whose main qualification seems to be that he does NOT have a PhD.
I know that it takes a bit of effort and time to learn some of the science yourself – much more effort than simply embracing someone else’s botton line opionion – but give it a try its not that tough. Just as you could probably explain why you think the Earth is round, rather than flat, you can similarly develop your very own opinion of the subject of AGW.
Teddy Roosevelt was most definitely not a conservative or any subspecies of the classical liberal. He was a Progressive.
I have an alternative definition for the “grimsrud” as a unit. It would be a multiple of a “couric”, as in 10 grimsrud = 1 couric. A measure for smaller turds.
Brian H says:
August 3, 2012 at 4:29 am
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.”
Just like the dumpster fire …Maybe very slow-acting sun’s rays?
Must’ve been — look how all that dark smoke has obscured the clear, blue sky!
Heh. Nice catch.
ericgrimsrud:
In this thread you have made a series of silly, ignorant, misinformed and self-promoting posts.
So, I was surprised when you began your post at August 3, 2012 at 7:32 am by making a statement to which I could agree; i.e.
Indeed, Senator Inhofe agrees with it, too.
I am certainly more left-wing than most who post to WUWT and very far to the left of every US Republican Senator. Indeed, I am a left-wing socialist of the old-fashioned British kind, but Senator Inhofe has quoted me on the floor of the US Senate because he is interested in – and he is knowledgeable of – the science of AGW. And, importantly, Senator Inhofe considers the scientific evidence concerning AGW to be more important than partisan political posturing.
It is clear that you need to learn much about AGW, and I suggest that you should start by learning from Senator Inhofe.
Richard
I love the photo of the melting lights. It is fun to watch these guys try new approaches every time one of their false ideas is debunked.
Speaking of new approaches, maybe they are trying something new with methane. I saw this over on Spaceweather.com, a link to a NASA article on the increase of noctilucent clouds being the result of increasing methane in the atmosphere. I don’t know if they are right, but I’m sad that my first reaction is distrust.
Oops forgot to put the link to the article in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzs9ZOsjF-c
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 8:18 am
To Reg and others – who have claimed that I am just trying to sell a book:
I have encouraged people here to have a look ONLY at my free “short course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I’ve looked at it. I think what you fail to understand, being a relative new comer to this forum, is that the level of science literacy in this forum is much higher than you seem to think. Your section on the various modes in which a CO2 molecule can store a higher level of energy is actually of value. I’d expect a chemist to get that right. But you’re in over your head when it comes to the physics, youre energy balance diagram is nothing more than a regurgitation of Trenberth’s diagram, which, if you bother to do a search on this site, you’ll find has been debated hotly by highly qualified commenters with doctorates in everything from physics to chemistry to engineering. Similarly, your calculation of earth’s surface temperature sans greenhouse effect fails to take into account Holder’s Inequality, so your numbers are wrong..
Your assumption that the regulars in this blog are simply the great unwashed with no background in the science itself is an arrogant assumption, and wrong. Yes there are some luddites who appear here (on both sides of the debate). But it doesn’t take much time and effort to sort out who is who on this site.
Based on my brief perusal of your free short course, you have far more to learn from this site than you have to teach.
DavidMHoffer, you rascal,
If you really are a physicists who knows squat about the three factors that affect climate, you also know very well that the minutia you focused on here concerning the “sans greenhouse gas” calculation of the Earth’s temperature is of little importance relative to the large T boost provided by the GHG effect. It appears to me that your statement concerning the needles in that haystack have been presented here simply to confuse the public – which, I suspect, was your intention. If I am wrong, perhaps you could arrange to have Senator Imhofe explain to us the importance of what you said. I have no doubt that he liked it – but like the audience of WUWT – which you hold in such high regard – probably has no clue concerning what you said.
John B., M.D. says:
August 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Nerd –
1) Ever cared for a patient dying from metastatic melanoma? I have. Just take a vitamin D capsule.
2) You don’t know squat about the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease.
=============
Quickest way to spot that someone has no grasp of the science is to check whether they cite naturalnews.com.
This has gone on for so long that I now have one leg that is longer than the other!
We are only a few more “crop circle” reports from permanently relegating the warmists (man-made, that is) to a ranking somewhere between the UFO “I want to believe” crowd and cryptozoology nutjobs.
It does not matter to their followers that they lied, nor does it make any impact on public opinion that this was exposed as a lie so quickly.
This, like all the other AGW propaganda has already entered the public consciousness and it will be circulating among the slack jawed climate cult followers for years to come as some urban myth that they well all cite as “proof” of AGW.
Bill Tuttle
Exxon-Mobil’s $225million dollars to Mr Field may reflect a change in emphasis. It will be interesting to see if its donations to sceptic research and lobby groups change in coming years.
I referred to a paywalled paper because I could use the abstract in my discussion and no open access copy is available yet. Fortunately, political lobby sites like http://www.opensecrets.org do not charge, though they do appeal for donations.
Global warming alarmists are arsonists in the making.
It’s only a matter of time before one of these brainwashed idiots, or a follower, start a serious fire to validate a global warming point.
DirkH says:
August 3, 2012 at 4:39 am
Entropic man says:
August 3, 2012 at 3:05 am
“A cynic would wonder if Senator Inhofe is protecting his campaign funding by promoting an anti-cAGW agenda in the Senate, since his most generous supporters are the Koch brothers.”
Shall we start enumerating the environmental groups receiving money from the Rockefeller foundation now? Let’s start with 350.org…”
It seems to be standard practice in the US. You pay people to say things that support your point of view.
Politicians are given campaign funds, lobby groups are given funding and websites that express your viewpoint are given donations.
This happens on both sides of most political choices, especially contentious ones like climate change.
It makes it difficult for an European observer to distinguish between people who are given funding because they express an opinion and those who express an opinion because of their funding.
Entropic Man;
It makes it difficult for an European observer to distinguish between people who are given funding because they express an opinion and those who express an opinion because of their funding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course this never happens in Europe? How naive are you?
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 5:08 pm
DavidMHoffer, you rascal,
If you really are a physicists who knows squat about the three factors that affect climate, you also know very well that the minutia you focused on here concerning the “sans greenhouse gas” calculation of the Earth’s temperature is of little importance relative to the large T boost provided by the GHG effect.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Eric, seriously, I skimmed your site and within moments picked off half a dozen things you said that were wrong. I picked a couple of highlights and suggested you research the points I brought to your attention rather than embarras you further. I really don't have the time to get into a comprehensive review right now, but trust me, I've seen enough in your site to suggest you wouldn't come off well in the debate. My suggestion that you research more was sincere.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 5:08 pm
DavidMHoffer, you rascal,
If you really are a physicists who knows squat about the three factors that affect climate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For the record:
1. I am not a physicist
2. The three factors you list on your site that “affect climate” are actually factors that affect energy balance.
3. Energy balance is a tiny component of climate. There are many, many, many other factors.
4. That you seem to think that only energy balance matters in understanding climate is very telling in terms of how simplisticaly you view the climate system, and how much you have to learn.
I suggest starting with this site and reading through the articles and comments by Robert Brown for starters. That alone ought to tell you that you are a victim of your own personal confirmation bias. For the record, Robert is a real physicist.
DavidM, Starting with the basics, it is actually true that three things determine the global average temperature. It is by that the average global temperature, that we measure the average global. Yes, then, of course, many other things affect and determine those three basic factors – for example the albedo is affected by many things. If you are, in fact, any sort of climate scientist, you know these things that I just said. Therefore, I would agree with you that you are not a physicist and do not even appear to be a scientist. You do, however, appear to be a “word mincer” who is doing his best to discredit science by pretending to be a scientist. Please feel free to prove me wrong via an exposure of credentials that suggest any relationship whatsoever to science. I do suspect, however, that you are like Senator Inhofe who is scientifically “unbiased” because he has no such credentials.
I admire the Senator for the job he is doing. I believe in global warming, just not that it is man-made. Otherwise, if every incident of global warming – 1912, 1936, 2012 would have to be interrupted with a period of man-made global cooling. The alarmists are just arrogant to believe that man can influence nature to this extent. The earth is self-regulating; magnetic fields ward of solar flares, whirlpools in Antartica pulling CO2 to the sea floor, warm times are followed by cool times, including the last Ice Age “scare” of the 1950-60s. Impotent man must adapt just like everything else on earth since it really does not have the ability or power to change nature. If they think they can, why not start with something smaller like dissolving a tornado or quieting a hurricane before tackling the entire earth’s CO2 level?
Olaf Koenders says:
Olaf, when you stated the obvious:
How about leaving them your body? It’s chock-full of your precious carbon which should be released into the air when you’re cremated, or released into the soil if you’re buried, to be released into the air again eventually.
I suspect you thought that you were being cute by pointing out that even I will be emitting CO2 after I die. If so you evidently don’t know that that is OK. Converting one form of biological carbon into another does not lead to CO2 levels above the natural levels. It is only the conversion of geological carbon (fossil fuels) that does that. That is why we go to the trouble of making and using biofuels.
To our self proclaimed “Politeness Man”,
While teaching I seldomly provide references for everything and every argument I make – while I do provide lists of suggested reading. I can always point to specific references when asked to. In the more than 100 peer-reviewed papers I have written, more extensive referencing was often required but only when you were dreading on new ground. What I just said is standard behavior among scientists who teach and do research.
Also in teaching and research I almost always use language that is proper in each of those settings. This blog is very different for either of those settings, however. Have a look at the opening statement of this blog and count the number of times that derogatory comments were leveled at the so called “alarmists” and in particular towards Bill McKibben. This blog is not a legitimate scientific forum. It is a “let’s make fun of the scientific nerds” party from the very beginning – encouraging others to do the same.
So please get real concerning what goes on in blogs like this. If you want to seriously discuss the science of AGW with me, start by studying my short course and I will then be very pleased to answer any questions or be corrected and thereby learn something new as we go. Alternatively, let me know where your course or views on climate science are presented in an organized manner and I will be glad to study it and ask you questions.
The “he said, she said” approach to “scientific discussion” that occurs on a blog like this usually amounts to little more than playground banter. The only point I originally wanted to make here is to state my opinion (derived from studying his book) that Senator Inhofe is scientifically illiterate (while I have no doubt that he is politically astute). And again I would encourage him to learn some real science for the sake of his grandchildren (if he has any). If he does that and then asks honest and sincere questions, I would treat him with respect in subsequent discussions of the science. What goes on on this blog, however, is mainly about political positioning and mindless venting – with just a dash of science emerging here and there. I am human, of course, and often treat people no better than they treat me – I know, I have to work in that problem just as most us do.
ericgrimsrud;
Please feel free to prove me wrong via an exposure of credentials that suggest any relationship whatsoever to science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Argument from authority. You want to build your credibility, you stop with that nonsense right now.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm
DavidM, Starting with the basics, it is actually true that three things determine the global average temperature. It is by that the average global temperature, that we measure the average global.
1. Your original assertion was that only three things govern the climate. This statement is patently false. You’ve now switched gears and stated that only three things govern the global average temperature which is an entirely different matter.
2. How do you define global average temperature? If you define it as the effective black body temperature of earth as seen from space, then doubling CO2 changes that temperature, once equilibrium is re-established by 0 degrees. You can use a different defintiion I suppose, but I will refer you to IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2 which uses precisely that definition and which is in agreement that the net change in energy balance once equilibrium is established again is 0 w/m2.
3. The debate is about WHERE the effective black body temperature of earth occurs. Presently, the effective black body temperature of earth is roughly 253 K, and this occurrs at an approximate altitude of 14,000 feet. The altitude is lower at higher altitudes and also lower when water vapour concentrations are low (deserts versus oceans at the same latitude for example) but 14,000 as an average is a decent approximation.
4. Doubling of CO2 results, according to the science that underpins AR4 WG1 Ch2, in raising the altitude at which the effective black body temperature of earth occurrs. AR4 WG1 Ch2 is very specific that their sensitivity calculation of CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree C of direct warming does NOT translate into a temperature increase of that amount at earth surface.
5. Stefan-Boltzman Law which is P(w/m2) = 5.67*10^-8*T^4 with T in degrees K yields that +3.7 w/m2 would increase surface temperatures by only 0.7 degrees. It would take 5.5 w/m2 to yield a surface temperature with an average of +15C (their number, not mine) increase of 1 degree. IPCC AR4 Ch2 postulates no less than four different scenarios in terms of WHERE (what altitude) we should expect any given amount of warming to happen, and some of those scenarios are predicated on a surface temperature increase of zero, with ALL the warming happening at high atltidudes.
6. IPCC AR4 WG1 estimates a feedback from increased water vapour that will boost the effects of CO2 by another 1 to 3.5 degrees for a total ranging from 2 to 4.5 degrees. While the theory that increased temperatures increase the water vapour carrying capacity of the atmosphere, it is also true that NOAA’s measurements over the last number of years have shown that atmospheric water vapour has DECLINED rather than increased. Just because the atmosphere CAN hold more water vapour doesn’t necessarily mean that it WILL hold more water vapour, and the actual data from NOAA shows the opposite of what the IPCC predicated their predictions upon.
You really want to keep on going? Or are you ready to shut up and do the research I suggested you do?
The altitude is lower at higher altitudes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course I meant “the altitude is lower at higher LATITUDES”
davidmhoffer says:
August 3, 2012 at 10:22 pm
The altitude is lower at higher altitudes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course I meant “the altitude is lower at higher LATITUDES”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was about to add a comment explaining why this is the case, and I though…nah. Let’s have ericgrimsrud explain why this is the case. He’s got a PhD you know. That’s like serious credentials, and once you have credentials, as we all know, you’re opinion is correct, and the opinion of people without credentials is wrong.
So how about it ericgrimsrud? Can you explain why the effective black body temperature of earth occurrs at lower altitudes in the arctic than it does in the tropics? Can you explain why in regions of high water vapour (oceans in the tropics for example) the effects of CO2 increases are very muted at low altitiudes and more pronounced at high altitudes? How about you provide an explanation for these things and I, who have no credentials to speak of, will let you know if you got it right or not.
Alternatively, you could proclaim that my assertion above is false and explain why. Go for it.
To DavidM
Note that when I became curious about your background which might have included a professional experience in the area in which you have been pontificating, you have simply ignored that question. That’s OK. It’s one way of answering the question. I now have a better understanding of why you say the things you say. You appear to be lifting “stuff” from the bloggery without really understanding the more central questions (by the way, are we supposed to know who your mentor, Robert Brown is?).
Your central problem is not understanding the following very elementary point: The most commonly used measurement of “global average climate” over time the ensemble of globally averaged SURFACE TEMPERATURES. And that measurement is indeed typically explained by the Heat Balance that occurs from the three factors I have described: intensity of the Sun, the aldedo, and the greenhouse effect. What I just said is generally considered to be correct in the field of climate science and is relatively simple to understand. Note also that we live on the surface of the Earth- and it is those locations that the most importance to use.
So what are you doing? You are talking about details concerning what is happening in the upper atmosphere. Those details are very important, for course, for the purpose of understanding additional details of local and regional weather and the details of heat transfer. However, it is the sum of all weather that provides our global average climate – and our determination of that comes from the sum of SURFACE temperatures. Thus what you have been doing is lifting fancy stuff from the work of others in this field – in order to look like you are ahead of the curve – while not even seeming to know the basics – that it is the sum of surface temperatures that is the measure of what we call climate.
No you don’t need to be professional in order to discuss climate science. However, because you at first appeared to be so knowledge about specific details concerning the upper atmosphere – while being so ignorant of the more basic and more important aspects of climate change, I thought I would ask you if you were a knowledgeable professional or just someone who is pretending to be one. I run into that latter type of person frequently, of course, when discussing climate science on blogs like this. And, as is the case here, they can generally lift “stuff” from the bloggery and heap personal abuse on their opponent, but do not even know the basics and cannot hold up the scientific conversation as it expands. Such people typically do not have the background that real professionals almost always does have. Since you have now (not) indicated your professional background, it helps us all know where you are (not) coming from – while you will continue to pontificate on this subject, I have no doubt. Your goal appears to be to confuse the public and I am sure you will continue.
If calling a spade as spade is condescension, so be it.
A perfect example of the cluelessness of the left on the issue of global warming can best be summed up by a statement made by Al Gore in his pathetic documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” (which should be called “An Inconvenient Bunch of Garbage”). In the film he makes a statement that it is hotter now than it has been in over 800 years. I’m surprised that he did not see the inconsistency in that statement since he is so “incredibly smart” (according to those on the left, at any rate). The question he obviously failed to ponder is that if it is hotter now than it has been in over 800 years, why was it so hot back then, since mankind didn’t have cars and factories contributing greenhouse gases that long ago. It also never seems to occur to the left that the largest contributing factor to climate change (whether hotter or colder) is the SUN. Archeologists have uncovered evidence of tropical type plants that grew in the Arctic Circle roughly 80,000 years ago. Obviously, it was way hotter during that time period and no cars or factories that far back either. Contrast that with the last Ice Age, which put glaciers as far south as the Ohio River a mere 10,000 or so years ago and it gives some idea of the naturally occurring fluctuations (due mainly to the sun) of the planet Earth in the short timespan of only a few tens of thousands of years. I can recall that back in the 1970’s, many climatologists were warning of global cooling. I wonder whatever happened to that? The real problem is that human beings (as a general rule) tend to suffer from normalcy bias, wherein they think that what has traditionally been the norm (in their short lifespans at least) actually IS the norm. The planet has been fluctuating from one global temperature extreme to the other for as long as the planet has had a climate. This will NOT change and any effect we as humans have been able to accomplish (for good or bad) is miniscule in comparison to the naturally occurring rhythm of the planet. Our effect on the climate has been more like a fly in a hurricane than anything else, but the left keeps on grabbing at straws nonetheless. Not to worry though since they will eventually tire of the global warming issue and it will be on to something else they can find to gripe about. As an example, when was the last time you heard anything about the “hole” in the ozone layer. That was big a few years back but seems to be a non-issue to the left nowadays (they have global warming for the time being). Ironically, every time I questioned anyone who talked about the “hole” in the ozone layer, I asked each of them a simple question, which not a single one of them could answer. Since they were portraying themselves as experts on the ozone layer, my question was “What IS ozone?”. The fact that not a single person complaining about the subject could correctly identify that ozone is nothing more than O3 (three atoms of oxygen in a covalent bond) as opposed to the 02 we normally breathe, tends to indicate that they were just spouting off what they had heard from others (who were equally uninformed) instead of doing any meaningful research on their own. If they had, they would have discovered that there has always been a “hole” in the ozone layer over the poles due to the Earth’s magnetic field and it fluctuates normally in a cyclic rhythm tied to sunspot activity (see, there’s that nasty old sun doing despicable things to Earth again). Perhaps someone pointed that out to them and that could be the reason that you don’t hear about that subject anymore. Most likely, however, they just got tired of the subject in the same way a child finally tires of a new toy and picked up the next new shiny object they saw (i.e. global warming) and started playing with it instead. But, as I pointed out earlier, they will eventually tire of it as well and move on to the next new thing (whatever that may be). Whatever that “new thing” may be, they most assuredly will be just as misinformed on that topic as they are on all the others.
davidmhoffer:
I am writing to thank you for the amusement you gave me by providing your post at August 3, 2012 at 10:07 pm.
Anybody who looks at the blog by ericgrimsrud can see he his arrogance is so great that he fails to recognise he is ignorant of almost all climate science. It is unfair to rub his nose in it, but I admit that he asked for it.
Nemesis followed Hubris. It seems that you are bothering to be his Nemesis. Please keep it up because I am enjoying the laughs at his expense (and I feel no guilt at this because he deserves it).
Richard
Friends:
ericgrimsrud again demonstrates his ignorance and misunderstanding of climate science at August 4, 2012 at 8:05 am where he writes:
If anybody wants to know why he is plain wrong in every assertion he makes in this quotation then I suggest that they read
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
especially its Appendix B.
Richard
Richardscourtney, You rascal, you.
The reference you referred us to which you say proves I am wrong concerning my definitions of global climate and global averaged temperature is nothing more than a letter you wrote to the British Parliament. It has nothing to do with the accepted scientific definitions of climate. The proposal you made there (to a government agency?) to change the definition of average global temperature has never made it past the peer reviewed literature – to my knowledge. If it had, of course, you would have referred us to that paper, not simply to a personal letter of your own!!
Thanks for that input, however. I might help to explain a few things. In particular, I have wondered who the “ghost writer” for DavidMHoffer might be. It appears that you are a good candidate and, if so, your comment congradulating him for “his” good work would take on new meaning indeed.
As a result of these revolations, I suspect that we will hear once again from DavidM. I am less certain, however, who will be the real author of his next comment.
Nevertheless, good job!! As evidenced by many of comments offered by the readers of this blog, your efforts do go over quite well with a general public that does not know the difference between real professional scientists and those who are very good and pretending to be one.
[Moderator’s Note: The issue of sock puppets is one we take seriously here at WUWT. You have my personal assurance, from first hand-knowledge, that David M. Hoffer is in fact a real person and is not Richard Courtney’s alter ego. I trust this lays your concerns to rest. -REP]
I’ve had plastic stuff melt next to the burners on my STOVE due to global warming. And my daughter once cooked a small cake in an “Easy Bake Oven” with the power of a light bulb, and global warming.
Sigh.
Some people are gluttons for punishment
.
ericgrimsrud;
Note that when I became curious about your background which might have included a professional experience in the area in which you have been pontificating, you have simply ignored that question.
>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: No, you asserted that I was not a credentialed scientist and dismissed my opinion out of hand on that basis. Unable to respond to the valid issues I brought to your attention, you reduced your argument to “I have a PhD and you don’t so shut up”. Your arrogance is astounding.
ericgrimsrud;
(by the way, are we supposed to know who your mentor, Robert Brown is?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Had you taken my advice and read the articles on this site by Robert Brown you would know that a) he is not my mentor and b) he is a PhD physicist at Duke. You’d also have read detailed explanations that speak to the major flaws in the material on your web site.
Ericgrimsrud;
And that measurement is indeed typically explained by the Heat Balance that occurs from the three factors I have described:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Oh. My. God. We have someone claiming to hold a PhD in chemistry who doesn’t understand the difference between heat balance and energy balance. Who granted you your degree and can it be recalled?
Ericrimsrud;
What I just said is generally considered to be correct in the field of climate science and is relatively simple to understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Well you best jump on the phone quick then with the climatologists who wrote the IPCC reports because they disagree with you.
Ericgrimsrud;
Note also that we live on the surface of the Earth- and it is those locations that the most importance to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY; Note that I explained to you that the sensitivity calculations of the IPCC are based on the effective black body temperature of earth and that the IPCC has stated unequivocally that these calculations are NOT representative of what will happen at earth surface and that they DON’T KNOW how to extrapolate them to earth surface. Again, you had best jump on the phone and explain to the IPCC that you have the answer to this. Let me further observe that both NASA/GISS and HadCrut show DECLINING surface temperatures since the late 1990’s.
Eric the Grim;
So what are you doing? You are talking about details concerning what is happening in the upper atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: Oh. My. God. One more time eric, the effects of CO2 are very muted close to earth surface and much more pronounced at higher altitudes and higher latitudes. I challenged you to explain why, clearly you can’t. That’s not just my opinion btw, it is the opinion of the IPCC and most of the climate scientists that you purport to understand. How is it that you claim to understand their work and yet propose the opposite of what they say?
Grim Eric;
of course, when discussing climate science on blogs like this. And, as is the case here, they can generally lift “stuff” from the bloggery and heap personal abuse on their opponent
>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: I’ve read AR4 WG1. You clearly haven’t or you wouldn’t be making claims in direct opposition to their’s. I’ve reviewed their physics and independently arrived at the constant for their sensitivity calculation to 3 significant digits. I’ve reviewed the physics and can explain what is meant by the “tropospheric hot spot”, why it should in theory exist, the math that results in that conclusion, and how that translates to an extrapolation to earth surface temperatures. Can you? Clearly not since you’ve taken the position that what happens in the troposphere is immaterial. If you understood these issues, you’d not make such ridiculous statements.
Eric the astounding;
Such people typically do not have the background that real professionals almost always does have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: I am astounded that someone with a PhD in chemistry can be so hopelessly lost when it comes to the physics he is (incorrectly) trying to explain, and cannot bother to read an article or two by an actual physicist discussing the matters at hand when pointed at it. Your determination to wallow in your own ignorance is…. Astounding.
Eric the inexplicable;
Your goal appears to be to confuse the public and I am sure you will continue. If calling a spade as spade is condescension, so be it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY: OK, you are a spade.
Eric the lost;
Check out the comment by richardscourtney regarding our debate. You may want to check HIS credentials and then think carefully about what he said. You may want to actually read AR4 WG1 and get an understanding of what they are actually saying versus what you are saying. You may actually want to read the papers referenced in those studies so that you understand how completely off base you are. You may want to understand the work of Stefan-Boltzmann, Wien, Planck and Maxwell before further making a fool of yourself. You may want to consider the overlap in absorption spectra between water vapour and CO2 and then try and understand the implications of that in the context of water vapour ranging from 40,000 ppm over the ocean in the tropics to nearly zero at higher altitudes and compare that to the more uniform distribution of CO2 at conentrations of just 400 ppm.
Or, you can continue to be a spade.
eric the obfuscationist:
As a result of these revolations, I suspect that we will hear once again from DavidM. I am less certain, however, who will be the real author of his next comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There comes a point where I simply put people on “ignore” and you are swiftly earning that award. Your last several responses have carefully ignored the issues of physics that I raised. Instead you’ve attempted to distract attention from those issues by complaining about my credentials, and now you’ve reduced yourself to accusing me of being a sock puppet. The fact of the matter is that you cannot converse intelligently on the matters of science you purport to understand so you retreat into condescension, argument from authority, and false accusations. You then accuse me of your own behaviour. You may want to study a bit of psychology as well and learn what projection is.
If you want to discuss the science, then discuss it. If not, STFU.
ericgrimsrud:
I take severe offence at your post at August 4, 2012 at 9:02 am.
The item I linked at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
is a Submission by me to a Parliamentary Select Committee that was investigating ‘climategate’, and the link is to the Parliamentary Record. If the Submission were false then it would be perjury.
The Submission includes – as its Appendix A – an email from me which was leaked from CRU as part of the ‘climategate’ leak.
And I specifically advised people to read its Appendix B which is signed by 18 other scientists from around the world because it is a paper that provides a complete explanation of why and how what you wrote is plain wrong. Of course, I could have ‘cut & pasted’ from it, but provision of the link enables anybody to assess the entire analysis. And anybody only interested in an out-line of the matter could read the Submission (and not its appendices) which is written in language intended for politicians to comprehend.
Its Appendix B does completely explain why everything you said is plain WRONG.
And the submission to the Select Committee explains the nefarious method used to prevent its publication. The leaked email and the Submission are about the nefarious method and excuses for it.
But you are claiming that your ignorant and untrue assertions should be accepted and my linked document should be ignored because you have posted your wrong-headed assertions on your own blog.
Apologise then crawl back under whichever bridge you inhabit.
Richard
Unfortunately, man-made global warming is the last thing one need worry about when facing a mindset that has gone completely non-linear. Man-made climate change may have been the primary motivator of well-intentioned followers a few years back, but that motivator has morphed into something more familiar with Stalin, than it has with the climate.
When a fervor like this takes hold, You had better ‘take hold’ – of your freedom and perhaps even your Life. These people play for keeps and nothing in the form of reasoned and rational debate is going to wedge them from their positions. If you are not a ‘believer’, you are a ‘denier’. You are an ‘enemy’ of the planet, and the only thing that stands between you/your family, and a modern-day Gulag, is a few threads of Constitutional barrier…
Speaking of sock puppets, Foxy Grandpa’s lint is showing….
http://ericgrimsrud.com/authors-resume_276.html
Don’t tell your colleagues on the UCS you don’t know who Robert G. Brown is, Eric…
richardscourtney says:
August 4, 2012 at 9:35 am
Thanks for that. I didn’t think there was a peer reviewed reference in support of your opinion. If you ever find one let us know. In the meantime, sure anyone interested should read you opinion as related in your letter to Parliament. Since it has apparently not made it through any sort of peer review proscess, they’ll just have to decide for themselve what it’s worth.
Concerning the offense you have taken, Why is it that those who don’t even recognize how offensive they have been in an initial encounter with someone are then so very sensitive to perceived offenses against them. If one can “give” in a blog like this, should one not be able to “take”as well?. Perhaps, the moderator can help explain some of this to you. Just have a look at all of the potentail offenses that routinely pass mustard on this site. I personally did not like to be told to STFU, for example, but the comment went through.
Looking forward to knowing you better via the resume that DavidM has suggested I read.
Have a nice day, Eric Grimsrud
To Bill Tuttle, Oh that Robert Brown (I happen to know about 4 of them). Thanks for the tip and please don’t squeal on me at the UCS. Eric
eric the avoider;
I personally did not like to be told to STFU, for example, but the comment went through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve challenged you repeatedly to discuss the science, and I suggested that you do so or STFU. You’ve responded (yet again) with a diatribe that addresses not a single point of science that I or Richard have raised. All you need do to earn some respect is to discuss the science. Your unwillingness to do so tells the readers of this thread all they need to know about you.
set/ericgrimsrude=ignore
ericgrimsrud,
I refer you to the 31,400+ co-signers of the following statement:
Who should we believe? Tens of thousands of professional scientists and engineers, all with degrees in the hard sciences [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], or a handful of lunatics who are unable to show any global harm due to the rise in a very tiny, beneficial trace gas?
Put up or shut up: provide scientific evidence of global harm or damage directly due to the rise in CO2 [per the scientific method], or admit that you suffer from incurable confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 4, 2012 at 11:04 am
To Bill Tuttle, Oh that Robert Brown (I happen to know about 4 of them). Thanks for the tip and please don’t squeal on me at the UCS. Eric
Now that you’re aware of who he is, follow David’s advice and read some of his commentary.
The majority of atmospheric science deals with physics rather than chemistry…
troll aka ericgrimsrud:
Your comment at August 4, 2012 at 10:35 am compounds your offence. It says to me;
I have said nothing offensive except in response to your unjustifiable insult.
I note the post from Bill Tuttle at August 4, 2012 at 10:28 am that quotes the bio of you which you provide on your blog. That quote explains you are a sock puppet for an organisation which includes at least one canine member.
I repeat: apologise then clear off and do your trolling elsewhere.
Richard
To Richardscourtney,
I am wondering what planet you live on when you don’t even know that comments such as :
“Anybody who looks at the blog by ericgrimsrud can see he his arrogance is so great that he fails to recognise he is ignorant of almost all climate science” followed by “Please keep it up because I am enjoying the laughs at his expense” would generally be considered offensive on that planet.
And then hide under the skirts of political correctness when one responds in kind.
You seem to thinks your “cheap shots” are statements of fact. In assessing whether they are, it would be useful to show us all your resume so we know where you are coming from. When I go that an MD I like to know his background because I am concerned about my health and where his advice is going from. And my concern about the planet and future generations is just as important to me as my health.
So Please kind and sensitive Sir, show us all where are both you and your friend DavidMHoffer coming from? That is, lets see your resumes. Is that not a fair request when we are discussing the health of our planet?
Concerning any further discussions of science I like nothing better than to discuss the scientific details of climate change, but before getting deep into that, I also like to know who I am speaking with. As you know, my entire background is related at ericgrimsrud.com. I point this out only so you know where I am going from. How about doing the same? What’s the problem? All professional scientists generally have such information at their fingertips – and are alway ready to share them upon request. Watts With You Guys?
To Bill Tuttle.
I have been trying to follow your suggestion of reading the works of Robert Brown but have found nothing of direct relevance to climate change in the peer reviewed literatue. Upon looking him us in the directory of Research Professors in the Department of Physics at Duke University I did not find either him or his work listed. Perhaps you or some of your associates that UCS could point me to his work – of any sort – no matter what field of physics he is active in.
Thinking about this a bit more, perhaps there is a reason why I did not know which Robert Brown was being referred to – I have not been able to find evidence on his work in the usual scientific places. If his work appears only in the blogeries of America you will have to point out where I can find that important work.
Thanks, Eric
And thanks ( I guess) Sir Richardcourtly, for the information you provided in one of your recent comments:
“I note the post from Bill Tuttle at August 4, 2012 at 10:28 am that quotes the bio of you which you provide on your blog. That quote explains you are a sock puppet for an organisation which includes at least one canine member.”
I was understandably not shown this post by the moderator. [Note: what you see is what everyone else sees, and vice versa. Possible PEBKAC. ~dbs, mod.]
While being cute and a mindless bit of condescension, it is also. The “research institute” we have going here in Kalispell Mt consists of just me, my wife and our dog, Bek (who for your info is very smart). We are funded only by the Teachers Retirement Service of Monana who send us a check every month and does not even require progress reports.
We do have a couple of advantages, however. We can actually produce a resume upon request, for example, that describes a lifetime of experience in climate science. Since we seem to have you trumpted you here on that one, perhaps you should bring in some heavier wieghts.
But on that topic, I doubt that either getting a smarter dog or bringing in scientific experts who are not even listed as research faculty at their universities might not help very much (sorry, but experts do tend to be found under that faculty designation. Of course, I have nothing against dogs or non-research scientists and do not like it all all that Mr. Tuttle has caused potential embarrament to both by bringing them into these discussions. So to Dr. Brown and Bek, please understand that I have no reason to suspect that you are not the very best Lecturer and Dog, respectively, on the planet. .
In conversation with a young lady today, she expressed her disbelief in my assertion that warmist climate scientists were loath to engage in a discussion of the science involved, and would instead hide behind their credentials. I referred her to this thread.
Thank you Eric for so clearly making my point, and converting one more person to the skeptic side.
dmh
troll aka ericgrimsrud:
I again repeat: apologise then clear off and go elsewhere to do your trolling on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists (one of whose Members is a dog owned by Anthony Watts).
Richard
davidmhoffer:
re. your comment at August 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm.
Surely, it must be clear to you that the troll refuses to discuss the science because he does not know the science. If that is not clear from his comments here then take a look at his blog.
Richard
richardscourtney;
uhm…. yeah, I was the first person to call him out on the content of his blog and to point out that he was over his head on the science. Been trying to engage him in a discussion of the science ever since, and all he does is hide behind his credentials. Yep, it is pretty clear he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. Unfortunately there are more informed scientists out there who do have a clue, but refuse to engage for an entirely different reason: their science is full of holes and if they engage, the holes become obvious.
To David,
Thank you for sharing that touching story about the young lady. For her sake (and in spite of the fact that I still have no idea of who I am trying to communicate with due to your continued failure provide a simple resume), let’s talk some science and while we are at it let’s cut to the heart of it all.
Everyone agrees (I hope) that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about 40% during the industrial period and that it will have doubled well before the end of this century if business as usual continues. So the BIG CENTRAL QUESTION is what is the Sensitivity of temperature change to this expected doubling of the CO2 level – including all of the expected fast feedback effects, of course . So DavidMHoffer, what do you think that temperure change will be? The topic on the floor is pure science and the floor is yours concerning the most important scientific question of this century.
(Note to the young lady: While I bet you understood the straightforward question I just raised, I’ll wager that you will not be able to understand the “answer” you are about to hear. David’s object is not so much to clarify the science for the public by zeroing in on the central important question – as it is to spread confusion and undermine the credibility of the scientific community – of which he still appears to not be a part (resume please?).
for those still following, I’m not responding further to this clown. But I did discuss the issues upthread.
Of course it happens in Europe. It is however regarded as rather unsavoury and there have been several scandals in which political parties have accepted money from people who might wish to influence policy.
Senator Inhofe received funding from sources like the Koch brothers with a known anti-cAGW agenda. Were he to behave in Parliament as he does in the Senate, our police would be investigating him on charges of taking bribes to raise a topic in the House. Here that is illegal.
August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm
To DavidMHoffer,
Thank you for sharing that touching story about the young lady. For her sake (and in spite of the fact that I still have no idea of who I am trying to communicate with due to your continued failure provide a simple resume), let’s talk some science and while we are at it, let’s cut to the heart of it all.
Everyone agrees (I hope) that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about 40% during the industrial period and that it will have doubled well before the end of this century if business as usual continues. So the BIG CENTRAL QUESTION is what is the Sensitivity of temperature change to this expected doubling of the CO2 level – including all of the expected fast feedback effects, of course . So DavidMHoffer, what do you think that temperure change will be? The topic on the floor is pure science and the floor is yours concerning the most important scientific question of this century. And, as you have repeatedly claimed, you are yearning to “talk science” .
(Note to the young lady: While I bet you understood the straightforward question I just raised, I’ll wager that you will not be able to understand the “answer” you are about to hear. David’s object is not so much to clarify the science for the public by zeroing in on the central important question – as it is to spread confusion and undermine the credibility of the scientific community – of which he still appears to not be a part (resume please?). Alternatively, I will not be surprise that he claims “violations of political correctness and simply runs away from the table. We’ll see.)
Eric P. Grimsrud says: @ August 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm
” . . . I need not wish your grandchildren to go to hell, they will because of their grandpa and his ilk.
Eric Grimsrud, Author of “Thoughts of a Scientist, Citizen and Grandpa on Climate Change””
===============
Reg Nelson says: @ August 2, 2012 at 5:56 pm
If we’re all going hell, why should I be bothered to read your book. I think your marketing strategy needs some work.
Reg Nelson, Author of “Why Your Marketing Strategy Needs Some Work.”
===============
ROTFLMAO. I think it may be worth buying your book as a just reward for the belly laugh.
Oh, and if my
grandchildrengrand nieces/nephews are to go to hell (aka Agenda 21), because of their grandpa and his ilk. It will only be because we were unable to prevent the Progressive Socialist Totalitarians from scamming the rest of the citizens like Grimsrud is trying to do.Hey, Grinsrud, go read Democrats Against Agenda 21 and find out who the real enemy is. (I am serious read it!)
mods
myrrh
greg house
eric grimsrud
Someone please wake me when/if Grimsrud ever indicates that he understands the Null Hypothesis.
And Entropic is turning trollish. Every US Congressman and Senator takes contributions. No exceptions [Ron Paul takes mostly individual contributions, the rest take just about anyone’s].
When in Rome…
Entropic doesn’t seem to understand that liberal/Left contributors like Soros far outspend anyone in the center [which includes the ‘Right’].
Thomas Spaziani says:
August 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm
I know this may be a little OT. But NOAA has been touting this crazy drought for July being US wide.. Being an AZ resident currently tying to not float away by the amazing rains we have gotten. This graph showing AZ in a severe drought peaked my interest. http://www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_west.htm I looked at the rain totals for July throught AZ and most are above average.. Some by a lot. What gives? Did NOAA forget to check the rain gauges? Are they averaging that for the entire year?
___________________________________
Food Commodity Futures Trading. Looks like Goldman Sachs wants to make a killing again. See full discussion near bottom Let there be corn! Reality check on the 2012 drought and corn yields in relation to droughts of the past
My state/region is also colored deep brown (Bad Drought) yet we have had a nice wet summer with 15 days of rain in May, 5 days of rain in June, 16 days of rain in July. Usually we are lucky to get rain once a week in the summer. (actual percip totals are not available)
Troll aka Eric Grimsrud:
Having refused to address any of the several scientific points put to you by David, at August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm you have the gall to expect him to answer a point from you. Well, I suppose this is some kind of improvement in your behaviour because your question does pertain to the science. It is:
I cannot answer for David, and I don’t care what anybody “thinks” about the matter because I prefer to rely on what the real world indicates.
Several empirical studies have been conducted and they all provide similar results. I cite one study as example because it uses 8 different methods which each provide an independent indication. It is
Idso SB ‘CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change’ , Climate Research v. 10: 69–82 (1998)
The 8 different methods provide values of climate sensitivity in the range 0.1 0.10 C/W/m^2 to 0.173 0.10 C/W/m^2 with a “best estimate” of 0.10 C/W/m^2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.
It abstract together with a summary of its results is at
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm
and the published paper is linked from there. Or you could go straight to a pdf of the published paper at
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
So, nature says there would be a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.
I see no reason to dispute reality (but I suspect you will try).
Richard
Aaargh
I wrote:
“The 8 different methods provide values of climate sensitivity in the range 0.1 0.10 C/W/m^2 to 0.173 0.10 C/W/m^2 with a “best estimate” of 0.10 C/W/m^2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”
when I intended to write
“The 8 different methods provide values of climate sensitivity in the range 0.1 C/W/m^2 to 0.173 C/W/m^2 with a “best estimate” of 0.10 C/W/m^2 which corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”
Sorry.
Richard
Richard Carlson says:
August 2, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Warmists are still claiming (connecting the dots) the melted lights are a result of man-made global warming. High temps. (because of humans ) caused the dumpster fire which caused the lights to melt.
__________________________
Couldn’t be kids hiding near the dumpster, lighting up and tossing matches or other lighted objects into the dumpster now could it? Cigarettes/cigars are a very likely cause of fires and a NFPA Study Finds a Stunning Increase in Cigarette-Caused Fires
troll Grimsrud can’t even get his simple UCS info straight, probably because he has never been near their vaunted “National Headquarters”, which is not in Boston but in Cambridge, and which is not “AT” the drab campus of MIT but across town in Brattle Square in an ordinary commercial office building, the other side of Cambridge from MIT. Anyone can rent office space in a building in Cambridge…. it does not make their HQ “at” MIT or Harvard. UCS is merely an independent activist group for left-wing academics (founded to oppose US defense research) and any old sod who wants to join….. hell anyone’s dog (or hamster) can join if someone pays the fee, as Anthony Watts proved with Kenji. The troll might want to correct false UCS details on his own website before he tries to preach climate science:
Hyperlink Code
“I am also a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, headquartered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston MA) and serve on their Team Science.”
UCS National HQ is not at MIT
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780
richardscourtney;
Having refused to address any of the several scientific points put to you by David, at August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>
These should be read along with my comments on Aug 3 at 10:07 pm.
I also stipulated upthread as to my credentials, but skippy keeps asking for them anyway. Apparently reading comprehension is not his strong suit. His spelling is worse than mine which is really hard to accomplish, and his grammar wouldn’t get him out of a grade 8 english course, let alone suffice for PhD level papers.
Skiphil;
headquartered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston MA) and serve on their Team Science.”
UCS National HQ is not at MIT
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So he claims to be on their “Team Science” but hasn’t a clue where they are. So he’s either a complete poser or just misrepresenting the UCS. He’s besmirching the reputation of MIT in the process too.
[Snip. You made clear very that your specific intent is to force others to “cut and run”. That will not work here. ~dbs, mod.]
ericgrimsrud says:
August 3, 2012 at 7:32 am
This common association of environmental concerns with the “left” is most unfortunate and it is a shame that the “right” is, indeed, brain-dead on the subject. Who in American history was perhaps most important in starting the “environmental movement” of the 20th Century? Republican President Teddy Roosevelt certainly comes to my mind…..
___________________________
Eric most of us here have figured out it is not “Democrats” vs “Republicans” or “Liberal’ vs “Conservatives” (There is actually a good mix of all brands here) The real fight is between the Regulating Class and the rest of the people who are fast becoming their serfs.
If you do the “Follow the Money” for both the Food/Landgrab and for Global Warming as I have you keep turning up Shell Oil, BP, World Bank, the Rockefellers, Maurice Strong, Pascal Lamy, the Rothschilds, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs.
These are the people/groups that run the world and who want an even tighter grip on their
cattlechattel-us.THINK – what is a serf? Someone stuck living in one place with no possibility of leaving. Someone forced to work for someone else with no hope of a business of their own. Someone unable to own their own land and grow their own food, That is a very good description of Agenda 21 aka Sustainability.
Do you have any idea WHO wrote Agenda 21 aka Sustainability? Well I do, it was Ged Davis VP of SHELL OIL! and recent head of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s (WBCSD) Scenario Project team responsible for producing work on sustainable development aka Agenda 21. He is the guy who wrote the attachment in a KEY Climategate e-mail sent to over 40 people including Greenpeace, the World Bank, government officials and universities professors.
Shell Oil wants to push natural gas. Ged Davis wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis
To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:
No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. Tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ aka ‘the energy sector’ they have conned ordinary people into thinking needs replacing.
If you remember the BEST surface station temperature study and Richard Muller, he owns Muller & Associates. One of his ADVISORS is Marlan Downey, “Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil”
This from the Muller & Associates Website
If we follow the Shell Oil connection, we find Queen Beatrix of the Dutch House of Orange and Lord Victor Rothschild are the two largest shareholders of RD/Shell. (I read some where the Dutch Royal family owns about 25%)
Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family is heavily tied to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Gets positively incestuous doesn’t it?
More on big Oil and CAGW link
[Snip. Same reason as before. ~dbs, mod.]
Skipfill, Thanks for those corrective details concerning the precise locations of various institutions in the Boston/ Cambridge area. Very helpful to our understanding of science and I am sure that was your intent. FYI, however, I have never needed to go to the UCS headquarters. All the writing I did for them (generally to various newspapers in the US in order to neutralize the effects of people like Senator Inhofe) was done at my home here near Kalispell. All I needed know was where I lived and where my computer was – no offense indended, I am sure your beloved institutions in both Boston and Cambridge are wonderful places. By the way, are you a Bobcat or Grizzly fan? (surely I don’t have to explain which of the two Montana schools I am referring to. Have a nice life, Eric
To Gail Coomes,
I agree with you entirely. Corporate America has a death grip on all of life in America. Even all of my Democratic Governor and both Democratic Senators here in Montana do not dare to say boo to the fossil fuel industries for fear that they would be replaced in their next election. It just a very few people here in Monana anyway that dare to stand up against our business-as-usual Chambers of Commerse. We are definitely loosing this battle to the likes of Senator Inhofe. I know I am will be on a loosing side for a long time and have to be a pain in the behind to both Democrats and Repulicans. In some respects the Democrats do more damage because they try to give the public the impression that “something is being done” while the only score card that matter – the CO2 level – clearly shows that far too little is being done.
Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Of course it happens in Europe. It is however regarded as rather unsavoury and there have been several scandals in which political parties have accepted money from people who might wish to influence policy.
Senator Inhofe received funding from sources like the Koch brothers with a known anti-cAGW agenda. Were he to behave in Parliament as he does in the Senate, our police would be investigating him on charges of taking bribes to raise a topic in the House. Here that is illegal.
_________________________
Here in the USA we would be arresting our entire government….
That is the reason we can not get any legislation passed to make it illegal. Heck if I recall correctly… AHHhh, Yes here it is:
So the USA is now “… that government of the
peopleCorporation, by thepeopleCorporation, for thepeopleCorporation, andshall notabout to perish from the earth…. (Corporations want a uniform world and not the hassle created by a bunch of different nations or competition from new corporations hence Agenda 21/Global Governance)Grimsrud, my intent was to show that someone so careless with elementary details about one of their primary claimed affiliations *might* not be too careful about details, period. It’s more of a yellow flag, a cautionary signal, highly relevant when one wants to know whether or not one is dealing with a responsible, rigorous mind attentive to detail. Therefore, your comparison to Montana institutions is also perfectly irrelevant and spurious, since I never claimed the slightest interest or affiliation there (nothing against the U. Montana Grizzlies or the MT State Bobcats, but I never claimed either of them in my life as UCS is in yours).
Oh and MIT is not “my” institution, beloved or otherwise. I merely was a bit “skeptical” when I saw you state that UCS had its “National HQ” at MIT and took 30 sec. to confirm that no, MIT does not appear to admit any affiliation with UCS, even while individual professors are quite free to do so. It would have been like MIT officially hosting the national HQ of Greenpeace — quite possible given the activism of many campus faculties, but still unlikely overall.
Sir Richardscourtney,
I too am sorry to see that DavyM has left us, but am pleased that you have not yet.
So back to science. I found your answer concerning the Sensitivity of CO2 to be lacking some key experimental and paleoclimate evidence. As you undoubtedly know, theory might guide, but experiments and measurements decide. In the ice core and ocean bottom samples, Mother Nature has left us with Her opinion as to what that correlation between T and CO2 might be. You undoubtedly know what Her answer is, but did not mention it. I will therefore let you expand your answer to include that information, if you wish. On the other hand, if you are not aware of that literature just say so and I will be glad to help out.
Hope I have been polite enough here so that you will also run away now that we finally have the most important scientific question on the table..
Skiphil;
Oh and MIT is not “my” institution, beloved or otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, but it is Richard Lindzen’s. Anyone who wants a good grounding in atmospheric physics couldn’t do worse than starting with his papers.
Add to them Milosci on optical depth.
The threads on this site by Robert G Brown are also of value. I suggested several times to skippy that he read the articles on THIS site by that individual, but he insists on looking anywhere but this site to find them.
Those insisting on experimental data might want to review this one by Heinz Hug.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Being a chemist, skippy will probably understand the experiment, we’ll see if he can figure out why it produces wrong results on his own.
As for the issues I raised upthread, after being pointed at them twice in response to his questions and commit to discuss the science, skippy still hasn’t stepped up.
Hi Skiphill, I did indeed think that the UCS was associated with somehow with MIT. I’ll have to look back at my old notes to see why I had that impression. Since I am no longer doing those op eds for UCS I will remove all reference to it on my website – so you need not worry about future embarrasments to MIT, as you described.
Please also pardon the irrelevant quiz I gave you concerning our Montana universities. We sometimes indulge in little jokes out here in the sticks just to pass the time – whenever we aren’t misresprenting science on our websites – as you feared. Thanks for your help with the latter.
Eric
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:01 pm
To Gail Coomes,
I agree with you entirely….
________________________
I am glad you understand that.
Please do read
DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 The lady works for the Government in Eminent Domain takings.
This cartoon explains the current confusion in politics Robert Minor 1911 Cartoon and explanation.
The words “Controlled Opposition” come to mind.
As I showed in the Shell Oil ‘Follow the Money’, I very much doubt that anything to actually lower CO2 levels will be done. I KNOW it is an excuse to push FRACKING down our throats and possibly nuclear. (I am for nuclear-Thorium and can see a cooling tower out my window)
Another interesting tidbit. Robert Watson of the World Bank chaired the IPCC. The Copenhagen ‘Danish text’ leak showed The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank Here is what the World Bank is now up tolink Page down ten times and look at the graph on World Bank Lending.
Remember the coal plants in the USA and EU are old and need replacing but to do so in the USA, EU or Australia would be expensive. However the coal fired power plants are not going away. Instead of building CLEAN power plants and paying decent wages in the first world the big boys are picking up their marbles and moving to a different playground where they can pollute and pay slave wages.
Grimsrud,
Listen up and learn: sensitivity to 2xCO2 is too small to empirically measure.
There has been a ≈40% rise in CO2 over the past century and a half, which is continuing. According to the CO2=CAGW conjecture, global temperatures should be accelerating rapidly above their long term trend line. They are not. If sensitivity to CO2 was high, global temperature would be accelerating at an increasing pace. It is not. Global temperatures have been flat for the past 15 years.
The natural rise in temperature since the LIA has not accelerated [the moderating green line is the long term trend]. With a 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, there would certainly be an acceleration in the temperature rise above the past long term trend parameters — IF CO2 had any measurable effect. But there has been no acceleration in temperatures. None.
Inescapable conclusion: the rise in CO2 has such a small effect that it does not show up in the observed measurements. Therefore, sensitivity to CO2 must ipso facto be extremely low. QED.
Eric Grimsrud
re: UCS, well you can certainly say they were “founded” by MIT people since it grew out of a late ’60s joint statement and teach-in among activist profs and students in 1968-69. The point is that it’s not their “National HQ” at MIT, but they have certainly had a strong connection to *some* activist faculty and students there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists
For a contrasting perspective, which you won’t find sympathetic but which might help to explain why UCS is not viewed as an objective, non-partisan, balanced group by people it attacks:
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1186063502.pdf
After our intrepid chemist gets done with the physics of Lindzen, Milosci and Brown, and then wades through Heinz Hug’s chemistry experiment trying to figure out the answer to my trick question, he might want to look at an in depth statistical analysis:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/
After he reads through all that, I’d recommend to him IPCC AR4 WG1 2.2 which explicitly says that they define radiative forcing based on Ramaswamy et al 2001 (also recommended reading) and they state that it is:
“‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values”
Which is in direct opposition to the explanation by our intrepid but somewhat lost chemist from the Union of Concerned Scientists. He might be interested to note that the report goes on to say:
“Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF and should not be used to compare forcing agents ”
Again in opposition to our chemist’s over simplified and misleading explanation of the physics involved. Since he seems to have trouble finding articles when pointed at them (running off and looking for them everywhere except where he was told they were) I’ve provided a link to the relevant section in the IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
I would further draw his attention to figure 2.2 which depicts the four most likely changes to temperature profile from earth surface to stratosphere. It is worth noting that of the four methodologies contemplated, three result in no temperature change at surface at all.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-2-2.html
Still no word on the points I made upthread and which our somewhat lost chemist was directed in response to his direct question to me.
Gee,l I almost forgot one of the most important quotes from 2.2
“The RF relationship to transient climate change is not straightforward. To evaluate the overall climate response associated with a forcing agent, its temporal evolution and its spatial and vertical structure need to be taken into account. ”
Gee skippy, take a look at the issues I brought to your attention upthread. Dang, its almost like I know what I’m talking about, isn’t it!
Then they go on to say:
” Further, RF alone cannot be used to assess the potential climate change associated with emissions, as it does not take into account the different atmospheric lifetimes of the forcing agents. Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are one way to assess these emissions. They compare the integrated RF over a specified period (e.g., 100 years) from a unit mass pulse emission relative to CO2″
Now if you managed to read through that paper on statistical analysis that I provided a link to in my previous comment, you should be able to understand how that analysis relates to this statement. Provided you understand it of course.
Learning anything yet UCS chemist with a PhD? Are you beginning to see how over simplified and misleading your explanation is? Do you even begin to comprehend the significance of the points I made to you?
Duh. Why am I asking? He’s made up his mind, he’d rather not be confused by facts. His explanation doesn’t even fit the narrative of the IPCC which he espouses as the settled science. Let’s take a look at 2.8.1 where the IPCC states:
“It should be noted that a perturbation to the surface energy budget involves sensible and latent heat fluxes besides solar and longwave irradiance; therefore, it can quantitatively be very different from the RF, which is calculated at the tropopause, and thus is not representative of the energy balance perturbation to the surface-troposphere (climate) system. While the surface forcing adds to the overall description of the total perturbation brought about by an agent, the RF and surface forcing should not be directly compared nor should the surface forcing be considered in isolation for evaluating the climate response (see, e.g., the caveats expressed in Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Ramanathan, 1981).”
Gee Eric, if your explanation is so accurate, how come the IPCC says otherwise? Here’s the link to make it easy for you to verify:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-8.html
I’ve read what you said on your site Mr PhD in Chemistry so I have credentials and you don’t. Your whole premise that “only three factors” determine the energy balance at surface (or heat balance or climate temperature or whatever misnomer you are currently using) seems rather naive, and that’s according to the very people who have the exact credentials you claim are required for their work to be considered. Credentials that you do not have btw.
Troll posting as Eric Grimsrud:
At August 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm you demanded (in a rude manner) to be told;
At August 4, 2012 at 5:39 pm I gave you the answer to your question by citing, referencing, quoting and linking to a paper which determines the answer in 8 different ways. Those 8 methods each makes a real-world determination which includes EVERYTHING that contributes (positively and negatively) to climate sensitivity in the here and now.
I concluded that post saying;
And at August 4, 2012 at 8:25 pm you DID try to dispute reality. So, in addition to being arrogant, ignorant and rude, you are predicable. And your attempt at disputing reality is as stupid as your other posts on this thread. In total, it consists of unsubstantiated innuendos in support of your starting assertion which was;
Say what!?
I gave you EIGHT different experimental methods and the range of results they provide. There is NO missing “key experimental … evidence” and your implication that you know of some is as false as your claims to have some knowledge of climate science.
And those eight methods reveal the climate sensitivity in the here and now so there cannot be any relevant “paleoclimate evidence” which they “lack”, because you asked “what is” the climate sensitivity and you did NOT ask “what was” the climate sensitivity in the geological past.
Your suggestion that I may “run away” from you is further example of your self-deluding arrogance. But I will not bother to answer any more of your ignorant, arrogant, stupid drivel because I see no reason to waste more time answering nonsense from a self-proclaimed sock puppet.
And STOP pretending I have a knighthood: I don’t.
Richard
richardscourtney;
In total, it consists of unsubstantiated innuendos in support of your starting assertion which was;
I found your answer concerning the Sensitivity of CO2 to be lacking some key experimental and paleoclimate evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sad is it not? Confronted with the actual science, he simply retreats into either argument from authority or argument by assertion. Despite having the explanations, experiments, and even the IPCC reports themselves which dispute his point of view provided to him, he simply keeps repeating himself as if doing so makes it right. He is ultimately no different than Myrhh and Greg House, who, no matter what evidence you provide to them simply respond “that’s not proof, I asked for proof”.
He likely doesn’t know who Myrrh and Greg House are, so he’ll not truly understand the depth of the insult. But the fact of the matter is that despite their complete lack of scienctific education and a belief system so astounding that they eventually got themselves banned for their incessant proclomations, there is little difference between them and Eric Grimsrud PhD.
davidmhoffer:
In your post at August 5, 2012 at 1:12 am you say of the troll:
I respectfully point out that it is not an “insult”: it is demonstrated fact, and he has provided the demonstration by his failure to address your invitations for him to debate – and/or attempt to substantiate – what he asserts.
Richard
To All,
This “discussion” of the science of AGW with DavyM and Sir Richardscourtly is clearly now going nowhere. Note that when I agreed to focus on the science behind the most important scientific question on the table – that is what is the temperature Sensitivity to increased levels of CO2 – that both the these self proclaimed experts (resumes please) cried foul and resorted to personal insults. If there is a more important scientific question than the one I asked, I can’t imagine what that would be. While Davey and and Sir Richy will respond to my last sentence by simply saying that I am stupid. I will suggest that they are both rascals who are simply trying to fool the public with their unsubstantiated claims “expertise” (resumes please).
The very clear indicator of this is that they do not seem to realize that Mother Nature has provided Her opinion concerning the Sensitivity of CO2 via the Ice Core Records – which have become the major source of climate information for the period from 800,000 years ago to the present. That record suggests that the sensitivity of CO2 (with all feedbacks) is about 6.5 degrees C for the longer term (several centuries). This number includes both fast and slow feedbacks. Other measurement including those derived from ocean bottom core samples taken prior to about 35 mil years ago when there was no ice on the planet suggest that about half of that total 6.5 degree C is due to fast feedback (operative of a few decades) and half are due to the slow feedback (operative over a few centuries).
Note that Sir Richy has suggested that CO2 Sensitivity is only about 0.3 degrees C !!! and did not even mention the opinion of Mother Nature on this topic !!! Instead, Sir Richy scolded me for asking my simple question. Note also that the lessons learned from what Mother Nature has done in the past are more important and credible than are our theoretic estimates – because the climate is indeed very complex and Mother Nature does a better job than humans in including all of the effects. The information derived from the Ice Record includes all of the variables – even including those that we do not yet well understand.
So why would both Sir Richy and DavyM want to ignore this paleoclimate information? One reason might be that they really are not aware of this central aspect of modern science (resumes please). Another would be that they are hard core deniers of AGW who simply ignore the very direct and obvious clues provided by Mother Nature because they don’t like what She is telling them. I don’t know which of these possibilities is more likely because I have no idea who they are or what their backgrounds and professional ties are (resume please).
Without the benefit of seeing their resumes, I will conclude here with the following statement. Sir Richy and DavyM are in no way critical professional-level scientists and are, in fact, no more than pseudo scientists who pontificate only before the general public and governmental committees, who often have a hard time telling the difference. Their objective is to confuse the public and delay action on climate change. Please note next that if they respond further my additional comments here, I am certain that all we will see are cute little put downs and condescensions – the British are so damn good at that and I do enjoy watching it (those of Winston Churchill are some of my favorites). Nevertheless, so much of it is nothing more that horse emission and both of these guys are full of it
[Moderator’s Note: The tone in this exchange is becoming increasingly petulant and needs to be a bit more restrained. Dr. Grimsrud, I am allowing this comment as it stands because you have been on the receiving end of some not entirely undeserved invective. This comment, however, is rife with ad hominem, assertion and misdirection, which in my dictionary is the definition of “troll”. Richard Courtney is a public figure and you will, from now on, use his name correctly. All participants should raise the level of civility. -REP]
[SNIP: Dr. Grimsrud, patience is a virtue and double posting irritates moderators. Please also check out my note at the bottom of your last post. -REP]
[SNIP: -REP]
To the moderator: Your comments have been noted and I will now longer us silly names if I do every again refer to either of these gentlement. At the same time, you might ask them to stop referring to me by silly names – Eric or Dr. Grimsrud will do. Thanks for the job you do. I understand that it does get awfully personal very frequently and you have nevertheless kept things fair to the participants. I am not sure that I will have anything more to say, so thanks again. Eric
I will respond to Eric Grimsrud’s tirade with due care in regard to polite and civil discourse, despite my opinion that he deserves no such treatment.
1. I have brought to Dr Grimsrud’s attention numerous confounding factors regarding the calculation of sensitivity and the fact that the literature by well credentialed authors, including the official position of the IPCC, does not support his position. Instead of engaging on the issues raised, the articles I’ve linked to, and the explanations of the IPCC themselves, he instead continues to complain about credentials and then attempts to turn the conversation to the ice core record. His inability to converse knowledgeably on the very aspects of the science that he claims his credentials give him credibility on is more indiciative of his actual expertise in the matter than the credentials he claims.
2. Resorting to a discussion of the ice core record is a strategic error on Dr Grimsrud’s part, as it further underscores his lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The ice core record is increasingly a thorn in the side of the warmist meme for the simple reason that it shows quite conclusively that CO2 increases follow warming, they do not precede it, suggesting that elevated concentrations of CO2 are a consequence of warming, not a driver of warming. The ice core record further shows periods of massive CO2 concentrations, often in the thousands of ppm at times when insolation and other relevant factors were similar to our current environment, but temperatures were very little elevated over current temperatures. Taking these matters into consideration, the ice core record is one of the major sources of data that undermine the theory that CO2 sensitivity is high.
3. Considerable research has been done on the growth response of the biosphere under various temperature and CO2 concentrations. The research shows that the plant kingdom for the most part (there are exceptions) experiences maximum growth potential at current temps but at CO2 levels several times the current atmospheric concentration. This suggests that plants evolved for the most part in an environment of high levels of CO2, supportive of the levels indicated by the ice core records themselves over the time period when currently common plant life would have been subject to the evolutionary processes in question. In summary, the research indicates that both the ice core record and the biosphere suggest that temperatures similar to today’s but with much higher concentrations of CO2 are the norm. Keep in mind also that photosynthesis shuts down at concentrations below 180 ppm, making background concentrations of 280 ppm dangerously low.
4. Dr Grimsrud quotes a sensitivity of 6.5 degrees C per CO2 doubling. He fails to cite his source, so we are only left to make assumptions as to where he gets this number from. A combined (all feedbacks) equilibrium sensitivity with an upper bound of 6.5 deg C was proposed (if memory serves correctly) in the IPCC TAR (Third Assesment Report) but this was one end of a range and the consensus estimate was for the mid point of the range which was 4.5 deg C. This value was reduced to 3.0 deg C in the FAR (Fourth Assesment Report) and the upcoming Fifth Assesment Report is likely to reduce this number further, most likely in the range of 2.4 to 2.6 degrees. While I and others would personaly dispute this number on a variety of grounds, the ice core record that Dr Grimsrud cites being one of them, what should be clear here is that Dr Grimsrud is citing data that is obsolete by the standards of current climate science which he purports to represent, and quoting the upper bound of a large range is simply alarmist cherry picking.
Eric Grimsrud:
I could take apart your diatribe at August 5, 2012 at 8:54 am but, instead, I deal only with this one quotation because it alone is sufficient to demonstrate the nature of what you have written.
The quotation consists solely of three lies.
(Moderator, please not that this accusation of lies is notinvective).
Lie number 1
I “suggested that CO2 Sensitivity is only about 0.3 degrees C !!!”
No! I ”suggested” nothing.
At August 4, 2012 at 5:39 pm I cited, referenced, quoted and linked to a paper in Climate Research which determines climate sensitivity in 8 different ways. That work – which has never been refuted – provides a determination of climate sensitivity which is 0.37 deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
You have not provided any reason to doubt that paper.
Lie number 2
I “did not even mention the opinion of Mother Nature on this topic !!!”
On the contrary. The paper I cited reports 8 different determinations of climate sensitivity which is each obtained from “Mother Nature”. I again link to it here so everybody can see the fact with one click of a mouse.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
Lie number 3
I “scolded [Grimsrud] for asking [his] simple question”
No! Absolutely not!”
At August 4, 2012 at 5:39 pm, I “scolded” Grimsrud for failing to answer anything posted by David and following that – in a rude manner – demanding that David answer a question from Grimsrud. And in that same post I answered Grimsrud’s question.
Moderator:
I fail to understand why you think Grimsrud has “been on the receiving end of some not entirely undeserved invective”. All “invective” directed at Grimsrud has been merited by his behaviour.
And I second the suggestion of David M Hoffer (at August 5, 2012 at 1:12 am) that Grimsrud (who is a self-proclaimed sock puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists) should be given the same treatment as Myrrh and Greg House and for the same reason.
Richard
[REPLY: Please don’t ask for the citation, but it was written some where that the art of diplomacy consists of being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that he eagerly anticipates the trip. -REP]
davidmhoffer:
In your very fine post at August 5, 2012 at 10:10 am you say;
I think I know: it is the highest value used in the suite of climate models.
I have previously addressed this matter of the range of sensitivity values in the models in a post on WUWT at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/02/aerosol-sat-observations-and-climate-models-differ-by-a-factor-of-three-to-six/#comment-711396
To save people needing to find it, I copy that post here.
Richard
______________________
Richard S Courtney says:
August 2, 2011 at 6:46 am
Friends:
The article quotes Penner saying:
“The satellite estimates are way too small,” said Joyce Penner, the Ralph J. Cicerone Distinguished University Professor of Atmospheric Science. “There are things about the global model that should fit the satellite data but don’t, so I won’t argue that the models necessarily are correct. But we’ve explained why satellite estimates and the models are so different.”
Hmmm. Let us consider what we know about how the models incorporate climate sensitivity and aerosol effects.
None of the models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.) would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model.
He says in his paper:
”One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.”
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
”These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.”
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png ]
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
”Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
In summation, all the model projections of future climate change are blown out of the water by the findings of Penner at al.
Richard
Richard,
Thanks for posting that again. I recall reviewing two models some years ago and noting that they had completely different aerosol forcings that resulted in similar final answers. I meant to dig into it further, and completely forgot about it until just now. Rather illuminating!
I seem to have missed the excitement recently, but if either Richard or David, or indeed Eric are still tuning in, can I make an observation?
For my various historic climatology articles I have looked at very many thousands of contemporary weather observations from approximately the 11th century through to the modern day, from sources as wide as cathedral records to the archives of the met office.
I have no doubt at all that during the last thousand years there have been times warmer than today and cooler than today, all at a supposed 280ppm pre industrial and around 300ppm from 1900.
I would observe that the giss record and Berkeley seem to measure the end part of a long warming trend dating back some 350 years and do not register the start of it, although there have been some notably warm periods during that time. There are very many very warm periods during the period prior to the early 1600’s especially the 10th to the 13th century from which there was a slow decline which, as noted above, reversed in the 1600’s.
This leads me to wonder therefore if the temperature sensitivity and the co2 logarithmic curve has to all intents and purposes been reached once co2 levels reach somewhere around 280ppm and the co2 we are adding now appears to have a very limited effect
Tonyb
David:
As you say, it is “illuminating”.
Importantly, each model is emulating a different climate system because each model uses a different value of climate sensitivity,. But the Earth only has one climate system. So, all (except at most one) of the models are NOT emulating the climate of the real Earth.
This problem is not overcome by averaging multiple model runs or by averaging outputs of several models: average wrong is wrong.
And add to that the fact that all the models use climate sensitivity values which are in error by an order of magnitude or more.
Simply, the climate models are known to be inappropriate tools for projecting future climate.
And this is known because it is known that they each use a wrong value of climate sensitivity. Hence, I hope you can see why I impudently answered the question which Grimsrud addressed to you.
Richard
To All,
For those of you who do not know much about the literature of the Ice Core Record, you might start at “The Open Atmospheric Science Journal” volume 2, (2008) pages 217-231. This extensive paper is authored by many scientists from many different universities and research institutions. I refer you all to this one because it is free to the public on the internet.
To those of you who have actually looked my web site or my book, my apologies for sending you to that literature again. As you know, all of this with references has been summarized there.
Grimsrud,
The Vostok ice core record shows that rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature.
That right there debunks your conjecture, my friend.
Tony B:
I write to say that I agree with your suggestion in your post at August 5, 2012 at 11:00 am. It agrees with the physics (theory) and observations(empiricism) of existing climate sensitivity.
While writing, I again ask you to try and get Anthony to post one of your papers on WUWT. Your work on climate history is fascinating and informative. I learned from it and I think others would like to learn from it, too.
Richard
A question for Grimsrud:
Like ice?
How much ‘warming’ is too much warming?
Would it be a good idea to ‘wind’ CO2 levels (and ostensibly the temperature) back to the era (approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago) of the Wisconsin Glacier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation
.
Grimsrud’s cite turns out to be Hansen et al 2008 which is one of the most debunked papers in history. Yes, that would be the same Hansen that predicted that Manhattan would be under water by 2000. The same Hansen that set out scenarios A, B, and C, which embarrasingly for him, have not only failed to materialize, but we are now at CO2 levels in excess of his worst case scenario and temperatures below his best case scenario. The same Hansen that contrived to shut off the air conditioning in the room prior to his testimony as a psychological tactic. The paper cites a range of claims that anyone with even a limited background in physics and climate science could debunk to the average high school student.
Tonyb;
The logarithmic nature of CO2 is a matter that the warmists studiously ignore, but I am in agreement with you, in fact I will take it a step further.
We are currently at close to 400 ppm of CO2. If the warmists engage on the issue at all, they attempt to couch everything in terms of pre-industrial concentrations of 280 ppm. When you are an alarmist, your goal of coarse is to present everything in the worst possible light. So, 280 plus 100 is a 36% rise in CO2 concentrations, and they predicate all their if-then scenarios on those numbers.
But the truth of the matter is that we are already at about 400 and doing just fine thank you, and we cannot return to 280 ppm, we have what we have. At 400 + 100, we’re talking about only a 25% rise. The law of diminishing returns comes into play.
Further still, I don’t think a lot of people think through the matter of sensitivity in the context of a logarithmic effect. A 40% increase in CO2 implies that we should have already seen something over 50% of the effect of CO2 doubling. If sensitivity were as high as Grimrud’s ridiculous claim of 6.5 degrees, even with a huge lag in the system, we’d have seen several degrees of warming already. The fact that we haven’t, in fact over the last century we are just barely over the warming rate of the previous century by about 0.1 degrees, points to the logical conclusion that sensitivity is low.
The warmists cannot have it both ways. If sensitivity is high, then the effects would be pronounced and measurable. If sensitivity is low, then the discussion doesn’t much matter.
On top of it all, the warmists like Hansen continue to claim that warming from CO2 will increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour, and that increased water vapour will have a positive feedback on temperature. Unfortunately for Hansen et al, the data from the very institutions they work for shows that water vapour has been falling for several decades, not rising with temperature. They do some hand waving about aerosols from China, but the truth of that matter is that Europe and North America have made massive improvements to air quality over the last 50 years that much more than simply compensate for emissions from China.
The logarithmic nature of CO2 is, as far as I am concerned, the stake in the heart of the warmist meme. It is no wonder that they avoid discussing it like the plague.
That’s right, Smokey. On the timescales of ice ages CO2 does follow temperature. For the last million years changes in orbital eccentricity have varied the amount of heat reaching the Arctic by about 6%. High winter heating goes with interglacials. Low winter heating goes with glaciation.
When Milankovich warming increases the temperature increases. This liberates CO2 from land and ocean sinks. Increased CO2 increases radiative forcing and increases temperature. The process continues in a positive feedback loop until the system stabilises about 5C warmer and 280ppm Co2.
When the insolation reduces again, the cooling effect allows more CO2 to dissolve in the oceans and the reduced CO2 promotes further cooling. This leads to long term cooling of about 0.3C per milennium as a new cold period approaches, culminating in widespread glaciation. This stabilises 5C cooler with about 200ppm CO2.
The graph you linked to shows this very well.
Entropic,
Not just on timescales of Ice Ages. On time scales of a few decades, too.
CO2 is a function of temperature. Is there any doubt?
David:
You are in illustrious company when (at August 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm) you say to Tony B:
Richard Lindzen has been making the same point for years. For example, in his article at
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html
he includes this:
(my emphasis, RSC)
Richard
To DavidMHoffer:
Lets get right to an analysis of your comments about the paper I referred you to.
First, so James Hansen and the 20 other authors of that paper are also idiots, are they? I in excellent company there, those guys probably also have resumes! And you have references, I hope, for your claim that this paper is the ‘most debunked in history!!” Or was that just sort of a “gut feeling” you have (references on that one would help, pleases!)
Concerning why the temperature of the Earth has risen less than 1C so far when the Sensitivity, S, for CO2 is thought to be about 6.5C
1) As you say so far CO2 have risen by 40% and has not yet doubled.
2) The Thermal inertial of the oceans delays warming by couple of decades.
3) The increase in particulate matter during the industrial age causes cooling, the force for which is thought to be about 1/3 as great as that of GHG warming.
4) We are still in the fast feedback era where S is expected to be about 3C.
5) Note that if we let CO2 levels remain high for over a century, the slow feedback effects will gradually kick in, raising S to about 6.5C.
Concerning your misunderstandings of the GHG effect:
The passage of IR radiation differs entirely from the passage of visible light through a sample at near room temperatures. As you say, the former process is described by the Beer- Lambert relationship – that is, an exponential fall off of absorbtion with increased sample concentration. In the passage of IR radiation through a sample or through out atmosphere, however, the IR-active molecules in the sample not only absorb but also emit IR radiation. (see my chapter 2 in my short course for a clear demonstration of this important but commonly misunderstood point) Thus, absorption saturation does not occur in the passage of IR through a planet’s atmosphere and the temperature on the surface of Venus, for example, goes up to 400 C)
For such a system, the increase in temperature is the same for each successive doubling of the CO2 concentration. That is why we use the term, S, as a quantitative measure of CO’s heating affect. If the process were as you thought, Mr. DavidMHoffer, the magnitude of S would indeed be meaningless – as you mistakenly suggested it was.
If you’d like to learn more of the basics concerning the GHG effect please refer to my web site. I added that short course specifically for the benefit of the lay public.
Richardscourtney,
In view of having said:
” I don’t think a lot of people think through the matter of sensitivity in the context of a logarithmic effect”
.
You might consider reading my last post to your friend concerning the passage of IR radiation through an air mass. It differs entirely from the passage of visible light through a sample – which you appear to be thinking of.
So it turn out that it would actually be a better thing if people did NOT think of the matter of sensitivity in the context of the logarithmic – as you recommend.
To Climatereason
Concerning your statment:
“This leads me to wonder therefore if the temperature sensitivity and the co2 logarithmic curve has to all intents and purposes been reached once co2 levels reach somewhere around 280ppm and the co2 we are adding now appears to have a very limited effect”
please read my recent comments to DavidMHoffer concerning the passage of IR radiation through an air mass, On Ch 2 of my short course on my website, ericgrimsrud.com, you will also find direct experimental evidence for the process – often not understood by the even weekend scientist because of their association of this process with the passage of visible light through a sample.
To Entropic Man,
Thanks for explaining the Smokey why CO2 followed T changes during the ice ages. I would only add that today we have quite an additional source of CO2 such the CO2 increase will preceed T rise.
I have just two words for Eric Grimsrud. They are the same two words I use for everyone who takes my words out of context in order to rebutt them. The same words I use for everyone who ignores 95% of my arguments in order to selectively respond to the remaining 5% out of context.
I’ll self snip them in advance to save the mods the trouble.
dropping thread
To Jim who asked me:
Richard
_Jim says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:43 am
“Would it be a good idea to ‘wind’ CO2 levels (and ostensibly the temperature) back to the era (approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago) of the Wisconsin Glacier?”
Don’t think so, unless you like “deep lake’ ice fishing. Don’t worry about that however, it will talk many millennia until CO2 ever returns to those levels. It takes a long time to change biological carbon back to geological carbon.
DavidMHoffer, Please, do not venture further into the science as you suggest you will above. As you do, you just get yourself more exposed and I truly do not enjoy “beating up” on the scienticially illiterate. You are now clearly in the “save face” mode, so why not just stop and start learning instead. A far broader knowledge of one’s field is required than you have for free ranging scientific discussions. I’ve seen this too many time below. So please stop and go home. Eric
Grimsrud says:
“To Entropic Man,
Thanks for explaining the Smokey why CO2 followed T changes during the ice ages. I would only add that today we have quite an additional source of CO2 such the CO2 increase will preceed T rise.”
.
When the planet itself falsifies a belief system, normal folks will accept reality. But not Grimsrud or Entropic.
Real world observations demonstrate conclusively that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, as the chart above shows. Effect cannot precede cause [outside of the lunatic world of CAGW], therefore increasing CO2 is an effect of temperature rise, not a cause.
Smokey, Please. Put a match to some gasoline and ask yourself what’s happening. Geological carbon it converting to biological carbon without requiring an increase in temperature first. Look around you also. There are now almost 7 billion people doing this, while there were essentially none during the glacial/interglacial period. Man has now burned almost 500 Gegatons of carbon over the industrial age and about half of that excess is now in our atmosphere (about 1/4 is in the oceans and about 1/4 in plants and soils) Of course all this is expected to cause a T increase in the future as the thermal inertial of the oceans is overcome. One more thought: there are still much more than 15,000 Gegatons of carbon in our remaining fossil fuel and some think that will be OK to use a large portio of it.
Grimsrud says:
“Man has now burned almost 500 Gegatons of carbon …”
Ooh, Gigatons! I guess we should be impressed. Not really.
I am a rational climate realist who knows that adding CO2 [“carbon” to the scientifically illiterate] to the atmosphere is harmless. It is also very beneficial to the biosphere.
So once again I challenge Mr. Grimsrud to try and falsify this testable hypothesis, per the scientific method:
At current and projected concentrations CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere
If Grimsrud can provide testable, verifiable evidence proving direct harm to the planet from the increase in that beneficial trace gas, which has gone from 0.00028 of the atmosphere to 0.00039, then he will be the first to be able to do so.
Have at it, Grimsrud. And good luck.
Smokey, the critical importance of the small concentrations of the permant GHGs have been known for over 150 years. The major components of the atmoshere do not absorb or emit IR radiation. The most abundant permanent, well mixed GHG is CO2 at 393 ppm today. For more, see Ch 1 of my short course. ERic
Smokey, These low concentration GHG’s are the only molecules in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR radiation other than water vapor. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon do not and the conc of water vapor changes in response to T change. The warming effect of the low conc GHG’s is therefore amplified by an increase in water vapor as a T rise is caused by the permanent GHGs. As in many other examples, it is the low conc components of the atmosphere that provide important functions. See my Ch 1 in my short course for more. Eric
grimsrud,
I note that you are changing the subject and hiding out from my challenge. That’s OK, no other alarmist will touch it either.
And you won’t mind, will you, if I ignore your propaganda course? I find much more accurate information here, and I can view both sides of the debate.
For example, you write: The most abundant permanent, well mixed GHG is CO2…
Wrong. Water vapor, which is permanent and well mixed atmospheric component, comprises between 1 – 4% of the atmosphere vs CO2’s 0.039%. And it absorbs/emits IR like CO2.
[Snip. Ad hom. You were warned about public figures who post here. ~dbs, mod.]
Eric Grimsrud:
At August 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm you write:
Please explain the difference between ” a sample” and “an air mass”. As always, your “last post” (of many) makes assertions that have no basis and which you do not support with evidence, reference, and/or logical argument.
I did not make the quote you imply I did.
And, ONLY refer to what I say and NOT what you mistakenly consider I may “be thinking of”.
I only quoted Richard Lindzen and bolded part of that quote. You are deluded if you think you know more about radiative transfer in the atmosphere than him: he is the emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.
Indeed, I am very able to help you with any difficulties you have in understanding the subject; e.g. I made my own system (hardware and software) for quantitative energy dispersive analysis of X-rays (QEDX) and I consider my algorithm for ZAF correction algorithm for the detector gold layer is superior to any commercially available (of course, this is different wavelengths than IR but the basic physics is the same). Ask and ye shall receive.
Richard
Eric Grimsrud:
At August 5, 2012 at 6:09 pm you assert:
How? And why?
Also, if your unsubstantiated assertion were right, then so what?
According to the ice core data which you claim to accept, in the past when temperature fell the CO2 continued to rise for centuries, but that CO2 rise did not stop the temperature falling and then dragging the CO2 down.
Please here provide succinct explanation and do not claim the erroneous assertions on your blog explain these matters (they don’t).
Richard
Smokey:
Grimsrud is even more wrong than you say at August 5, 2012 at 8:38 pm where you write to him:
In fact, water vapour absorbs/emits IR much more effectively than CO2 because it absorbs/emits across the entire IR spectrum in the atmosphere but CO2 only absorbs in two narrow wave bands.
Richard
Smokey says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Entropic,
Not just on timescales of Ice Ages. On time scales of a few decades, too.
CO2 is a function of temperature. Is there any doubt?
There is a doubt, or we would not be arguing this point.
At this time we should be seeing temperature and then CO2 driven down by the Milankovich eccentricity changes presaging the next glacial period.
Instead we find ourselves in a new situation. The first intelligent organism on the planet is burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide in large enough quantities to raise the level way beyond normal interglacial levels.
This has reset our climate to a pattern usually seen early in an interglacial as rising insolation triggers increased CO2. We have restarted the positive feedback loop that stabilised some 6000 years ago, with no clear precedent from paleoclimates to guide our analysis of the result.
Entropic,
The only doubt is in the addled minds of True Believers.
Entropic man:
re. you post at August 6, 2012 at 4:53 am.
Additional unsubstantiated assertions are NOT evidence that an original unsubstantiated assertion is correct.
The evidence which Smokey has provided (and linked to) shows your original assertion is plain wrong. If you wish to dispute his evidence and/or argument then I would be pleased to learn your disputation.
Your addition of more unsubstantiated assertions suggests that you think Smokey is right.
Richard
To All,
Note that Richardscourtney just said:
“For example, you (that’s me) write: “The most abundant permanent, well mixed GHG is CO2…”Co Wrong. Water vapor, which is permanent and well mixed atmospheric component, comprises between 1 – 4% of the atmosphere vs CO2′s 0.039%. And it absorbs/emits IR like CO2”
First, please note that this a direct quote and not something I have implied. So let’s talk about water vapor. Most of what Richardscourtney says that is dead wrong and even childish.
1) First, water vapor is not a “permanent” component of the atmosphere because the amount of water vapor changes rapidly due to its continuous evaporation and condensation. At a given location we might have very humid days and very dry days.
2) Water vapor is not “well-mixed” throughout the atmosphere. Its concentration varies greatly with both changes in location and altitude. As one goes up to the top of the troposphere the temperature decreases and so does the concentration of water vapor. At about 8 miles above me, the T is about –70 degrees F and there is very little water vapor. This T barrier to water vertical water transport is why the stratosphere above is so dry (thankfully for several reasoons).
3) Sure it comprises 1 to 4 % of the atmosphere – but only in the lower regions of the troposphere.
4) Therefore water vapor is considered to be a “feedback” GHG, not a “forcing” GHG and certain not permanent and well mixed GHG
5) In contrast, what we call the ‘permanent” GHG’s stay in the atmosphere for significant periods of time. Methane has a life time of about 10 years. Nitrous oxide about 100 years, the chlorofluorocarbons about 100 years and the excess levels of CO2 many centuries.
Thus, it is the permanent GHGs that initially cause T to increase. As T does increase, more water vapor can then enter the atmosphere and, if so, the T goes even high. Note: If the world had no permanent GHG’s and only had its water¸ the Earth would probably cool to its “snowball” condition of several million years ago.
I have addressed this note to “All” because, with his comments above, it is clear that he does not even know the very simplest and basic aspects of climate science and will only try to fool you into thinking that he does. What I have explained here is essentially “grade school” basics of climate science. Watch his next post. You will not see a simple and direct discussion as I have given here – that is, one that you can understand yourself. Instead, we will try to “snowball” you with a change in subject from this issue of water vapor other people or other “stuff” that you will not understand yourself but might think “sounds good”. I have stated before what I think of this man and need not repeat it here.
And in my last post I should have added:
6) And the permanent GHG’s are “well –mixed”. That is, their concentrations are the same everywhere in background atmosphere. Their relative abundance to not change with changes in temperature or altitude.
ericgrimsrud:
I kindly offered to help you with your much needed education in radiative physics. You have not answered that kind offer but, instead, at August 6, 2012 at 6:57 am you provide another diatribe of erroneous twaddle.
As has become habitual with your diatribes, I will not bother to refute it all but merely point to something outrageous as an example of the diatribe’s content.
In this case, you misquote me, I actually wrote (at August 6, 2012 at 1:25 am):
That is true.
And you then attempt to refute your misquotation of me by providing an illogical argument that water vapour is not a significant greenhouse gas but CO2 is. That illogical argument is based on a series of silly statements which you list: this is the first in that list
But on that basis CO2 is not a “permanent” component of the atmosphere, either. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 varies more than humidity at localities on both daily and annual time scales.
Indeed, this is why Keeling established the Mauna Loa station as the site to measure atmospheric CO2 because he determined that site has the smallest of these variations.
All your other points are equally wrong.
Richard
Eric Grimsrud:
I still await your explanation of your unsubstantiated assertions which I requested at August 6, 2012 at 1:16 am.
Perhaps your subsequent diatribe was an attempt to divert attention from your failure to provide that explanation?
Richard
Reblogged this on Hector Hugo and commented:
I’d heard about this press release but thought that the person telling me had simplified the story. Nope, seems as though it was initially reported as a “climate change” effect – and a very specific, one-side of the lamp post global warming effect at that!
To All:
For the sake of completion, I might have also added the following two points to my recent discussion of the GHG’s
7) So water vapor does indeed provide the greatest amount of total GHG warming – due to its feedback effect. It is not an initial “forcing agent” however, as the permanent GHG’s are. Again without the permament GHG’s, the concentration of water vapor everywhere in the world, even near ground lever would go to near zero.
8) The relative concentrations of all of the permanent well-mixed GHG’s are found to be very constant at all locations in the atmosphere – even well up into the stratosphere – all long as one is not sampling near either a source or sink for that particular GHG. Thus in sampling for CO2, in order to get a “background” air sample one has to sample well away from its sinks (such as trees) and its sources (such as power plants). Thus, for CO2 sampling we use very remote sites all over the world, including mountain tops and the south pole.
All of this (my points 1-8 concerning the GHGs) is exceedingly well known in climate science, and is related in all text books on the subject as it has been, of course, in the initial chapters of both my book and my short course at ericgrmsrud.com.
To All,
For your convenience, I have pulled all of my previous points concerning the GHGs together here for your easier consideration.
1) First, water vapor is not what we call a “permanent” component of the atmosphere because the amount of water vapor changes rapidly and greatly – even at points far away from the sources of water – due to its continuous evaporation and condensation that is affected by temperature differences and changes .
2) Water vapor is not “well-mixed” throughout the atmosphere in that its concentration varies greatly with both changes in location and altitude. As one goes up to the top of the troposphere the temperature decreases and so does the concentration of water vapor. At about 8 miles above me, the T is about –70 degrees F and there is very little water vapor. (This T barrier to water vertical water transport is why the stratosphere above is so dry, thankfully for several reasons).
3) Water comprises 1 to 4 % of the atmosphere – but only in the lower regions of the troposphere. In the upper atmosphere its concentration approachs near zero.
4) Therefore water vapor is considered to be a “feedback” GHG, not a “forcing” GHG and certain not permanent and well mixed GHG. Thus water vapor “amplifies” the warming effect of the permanent and well-mixed GHGs.
5) In contrast, what we call the ‘permanent” GHG’s stay in the atmosphere for significant periods of time. Methane has a life time of about 10 years, for example – after which it is converted to CO2. Nitrous oxide, about 100 years, the chlorofluorocarbons, about 100 years and the excess levels of CO2, many centuries.
6) And the permanent GHG’s are “well –mixed”. That is, their concentrations are the same everywhere in “background” atmosphere. Their relative abundances do not change with changes in temperature or altitude.
7) So water vapor does indeed provide the greatest amount of total GHG warming – due to its feedback effect. It is not an initial “forcing agent” however, as the permanent GHG’s are. Again without the permament GHG’s, the concentration of water vapor everywhere in the world, even near ground lever would go to near zero.
8) The relative concentrations of all of the permanent well-mixed GHG’s are found my direct measurements to be very constant at all locations in the atmosphere – even well up into the stratosphere – as long as one is not sampling near either a “source or sink” for that particular GHG. Thus, in sampling for CO2, in order to get a “background” air sample one has to sample well away from its sinks (such as trees) and its sources (such as power plants). Thus, for CO2 sampling of the “background” atmosphere, we use very remote sites all over the world that are far from sources or sinks, including mountain tops and the south pole.
All of this (my points 1-8 concerning the GHGs) is exceedingly well known in climate science, and is related in all text books on the subject as it has been, of course, in the initial chapters of both my book and my short course at ericgrmsrud.com.
Thanks for your attention to some of these basic points concerning the GH effect. For much more please do consider having a look at my “short course” at ericgrimsrud.com.
ericgrimsrud:
Your post at August 7, 2012 at 7:52 am again fails to provide an explanation of your unsubstantiated assertions which I requested at August 6, 2012 at 1:16 am.
Instead it provides more – and similarly wrong – unfounded assertions.
Can we now agree that you cannot explain your unfounded assertions because you know they are wrong?
Richard
To All: Please reread my post on August 5, 8:54 AM. It included my estimation of a couple of pseudo scientists who have been doing their best here to confuse the general public on the issue of AGW. Subsequently, they have exposed their ignorance of the basics of the science and one of them continues to do so. All I will say in response is: read their and my entries since then and ask yourself who makes sense and who does not. The basics are not all that difficult to understand – a bit of common sense goes a long ways. The argument is not about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, even though such arguments can, indeed, sound very impressive when frequent mindless “put downs” are sprinckled in. As you have noted, I am done with these guys – “when you play with S, all that can happen is that you might get S on you”. As always, I will trust the audience to distinquish real science from quackery.
Eric Grimsrud:
It is clear that you are as ignorant of the natures of science and pseudoscience as you are ignorant of climate science.
Science consists of attempt to achieve the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by attempting to falsify hypotheses and amending them in the light of evidence.
Pseudoscience consists of seeking evidence to ‘prove’ a belief is ‘true’.
Your postings here are – without exception – clear examples of pseudoscience. Hence, it seems that your accusations of others being “pseudoscientists” are psychological projection.
Insults and arrogance are not an adequate substitute for reason, references, and logical explanation.
You have snowed this thread with silly and plain wrong assertions. I am sure that your assertions are not egregious: they are a display of your arrogance, ignorance and self-delusion.
When you can provide justification for your silly assertions then people will start to take you seriously. But until then you are ‘blowing smoke’.
Richard
Friends:
Eric Grimsrud has a method of debate which has been seen before. It is this
http://www.dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/10000/2000/600/12611/12611.strip.print.gif
(hat tip to Smokey for the link)
Richard
To keep denying what we can see and feel, and know to be fact is moronic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opid81mxkkI. And http://article.wn.com/view/2012/07/25/97_of_Greenland_ice_sheet_melting/
Inhofe chooses to make big on mistakes that don’t amount to the whole world suffering like his opinion will do as a flunky for the fossil fuel industry. He’s still harping on the email controversy that was resolved long ago. We should be demanding a better explanation as to what he meant by his admission on the Rachel Maddow show that he basically believed global warming to be true until he saw what it would cost to contain CO2. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/16/446008/inhofe-maddow-global-warming/.
Profit before lives as always in the U.S. Inhofe should be removed from the senate environmental committee. He’s dangerous as are all the other deniers because last years U.S. drought cost over $10 billion. And the Fed already released $30 million to farmers for this years drought that will continue to ripple and cost. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/story/2011-11-10/drought-south-midwest/51159668/1.
The logic here is that if we can buy Cheney’s 10% principle to go to war with Iraq over WMD’s than we should surely be employing that principle to global warming. That principle stated that even if there was only a 10% chance Iraq had WMD’s, then it was our responsibility to act to prevent their use. Well ditto for global warming since Mother Nature can be the worst weapon we ever face.
Valeria Rogers:
For sake of argument, let us assume you are right.
In that case the costs of adjusting to the putative man-made global warming would be less that the costs of avoiding it.
So, in the unlikely event that the AGW-hypothesis proves to be right and some unusual climate change occurs, then the cheapest option is to adapt to it.
And in the likely event that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong (so nothing unusual happens to climate), then there is no need to do anything.
A politician who fails to recognise this is failing his/her constituents.
And the costs are horrific.
Please remember that the only way to significantly constrain CO2 emissions is to curtail the use of fossil fuels and – at present – there are no viable alternatives to the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy for large-scale energy supply. People need energy to survive, and the most conservative projections of human population are that the population will increase by 2.6 billion before the middle of this century (when it will start to fall). Those additional people need an increase to energy supply for them to survive. Hence, constraining usage of fossil fuels at their present level of use would kill billions of people (mostly children).
You are arguing for that cost in death and suffering merely because an improbable hypothesis may be observed to provide discernible effects at some future date. Frankly, I am appalled at such an immoral suggestion which – if adopted – would make relatively insignificant the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf H and Stalin.
Furthermore, your WMD comparison is invalid. A nuclear attack would have large and sudden effects. Any AGW would be a slowly developing effect if it were real
Richard
[Moderator’s Note: Richard, my apologies. Valeria’s screechy little rant should not have been approved because of the egregious policy violations. I’ve snipped it and didn’t save a copy. If Valeria wishes to resubmit her comment without the nastiness and insult she is free to do so. My reading is that attempting to carry on a dialogue with her would be a waste of bandwidth. -REP]