NOTE: This op-ed was rejected by the New York Times. It was submitted as a response by The president of The Heartland Institute in reply to Fred Krupp’s Wall Street Journal essay. I reproduce it here in hopes of it reaching a wide audience. Feel free to reproduce it elsewhere. – Anthony
by Joe Bast
Dear Fred,
I read your August 7 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” with great interest. As you know, The Heartland Institute is a leading voice in the international debate over climate change. The Economist recently called us “the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
First, I welcome you to the effort to bring skeptics and alarmists together. We need your help. We have been trying to do this for many years.
For example, we ran more than $1 million in ads calling on Al Gore to debate his critics. He repeatedly refused. We hosted seven international conferences on climate change and invited alarmists to speak at every one, the most recent one held in Chicago on May 23-24. Only one ever showed up, and he was treated respectfully.
Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist, and when opinion polls and political decisions revealed that strategy wasn’t working, by denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”
Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us. Prominent global warming alarmist Peter Gleick stole corporate documents from us and circulated them with a fake and highly defamatory memo purporting to describe our “climate change strategy.” Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20.
Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists who affiliate with The Heartland Institute, while the Center for American Progress and 350.org are using them to demonize corporations that fund us. No group on the left, including yours, has condemned these activities.
In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.
For example, it is impossible for skeptics and alarmists to come together so long as alarmists pretend – as you do, Fred, in this very essay – that recent weather trends in one part of the world lend proof to their theories and predictions. Anyone familiar with the science knows this claim belongs in the kindergarten of the climate science debate.
Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, second because they are notoriously unreliable, and third because they tell us nothing about what is causing warming or cooling.
You are asking, in effect, that skeptics simply “shut up and sit down,” that they concede as being true the most flawed and unlikely assumptions of the alarmist movement, and that they endorse policies that are wholly unnecessary and extremely costly.
While I cannot presume to speak for all global warming skeptics, I think I can channel the opinion of most when I say, “hell no!”
Your overture comes at a time when the science backing global warming alarmism is crumbling, as amply demonstrated by the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change (NIPCC). International negotiations for a new treaty are going nowhere. Public opinion in the U.S. and other countries decisively rejects alarmism. Politicians here and abroad who vote for cap and trade or a carbon tax rightly fear being tossed out of office by voters who know more about the issue than they do.
Your appeal to “restart the discussion” would have skeptics snatch failure from the jaws of victory. I’m sure you understand why we won’t go there.
I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:
First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.
Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.
Third, given the rapid and unstoppable increase in greenhouse gas emissions by Third World countries, it is pointless for the U.S. and other developed countries to invest very much in reducing their own emissions.
Fourth, tax breaks and direct subsidies to solar and wind power and impossible-to-meet renewable power mandates and regulatory burdens on coal-powered electricity generation plants have been disastrous for taxpayers, businesses, and consumers of electricity, and ought to be repealed.
Fifth, the world is entering an era of fossil fuel abundance that could lift billions of people out of poverty and help restart the U.S. economy. We have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. Basic human compassion and common sense dictate that fear of global warming ought not be used to block access to this new energy.
Agree to these five simple propositions, Fred, and we can begin to work together to address some of the real environmental problems facing the U.S. and the world.
What a confidant and civilized invitation to a discussion
There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days. With mindsets like that and the likes of Hansen,Gore,Mann, Jones,Trenberth and others with direct connections to the sympathetic AGW Media nothing will change in any meaningful time scale. How long did it take for Dragons, Witches and Papal Indulgences to be accepted as utter rubbish?
CO2 is good for us carbon life forms and for our essential friends the food producing plants, trees etc.
So sad that this was rejected by the New York Times – that says so much about the journalists who work there. In Britain, the BBC has suffered a similar collapse in journalistic values and ethics, determined to keep the evidence of skeptical scientists away from the camera and the microphone – a public service broadcaster that has lost jts sense of duty to the public.
It is not just science that is losing credibility with the public, as a result of the lies, distortions, exaggerations, corruption and malfeasance (exemplified by Climategate) but journalism, too. Professional integrity is an issue for both scientists and journalists.
Well said, Joe. Unfortunately no one from the warmist side will dare to take you up on this as they seem to be fundamentally dishonest.
Excellent reply. Well expressed; and how sad that the NYT won’t publish it. One suggestion I would make is maybe to soften the basic propositions a little, otherwise this just restarts the stand-off. Rather than insist on the alarmist ‘agreeing’ the basic propositions, maybe ‘respecting’ would capture the best approach. Yes, we want them to agree, and it is not that difficult if you look the facts in the face. But don’t forget many are, as you say, still ‘in the kindergarten of the climate science debate’. But then again mybe you are right and the ‘hell no!’ response is best…
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.
While it is important not to respond to the “alrmists”, it seems a bit unseemly to do that in a response that seems to be a bit on the plaintive / kumbaya side. Joe either you write combative pieces and expect combat or take a tone of reconcilliation and be repectful, painful as it might be. Otherwise you will get back a but of “denier” hurls at you and we will be running in place, as usual.
Amen.
Well written and to the point but it will go right over the alarmists heads.
Argh, if only they hadn’t done that billboard.
He hee, I found point #1 especially comical considering the consistent use of the term “alarmist”. No wonder it was rejected.
Anyhow, pretty pointless to “reconcile” with the conspiracy theorist faction that HI represents. That view had its glory day around the Copenhagen conference but I don’t think you can say it is doing very well today. The view that we should do “nothing” is of course quite legitimate and by all means, argue for it when policy is made. But reconciling with a bunch of flat Earther’s on the science in question is just rediculous, and has been so for close to 50 years.
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way. And the vision to create an alternative economy that will allow us to do so.
Any reply will be along the lines of Na Na Na Na I’m not listening
Trying to reason with alarmists, always has the same outcome:
“And some fell on stony ground.”
You cannot get to first base with these guys:
1. Most sceptics accept rising CO2 levels have had a mild impact on global temperatures – these rising CO2 levels have obviously been caused by the activities of man. So we agree there is an AGW effect. However, we do not believe this effect is serious, or will ever be serious.
2. Alarmists like to call sceptics deniers, or denialists, stating we are denying the existing of AGW, when in reality we are denying the existence of CAGW (Catastrophic AGW).
3. The argument for CAGW is based on the feedback effects of increasing amounts of clouds as a result of mildly rising temperatures caused by rising CO2 levels. The problem for alarmists is there is absolutely no evidence for significant positive feedbacks, in fact there is increasing evidence that this feedback effect is mildly negative and not hugely positive.
The global warming industry is a well funded gravy train. It is a fact of life that those who live their lives on gravy trains rarely want to get off. That is the real problem between sceptics and alarmists: why should alarmists do anything which could possibly upset their gravy train by doing something like publicly debating the subject of CAGW?
I feel that expecting Fred to agree to these 5 propositions is just as unlikely as would have been expecting Joe to accept the propositions from Fred that he has so firmly rejected.
So no chance of any progress here, is there?
Getting down to brass tacks and setting out the positions seems like a very healthy and transparent way to go. Enumerating these key points warrants a response, alarmists?
I like to argue, but I can’t argue with that.
If the mindless numbskulls peering fearfully over the parapet at the wave of killer CO2 approaching them got out of their trenches and read some science, we could all go home and get on with the real work of bringing the third world up to our level of prosperity.
Ivor Ward
I’d bet that this letter will have the same effect as show photos of your wedding to a giraffe.
Good rebuttal, Joe.
Thank you for posting it to a wider audience, Andy.
(But asking alarmists like Fred Krupp to agree to these basic propositions, however straightforward, would be akin to asking the Pope to question the virgin birth).
Kurt in Switzerland
While I was reading this article, I directly made the link with the 5 stages of loss and grief:
Stage 1: denial and isolation: which in your letter is “Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist”
Stage 2: Anger: which in your letter is “denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”” and also “Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us.” and then “Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists ”
Stage 3: Bargaining: which in your letter is ” In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”” and you are right to answer them “Hell no!”
what we will have now to wait is stage 4 and 5:
Stage 4 is Depression: Two types of depression are associated with mourning. The first one is a reaction to practical implications relating to the loss. Sadness and regret predominate this type of depression. The second type of depression is more subtle and, in a sense, perhaps more private. It is our quiet preparation to separate and to bid our loved one farewell.
Stage 5 is Acceptance: Reaching this stage of mourning is a gift not afforded to everyone. Death may be sudden and unexpected or we may never see beyond our anger or denial. This phase is marked by withdrawal and calm.
So there is light at the end of the tunnel it seems! Only 2 stages are missing.
Not surprised to see the word ‘sustainable’ appearing in the blog posts…… we know what direction the wind is blowing and can see where the debate is headed……
Valerie Rawlinson says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way
=======================================================
Do you really understand what “sustainable” means? It doesn’t mean that something can go on for ever, it means that when something gives out, we can replace it.
What exactly do you think is in danger of NOT being sustainable? Out of interest?
The Heartland Institute equates climate scientists with mass murders–so much for reasoned discussion. Most of the debate is in the scientific literature, which Heartland consistently reinterprets.
There’s no such thing as debate in modern times. There’s only this week’s orthodoxy. All other views are literally Unthinkable, and those who hold them are Unpersons.
(We do have noisy talkfests that sound like arguments, but if you examine the two “sides” you’ll find that both are equally evil and false. The factual side is never allowed to reach the microphone.)
*Typo Alert*
“the world’s most prominent think-think”
Did Jo try to get a right of reply off the WSJ?
I’m not surprised the NYT demurred.
But the kind of debate is not the yelling across the fence that goee on now. We have to get a few of their “experts” against a few of ours, and demonstrate the knowledge of weather, climate and the natural large scale drivers that they ignore, in a way that wipes them out in a well organized and well publicized forum. These people are not weather and climate observers, they are voyeurs, ( I got that term from a good friend of mine, but dont know if he wants me to attribute it to him. If I find out he does, I will) The peak in on the weather when it suits them to push their propaganda points.
Until such time that a) they are shown to be either ignorant of the facts or deceptive where every one can see and b) co2 is put in its rightful place as a red herring to the climate debate, this is going to continue. And if they wont come out and debate where they can be seen, their “all stars” against ours, then it should be pointed out they are running for one reason, they know they have nothing to stand on and can be refuted.
I am not even asking for a position on our team. I just want to watch them beaten by our side. But dont kid yourself, this is going to continue, as the media and administration is on their side, until these 2 things happen in a way for all to see
perhaps one of the networks will carry a 5th debate.. on the climate scam. Bound to get ratings
Joe says voyeurs – I say Jihadis. The latter cause far more damage than the former!
Peter Miller says: August 14, 2012 at 2:52 am
The global warming industry is a well funded gravy train. […] why should alarmists do anything which could possibly upset their gravy train by doing something like publicly debating the subject of CAGW?
That is why it will never happen. The sustenance of their existence depends on maintaining the status quo.
Peter Miller says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:52 am
1. Most sceptics accept rising CO2 levels have had a mild impact on global temperatures – these rising CO2 levels have obviously been caused by the activities of man.
Only a fraction of the rising CO2 levels are due to man, it’s not so obvious that all of it is. Don’t concede them the argument that we’re responsible in total. We’re not.
I’m astonished that discussions of “sustainable economies,” pop up here, there is nothing sustainable about an economy which requires the use of force to get enough money to drive it. Taxes are extortion, and funding “sustainable economies” through taxation is not a long term solution. Real sustainable economies are the result of voluntary exchanges where each party believes they are the better for having made the trade. When the majority of the consumers of electricity want to draw their power from some source other than petrochemicals, that form of power generation, what ever it may be, will succeed in the marketplace. Until then, keep your guns away from successful energy sources! Yes, the EPA is guns!
The second condition is just plain daft.
The statement “Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.” defines the positions of the two sides – an AGW skeptic would agree with that statement, an AGW proponent would not.
There would be no point in the Heartland Institute debating AGW with people who agree because they would already be on your side.
I’m not in line on this one – I read the conditions as “agree that we’re right, or we won’t talk with you”. Who is going to sign up to that?
The New York Who?
The problem is, the POLITICAL debate is well advanced, but the SCIENTIFIC debate is non-existent, because: Nobody knows the fundamental science they are pretending to know, or deluding themselves that they know. There are no competent climate scientists. Neither the “alarmist” nor the “lukewarm” believers in the greenhouse effect–of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (not “the temperature with, vs. without, an atmosphere”, you proud fools)–know the first thing about what the evidence is telling you: that there is no such greenhouse effect, and your belief in it only marks your own scientific incompetence. There should be no public debate on the science, first and foremost because the mostly lay public is not educated to competently participate, and now it should be clear (but of course it is not, which is the main point) that even the “experts” are miseducated, and clinging to failed theoretical dogma (so the dismal truth is, “climate science” is not ready for prime time–after the last 40 to 50 years of imbibed false theory). These statements are the real point of departure for any reasonable debate (which should be entirely open to the lay public, but without its participation, AND without the participation of climate scientists, who have universally failed in their professional responsibility; hand it over to non-climate scientists–preferrably physicists over the age of 60, educated before the dogma of the “greenhouse effect” was accepted as “settled science”–and anyone who respects the stable Standard Atmosphere over the hysterical “meme” of runaway climate change. And given the stillborn state of the scientific debate, cancel all governmental “climate” policies, forthwith–cease and desist now, or yesterday if possible.
“Valerie Rawlinson says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way. And the vision to create an alternative economy that will allow us to do so.”
Wind mill and solar panels aren’t an alternative economy.
The US can’t build an economy on these source of energy, and expecting
developing economies to do so is unrealistic.
There could be a possible advantage of such technology for use in isolate regions, but in term
nation of million of people it’s not going work as the solution. It situational and supplemental
perhaps.
Using natural gas resources instead using coal is much cleaner and environmentally better
solution. And with fracking technology one a much wider and larger availability of local natural resources.
Hmm, yes, “think-think[sic]” does promote skepticism, especially as contrasted with the prog-left’s chat-chat consensus. Verification-ism is not science.
“Flatearthers”, PN? Our children are going to look at these Alarmists, they way we do the Piltdown crowd, we shouldn’t be throwning insults at the few advocates who stayed sane.
“In the year 1527, the Medici being expelled from Florence, there was a fight for the Palace of the Signoria, and a bench was thrown down from on high so as to fall upon those who were assaulting the door; but, as fate would have it, that bench hit an arm of the David in marble by Buonarroti, which is beside the door of the Ringhiera, and broke it into three pieces. These pieces having remained on the ground for three days, without being picked up by anyone, Francesco went to the Ponte Veccio to find Giorgio, and told him his intention; and then, children as they were, they went to the Piazza, and, without thinking of any danger, in the midst of the soldiers of the guard, they took the pieces of that arm and carried them to the house of Michelagnolo, the father of Francesco, in the Chiasso di M. Bivigliano. From which house having afterwards recovered them, Duke Cosimo in time caused them to be restored to their places with pegs of copper.” – Giorgio Vasari (“Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects” 1568)
JamesNV
Hiding from the truth won’t make it change or go away. Look at the “studies” from the AGW camp that show the stark differences in belief of AGW between the two parties. Now think of which party wants the government to take care of us from cradle to grave, and which one wants individuals to stand on their own two feet, work hard and succeed.
AGW alarmism isn’t about the science, it is about political control over the masses so the brilliant elites can decide how we minions live our lives. It is, at the heart of this discussion, political. Ask yourself, when did AGW, Eco-terrorism and the push for a world government really take off. Your answer will probably be: in the late 80’s, early 90’s. It’s no coincidence this is when the USSR collapsed. This is a politician fight, first and foremost, and you need decide which side you are on. NOW!
Bill
JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.
You are right, of course, but tell it to your comerades and tell it loudly. This whole mess is framed as a political issue by them in the first place.
See the wicked meme of Climate Justice, for example.
I’m at a bit of a loss.. Since this was in response to an essay in The Wall Street Journal, why ask The New York Times to the be path for rebuttal? Why not ask The WSJ to publish the rebuttal since they are the audience that Mr. Krupp was addressing? I know the NYT has an extreme left stance, but to expect them to print it does not make sense. The WSJ is the one to prove fair and balanced journalism.
BTW, I agree with most of the 5 points, with a rewrite to #5 (see Ed Koch quote below). Fossil fuels are the cheapest, easiest and quickest ways to lift impoverish nations, but that the industrialized nations need to pursue nuclear, especially Thorium. The western civilization has the technology to design and help build clean and safe fossil fuel plants for the third world while we get on the path for nuclear. Adding more nations to a fossil fuel diet will drive up the price, even with added extraction from the earth. We need to ladder the worlds’ energy production, while the undeveloped nations move to fossil fuels, we move to nuclear/hydrogen. And in the 1K years that buys us, look to develop the next rung in the energy ladder.
As Ed Koch, Mayor of New York city said while campaigning , “If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me, if you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist.”
Renaud says ‘the five stages of ..grief’
You are right about this and it is important then to show those going through such grief a lot of respect as they come to accept the realisation of their loss.
This grief looks ordered when tabulated as five stages, but this tabulation neglects that some will be in a couple of stages at the same time, may revert, and in community there will be people in any stage.This makes it hard to manage such a thing as loss of belief in AGW.
Politically all that can be done is remove people who refuse to debate as they may do more harm to the body politic by limiting free speech.
JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.
The problem James is that the left wing polis (progressives, commis, liberals) are using AGW as a means of raising taxes and improving their control over the people.
Too direct, too honest, too simple — the left will never go for it. The NY Times, which long ago abandoned it’s motto “All the news that’s fit to print” for “All the news that fits (the agenda),” commits the classic error of authentic journalism, omitting parts of the story that it doesn’t like and thereby telling a lie.
@- Joe Bast
“I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:”
1} Stop using the term blanket term ‘alarmist’ and maybe the ‘other side’ will stop charaterising even the skeptics who reject the role of rising CO2 in the climate with the ‘D’ word.
2} The recent vast disproportion of hot records broken over cold records is certainly clear evidence of unusual climate change. Unless you have a more credible cause for this massive shift then anthropogenic is the best theory available.
3} The rapid rise in emissions by some third world nations is not unstoppable, tech transfer could ameliorate the rate of rise. But the premise is mathematically wrong. The large emissions per capita of Americans means that just a small investment in reducing those emissions such as few percent from increasing vehicle mpg efficiency would cause a big reduction in total emissions easily offsetting many third world increases.
4} Tax breaks, direct subsidises and mandates have been very effective in changing the energy use in Germany. The failure to make them work in the US is not a fault with the regulation as Germany {and a number of other nations} have applied them successfully and with very little evidence of economic damage. Perhaps political will and industrial opposition have undermined the application of such policy in the US.
5} the world is already in an era of peak oil with minimal changes in oil production for almost a decade. Coal is abundant, but transport cost make it uneconomic beyond use in a local power station. Natural gas and shale oil can be exploited but the cost, financial and in energy, to extract it makes it comparable with renewables. The cheap fossil fuels have already been used up. What is left is increasingly expensive to extract even without the clear evidence it is radically altering the climate. The idea that it is a easy source of wealth for the developing world is a delusion.
Even if you ignore the external costs.
Seeking ‘agreement’ on claims and assertions that are so demonstrably wrong is not going to persuade the vast majority of scientific organisations or the many people who have grasped the underlying physics to view your positions as anything other than a politicaly motivated defense of an unsustainable status quo.
BillD says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:00 am
The Heartland Institute … Most of the debate is in the scientific literature, which Heartland consistently reinterprets.
That my friend is how science works. But I understand how a non-scientist wouldn’t understand that.
Well, the fact that NYT would reject such a call for civility because the author doesn’t support the ‘correct’ position on AGW is very telling.
Our ‘main stream media’ is owned, lock stock and barrel by the establishment; meaning the likes of GE, George Soros, the (D) and, to a lesser extent, (R) parties.
They are not journalists. They have no interest in communicating facts, only opinions that fit with their world narrative.
But for that fact, people like Anthony Watts would not enjoy the success that they do. You don’t need a second or third tier to get your news, if it is being faithfully and accurately delivered by the MSM.
That is why Fox News has been so successful, and I note that the liberal media uses the exact same slander techniques against them as they do against skeptics.
Brian Johnson uk says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days. With mindsets like that and the likes of Hansen,Gore,Mann, Jones,Trenberth and others with direct connections to the sympathetic AGW Media nothing will change in any meaningful time scale. How long did it take for Dragons, Witches and Papal Indulgences to be accepted as utter rubbish?
CO2 is good for us carbon life forms and for our essential friends the food producing plants, trees etc.
===============================================
How strange to be attacked by skeptics. Considering it was people of faith who largely carried the skepticism yoke when no one else would.
It is kinda depressing to see even the most basic physics of the anthropogenic source of the rising CO2 and its known role in warming the climate are STILL being … rejected by a number of posters here.
A debate with an opposition that cannot even agree within their own ranks about the underlying science that is accepted by all the scientifically informed is a non-starter.
Thanks Joe, keep fighting to give the little guys a voice. There is no reasoning with the political left. Their leaders are dishonest Big Government politicos bent on controlling the energy markets and the their followers are generally rabid eco-zealots and useful idiots, bound and determined to
convince everyone that 2 + 2 = 5. The banking industry is experiencing the same thing, theft by legislation/regulation, big government “banks” using Dodd/Frank to drive the small community banks out of business and consolidate and control the financial markets. Other industries are under similar attack. The time for talking/debating/arguing has passed, the time for action is here. Thank you for your ‘efforts’ and for your support.
Tom Currie AKA John Greenfraud
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/07/12/community-bank-others-challenge-constitutionality-dodd-frank-law
“In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.””
1) As long as the temperature data is adjusted to create a warming trend when there is none or to augment a slight trend, there is no debate. Fraud is fraud.
2) “Both sides begin to agree”? This is not a matter of compromise. The Dems think that it is the role of the Repubs to compromise, which means that, when the Dems push for more socialist entitlement programs, they believe it is the Repubs duty to ALWAYS accept some of it, creating steady progress toward socialism. That’s wrong thinking but it totally serves the Dems’ goals. On something like a budget, it is balanced or not, just as a woman is pregnant or not. There is no compromise or debate.
In science, there is debate over concepts and evidence for or against a concept. But, the science of climate may be complicated, but principles involved are simple, particularly the warmest science claims. As it is impossible for any gas to warm the Earth’s surface and thus the atmosphere, CO2 cannot do what they claim. There are 4 or 5 key and well established aspects of thermodynamics and physics that have to fail (or be ignored or abused) for their claims to work. There is no debate.
3) “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions”. This presupposes that there is a need for solutions, which is the point of most warmists. Non-problems do not need solutions. As human activities to not alter the planet’s climate by emitting CO2, methane, or even water vapor, there is no reason to seek Draconian, wasteful solutions. The warmists want to skip debating the science altogether.
The assumption that solutions are required is the hallmark of the warmist stance. They REFUSE to debate the science as they KNOW that they will lose. This is why Al Gore refuses to debate. SO, they jump past their junk science and demand that the real need is for solutions.
The real solution is for the warmists to learn the real science, the false “climate scientists” to be gotten rid of for promoting a global scam and fraudulently altering raw data to fit political needs, and for the UN and those seeking to alter the world to fit their goals be put down and dethroned for their actions.
A true debate of the science would settle everything, as it would explain quickly why the warmists goals and claims are all false. But, then it would NOT be a debate, as a debate assumes two stances or positions that both have merit. In this case, the warmists would be “schooled” and the debate would be a lecture. However, typical of warmists, they would quickly resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority and then claim the “debate” is over.
The Skeptics have been treating their opponents as if the are rational and scientific. They are not. The global warming scare mongers are nothing more then liars and propagandists, interested in supporting their ideological agenda through the use of phoney science. They will stop at nothing to impose their views upon everyone else. They are thugs and bullies, and if given the power will become tyrants and despots. I say these things not to be insulting but to make it clear as to exactly what kind of people we are dealing with. The Climate Liars are dangerous people. Let’s stop fooling ourselves by pretending they are simply misguided souls.
gbaikie says:
Wind mill and solar panels aren’t an alternative economy.
The US can’t build an economy on these source of energy,
Windmills and solar panels are luxury goods which we can only afford to buy because we have (had) a viable fossil-fuel economy which could afford to indulge those who wanted to be “more green”.
Put bluntly, it costs money to be green, so, we have to produce more in order to afford this luxury. The real truth, is that far from spending anything on being “green”, “green” really means consuming less, which in economic terms means spending less, or having less to spend, i.e. cutting GDP … going into permanent recession.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:21 am
The New York Who?
__________________________
You get a “Gold Star” next to your name.
I’m not a lefty, and I totally agree with you. This, as well as other issues, is being used to create a wedge (well, an even bigger wedge) between people. It helps to create entrenched positions and prevents the useful dialog that could lead to compromise and real solutions to real problems.
Mr. Bast was doing well until point number five. He is dead wrong about future fossil fuel abundance. Neither conventional sources, nor newer unconventional sources save the planet from absolute aggregate production declines in petroleum (about 2020), natural gas (by about 2040), and coal (between 2040 and 2060). This means two things. First, independent of climate models and sensitivity, none of the SRES high emission scenarios are possible. Second, to avoid future economic disruption starting with liqid transportation fuels, conservation measures need to begin since the have such long lead times. This is shown in detail in my e-book Gaia’s Limits. Since that was published (with numerous peer reviewed references), there is another new study (unfortunately pay walled) by Maggio and Evans, When will oil, natural gas, and coal peak?, Fuels 98: 111-123 (2012). The charts accompanying the public abstract suffice to underscore the point.
There’s a nice response to the EDF screed at the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443991704577579951766037924.html
— by Cohen, Happer & Lindzen. Stronger than Heartland’s (imo), and definitely worth reading.
I would have rejected this piece by the time I got through the second paragraph. One, it is poorly written in terms of standard English writing conventions required in for-profit media venues. Odd and contorted sentence structures and mechanics are everywhere in this work. Two, it is poorly reasoned in terms of the standards set for argumentative/opinion modes of writing. The organization of his points of contention wander all over the piece, showing no signs of focus or cohesiveness. The New York Times made a wise choice in preventing this piece from harming the writing standards the editor must shepard.
@JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations.
++++++++
Thanks for piping up, James. There is not enough balance voiced by different political stripes on the scientific subject of how the climate behaves. The Earth does not give a hoot which party you vote for or support or switch to. It does what it does.
I understand, of course, the inclination to blame whatever person is in ‘power’ for any and everything that bugs people, but that ‘Buck stops here’ stuff is belied by a cursory examination of power broking and smokey back rooms. It is true that politicians can waste vast sums of money on half-baked ideas but opposition to bad science misrepresented as fact knows no party allegiances. Junk is still junk, and historically there is plenty of blame to dish out to all parties.
The unifying component of resistance to junk science should be the facts of temperatures, physics and methods of analysis. The 5 preconditions seems to have been shaped to assure rejection. That is my assessment. If a discussion was to start it will not be following capitulation, it will start with an agreed time and place.
The NYT will never allow an open debate with a guaranteed right of reply – they have too much invested in the alarmism that has become their bread and butter. Further, they would be attacked in a coordinated manner by the Team with the stick of political correctness. This reality means that the proper place for sharing opinions and comparing results is on blogs like this.
There is nothing to prevent Anthony forming a peer review committee (perhaps in the name of REP)then tag acceptable articles with a Seal of Review. The resulting on-line Journal can easily become a significant resource for people who want to know ‘everything’ not ‘some’.
“He hee, I found point #1 especially comical considering the consistent use of the term “alarmist”. No wonder it was rejected.”
Those who spread alarm might well be called alarmists (definition: “Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat”). Surely, even most who believes in CAGW will agree that the alarms have been either excessive or exaggerated (no, Manhattan is not under water, nor are Himalya melting…). You can be alarmist about something that is real. But you cannot “deny” something that is simply not true.
Harry Huffman: totally agree with your statement above. The lay public is smart enough (as an entity) to see that the science trotted out to either ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the theory of CAGW is not going anywhere, fast. This is why ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ is falling off the opinion plates. People (voters) have simply stopped listening to either side and have moved on. My opinion, can’t back it up.
Joe Bast:
“First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.”
That your opponents has stooped to name calling, should be a debating point, not an excuse to bar them from debate. It’s like the alarmist ducking debate because of their claims of consensus and settled science. If these are true, they should be debating points too.
First and foremost, this is no longer about the science of Climate it has become a question of control of billions of dollars in research funding and hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of GDP. It is 100% political. To ask those advocating AGW to agree to your “terms” would be like asking US Democrats to abandon support of Abortion and adopt the Republican Platform. Its just not going to happen and certainly not as a precondition to any “discussion”. Politics is warfare without guns. You can not defend yourself half-heartedly when the objective of your adversary is to silence you and take control of huge portions of economies.
Although its a nice letter I’m not surprised it was not published. Why would those who consider you a “denier” give you a free shot at undercutting their power or position?
Arguing CAGW within the current state of climate knowledge is not unlike arguing planetary motion in classical Greece. We haven’t developed the basic tools that can be agreed as a basis for argument. Tree rings? Which trees? Any trees? Paleoclimate data? 1972 to 2000 data? Adjusted, homogenized, averaged data? Raw data? Which adjustments? Western European historical records? What defines “Global Climate”?
Considering that we are said to be facing the an existential crisis for all of humankind, the lack of basic, robust scientific inquiry is the reason that the argument has become a political discussion.
With a lack of falsification because the science, regardless of internal conflicts between theory and data, is “settled”, we end up with a “don’t just stand there, do SOMETHING” approach.
Unfortunately, SOMETHING has real world, unintended, effects.
I don’t know if Joe Bast did this intentionally or not, but, I like it.
As some readers here have noted, there’s not an alarmist out there who would or could agree with the five points Joe wishes them to agree upon. It attacks their self-definition. Joe correctly lays his foundation on political premises. It is, after all, a political question. Any “science” towards alarmism was abandoned long ago.
I like for this reason alone. No alarmist would agree. If one ever finds himself in agreement with a totalitarian Malthusian Marxist, you know you’re on real shaky ground and have likely lost the plot.
Political agendas are controlling the lack of scientific debate. In the U.S., this can be changed by electing members of congress and the administration who do not have an agenda for controlling the use of fossil fuels for what ever reason or by what ever method. Funding of politically motivated subjective research has almost destroyed the scientific method of objective research.
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/_/energy/why-we-need-debate-not-consensus-on-climate-c-r55
if reposting like this is not allowed please let me know.
either comment here so I see it or reply there and I will check back.
thanks
Why was this response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed submitted to the New York Times? Makes no sense.
/Mr Lynn
“In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
How about we agree on the basic proposition that bad measurements with worse adjustments equal bad science. Then we devise a new measurement system free of UHI effects, I think it would be the most effective climate solution as once we remove the contamination from the temperature record we will have eliminated global warming.
A further comment back to Valerie, I would suggest that you consider the biological ramifications of what you said. Creatures take in nutrients and sustenance of many forms and continue to grow for so long as they do so. They grow and grow until such a time as they reach their “maximum” size (dependent upon their surroundings, and physical constraints of their life-form). After that, they die outright, or continue to take in reduced quantities of resources as they slowly shrink and fade, ultimately to their demise. There are some mosses and plants I’ve heard of (I’m not in the field of biology, I’m one of those nasty mineral extraction bunch) that continue to grow by forming a donut shape and continually expanding outwards with a newly developing front on the “outside” while the “inside” withers and dies. No organism that I’m aware of maintains a “sustainable” existence: they grow and grow until they begin the process of dying.
I’d like to think that our culture isn’t ready to die yet.
Peter Miller
1. Most sceptics accept rising CO2 levels have had a mild impact on global temperatures – these rising CO2 levels have obviously been caused by the activities of man. So we agree there is an AGW effect. However, we do not believe this effect is serious, or will ever be serious.
****************************************
isn’t the rise in CO2 the result of the warming?
iirc CO2 rise was AFTER the noted warming.
I agree with Pamela Gray. The piece was not well written and did not make its points all that well. It also seemed to be a bit on the childish side. I’ve seen you do much better, Joe. I am glad that this did not get put into the NY Times as the best case the skeptic camp can present. I would have been embarrassed by it.
Lewis P Buckingham
partly agree with you. We can only show respect for the ones arriving in stage 4 or even 5.
Before that it is denial anger and bargaining. A lot, well probably 99% are still in phase 1 and 2 and nothing says that, this article in the WSJ which seems the first one to arrive in stage 3, when bargaining is refused by the other party, they will not return to stage 2 or stage 1.
But once in stage 4 or 5, normally they should not return back then yes we should respect them.
Joe, you can’t reason with unreasonable people. Neither can you reason with people who are mentally deranged. And since the CAGW crowd are both unreasonable and mentally deranged (liberalism is a mental disease), don’t waste your time talking to the CAGW crowd. Instead, we all should continuously point out the failures of their predictions, the errors they continue to make in all their research, and heap as much scorn on them as we can.
Jay Davis
@- harryHuffman
” hand it over to non-climate scientists–preferrably physicists over the age of 60, educated before the dogma of the “greenhouse effect” was accepted as “settled science”–and anyone who respects the stable Standard Atmosphere over the hysterical “meme” of runaway climate change. ”
Actually you would need physicists over the age of 200 to predate the greenhouse theory which was established in science before Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
AGW dates from around 1900. The many objections to the hypothesis, {ocean sinks, negative feedbacks, human CO2 production rates} were all refuted by the 1950s when it became widely accepted as a good theory.
Like many who reject the GHG process you egregiously underestimate the historical depth, breadth and consilience of climate science.
Politicians are voting and will continue to vote. They will either continue to bugger our economy and civil society on the alter of CAGW or they will stop. This is a binary decision, and a death match. “Compromise” does not stop the foolishness; it merely means giving in this time for some amount of money and freedom lost, and waiting because “they’ll be back”. This will only end when the CAGW folks have the membership and credibillity of the Flat Earth Society, at which point we will be able to afford to ignore them. One hopes we skeptics will be suitably aggressive, and won’t have to wait for the next ice age for the alarmists to recede along with the temperate zone.
[Oddly, both “alter” and “altar” of CAGW are correct in your context of sacrificing the world’s economy….. 8<) Robt]
We already had the definitive ‘intelligence squared’ debate. There was Stott, Crichton and Lindzen on one side and Schmidt, Sommerville and a woman whose name escapes me at the moment, on the other. Stott et al massacred them. The warmist side saw what happened and have avoided debate ever since. They were humiliated beyond belief.
Joe:
You know I agree with your points but, with respect, I think your article goes about attempting dialogue in the wrong way.
As you say, dialogue begins by finding points of agreement. After that the dialogue moves to debate of disagreements and the reasons for them. Clearly, dialogue begins by determination of ‘common ground’.
You suggest the dialogue could start by both ‘sides’ agreeing to your propositions. But we both know that will not happen because it requires the ‘warmers’ to back-down on some of their views before the dialogue can start. Simply, you are trying to start the dialogue by asking ‘warmers’ to move onto ‘climate realist’ ground, but the ‘warmers’ are as unwilling to do that as ‘climate realists’ are unwilling to move on to ‘warmist’ ground.
So, I suggest the dialogue should start on common ground. And I offer this suggestion. The agreed common joint statement by all ‘sides’ could be
The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared.
This avoids (a) dispute of the science, (b) conflicts over past misdemeanors and (c) overt opposition to dialogue from members of the ‘AGW industry’. And it gives a practical way forward.
Climate has always changed and it always will change so investigation of adaptation to climate change would be beneficial whatever the merits of the AGW-hypothesis.
Anyway, that is my suggestion, and I would welcome other suggestions of possible starting points for dialogue which do not require either ‘side’ to capitulate before the dialogue can start.
Richard
This is an excellently written piece. However, a major flaw in all these exchanges between sceptics and “believers” is the insistence on polarisation according to left/right political views. It really is terribly narrow and is a very important reason why both sides refuse to engage in a civilised or intelligent manner. This debate can only develop fruitfully if both sides of it stop attaching their views to a more general right or left political stance, and therefore it is as counter productive to refer to warming believers as being in the “liberal” camp as it is to describe the “deniers” as being republicans or rednecks.
Like many other sceptics, I am not actually right wing but it is assumed by warmists that I am. I’m interested in the facts of climate, not whether views upon it suit my political opinions in other avenues. Therefore I believe that for example the Guardian newspaper is not serving the truth by mindlessly following the Gore camp because of its leftist stance generally, nor are those on the right being helpful by a tendency to automatically subscribe to the assumption of republicanism. If CO2 warming does not exist then it still doesn’t whatever political philosophy is expressed.
The sceptics should refuse to be drawn into the debate on party political lines and should avoid phrases like “liberal”, “left”, “republican”, “right”. There are political vested interests on both sides. An intelligent debate at the very least should recognise these inevitable differences but not allow them to polarise the discussion or dominate the search for truth.
Propositions 1 through 4, okay. Number 5 – cheap, abundant energy, not so much.
First, American natural gas prices do not reflect costs of supply but over-supply pushing down prices. Heavy oil out of Canada is cheaper than it should be because of pipeline export limitations: pipeline space. Once you have to pay proportional to costs of delivery, prices will go up in this “new” era of frac-technology.
The “new” resources are also not new, but newly accessed. Because of commodity prices. $100/bbl oil, not frac-techology, is the key driver of oil shales and gas shales and oilsands. Techology helps on the back of high prices. The “new” resources are also local, not across the US, and certainly not across the world (outside of the price threshold, again). Africa can have energy, if they have the dough.
The Heartland has, by its own admission, set upon a course to fight fire with fire. Exaggerations abound on the alarmist side; so, too, they occur on the skeptic side. This is a war of partisanship, not of hearts and minds. Good for drama, though. Drama and ego love drama. Truth gets a pass in good drama, unfortunately.
The key against the alarmists is open debate. The hold they have on the public is fear, fear of death and disaster – both of which exist only in the details of CAGW theory. Any debate that brings doubt into the actual temperature rise, a la Watts et al 2012, or the rate of sea-level rise, or the attribution of heat increases to CO2, bring the detail, i.e. the death and disaster, into question. That is why Gore and others refuse to debate. Their fundamentals aren’t strong enough and they know it.
Fight for an open debate by embarrassing Hansen, Suzuki, Gore, Mann by pointing out in full-page ads that they have refused to debate. Get Inhofe to say publicly that an open debate is needed, demand, not challenge, Gore to do so if truth, not profits, is his goal. Hammer them to come to the forum to let the people know just where the certain and settled science stands.
Of course this would mean putting the Heartland’s skeptical cards on the table. Some would say that would be risky, especially if the Heartland was worried that they had also exaggerated the solidness of their position.
Pamela Gray says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:37 am
“I would have rejected this piece by the time I got through the second paragraph. One, it is poorly written in terms of standard English writing conventions required in for-profit media venues. Odd and contorted sentence structures and mechanics are everywhere in this work. Two, it is poorly reasoned in terms of the standards set for argumentative/opinion modes of writing.”
If you are going to be pedantic about poor syntax and grammar then perhaps you should look at your own: Try “firstly” and “secondly” rather than “one”, then “two”, and “mechanics” is a function of engineering, not writing. Try “regarding” rather than “In terms of” (that’s a real corker). Your own paragraph contains multiple instances of clumsy writing.
I see there are a couple of new alarmist commentators here today, spouting the same tired old arguments. So for them:
1. Most sceptics believe man made CO2 increases over the past 50 years have had an impact on global temperatures, but this impact is very modest and dwarfed by the natural climate cycles experienced by our planet. So there it is, most sceptics believe in AGW, but that it is only a mild effect and will never become a serious problem.
2. Sceptics do not believe in CAGW, which is the cornerstone of alarmist philosophy for the global warming industry. There is no evidence for the C word (Catastrophe) whatsoever and yes we deny this is a problem.
3. What sceptics find repugnant are:
a) The constant manipulation by the Global Warming Industry of raw data to always make the past cooler and the present warmer.
b) The seemingly never ending unfounded stories from the global warming industry, designed to confuse and scare the gullible, such as: i) the supposed threat to polar bears, ii) the glaciers are melting (well yes they are, but the latest melt started circa 1850), iii) the Arctic ice cap is shrinking (OK, but why is the Antarctic growing) and etc. etc..
c) The global warming industry annually receives somewhere between 500 and 3,000 times the amount of funds received by sceptic organisations and yet the global warming industry is clearly losing the argument. And no, the oil industry does not fund the sceptic organisations.
d) The outright manipulation of facts and the fraudulent statements – much beloved by the Establishment media – routinely made by the likes of Gore, Hansen and Mann.
e) The spokesmen of the global warming industry are either government employees and/or grant addicts and will do, or say, anything to maintain their comfortable lifestyles. Scientists, particularly geologists, operating in the private sector are almost universally sceptical of the alarmist nonsense spouted by the global warming industry,
f) The pal review process for ‘climate scientists’, which is an outright abuse when compared to the accepted research practices of all other fields of science.
g) The obvious fear, and therefore refusal, of the high priests of the global warming industry to publicly debate CAGW with sceptics. Fear? Yes, because they are all too aware that their ‘science’ would be shredded.
The “global warming crowd” make-up relationships and publish them. They use instantaneous weather events to further their money harvesting techniques. They make attack ads calling legitimate scientific inquiry by intelligent, reasoning people: DENIERS.
We, who are “intelligent, reasoning people”, talk about long term climatic events. We don’t put out the titillating, crisis oriented, press releases. Of course we would like funding for legitimate scientific inquiry, but our goal is not “money harvesting”.
Bottom line: They use “critical weather events” to further their religion and to attack us. We have boring charts and data showing poor site location of temperature, humidity, rainfall sensors. We are always in the rebuttal mode. The initial “hyped, news making, press release” always wins.
While I agree with many of the points made by Joe Bast, I also agree with Pamela Gray and Bill that the piece “did not make its points all that well”. It has too many inflammatory words/phrases to come across as logical and dispassionate. A rewrite is needed.
Wait! A friend just sent me a link to a reply in the WSJ to Fred Krupp’s piece, dated yesterday, written by:
• Roger W. Cohen, Fellow, American Physical Society
• William Happer, Princeton University
• Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
Here:
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443991704577579951766037924.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email
“‘Climate Concensus’ Data Need a More Careful Look”
Here’s the conclusion:
The ball has been knocked out of the park!
/Mr Lynn
PS That WSJ link is good for seven days. So if you’re not a subscriber, copy the article for your files. /Mr L
Rud Istvan says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
“Neither conventional sources, nor newer unconventional sources save the planet from absolute aggregate production declines in petroleum (about 2020), natural gas (by about 2040), and coal (between 2040 and 2060).”
Color me skeptical, as I’ve been hearing these dire prognostications all my life (currently zooming through my 5th at warp speed) and nothing has ever come of them. But, even if it is so, the question is, who do we make responsible for charting a transitional course? A venal and technically illiterate non-cognoscenti in government, who take the opportunity to dispense funds and favors to their cronies (can you say “Solyndra”?), creating boondoggles that never amount to a hill of beans?
Or, do we leave it up to the energy producers who best know the tradeoffs between alternatives, and whose own money is on the line to come up with new ways of delivering energy?
I choose column B. Worry about doing your own job, and leave the rest up to those who know best, and are personally invested in the outcome, and are not in a position to extort your own funds for pie-in-the-sky schemes to make their friends obscenely wealthy and, bye-the-bye, help maintain them in power.
JamesNV says: “I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.”
With all due respect, James, the issue (can’t really call it a debate, can we?) has been polarized since its origin. The evidence for AGW is so weak and unscientific that the warmist position was clearly never about the science. It’s about promoting leftist (i.e., political) objectives, including redistribution of wealth. Ottmar Edenhofer, a high UN official has stated this in unambiguous terms. Perhaps it’s time for you to examine your thinking, whom you believe, and where you get your information. Thank you for coming to WUWT, in any case.
Yikes! I’m currently zooming through my 6th! I always have trouble e.g., remembering that the 1700’s were the 18th century and such.
[Oddly, both “alter” and “altar” of CAGW are correct in your context of sacrificing the world’s economy….. 8<) Robt]
Good catch – intended altar. Have a spell checker but not a thought checker.
Red-faced in Florida………
Pamela Gray got it right, and the conditions Joe Bast asks to be agreed upon would make further debate pointless, so there is no way that they would be accepted. Right intent, poorly executed. But that’s the cool thing about the blogosphere, weak documents can be turned into stellar documents by accepting the many suggestions for improvement that are being made and acting upon them. I’d like to see a rewrite and resubmission.
“Newspaper of Record” = “Really nice buggy whip”
Izen;
Actually you would need physicists over the age of 200 to predate the greenhouse theory which was established in science before Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
AGW dates from around 1900. The many objections to the hypothesis, {ocean sinks, negative feedbacks, human CO2 production rates} were all refuted by the 1950s when it became widely accepted as a good theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Would that be the theory that:
1. Predicted temperature increases that didn’t materialize over time?
2. Predicted ocean depth increases that didn’t materialize over time?
3. Predicted hurricane and cyclone intensity increases that didn’t materialize over time?
4. That predicated results on tree ring proxies that have since been shown to be anti-correlated with temperature for nearly half the instrumental record?
5. That spawned climate models that are incapable of hind casting, are incapable of forecasting, and cannot explain the last 15 years of flat temps without massive fudge factors that cannot be justified?
Is that the “good theory” that is “widely accepted” to which you refer?
This is not about restarting “the discussion,” on Carbon Dioxide’s influence on the climate. This is complete capitulation on that issue and moving forward to the discussion of implementation of capping CO2 emissions.
What is even worse THEY GOT IT!
This is Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus It is based on the logic of the Hegelian/Marxian dialectic.
We have had the Thesis and Antithesis. the Delphi Technique was used to ‘Achieve Consensus’ (This is what the IPCC was for.) Now we are moving forward with the Synthesis. Mit Romney represents the New Synthesis.
Once you wrap you mind around the Leftist’s Hegelian/Marxian philosophies, you can understand the paramount importance of Achieving Consensus or the Synthesis. Now that that has been done the discussion has moved forward to the next conflict, Methods of implementation and that is where Mit Romney now is. Offering the New Synthesis.
You can see we who are still debating the old conflict have been left far behind and that is why we are referred to as “Deniers” That discussion is done and over, the Consensus has been reached and the new conflict is on the table.
Now look at the statement again
The discussion is about achieving Consensus on a New Synthesis. “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
Now does that statement and the refusal to print the op-ed by the New York Times make sense?
izen posted:
“It is kinda depressing to see even the most basic physics of the anthropogenic source of the rising CO2 and its known role in warming the climate are STILL being … rejected by a number of posters here.
A debate with an opposition that cannot even agree within their own ranks about the underlying science that is accepted by all the scientifically informed is a non-starter.”
CAGW is a hoax!
1) the primary source, as well as the largest CO2 sink on this planet, is our vast oceans which cover 70%+ of Earth’s surface. The Earth has been warming since about 1750 as we began coming out od the LIA. The oceans outgas as they warm and dissolve CO2 when they cool. Man made CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (wood, coal, petroleum, NG …) is trivial compared to CO2 outgassed from the warming oceans. If you don’t know that, suggest you go back to high school.
2) I have an MS in AeroSpace Engr., 30 years in the process instrumentation and control industry and am knowledgeable about process control for both negative feedback processes s well as positive feedback (think exothermic) processes. My guess is my scientific training and knowledge exceeds yours. Processes which are dominated by positive feedbacks, as postulated by the AGW crowd for Earth’s climate, are inherently unstable and saturate at one extreme or the other until acted upon by a dominant outside forcing. But you probably don’t know that.
Bill
harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman), August 14, 2012 at 4:23 am said,
“educated before the dogma of the “greenhouse effect” was accepted as “settled science””
That’s a great point. A good generalist who likes to know the basics of all areas is also a good judge. Just because something is “settled” does not mean that a good scientist should not try to explore and understand it. Taking settled science on face value, or faith, is SOOOO unscientific.
A huge failing of a majority of studies of the effects of global warming start with the assumption that there is warming, even since 1998 when it ceased, and make observations in the total absence of concurrent temperature monitoring as part of the actual study. Instead, these studies blithely adopt the published, adjusted temperature data and jump to false conclusions.
And, indeed, greenhouse gases do no exist as gravity determines the basis temperature and the Sun and ocean currents the periodic and variable climate.
Very simply, there is not enough heat capacity in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface, neglecting the fact that a colder gas, at subzero temperature cannot warm anything warmer than it. It’s just thermodynamically impossible.
[“gases do no exist”? What is your intended phrase? Robt]
Valerie Rawlinson says: @ August 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way
=========================================
Jeremy Poynton says: @ August 14, 2012 at 3:57 am
Do you really understand what “sustainable” means?….
==========================================
Sustainable is the code word for Agenda 21. ‘Smart growth’ and ‘high density urban mixed use development’ are some of the other code words.
What is Agenda 21?
In other words sustainability = SLAVERY and us serfs are being hoodwinked into asking for our slave collars. SEE: 2009 – Year of the Slave
Unfortunately I can not add a /sarc
jorgekafkazar:
At August 14, 2012 at 8:53 am you say to JamesNV:
Nonsense! Absolute twaddle!
The AGW issue is a right-left issue in the USA but nowhere else. And it was started as a right-wing scare.
The AGW-hypothesis existed as an obscure scientific curiosity for nearly a century until Margaret Thatcher, a right-wing UK Prime Minister, raised it as a political issue in the early 1980s. She did this for reasons of personal political advantage, and her right-wing political party (i.e. the Conservative Party) went along with her doing it because they thought it might harm the coal industry.
Also in the early 1980s, I conducted an analysis which predicted the AGW-hypothesis would become an international political issue whether or not it obtained any supporting scientific evidence. That analysis was commissioned from me by the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) who rejected my findings as being “extreme” and “far fetched”.
Subsequently, no supporting evidence for AGW was discovered – none has been found to this date – and Mrs Thatcher did turn AGW into an international political issue.
In 1997 the late John Daly posted my 1980 analysis together with some updating on his web site. It can be seen at
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Richard
higley7:
Very simply, there is not enough heat capacity in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface, neglecting the fact that a colder gas, at subzero temperature cannot warm anything warmer than it. It’s just thermodynamically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only is it possible, it can be measured, and has been. Not only is it possible, Stefan-Boltzmann Law is in part derived from it. Not only is it possible, but there is no other way for SB Law and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics to co-exist.
Your error is in not considering what effect the total absence of the colder body would be on the warmer body. In the absence of the colder body, the warmer body would be exposed to the temperature of outer space which approaches absolute zero, and which is colder still. As a single example. nights with cloud cover are demonstrably warmer than nights with no cloud cover, despite the clouds being much, Much, MUCH colder than the surface below them. If they were not there, the surface would be radiating to outer space directly, which is far colder than the clouds.
Please !!! Let’s be honest here. This letter is nothing more than an effort to move the scientific deliberations concerning climate change from the traditional, legitimate scientific communities to the public domain (which includes a host of self proclaimed “scientists” with modest, if any, scientific credentials usually with direct ties to commercial interests). I am impressed that the New York Times had the good sense to reject it.
As in all scientific issues, there comes a time when action is warranted. Just as we now know that we cannot afford to spread radioactive nuclides about in the process of developing nuclear power plants, we now also know that we must stop the emissions of CO2 when producing energy. If we can do that while burning fossil fuels, fine (and good luck!). If we cannot do that, then we must not burn any more of our fossil fuels and use our brains and resources for the development of the other means of energy production, including nuclear.
The clear purpose of the authors of this letter is to delay those actions so that “Big Fossil Fuels” retains the lion’s share of our energy dollars for as long as possible. As requested in their letter, perhaps we should no longer call them “deniers of AGW”, since the term “traitors to humanity” now provides a better fit.
Yes, it is appropriate to demonize these former deniers and now traitors – as I am attempting to do here – because of the great influence they and their money have on public policy (i.e. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, for example). Even the Democratic Governor and both Democratic Senators of my home state of Montana do not dare cross our controlling fossil fuel interests. Apparently, they need to be shown that following demons generally leads to Hell.
Eric from ericgrimsrud.com
Joe Bast’s letter to the NYT got the fundamental concept identified correctly that will bring together all people interested in rational dialog about the scientific study of the total earth system of which the atmosphere is just a dependent part.
That fundamental concept is absolute openness in every aspect of the scientific dialog and processes involved. Bast has appropriately called out the notorious failure of openness in the research and in the institutional processes of the IPCC centric CAGW scientists.
The rest of Bast’s letter, although interesting to me, is just tasty but unnecessary intellectual sauce for the central intellectual concept of absolute open scientific discourse and processes.
Until a broad group of CAGW proponents accept the rational principal of absolute openness in scientific discourse they will continue have unrestricted tendencies toward irrational arguments and conclusions that are not supported by observations of the total earth system.
Thanks to Joe Bast for the letter, thanks WUWT for this venue.
John
Why is it that Izen is always spouting off about the GHE, but never, never, speaks about sensitivity, which is at the heart of the debate. The fact of a miniscule sensitivity, never seems to impact his comments nor consciousness. GK
The first agreement between sides must be that climate science is in its infancy, its data base weak and uncertain, and that all current models have no record of successful predictions.
Only the false demands of Post Normal Science and its Precautionary Principle require otherwise good and well-meaning scientists to make asses of themselves declaring an urgent need to mitigate a predicted catastrophic climate change.
Good scientists can come together and assert that no action can be prescribed until good data and proven models (tested by real world data, not computer simulations) are in hand.
Why should the New York Times print a reply to an Op-Ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal? Did the WSJ refuse to print the reply to Krupp”s Op-Ed?
Please !!! Let’s be honest here. This letter is nothing more than an effort to move the scientific deliberations concerning climate change from the traditional, legitimate scientific communities to the public domain (which includes a host of self proclaimed “scientists” with modest, if any, scientific credentials usually with direct ties to commercial interests). I am impressed that the New York Times had the good sense to reject it.
As in all scientific issues, there comes a time when action is warranted. Just as we now know that we cannot afford to spread radioactive nuclides about in the process of developing nuclear power plants, real professional scientists now know that we must also stop the emissions of CO2 when producing energy. If we can do that while burning fossil fuels, fine (and good luck!). If we cannot do that, then we must not burn any more of our fossil fuels and use our brains and resources for the development of the other means of energy production, including nuclear.
Sorry to disagree with so distinguished a writer, but while the (C)AGW scare might have gotten a good leg up in the UK when Lady Thatcher used it as a stick to beat the state-run coal industry, the hoax goes back to the ’70s with Margaret Mead, Paul Ehrlich, the ironically-named Club for Growth, and other far-left miscreants, who seized upon it as an ideological tool to push for world statism (hence the agenda-driven IPCC and the subsequent perversion of climatology). See here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
In this radical-left, enviro-wacko history, the conservative Lady Thatcher was surely an anomaly.
/Mr Lynn
I think we should all be grateful to the New York Times for rejecting this incoherent piece. As a sceptic I simply find it embarrassing in its naivety and the fewer who see it the better. Does anyone really think that this rant could influence a neutral objective reader in any positive way?
It seems some people here do – which is the most depressing of all.
From Brian Johnson uk says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
[i]There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days. With mindsets like that and the likes of Hansen,Gore,Mann, Jones,Trenberth and others with direct connections to the sympathetic AGW Media nothing will change in any meaningful time scale.[/i]
Sorry, but you are attacking Christians and placing them in the same bin as Hansen, Gore, Mann and Trenberth and the biased Media? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly, nor will it be accepted.
[i]How long did it take for Dragons, Witches and Papal Indulgences to be accepted as utter rubbish? [/i]
So, you do not believe Dragons existed? Despite the presence of fossils, and for some, the presence of markings and drawings all over the world? Witches did not exist? Once again, I see that you are not a reader or believer in the Bible. Yet, you also have not looked around your world of late to see the presence of evil and people who desire to do evil. But then too, there were those we humans called Witches during the Dark Ages were mischaracterized or just practiced herbalism. Other cultures still believe that many of their leaders are Witches and thus give them that title. And, I am surprised to see that you, a non-Believer in the Bible surely do not recognize the horrific events that the Catholic Church committed during the Dark Ages and onward? Do you doubt also the lifestyle and lavish purchases by the Catholic Church?
I’m sorry, but it is you who appears to be on the wrong side, pretending to foster an open-eyed belief system while yet, your own eyes are blind.
@-“The oceans outgas as they warm and dissolve CO2 when they cool.
Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.
@-“Man made CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (wood, coal, petroleum, NG …) is trivial compared to CO2 outgassed from the warming oceans. ”
No, the amount out-gassed in response to the warming is tgrivial compared to anthropogenic sources.
Or about 5% of the amount added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
This confirmed by the isotope ratios which show the increases is from fossil carbon with zero C14 and reduced C13.
It is further confirmed by the reduction in ph as the increase in the partial pressure of CO2 overwhelms any outgassing from oceanic warming. If all the atmospheric CO2 was from ocean outgassing the ph would have risen.
@-“If you don’t know that, suggest you go back to high school.”
Yes I knew about Henry’s Law, but unlike you had investigated whether the calculable amount of outgassing from the measured temperature change COULD be the source of the atmospheric rise in CO2.
It isn’t.
@- “My guess is my scientific training and knowledge exceeds yours. ”
Correct, at least for Aerospace engineering and mechanical process control.
@- “Processes which are dominated by positive feedbacks, as postulated by the AGW crowd for Earth’s climate, are inherently unstable and saturate at one extreme or the other until acted upon by a dominant outside forcing. But you probably don’t know that.”
I am familiar with rather more complex (biological) systems in which multiple non-linear interactions result in quite robust stability of the system, at least until the number of interactive factors falls below a threshold. I suspect that the climate may be closer to biological complexity than engineering simplicity when it comes to how its feedbacks work.
However I certianly do not KNOW that, and given the bi-modal climate of the last few million years (glacial/interglacial) in response to quite small changes in the energy balance from the Milankovitch cycles perhaps you are right and the climate is a system that ‘saturates’ to one extreme or the other.
Until there is a major change in one factor that overrides the energy balance at that extreme.
Like increasing the GHG effect by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than has been active in the climate system for several million years…..
a response to Rud Istvan @ 6:33:
Twaddle. I work in coal extraction. We redo our long-term plans annually based upon recent coal pricing trends and forecasts for the next 5 years, and “beyond”, based upon current demand and long range projects at an international level. The current forecasts have our existing operations running for over 80 years. If prices increase beyond the forecast (forecast prices for us are considerably lower that current spot price for metallurgical coal) then more of the resources will be pursued as possible reserves. “Resources” loosely means that the coal in the ground meets the simplest economics test of “if we move all of the waste rock above this coal out of the way, we’ll break even or make money at current price”. Our resources have jumped in recent years because of the change in prices. In my working jurisdiction “Reserves” means that a license to mine is in place and we can go in and break ground at any time (Proven Reserves) or that a plan to mine the coal (including all pit-bottom accesses) and a plan and sequence to dump the waste rock exists but that governmental approval of all aspects of the mine has not yet been granted or even pursued (Probable Reserves). Legal ownership/rights to the coal must be held before either reserves or resources can be listed.
Back to the main point: $5 a tonne selling price metallurgical coal is extinct. We may be nearing the $60 a tonnes selling price metallurgical coal limit. If we forecast $100 or $200 a tonne metallurgical coal then all of a sudden more is created, because it becomes economic. I apply the same reasoning to oil and natural gas, and am not worried about peak anything.
BillD says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:00 am
The Heartland Institute equates climate scientists with mass murders–so much for reasoned discussion….
_______________________________
Ask yourself how many have died because Heartland Institute and “Deniers” have said there is no problem?
Then ask yourself how many have died because climate scientists left science and entered the Political Arena to pursue advocacy for legislation.
Have you forgotten the death of Friday Mukamperezida? He was an ill little boy who was burned to death because They had to burn the village to save it from global warming
How many died as a result of the USA passing Bio-fuel and other laws due to climate scientists testimony before Congress?
Remember the over thirty countries having food riots in 2008?
2008: Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to the forefront of the world’s attention… finance ministers were in shock, almost in panic this weekend,
The UN secretary general has warned that millions of people are at risk of starvation as global food stocks have fallen to their lowest levels for decades…. shortages are forcing prices to rise which may have devastating consequences.. Egypt, where thousands of people have resorted to violence due to shortages…At least 10 people have died over the past two weeks, in riots…
And 2008 was not the end of food riots
2010: Six dead in Mozambique riots over food
Food Riots 2011: ….In Algeria, several protesters have been killed by police and several others have actually set themselves on fire to protest the economic conditions. In Tunisia, more than 100 people have been killed and the president of that country actually had to flee for his life.
What about the UK just this winter? Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.
And the riots in Europe over fuel. This is not just Third world countries being effected.
Nigerian police and protesters clash over soaring fuel prices and
two killed and dozens wounded
French fishermen protest soaring fuel prices
Police have clashed with hundreds of fishermen protesting against the high cost of fuel outside the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels… In recent days they have been joined by members of fleets from the UK, Spain, Portugal and Italy, who have blockaded ports across Europe, and truck drivers.
Riots as Indonesia restricts cut to fuel subsidy
Breaking News: 10 Hospitalized as Fuel Protests Turn Violent in Central Jakarta
THIS is the FACE of the policies advocated by Climate Scientists. It may hurt your delicate sensibilities but if the shoe fits…
Mr Lynn:
Please read my analysis at the link I provided.
It does not matter how many ‘conspirators’ plotted during the century between the activities of Arrhenius and Thatcher. It was Thatcher who started it as a political issue, and she put in the money to turn AGW from a scientific curiosity into a major research industry. She did it for the reasons I said and not those you say. And she was right-wing.
‘Divide And Rule’ is a tactic best used on enemies and not ourselves. It is an undeniable fact that AGW is not a left-right issue anywhere except in the USA. And it is sad that there are those who choose to make it a left-right issue in the USA.
Totalitarians of the left and the right support AGW because it fits their desires. All who support freedom – both left or right – oppose totalitarians. So, those who wish to engage the political (as distinct from the scientific) debate on AGW need to unite against totalitarianism and not waste efforts fighting among yourselves.
The issues are too important for silly ‘bun fights’ between left and right. Sometimes there are greater battles to be had in the here-and-now so political divides need to be put off for another day; e.g. Churchill united with Stalin in 1942. Totalitarianism is our greatest political threat at present.
And those who want to engage in the political issue of AGW need to ‘keep on board’ those of us who want proper practice in science whether we are of the left or the right.
Richard
Brian Johnson uk says: @ August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days.
===============================================
James Sexton says: @ August 14, 2012 at 5:58 am
How strange to be attacked by skeptics. Considering it was people of faith who largely carried the skepticism yoke when no one else would.
===============================================
Many people can not understand Judeo/Christians can be a very good scientists because they know the difference between belief via faith and believe via data, facts and logic. Perhaps this is one reason why the communists sought to drive out religion.
It would be a pleasant development if this Initiative could makes some serious inroads into the “climate science” community, but I don’t think i’ll be holding my breath for that.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/08/markets-in-everything-research.html
“Science Exchange, in partnership with the open-access publisher PLOS and open data repository figshare, announced today the launch of the Reproducibility Initiative – a new program to help scientists, institutions and funding agencies validate their critical research findings.
“In the last year, problems in reproducing academic research have drawn a lot of public attention, particularly in the context of translating research into medical advances. Recent studies indicate that up to 70% of research from academic labs cannot be reproduced, representing an enormous waste of money and effort,” said Dr. Elizabeth Iorns, Science Exchange’s co-founder and CEO. “In my experience as a researcher, I found that the problem lay primarily in the lack of incentives and opportunities for validation—the Reproducibility Initiative directly tackles these missing pieces.”
The Reproducibility Initiative provides both a mechanism for scientists to independently replicate their findings and a reward for doing so. Scientists who apply to have their studies replicated are matched with experimental service providers based on the expertise required. The Initiative leverages Science Exchange’s existing marketplace for scientific services, which contains a network of over 1000 expert providers at core facilities and contract research organizations (CROs). “Core facilities and commercial scientific service providers are the solution to this problem,” said Dr. Iorns. “They are experts at specific experimental techniques, and operate outside the current academic incentive structure.””
izen;
Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It isn’t that simple. The tropics are a net out gasser of CO2, the high latitudes are net absorbers. This is a function of their entirely different temperature profiles. You can’t just apply Henry’s law across the board, you have to look at the system as a whole.
Ron says: @ August 14, 2012 at 6:45 am
…..This is why ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ is falling off the opinion plates. People (voters) have simply stopped listening to either side and have moved on. My opinion, can’t back it up.
___________________________
A bit of an internet search would back you up.
– – – – – – – –
Gail Combs,
My understanding of the Soviet Union’s consistent intolerance for traditional religions is it did not want competition for its Marxian Statist Religion that was the ideological basis for communism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wanted the state as a focus of its religion to replace the traditional supernatural being focused traditional religions. I think any rational capability of members of the various traditional religious sects had little applicability to Soviet intolerance for traditional religions. It was all about elimination of competing religions that could distract from the state focused religion of the Marxist State.
John
davidmhoffer:
At August 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm you say to izen;
With respect, you seem to have forgotten that izen has repeatedly show he is that simple.
Richard
Please send Smoky as your representative!
I quote from Fred Krupp: “That gases such as carbon dioxide and methane can trap heat is an undisputed matter of basic physics. But what is most telling is that as concentrations of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased, the global average temperature has increased in near-unison.”
Krupp is dead wrong. First, global average temperature has not increased in near-unison. Second, such increase as does exist was not caused by greenhouse gases. Lets walk it through. Starting with the twentieth century, its first ten years saw cooling, not warming. Warming started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 and this rules out the greenhouse effect by the laws of radiation physics. Bjørn Lomborg attributes this warming to solar influence and I agree. By now, forty percent of the century is over without any sign of greenhouse warming. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies either while carbon dioxide kept increasing. People were worried about a coming ice age and newspapers and magazines had articles about it. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of why rising carbon dioxide failed to produce warming for thirty years, only contorted hypotheses to try to explain it away. One of them was smoke and aerosols from war production blocking out the sun. And by now it is seventy percent of the twentieth century gone without any anthropogenic warming. The next two decades, the eighties and the nineties, had no warming either while carbon dioxide kept increasing. There were just ENSO oscillations, warm El Ninos alternating with cool La Ninas, while the average temperature remained constant. On this point satellites from UAH and RSS, Gistemp from NASA, and NCDC temperature records all agree. The next real warming arrived with the super El Nino of 1998. In four years global temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. This is a substantial warming, considering that IPCC allows only 0.6 degrees for the entire twentieth century. Its cause was the large amount of warm water the super El Nino carried across the ocean. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse effect, was the cause of the very warm decade of the 2000-s. There has not been any warming since then while carbon dioxide increases relentlessly. This leaves just the Arctic warming to explain. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow cooling. It paused in mid-century for thirty years, then resumed, and is still going strong. There was no concurrent increase of carbon dioxide in the air and this again rules out greenhouse effect as its cause. Apparently there was a change in the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to direct warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. Direct measurement of water temperature reaching the Arctic in 2010 showed it to be higher than any individual measurements for the last two thousand years. And here you have it: there has been no greenhouse warming for the last 100 years. Yet despite that you have the nerve to claim that “Dramatic alterations to the climate are here and likely to get worse—with profound damage to the economy—unless sustained action is taken.” This is just abject nonsense with no science behind it. Do you do this to justify your 400,000 dollar salary? It is these kinds of lies that have cost billions of dollars to American taxpayers for direct and indirect subsidies to green projects and for climate research that produces no worthwhile science. And the likes of you on this gravy train just want to keep it going.
John K. Sutherland. says: @ August 14, 2012 at 7:35 am
We already had the definitive ‘intelligence squared’ debate. There was Stott, Crichton and Lindzen on one side and Schmidt, Sommerville and a woman whose name escapes me at the moment…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Her name was Ekurzwei. Climate Audit discusses the debate here The included links to the transcript of The East Side Debate at Intelligencesquaredus.org seems to be dead.
I posted the above comment with the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed from Fred Krupp. He and others like him are way out of line with their claims of warming and somebody has to tell them off. Please note that everything I said is backed up by science while his claims are not.
Rud Istvan says: @ August 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
Neither conventional sources, nor newer unconventional sources save the planet from absolute aggregate production declines in petroleum (about 2020), natural gas (by about 2040), and coal (between 2040 and 2060)….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah? So what.
The sky is falling cries in the media over a century ago.
You can also read The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894
Yet we are not buried in horse manure, the crisis never became critical because when left free to innovate mankind will.
JamesNV says: @ August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations.
____________________________
It is Al Gore and other politicians on the left who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
There are only two points of agreement needed, and one goal.
1. Agree to be polite
2. Agree to be honest
The Goal: Seek the truth about the state of the climate.
Mark Twain – The War Prayer
http://warprayer.org/
Arno Arrak says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm
——————————-
This is the NASA/Goddard land/ocean global temperature data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
While the amount of noise in the earlier part of the century makes it harder to pick out long term trends by inspection; you would need to be deliberately obtuse to miss the increase from 1970 on, especially inspecting the five-year averages which damp out the worst of the short term variation.
Richard S Courtney suggested that a point of agreement was
“The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared”.
I agree that getting a friendly conservation will let us get out of this mess but this answer won’t work.
It ignores the factors of hope, fear and process in general. Time progresses.
Add something like this, “A commitment to further investment in empirical research is essential”.
It’s more subversive than at first appears (Dad)..
Nothing to disagree with there. But those who push the “global warming/climate change” agenda are almost entirely totalitarians of the left, not of the right. They are not interested in “proper practice in science,” so the facts will not sway them. Their interest is in controlling society “for its own good.” There may be totalitarians on the right (or as Jeane Kirkpatrick used to call them, “authoritarians”) but they are not Watermelons.
/Mr Lynn
To Mike at AB:
It isn’t twaddle. You misunderstand peak energy production. I never said we run out then, because that point is likely at least a century away. I said we will not be able to produce more annually than in the past , and that rate will begin to fall (at any price, because is has to do with geophysics, not economics). Read the book and understand the arguments before dismissing them.
Arno Arrak says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm
—————–
You are trying to microanalyse the temperature data to explain every little change. Easier to take an energy budget approach, and try some calculation oneself.
On last week’s Sea Ice thread I used NASA’s solar data to estimate that the 0.05C per decade increase in solar output observed by their satellites had added 17% of the warming since 1979.
Similarly I calculated that the 1957 contribution of back radiation from CO2 was a conservative 33W/M2, and that the 14% increase in CO2 in the last 60 years added 4W/M2. This is enough to increase equilibrium surface temperature by 1.5C, once oceanic warming catches up with the land around 2100.
My own back-of-the-envelope calculations came closer to those of IPCC than I had expected, suggesting that the complexity you tried to read into the data is either unnecessary or self cancelling.
Perhaps you have some numbers?
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:10 am
Please !!! Let’s be honest here….
_________________________
Yes Eric, let us be honest.
The most critical point is
1. CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive) and the more CO2 available the better the growth and the better the drought resistance and the higher the yield per acre. (humans have DOUBLED the yield per acre in under a century)
2. Henry’s Law, CO2 solubility, biosphere flux, biosequestration… SEE: Green World Trust or The Acquittal of CO2 for a more indepth analysis.
3. The Climate Scientists have been repeatedly caught with their thumb on the (temperature) scale not only in the USA but in other countries so their credibility is now near zero.
Hansens adjustments to US temperatures: Graph All you have to do is look on WUWT to learn of the other problems with the US weather stations. link
The UK/global temperature data is “Lost”: The Dog Ate Global Warming
From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing
Current update on the lawsuit against The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA): Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists
Australian Temperature Records found Shoddy, Inaccurate, Unreliable Surprise!
and an update on the Formal Request to the Auditor-General for Australia to audit BOM and CSIRO Climate. Threat of ANAO Audit means Australia’s BOM throws out temperature set
You do not have to be a scientist to smell the stench of backroom politicking for profit
As a hard core skeptic…..Heartland screwed the pooch with their horrible ad earlier this year. Why would any organization take their call for reasonable debate serioulsy?
Sad to say, Joe never read/absorbed the memo from Vaclav Klaus. The alarmists have moved on from debating us and may well have moved on from even discussing their fait accompli. They concentrate now on talking up solutions to the non-problem that is feathering their nests and tickling their dark fancies.
Memo to self: Never get on the wrong side of Gail 😉
richardscourtney says: @ August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm
….Totalitarians of the left and the right support AGW because it fits their desires. All who support freedom – both left or right – oppose totalitarians….
___________________________________
Anthony should put that under his title.
As Robert A. Heinlein stated
and H. L. Mencken got the rest of it correct.
Politicians and bureaucrats for the most part belong to the group with the urge to rule or control others.
John Whitman says: @ August 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Gail Combs,
My understanding of the Soviet Union’s consistent intolerance for traditional religions is it did not want competition for its Marxian Statist Religion….
___________________________
That of course was the big reason. However we are seeing the same intolerance here in the USA.
I don;t understand the call for reconciliation or the middle way in the debate on many of the issues where one side is saying that 1 + 1 = 3 and the other side trying to point out that 1 + 1 is actually equal to 2. To compromise and say let’s start at 2.5 makes no sense. Junk science, poor calculations and caught red handed fiddling of the data should never be areas for compromise.
James Hein says:
August 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I don;t understand the call for reconciliation or the middle way in the debate on many of the issues where one side is saying that 1 + 1 = 3 and the other side trying to point out that 1 + 1 is actually equal to 2. To compromise and say let’s start at 2.5 makes no sense. Junk science, poor calculations and caught red handed fiddling of the data should never be areas for compromise.
————————————————–
From my viewpoint (warmist by your standards) the sceptics are the ones claiming that 1+1+0 and doing the fiddling. Since neither side trusts the other to argue the science, rather than make political points, any debate is likely to be no more productive than the discussions regarding Intelligent design and creationism.
The Heartland Institute’s call for a discussion rather reminds me of the creationists’ ploy of trying to sneak their religious views past the prohibition of teaching religion in state schools. By presenting Intelligent Design as ” science” they try to sneak religion into science classes. By portraying a political agenda as a scientific position Heartland are trying to pretend that a proper scientific debate on climate change should legitimately include them.
Entropic Man;
From my viewpoint (warmist by your standards) the sceptics are the ones claiming that 1+1+0 and doing the fiddling. Since neither side trusts the other to argue the science, rather than make political points, any debate is likely to be no more productive than the discussions regarding Intelligent design and creationism.
The Heartland Institute’s call for a discussion rather reminds me of the creationists’ ploy of trying to sneak their religious views past the prohibition of teaching religion in state schools. By presenting Intelligent Design as ” science” they try to sneak religion into science classes. By portraying a political agenda as a scientific position Heartland are trying to pretend that a proper scientific debate on climate change should legitimately include them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hereby dub thee R.Gates II.
Sorry bud, but posing as neutral while exuding warmist propoganda in every comment has already been done here. Find a new strategy, that one already fell flat on its face. Well, repeatedly pounded face into pavement would be a better description. As for your egregious attempt to equate calls for a fair debate with Intelligent Design, well….I already dubbed thee R.Gates II, so ‘nuf said.
Gail, While I am exceedingly interested in being honest, I am not at all interested in becoming stupid. So “CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive” !!! Sorry, but I can’t even go there. Eric
Gail,
Read through the Inhofe thread. You’ll find out everything you need to know about Eric Grimsrud, sock puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He’s WAY over his head on the physics and responds to every point one brings up with bloviationg about how he is a “real” scientist with a “real” degree. A PhD in Chemistry of course makes him an expert. I’m a big advocate of engaging with trolls, but there are a limited few who simply repeat their arguments from authority and/or by assertion. There’s no value in feeding this particular troll.
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:11 am
higley7: “Very simply, there is not enough heat capacity in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface, neglecting the fact that a colder gas, at subzero temperature cannot warm anything warmer than it. It’s just thermodynamically impossible.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only is it possible, it can be measured, and has been.
=================================================
It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on.
Maybe you should:
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
More CO2 is better. Greenhouses often use c. 1,000 ppm.
/Mr Lynn
A question begs to be asked:
Is man’s small contribution of C02 to the troposphere and its implicit feedback mechanism/forcing going to stop the natural oscillations that bring the planet into a glaciated state and out to an inter-glacial state?
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
When ice covered the north pacific (300+ miles) from the Alaskan coast moving south, what was the level of C02 in the troposphere?
The warmists are rewriting history quickly and now is the time to stop it in it’s tracks!
Greg House;
It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great. He’s back. And stepping right up exactly where he left off before Anthony gave him a time out.
Tell you what Greg House, Eric Grimsrud is the guy for you. He’s got a PhD in chemistry, a membership card from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a wonderful web site displaying his talents as a physicist. I suggest you take him on. You two deserve each other.
Well, this song just came to mind when I read this entry.
Ohhh, it makes me wonder!
Enjoy,,,,,,, I did >>>>>>>>
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Gail,
…… There’s no value in feeding this particular troll.
_______________________________
Agreed, anyone who will not even consider CO2 at or below 200 ppm as dangerously low should spend a couple of weeks in an entirely CO2/carbon free chamber.
The fact he claims to be a PhD chemist boogles my mind since I also have a degree in chemistry.
Mr. Lynn, The last time the Earth’s atmosphere contained 1,000 ppm, aligators lived in Alaska and sea levels were about 70 meters higher than today. Eric
Mr Lynn says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm
ericgrimsrud says:…
Maybe you should:
The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.
_____________________________________
I picked 200 ppm because although that will keep most plants alive (at sealevel) it says nothing of what happens to plants ABOVE sea level or about their ability to reproduce. In general humans eat the seeds/fruits/nuts of plants so a decrease in reproduction is important.
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Greg House: “It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great. He’s back. And stepping right up exactly where he left off before Anthony gave him a time out.
==================================================
Let us be serious, davidmhoffer. Things are sometimes not as they appears to be. My guess is you and others needed a break.
But let us not talk about me, let us talk about science. I hope it is not “settled”. Especially as far as those measurements concerned. Last time, as I recall, there was no “measurements” at all, it was more like “go to the library” argumentation, with some portion ad hominem.
by Joe Bast: “Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, …
===================================================
Joe, I am very glad you said that. I have repeatedly touched this issue on this blog and others, and I am very surprised that people do not react.
I do not understand why they do not question again and again the issue of calculating the “global temperature”. The method used (like this one: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf) appears scientifically outrageous to me. They admit that the data is not representative but at the same time they assign temperatures and trends to large areas with no thermometers.
I do not understand why people have been questioning “catastrophic” but not the phony “warming”.
AlaskaHound says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm
A question begs to be asked:
Is man’s small contribution of C02 to the troposphere and its implicit feedback mechanism/forcing going to stop the natural oscillations that bring the planet into a glaciated state and out to an inter-glacial state?
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
When ice covered the north pacific (300+ miles) from the Alaskan coast moving south, what was the level of C02 in the troposphere?
_________________________________
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
Some of the warmists do.
They say “we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.” That is Science speak for we are in the type of conditions that could dump us into another Ice Age if something like Joe B’s Triple Crown of Global Cooling happens. (Cold PDO & AMO, deep solar minimum and a really major volcanic eruption at the right time and place)
The Authors say there will be no returning Ice Age but that is based on the assumption of “continuously increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and no change in the sun.”
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic is worth a read. and do not miss WUWT The End of the Holocene or how to make out Like a Madoff Climate-change Insurer
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
That is where things get tricky. If you have followed WUWT at all you are aware of the data ‘messaging’ in the temperature records. Well the same thing is true of the CO2 ice core records. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time and another paper link It was ‘politically useful’ for the CO2 measurements of the past to be low. Older measurements showed they were actually a lot higher. Jaworowski et al. (1992 a, 1992 b) reviewed published CO2 measurements from ice cores, and emphasized that the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration, according to early accurate analyses, was many times larger (measurements up to 2450 ppmv) than the present atmospheric value.
I wish I had the link (it is in the WUWT link above somewhere) but it was mentioned that although cycling OUT of glaciation does not always happen cycling INTO glaciation does.
That is why I think the CAGW hype is insane. We can adjust to a bit warmer a heck of a lot easier that a mile of ice over much of the northern hemisphere.
Greg House says:
August 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm
….I do not understand why people have been questioning “catastrophic” but not the phony “warming”.
____________________________
It depends on the context. I think Lucy’s flick graph does a great job of pounding that nail home. link And that is without even getting into the thumb on the temperature scale problems.
Greg House;
But let us not talk about me, let us talk about science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric Grimsrud
It is Greg House’s oft repeated assertion that the GHE does not exist and that it is impossible because cold things cannot heat warm things and CO2 in the atmosphere is colder than the surface. (Greg House, if I have misrepresented your position, please clarify for Dr Grimsrud).
I would appreciate it Dr Grimsrud if you would explain the facts to Greg House. I’ll just sit back and listen and learn from both of you.
Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? and commented:
As Paul Harvey use to say “The rest of the story” But, only in the blogosphere.
Gail Combs:
At August 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm you make the blatantly false assertion:
No! It is Margaret Thatcher and other politicians on the right who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
See http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
The US ‘came to the party late’ and Gore was (and is) an opportunist who made use of AGW when the US was starting to take notice of it. Indeed, this is a major reason why AGW is a right-left issue in the US: Gore is a Democrat and Republicans reacted to him.
The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft. AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.
Richard
[Snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
re. Geneke11y says at August 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Matt:
I am grateful for your dispute of my suggestion (at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am) and your suggested amendment to it. This thread is about obtaining “debate” between ‘sides’ of the AGW issue.
I wish others had also noticed my point and disputed/discussed it, too.
But, sadly, this thread implies few people are interested in its subject: most don’t want to determine how to achieve “debate” between ‘sides’ of the AGW issue. The thread mostly consists of people trying to push their partisan political views, people arguing their own views of AGW including cranks such as Grimsrud and House.
Also, it can be argued that dispute with one’s father is to be expected so some people may think your contribution is not as valuable as I think it is.
Dad
The Heartland Institute seems to be busily digging its own grave.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm
I hereby dub thee R.Gates II.
Sorry bud, but posing as neutral while exuding warmist propoganda in every comment has already been done here.
—————————————————————
Whatever gave you the idea that I was neutral? I prefer politeness to abuse, and evidence to armwaving denial, but that does not make me neutral.
I regard the evidence for cAGW as good, from the radiation physics, ground and satellite measurements of the greenhouse effect, through the human impact on CO2 levels, to the implications for climate and sea level change. Some of this comes from education, some from reading the literature and some from verifying conclusions by my own calculations.
richardscourtney says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
So, I suggest the dialogue should start on common ground. And I offer this suggestion. The agreed common joint statement by all ‘sides’ could be
The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared.
——————————————–
Somebody already has. It’s called the Stern Review.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/so-what-does-the-stern-report-mean-for-the-world-422283.html
Skeptics should be relieved that this was not published in the NYTs, since it implies that the skeptical position is that humans may have no effect on climate. Of course, that’s not what most of us here at WUWT argue.
Entropic man:
In response to my suggestion at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
at August 15, 2012 at 3:21 am you have replied
You forgot to add the /sarc tag after your reply.
Richard
Friends:
There may be some who do not understand my reply to Entropic Man so I write to explain it.
In 2006 the UK Parliament’s Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs published the Report of their investigation on “The Economics of Climate Change”. It is in the Parliamentary Record where it can be read at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
That Report was damning of the IPCC and recommended adaptation instead of mitigation (i.e. Kyoto-type actions) in response to climate change.
The then government of Tony Blair had a Constitutional duty to respond to that Select Committee Report. But the government had a policy of supporting the IPCC and supporting mitigation options including the Kyoto Protocol and any possible successor Protocol. Hence, the government would need to reverse its policy if it were to accept the findings of the Select Committee.
The government overcame this problem by reacting to the Select Committee Report by appointing Nicholas Stern to conduct a review of possible costs of AGW. His remit was to determine all the worse-case scenarios for global warming and to assess the maximum possible costs if those scenarios (many of which were ridiculously improbable) were to come true.
Stern fulfilled his remit and provided the required political document which the government hid behind whenever the Select Committee Report was mentioned. Since then ‘greens’ have proclaimed the Stern Report to be a serious study when – in reality – it was commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda.
Richard
responding to Rud Istvan @ 2:48 pm: My apologies, I missed one of our design factors. The 80+ years of production includes annual production ramping up over the next 5-10 years to produce at a higher rate than at present or what has been achieved historically. Some capital upgrades are needed to get the target wash plant throughput. We’re increasing our production in the time period in question as a result of higher forecast prices. That is why I focus so much on prices and what’s available (reserves/resources, what can feasibly be mined), the coal fired blast furnace is still the preferred way of making the iron and steel needed to support a modern infrastructure and so is likely to still be in use. I extend what I know and work with to what/how other producers would react and estimates of what demand will be (and, following that, what trend the prices will follow).
Ian Weiss says:
August 15, 2012 at 4:43 am:
“Skeptics should be relieved that this was not published in the NYTs, since it implies that the skeptical position is that humans may have no effect on climate. Of course, that’s not what most of us here at WUWT argue.”
====================================================
As for “most of us”, I do have the impression, that warmists, both alarming and non-alarming, are very active here and dominate the commentaries.
But if asked to prove their core assertions some of them get angry and it is getting nasty and, of course, they can not prove it.
Well, the NYT does not like articles challenging warmism, OK, this is not new, we know that.
richardscourtney says: August 15, 2012 at 5:32 am
Friends:
There may be some who do not understand my reply to Entropic Man so I write to explain it.
[…]
Richard
Thank you for your elucidation.
I was entirely serious. Any sarcasm was inferred by yourself, Mr Courtney.
Reading both the Select Committee Report and the Review by Sir Nicholas Stern, the difference shows mainly in the emphasis.
The Select Committee took a pessimistic view that significant climate change is inevitable and unstoppable, so any resources spent on the problem should go towards mitigating the effect. (After all, they are practicing politicians and understand the difficulty of persuading anyone to defer a present benefit, to reduce future pain.).
Sir Nicholas took a more optimistic tone, that it is worth taking a financial hit now as the price of reducing the scale of the problem later.
With both main parties accepting the existance of climate change, such analyses are easier to do in the UK. I have seen nothing in the US to match either report; the recent Senate hearings seem more of a battleground than a way towards consensus.
Incidentally, Mr. Courtney, is it your habit to automatically assume that anything produced by governments is “commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda.” Such cynicism!
Entropic Man;
Whatever gave you the idea that I was neutral? I prefer politeness to abuse, and evidence to armwaving denial, but that does not make me neutral.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You began your comment with the assertion that you were a warmist by other people’s standards. You attempted to imply something that anyone who is familiar with your comments knows is not the case. As for being polite, positing an equivalence between fair debate on climate and the tactics of Intellgient Design is a slimeball remark that is no less slimey for having been politely delivered.
I’m confused. You deny global warming exists, yet you object to being called a “denier.” You object to the tactics of environmentalists, yet you lie all the time about the data and the science. You say support is crumbling, when EVERY national science academy in the world and EVERY scientific organization in the world still agrees AGW is real.
How do you expect to be taken seriously? You ask for a debate, but you deny the existence of the topic you want to debate. It’s like asking for a debate over monetary policy when you deny the existence of money.
REPLY: My position is that GW is happening, just not the catastrophic problem it is made out to be and likely less in magnitude than measurements indicate. Heartland’s position isn’t much different. Feel free to show where they or I “deny” the GW. In the meantime, you can continue to bask in the comfort of anonymity while hurling hateful labels to lower the status of your opponent – Anthony
Moderators:
For some reason the formatting of my last post went very wrong. I am resubmitting it hopefully in corrected format. Please delete the original.
Richard
Entropic Man:
At August 15, 2012 at 7:50 am you ask me
No, it is not!
But as I explained in my post at August 15, 2012 at 5:32 am the Stern Report was commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda. Are you suggesting that governments don’t produce propaganda?
The implication of your question to me is an unfounded insult which is an obvious attempt to distract from the facts which I reported; i.e. it is blatant trolling.
And your post says
Really? You think that? Then perhaps you would care to cite the comments in the Stern Report which only differ in “emphasis” from these statements in the Select Committee Report.
And I could quote much else from the Select Committee Report which induced the then UK government to commission Stern to conduct his so-called study instead of adopting the findings of the Select Committee Report.
Richard
Entropic Man;
Such cynicism!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Such naivete!
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:07 pm:
“Greg House, if I have misrepresented your position, please clarify for Dr Grimsrud.”
=================================================
Of course you have, but no problem, I can clarify that in a few sentences.
First of all, I see catastrophic warmism as a foundation for worldwide totalitarianism. Second, warmism is a foundation for catastrophic warmism, catastrophic alone can not exist. Third, it is possible to fight just the catastrophic component of catastrophic warmism without touching its foundation warmism, but it does not look efficient enough to me. Thus, fourth, it is reasonable to look more closely at warmism itself. Fifth, looking at warmism it is reasonable to look at its core assertions first, which is what I have been doing.
There are 3 pillars of the AGW concept: warming, CO2 effect and attribution. The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does. If there is none, then the card house of warmism collapses immediately and there is no real foundation or justification for establishing worldwide totalitarianism.
And at the moment it looks very much like there is none.
Schroedinger says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:36 am:
“…when EVERY national science academy in the world and EVERY scientific organization in the world still agrees AGW is real.”
=====================================================
This looks so much like untrue. It is practically impossible to be true. Or did all the member of the Academies voted? It would be absurd, because the most members do not study AGW and have the same source of information as others, namely TV and newspapers.
Let us take the American National Academy of Science as an example. Did all the 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates vote to approve the AGW concept or was it just the leadership (http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/nas-council.html) ? I mean, the most members have nothing to do with the “climate science”. Even the most members of the “Leadership and Governance” have nothing to do with climate professionally.
I guess it was just the president or maybe the council and not on the basis of studying the matter.
davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:26 am
“You began your comment with the assertion that you were a warmist by other people’s standards. You attempted to imply something that anyone who is familiar with your comments knows is not the case. As for being polite, positing an equivalence between fair debate on climate and the tactics of Intellgient Design is a slimeball remark that is no less slimey for having been politely delivered.”
1) By the sceptical standards of WUWT, I am a warmist.Greenpeace would regard me as far too moderate. Perspective tends to depend on where the observer stands.
2) I’m in this because I enjoy scientific debate, which is more fun if you can find someone with different views from your own. I am currently having a wonderful time on the current Sea Ice thread. Most of my comments do relate to the science, though I confess to a rather whimsical sense of humour on political issues!
3) In the US everything from science to religion seems to end up as a political debate. From this observer’s viewpoint I see little difference between the political tactics of the climate sceptics and the creationists. Both are trying to pass off what is essentially a belief system as science. If you are offended by the comparison, my apologies, but it does not change my view of the political reality.Considering the way in which the Heartland Institute is managing its affairs at present I doubt any request for open debate would be taken seriously anyway. The Unabomber poster killed that possibility stone dead, and many of their old supporters are now scrambling to dissociate themselves from the Institute.
Mr Watts is showing the proper way to debate climate change. Produce proper, publishable, science which can be seriously addressed by other scientists. If the sceptics can show interpretations of the various sets of data that provide a better fit than cAGW, they will eventually prevail. If not, then not.
Despite the repeated assertions of some posters here, there is no science conspiracy. Scientists hate to be wrong. If you can show that your approach is better, it will eventually become accepted, though you may have to wait for some of the older and more intractable of the old school to die off!
Eric Grimsrud;
Please note Greg House’ remark which said in part:
“So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.”
I challenge you to convince Greg House as to the effects of CO2. Should be trivial for a PhD in chemistry who has written a free book on the greenhouse effect.
davidmhoffer:
As you know, I agree with you on many things, but I am fearful that the suggestion in your post at August 15, 2012 at 9:39 am may be fulfilled.
A debate between those two would consist solely of unfounded assertions which are mostly nonsense. It would fill the thread. And it would degrade WUWT.
So, I hope your suggestion is ignored by both of them.
Richard
Greg House says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:06 am
The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
———————————–Summaries are easy. Try this one or do your own web search.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
A fully detailed demonstration would take a lot more detail and a lot more time.
This proof would need three parts.
1) The physics of CO2
2) The energy flow towards the Earth’s surface.
3) The energy flow back into space.
If what you call the CO2 effect is to work as described , the gas would need be transparant at visible light wavelengths, absorbing and reradiating at specific frequencies in the infrared. This can be measured in the lab.
It would need to produce back radiation of appropriate frequency detectable at the Earth’s surface, increasing with increased CO2 concentration. THis would be measured looking up form the surface.
It would need to show reduced radiation back to space in the appropriate infrared frequencies, detectable in the emmission spectum measured by satellites and correalating with CO2 concentration
If you agree that this is the type of evidence you are looking for then I can start assembling data to demonstrate that these three processes happen. I ask two things.
1) Do you accept peer reviewed science papers and data derived from them? If you are a believer in the conspiracies I would be wasting my time.
2) Is there anything I’ve missed out, that you feel you would need?
I’ve other business today, but should be able to get back to you tomorrow on this.
There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” and here’s why.
There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” or “greenhouse gases” and understanding that is very straightforward.
If the atmosphere were completely transparent to infrared energy and completely incapable of absorbing or emitting infrared energy, with the planets’ surface free to radiate directly to space, the atmosphere would still warm via conduction with the planets’ surface, but the atmosphere would not possess any means of cooling to space. That energy would be trapped in the atmosphere.
Under those conditions near-surface air temperatures would be very hot, day and night, year-round.
No, the infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a warming effect at all, it is a cooling effect that keeps near-surface air temperatures much cooler than they would be otherwise. It is how the atmosphere cools to space. Without this atmospheric infrared activity near-surface air temperatures would be very hot. There wouldn’t be any ice anywhere on the planet. The infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a “greenhouse effect” at all, it is a refrigeration effect!
The warmists have the science upside-down and backwards. There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” or “greenhouse gases”. Humans have no effect on the weather or climate at all because, well, we are just too puny. Many people would rather believe that mankind is great and grand, capable of affecting the weather and climate, but it’s just not so.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming” is a hoax. People are being conned and this nonsense needs to stop.
He should stick to the science and squelch his remarks about ‘the Left,’ and the ‘liberal environmental movement.’ That stuff simply perpetuates the political name-calling.
I agree with his views on AWG, but am a thoroughly far-left liberal. Whaddya gonna say about that?
No point in it – just like kids in the schoolyard.
izen says:
August 14, 2012 at 11:45 am
“Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.”
It’s not the temperature of the surface warming alone, it is the temperature relative to a particular baseline established by the current state of carbon fluxes from the lands and oceans. The data show this very clearly.
To predict the level of CO2 in the atmosphere very closely at any time in the last 50 years, all one needs is the starting value, and the global temperature anomalies in-between. It is clear that temperature is driving CO2 levels because CO2 levels lag the temperature. Human inputs are rapidly sequestered by nature, and are insignificant and largely superfluous in determining the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
“AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else.”
Only because there isn’t much of a “right”, akin to American conservatism, elsewhere.
Entropic man:
Following your having trolled about the Stern Report, at August 15, 2012 at 8:42 am in this thread I asked you to justify your falsehood which said the Stern Report and the Lords Select Committee Report only differed in “emphasis”.
I cited only three statements from the Select Committee Report and asked you to cite statements in the Stern Report which differed from them only in “emphasis”.
You have failed to respond to that but during the hours since you have made posts on this and other threads including in this thread (at August 15, 2012 at 9:17 am) a flaming post. For example, it includes this gem of untrue flaming
Of course, you are not an “observer”: your posts demonstrate you are an anonymous, offensive troll. And there could not be a more clear demonstration of troll flaming than your assertion that you are (deliberately?) blind to the difference between “creationists” and those who conduct scientific discussions of the AGW-hypothesis which – to date – has yet to obtain any supporting empirical evidence.
So, perhaps you could take some time off from trolling on this and other threads and spend that time in responding to my request that you show statements in the Stern Report which only differ in “emphasis” from the three quotations I provided. Or would that be contrary to instructions from your paymasters?
Richard
Lichanos:
I think you may want to read my post at August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm.
Richard
jjfox says:
August 15, 2012 at 10:50 am
“No, the infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a warming effect at all, it is a cooling effect that keeps near-surface air temperatures much cooler than they would be otherwise.”
It is quite complicated, but you are on the right track. Basically, the atmosphere provides a positive feedback which will warm the surface until the gases are excited enough to dissipate the energy through radiation, at which point the surface temperature stabilizes. A linearized model would give you something like this:
Tdot = (To – T)/tau
where T is the surface temperature, To is the equilibrium temperature, and tau is a time constant. For an homogenous atmosphere composed of a single gas, theoretically, as you add more gas, To and tau change. Generally, To will increase, up to an upper limit, as you add more gas.
What is interesting is what happens when you have a complex atmosphere composed of many emitters. In general, energy will start to dissipate more and more rapidly as the lowest frequency emitter becomes more and more excited. But, the higher frequency emitters will continue pulling the surface temperature up, as they reflect back increasing energy in their emissions band (the reflected emissions increase as the surface temperature increases, and the central mass of the Planck emissions spectrum moves closer to the emissions band of the higher frequency atmospheric emitters – this is the positive feedback effect of which I speak).
It is my hypothesis that, if you have two major emitters which are both being excited significantly in the equilibrium state, then adding more of the lower frequency emitter will necessarily draw the surface temperature down. It is like having a dam with two levels of floodgates, which are both spilling water out to establish an equilibrium level of water behind the dam. If you add more floodgates on the lower level, then the equilibrium level of water behind the dam is going to go down, rather than up.
This is the situation with the Earth, where H2O and CO2 are lower level emitters, but CH4 is a higher level emitter which is also being significantly excited. If you add more CO2, which has its emissions band close to the central mass of the Earth’s emissions spectrum at current temperatures, there will be more energy radiated away and the surface temperature should stablize at a lower level, i.e., the surface temperature should actually go down.
I have significant doubts that current theory has properly accounted for the interaction of all the emitters in our atmosphere.
Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
So, to sum these two comments up:
1) the data show that humans have very little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, which are determined by temperatures
2) Increasing CO2 may actually tend to decrease, rather than increase, surface temperatures
Add to those:
3) the current hiatus in temperatures shows that the AGW models are wrong
4) there is zero possibility that China, India, and others are going to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions
5) there are benefits to both higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
and you find that the whole controversy is moot, beside the point, futile, and just overall an overwhelming fiasco and a monument to hubris on the part of what are effectively religiously motivated activists on the pro-AGW side.
Schroedinger says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
You deny global warming exists
As Anthony said, it is the ‘catastrophic’ part that most of us do not agree with. Below is a very brief summary of comments and things that have happened over the last 7 years. Can you tell me why I should believe global warming is ‘catastrophic’ based on science and not consensus?
Are you aware of Phil Jones comment on July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
Then there is the ‘travesty’ comment by Trenberth. My interpretation is that privately, they were shocked to see a period of 10 years with no warming. But when that actually happened, they said it appeared in 1 out of 8 model runs. Fair enough. I will accept that. However I also read that no model runs showed 15 years of no warming. Now that three of the data sets show over 15 years of no warming, Santer says we need 17 years for something or other. I am not sure if he is implying that 17 years of no warming means that CAGW is false. But if that happened, I would not be surprised if the goal posts get shifted again.
So what am I trying to prove? We are beyond Trenberth’s ‘travesty’ in terms of time of no warming and are rapidly approaching Santer’s 17 years. With 15 years and 8 months on RSS, we are 92% of the way there. Hadsst2 is right behind at 15 years and 6 months of no warming.
Personally, I would say we are already at the point where we can say the warming is NOT catastrophic, but I cannot prove it mathematically.
Bart:
It is simply true that AGW is not a right-left issue anywhere except in the US. Deluding yourself about this inhibits opposition to the AGW-scare because – although you may not like it – the US is not the world.
And the US Democratic Party is right-wing by the standards of most countries in Europe and Asia.
Richard
richardscourtney;
So, I hope your suggestion is ignored by both of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Patience Richard. There is method to my madness.
Though our friend Eric Grimsrud now seems missing in action. He has the opportunity to strut his stuff in response to Greg House. He could also respond to jjfox whose explanation is rather good save for some critical details that he has overlooked. This should be trivial for Eric Grimsrud to spot the error and correct it.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
“And the US Democratic Party is right-wing by the standards of most countries in Europe and Asia.”
I think that was my point.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Following your having trolled”
I prefer not to give rudeness any reward.
Re:davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm
…He could also respond to jjfox whose explanation is rather good save for some critical details that he has overlooked. This should be trivial for Eric Grimsrud to spot the error and correct it.
What critical details do you think I have overlooked? (crypto-comments are a pain)
Entropic man says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:54 am
Greg House says (August 15, 2012 at 9:06 am)
The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
———————————–
Summaries are easy. Try this one or do your own web search. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
====================================================
I said “experimental proof“. And exactly as I expected your link does not contain any link to a real experiment proving that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
There are only 2 references there containing the word “experiment”: one to a “thought experiment” and the other one to a “model experiment”. Both have as much to do with real experiments as hot dogs with dogs.
Why not just admit there are no experiments apparently proving the alleged CO2 warming effect?
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Or would that be contrary to instructions from your paymasters?”
I could be paid to do this? Who do I contact?
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
“The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft. AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Richard, you are not seeing the U.S. paradigm correctly. There are two issues. The first is CAGW. The current status is that there is support from those whose belief is based on studies that they have seen, there is support from those whose belief is based on faith, and there is skepticism from those who have a better understanding of data and analysis (according to a Harvard study). Regardless of who believes what, it is irrelevant.
The second issue is critically important. That issue is what we as members of various governing units are forced to do in mitigation of CAGW. When Lord Monckton spoke at Schenectady, he was asked why if the economic argument against mitigation ($1.5 quadrillion/ C°) was so strong that he bothered with the scientific argument. The professor asking the question had intuitively understood, that if the real cost of mitigation was understood, that political support for mitigation would be equivalent to the votes for the Communist Party USA.
The Republican party would love to see the scientific basis for CAGW demolished, but until that happens, we are happy to have the federal government waste billions of dollars in energy research if we can keep the federal government from crippling our economy and reducing our standard of living by limiting energy production and driving up energy prices. The Democrats have made membership in the first church of AGW a political issue. We are not going to accept mitigation as the Democrats propose in order to make the scientific argument pure and academic.
Re:Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
It is quite complicated, but you are on the right track. Basically, the atmosphere provides a positive feedback which will warm the surface until the gases are excited enough to dissipate the energy through radiation, at which point the surface temperature stabilizes
No, this is incorrect. The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. The infrared activity exhibited by the atmosphere is purely a cooling effect, it doesn’t warm the surface a bit.
If you wish to understand whether a particular bandwidth of radiant energy warms a surface, you must examine the net energy. In the case of our planet, whether over land or water, the up=welling LWIR is always greater then the down-welling LWIR. The planets’ surface is not warmed by LWIR, it is warmed by the sun.
Down-welling LWIR does not warm the planets surface.
Cooling slower is not the same as warming
Going broke more slowly is not the same as becoming wealthier.
Neutralizing alkalinity is not the same thing as acidification.
No, it is not “quite complicated”, it is very straightforward.
jjfox;
Stay tuned for 24 hours or so.
Greg House;
Why not just admit there are no experiments apparently proving the alleged CO2 warming effect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERIC GRIMSRUD
The question begs an answer! Are you going to step up? You’ve told me repeatedly that you are a SCIENTIST and that you are a TEACHER. So… teach Greg House some science…. please.
As requested by davidmhoffer, I will attempt here to provide here an explanation of how the colder upper atmosphere manages to warm the surface of the Earth. I will do this in my own way and in manner designed to teach only the basic principles involved. My explanation is in no way rigorous with respect to all relevant details.
For starters, let’s talk about how solids (such as the terrestrial Earth) and then gases (such as our atmosphere) can both absorb and emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Solids can absorb essentially all EMR of all wavelengths. Thus, when either UV, Vis, or IR radiation strike the Earth, absorption occurs and the energy of those photons is converted to thermal energy within the solid – causing its temperature to increase. Solids emit EMR only over a specific range of wavelengths, however. Solid objects with Earth-like temperatures emits over a continuous and broad range in the IR (wavelengths say from about 2 to 50 microns). Objects with Sun-like temperatures (about 6,000 C) emit continuously over the UV, Vis, and near Vis range of wavelenghts about 0.1 to 2 microns).
Gases interact differently with EMR, however, and those interactions depend entirely on the chemical composition of the gas. If, for example, the gas in question contained only O2, N2, or Ar (the three major components of our atmosphere), there would be no interaction of that gas with either visible or infrared radiation. All of that radiation would simply pass through that gas as if nothing was there – as all radiation does pass through a vacuum. Also a gas consisting of these three substances will not emit any radiation at all if that gas that near-Earth-like temperatures.
If, on the other hand, the gas in question contained what we call “IR-active” molecules, then the interaction of that gaseous mixture with IR radiation will be very different.
(Time out: What are IR-active molecule? – they will include any molecule that has three or more atoms. Why? such molecules have vibrational modes in which the center of electron density is altered as the molecule vibrates. So what? Just as a radio antennae can absorb and emit EMR of the radiowave frequencies, an IR-active molecule can emit and absorb EMR of the same frequency as the molecule’s vibrational frequenies.)
Thus, that gaseous mixture will be able to absorb the portion of IR radiation that passes through it that happens to have the same frequency as the specific frequency of that of an IR-active molecule’s vibration. The rest of the IR radiation will simply pass through. ALSO, that gaseous mixture will emit IR radiation at the frequencies of the vibrations of its IR-active molecules.
OK, so now lets get to our main point. The surface of the Earth is emitting broad band IR radiation. So let’s next consider what would happen if the atmosphere had no IR-active molecules. The answer is – nothing would happen. That IR emitted from the surface would simply sail out into outer space thereby cooling the Earth. As a result, that surface emission – all by itself- would be able to match the amount of energy that is being received from the Sun (less the amount of sunlight reflected – called the albedo). In that case, the surface of the Earth would have a Temp of about -15 C (determined from straightforward calculations).
But now, what if the gaseous mixture, such as our atmosphere, contained IR-active molecules (such as H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, and myriad others). Then much of the broadband IR emitted from the surface would be quick absorbed – especially at the lower elevations where total atmospheric pressure and partial pressures of all components are the greatest.
So let’s now consider that first layer of say 10 meters of the atmosphere immediately above the ground. In this layer, absorption would, of course, be occurring. Emission would also be occurring due to the presence of IR-active molecules – at all of the vibrational frequencies of the IR molecules. AND these emissions would be in all directions – including back downward towards to surface and upwards.
Now, lets consider the next 10 meters of air above that. It will also be absorbing some of the IR radiation coming from below – now coming from both the surface of the Earth and from that layer of air immediately below. And its IR-active molecules will also be emitting IR radiation of all directions. The intensity of those emissions will depend on the temperature of that air mass – as did those of the air mass and surface below it. The emissions from each air mass will decrease with a decrease in temperature.
Now lets consider the next thousands or so 10-meter layers of air above the previous one: same story as before, repeated again and again, until we reach an altitude where the air is so thin that most of the upwardly directed IR does then make it out into the universe.
(Another Time Out: In the troposphere, temperature decreases with increase altitude until at the top of the Troposphere (about 8 miles above where I live), the temp is about -50 C. Then above that altitude, in the stratosphere, temperature increases until it approaches Earth-surface-like magnitudes at its top. (this T increase is due to the absorption of incoming UV light by stratospheric ozone, O3 – which since it has 3 atoms will also be an absorber and emitter of IR radiation).
So in putting all of this together, lets compared the condition #1 in which we imagined that all of the IR emitted by the surface simply sailed out into the universe. In that case, the only EMR hitting the Earth was that from the Sun. In condition #2, we have the same amount of sunlight hitting the Earth BUT a lot of additional IR radiation is also coming back from the emissions of the IR-active molecules throughout the atmosphere. This returning IR additionally heats the surface of the Earth and changes its average T from about -15C to about +15C.
The magnitude of this so called “GHG effect” will increase with increases in the concentrations of the GHGs. The effect is essentially never “saturated” – as evidenced by the surface temperature of Venus (about 400C) which is only about 1/3 closer to the Sun.
In summary, this provides an example of how radiant energy (IR) emitted from a colder region of the Earth (our upper atmosphere) – because of the presence of GHGs in it – causes the temperature of a warmer region (the surface) to be increased.
Hope this helps. Glad to try to answer any questions if sincerely delivered. More on this, along with direct physical evidence can be found in Chapter 2 of my short course at ericgrimsrud.com.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm:
As requested by davidmhoffer, I will attempt here to provide here an explanation of how the colder upper atmosphere manages to warm the surface of the Earth. … BUT a lot of additional IR radiation is also coming back from the emissions of the IR-active molecules throughout the atmosphere. This returning IR additionally heats the surface of the Earth…
====================================================
First of all, Eric, let me thank you for no abuse in that long posting. The thesis about warming back radiation is well known and actually very old, like 150 years old.
The problem is, it is not clear that this back radiation would warm. Yes, radiation generally can warm, we know that, but we also know that heat does not flow from a colder body to a warmer body at least through conduction. Again, some people say yes, it does flow in both directions but the net effect is that a colder body does not warm a warmer body and the same goes for radiation. Others say no, it is against the laws of thermodynamics.
Now, I am trying to be objective. Knowing that thermodynamics started with experiments and not just with laws, and not knowing exactly that the experiments included experiments with radiation, I am asking a simple question: is it proven experimentally? Is it proven experimentally that a colder body can influence the temperature of a warmer body by means of radiation?
Then I ask people if they can provide a link to a real direct scientific verifiable experiment proving that well known assertion. And guess what: nothing comes up. Only explanations or irrelevant stuff or references to other unproven assertions.
So, Eric, do you have something real proving that your explanation is not a science fiction? And please, no more explanations, experiments only.
And to Gail, let me explain at bit more my previous response, which was
“Gail, While I am exceedingly interested in being honest, I am not at all interested in becoming stupid. So “CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive” !!! Sorry, but I can’t even go there. Eric”
The only part I thought not worth considering was your bit about “has become dangerously limited”.
We now have 393 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, rising at the rate of 2 ppm or more each year. When and if we ever stop converting geo carbon to bio carbon, it will take thousands of years to significantly reduce the level of CO2 that we have then “achieved”. Perhaps, if I live to be about 10,000 years old, then your question concerning how plants would do with only 200 ppm CO2 might interest me.
Nevertheless, let me speculate a bit about your question of what happens if CO2 ever goes to 200 ppm:
All I can say from my own limited knowledge on this point is that the ice core record indicates that we had about 180 ppm CO2 in the global atmosphere during the long glacial periods that separated relatively short interglacial periods. To my knowledge the vast unglaciated regions of the world (including all that south of Kansas into Central America and most of South America – just to mention the Western Hemisphere) still had plants.
Well done Eric Grimsrud!
I shall reserve comment for the time being. I requested that you respond to Greg House, and now that you have done so, I shall not deprive Greg House of the opportunity to respond to you.
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
jjfox;
No, this is incorrect. The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. The infrared activity exhibited by the atmosphere is purely a cooling effect, it doesn’t warm the surface a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I shall respond to you directly as I said I would over the next 24 hours or so. In the meantime, I’d refer you to Dr Grimsrud’s explanation which has considerable merit in the context of your assertions.
jjfox;
Without delving into the science itself, as I am standing down on that issue for the time being to allow for Greg House and Eric Grimsrud to converse with one another directly, I will add some simple observations in support of Dr. Grimsrud’s explanation.
As he correctly pointed out, Venus is extremely hot, and average temperatures temperatures there actually exceed the PEAK temperatures on Mercury. When we compare average temps to average temps of both planets, Mercury is a couple hundred degrees cooler than Venus despite being closer to the sun and recieving considerably higher insolation. One needs little additional evidence to conclude that the atmosphere of Venus warms the planet to a higher temperature than it otherwise would have been.
Similarly, while the albedo of the moon is a bit different than Earth’s, the difference isn’t large enough to explain the much higher temperatures found on earth. As the insolation received by the moon is nearly identical to that received by earth, we can only explain the massive difference in temperatures by concluding that earth’s atmosphere indeed warms the planet.
davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
===========================================
??? It is there.
Greg House says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:17 pm
davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
===========================================
??? It is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s it? That’s all you got? Dr Grimsrud has presented to you a factual explanation of how CO2 warms the earth. Either accept it or refute it.
apologies Greg, I missed it. browser issues. reading it now.
To Greg House,
You asked for experimental evidence of the warming of the surface by the emissions of IR-active molecules in the atmosphere. See
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
for lots of surface to atmosphere measurements including one looking into a cloud free nighttime sky in Canada in February.
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others? The energy of the photon must be conserved and will be as it changes to heat.
I think I can see where your problem lies in not seeing how a cold object can warm a warmer object. You are thinking only of energy transfer via the collisions of matter. Energy transfer via the emission and absorption of photons provides the more important means of energy transfer in the atmosphere, however.. Photons travel at the speed of light, of course, and will dominate energy transfer in a gas – as long as emitters and absorbers (that is, IR active molecules) are present. If they are not present, then the convective motion of the major gases determines the much slower rate of energy transfer within that gas and then, yes, I can imagine that energy would then flow only from warmer to cooler regions.
Greg House;
So, Eric, do you have something real proving that your explanation is not a science fiction? And please, no more explanations, experiments only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric, it appears you’ve failed to convince Greg House. The ball is in your court.
GregHouse,
For the experimental evidence you seek, see:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
and many other sources. I recommend this one because of its extensive explanations of the measurements shown. Note especially the IR emissions from a cloud free nighttime sky in Canada in February – all due to the permanent GHG’s with little confusion from water vapor at that low temp.
I think I might understand why it is difficult to understand how energy can be transferred from cold to warmer regions. You are perhaps thinking only in terms of energy transfer by the motions and collisions of molecules. In a gas, E transfer can be much faster if emitters and absorbers (that is, IR-active molecules) are present. If they are not present, then yes, the motion and collisions of molecules provide the only and much slower means of energy transfer.
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others?
=================================================
You “Of course”, Eric, is not a substitution for a scientific verifiable experiment. I did not ask you “do they?”, I asked to present… you know… Just focus.
Come on, Eric, there is no way around it. I am sure you have understood my “And please, no more explanations, experiments only“.
richardscourtney;
….patience…. madness…. method….
Entropic Man:
Your post at August 15, 2012 at 3:50 pm says in total:
I was NOT trying to offer you any reward for your rudeness.
I asked you to justify your blatant falsehoods.
And you have offered the quoted post as your excuse for not being able to substantiate your lies. Poor, very poor even by your standards.
And at August 15, 2012 at 4:06 pm you write
The oil industry, the Al Gore foundation, the Sierra Club, etc..
Oil companies fund much global warming scare-mongering; e.g. BP provided funds to create the Climate Research Unit (CRU) from when the ‘climategate’ emails were linked. Al Gore’s organisation has established a fund solely to train and to fund warmist trolls, etc.
But, since you have refused to attempt justification of other falsehoods you posted on this thread, I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.
Richard
James:
Sincere thanks for your post addressed to me at August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm.
As I am sure you have seen, on this thread several have addressed my view that
“The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.”
But only Gail Combs seems to have understood my argument.
You have explained your view to me, and you start that explanation by saying of me that I am “not seeing the U.S. paradigm correctly. There are two issues”.
Thankyou. That is a clear start of a statement of the difference between our views which provides opportunity for rational debate instead of the ‘argument by assertion’ which has dominated discussion of the matter on this thread. And I am belabouring my gratitude for it to emphasise that I think your behaviour is how we should examine disagreements in the hope of learning from each other.
You say:
“Irrelevant”? Really? Here we differ.
My major concern about the AGW-issue is that it is destroying the conduct and the reputation of science.
We know what effect Lysenkoism had in Soviet Russia: millions dead. And the false ‘science’ of AGW has already had Lysenkoist effect with the biofuels fiasco resulting in food riots in many places. The potential effect is horrific. World population is most conservatively estimated to increase by 2.6 billion before declining around the middle of this century. Those extra people need additional energy supply for them to survive and that need for additional energy requires increased use of fossil fuels. The AGW-scare demands policies for reducing use of fossil fuels. If the Lysenkoist ‘science’ of AGW is not defeated then pressure will continue for adoption of policies which would kill billions of people, mostly children. Simply, the Lysenkoist AGW ‘science’ is intended to justify policies which would make relatively insignificant the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf H and Stalin.
Furthermore, we have the benefits of modern life as a result of science. The Lysenkoism of AGW ‘science’ is already damaging the reputation of all science. The further advance of science needs science to retain its reputation. And the future peoples of the world need the – not yet imagined – benefits that science has yet to provide.
But I recognise that for many it is the politics – not the science – of AGW which concerns them. You say
I understand and I agree with all of that. But, with respect, I fail to see why that requires a simple left-right divergence on the AGW issue. It only exists in the US: elsewhere people on all ‘sides’ of the AGW issue exist across the political spectrum.
If Republicans and Democrats want to debate, dispute and compete to enact policy then they will. But why drive away potential allies?
I think Senator Inhofe has a more sensible approach.
Senator Inhofe is most interested in the politics – not the science – because he is a politician. But he has done much study to become conversant with the science if only to refute silly claims about what the science says.
And Senator Inhofe is a right-wing US Republican Senator while I am a left-wing British socialist, but he has quoted me on the floor of the US Senate.
It seems to me that there are three important political principles which are relevant here.
1. As Machiavelli observed, enemies need to be destroyed but an attempt to convert them to friends is desirable before they are destroyed because it is better to have live friends than dead enemies.
2. One needs to keep one’s friends close and one’s enemies closer.
And
3. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I hope I have expressed my views of this as clearly as you expressed yours.
Richard
….patience…. madness…. method….
richardscourtney says:
August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am
I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.
———————————–
I go out to my archery club for an evening ( European time) and come back to abuse!
You leave in an impossible position. If I respond to your request for further discussion of the Stern Review , you will ignore it as the output of a “paid warmist troll” and my time will have been wasted. If I do not respond you flame me again. Again, my apologies for entering areas on which you seem hypersensitive.
Though you will probably not believe me I am here by choice. I choose now to discontinue this conversation.
Valerie Rawlinson says:
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way.
The word “sustainable” has been one of those adopted by politicans to be used in whatever way they like. Including in ways which are mutually exclusive with any definition in a dictionary.
If anything generating electricity using steam turbines (regardless of if the water is boiled by burning stuff or nuclear fission) is far more “sustainable” than wind/solar/waves.
For one thing maintanance costs are likely to be orders of magnitude lower and supply can be matched to demand. The latter being a rather fundermental point of electric power.
If the actual issue were fossil fuel usage then nuclear is the obvious alternative. Followed by burning waste materials. (Either as is or in the case of suitable waste feeding to methane producing bacteria.)
Ericgrimsrud presents a radiative explanation for atmospheric warming which was once believed to be the source of heating in terrestrial greenhouses. To quantify the argument, imagine a greenhouse without glass. If the incoming radiation is W, the interior must radiate W out.
Now add the glass. It will pass incoming and absorb outgoing radiation. Half of the absorbed radiation will be returned to the interior. So, the outgoing radiation will be reduced to W/2, and the surface will receive the original W plus W/2. The additional back-radiation will heat the interior until it radiates 2W, when the original balance will have been restored. (W in, 2W radiated from the interior, W back from the glass, W out, Page 18 of Global Warming by John Houghton, for example).
The Stefan-Bolzmann equation relates radiative energy to temperature. Radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. So, if radiation doubles, the temperature will increase by the fourth root of 2, or 1.19, or 19%.
So, does this actually happen? No, it does not. How do I know? Because 100 years ago R W Woods built two identical greenhouses, on of glass and the other of rock-salt, which does not absorb outgoing radiation. The two greenhouses reached almost identical temperatures, because they both eliminated convective cooling from their interiors.
But if the facts do not agree with the theories, so much the worse for the facts. The experiment is old and might not have been done properly. So, ericgrimstud, let us apply the same argument to your multi-slab atmosphere.
Substitute a singe slab atmosphere for the glass, and the planet surface for the greenhouse interior, and you get a surface temperature of 303K, which is reasonable if you allow for some direct transmission from the surface to space.
But, as you say, the atmosphere absorbs radiation rapidly over a short distance. Introduce a second layer, balance the flows, and the surface radiation becomes 3W. The temperature ratio to a bare rock becomes the fourth root of 3, and the temperature 335K. Three layers, equally plausible, produce a surface temperature of 360K.
If n is the number of layers into which you divide the atmosphere, the ratio of Tsurface to Ttop is the fourth root of (n+1). It is easy to prove, and is set as a problem in Grant Petty’s book on Atmospheric Radiation, Page 144.
So, as T and G asserted years ago, most of what is written about greenhouse global warming is nonsense. You will find your theory repeated in Eli Rabetts “rebuttal” of the famous T and G paper, with two layers in the atmosphere.
So how does the atmosphere warm the surface? Principally via the lapse rate, the increase of temperature with pressure, which is a function of gravity and specific heat.
Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot). You can observe the effect on a car temperature indicator by driving up a hill, at about 6 degrees per kilometre of altitude. It has nothing to do with radiation.
So why does any scientist think that additional CO2 will increase surface temperatures? Because of the “higher is colder” theory, as follows.
If we add CO2 to the top of the atmosphere, it will act as a kind of radiative insulation, impeding the escape of energy to space. The effective emission level – the average level at which the earth’s energy is radiated to space – will rise. The effective emission temperature, because of the lapse rate, will fall.
At the lower emission temperature, outgoing radiation will be reduced, and the whole system, including the surface, must warm (via the sun) to compensate.
This idea is plausible, and allows all the energy transfers involved to increase entropy, in accordance with the second law. However, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever to confirm the theory or quantify its effect. There is much to the contrary in radio-sonde and satellite data (UAH mid-troposphere, for example).
Entropic man:
I see you are still trolling. Your post at August 16, 2012 at 3:58 am misquotes me as saying at August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am
when I actually wrote
Those falsehoods which you refuse to justify are your lies about the Stern Report. But you use your misquotation of me as an excuse to continue to refuse to justify those lies.
You are one of the worst slimey trolls it has ever been my misfortune to observe, and I am now convinced that you are paid to conduct your despicable trolling.
Richard
Friends:
I write to explain why I disbelieve the assertion of Entropic Man that he is not a paid troll.
At the listed time of August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am I wrote my post which Entropic Man answered. The local time here in the UK was 9:04 am: n.b. I made my post early this morning.
Subsequently, about 3 hours later At August 16, 2012 at 3:58 am Entropic Man made his reply. That would have been 11:58 am UK time: i.e. about noon. But in that post he says;
Clearly, he is claiming he resides in Europe and returned to find my post after having been out for the evening. But my post was in the morning and he replied to it before the evening (wherever he abides in Europe).
Obviously, Entropic man is a fake. He claims to be in Europe but he is not. He claims to have made a post in the evening but he did not. And he claims to not be a paid troll and I don’t believe it.
Richard
ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm
“So let’s now consider that first layer of say 10 meters of the atmosphere immediately above the ground. In this layer, absorption would, of course, be occurring. Emission would also be occurring due to the presence of IR-active molecules – at all of the vibrational frequencies of the IR molecules. AND these emissions would be in all directions – including back downward towards to surface and upwards.
Now, lets consider the next 10 meters of air above that. It will also be absorbing some of the IR radiation coming from below – now coming from both the surface of the Earth and from that layer of air immediately below. And its IR-active molecules will also be emitting IR radiation of all directions. The intensity of those emissions will depend on the temperature of that air mass – as did those of the air mass and surface below it. The emissions from each air mass will decrease with a decrease in temperature.
Now lets consider the next thousands or so 10-meter layers of air above the previous one: same story as before, repeated again and again, until we reach an altitude where the air is so thin that most of the upwardly directed IR does then make it out into the universe.
(Another Time Out: In the troposphere, temperature decreases with increase altitude until at the top of the Troposphere (about 8 miles above where I live), the temp is about -50 C. Then above that altitude, in the stratosphere, temperature increases until it approaches Earth-surface-like magnitudes at its top. (this T increase is due to the absorption of incoming UV light by stratospheric ozone, O3 – which since it has 3 atoms will also be an absorber and emitter of IR radiation).”
That’s all well and good, what’s also important is the rate of energy transfer. For an equal photon flux(which it can’t be), 1 hour of incoming solar IR at .5u, would require 20 hours to radiate out at 10u (61F), and 26hrs at 13u (-58F). Since the average daily temperature increase in the is ~18F, and the average daily falling temperature is an almost identical 18F ( http://dkue3ufa3e1f8.cloudfront.net/files/images/Global%20Annual%201940-2010.jpg ), the scenario you describe is physically impossible. Here’s a graph ( http://www.science20.com/files/images/1950-2010%20D100_0.jpg ) of the difference between daily rising and falling temps for >23North Lat, you can see how the slightly different ratio of day/night changes the balance of rise/fall as the seasons change. As soon as night starts increasing, falling temp average is greater than the rising average. And yet averaged out over a year, they are almost identical.
“The magnitude of this so called “GHG effect” will increase with increases in the concentrations of the GHGs. The effect is essentially never “saturated” – as evidenced by the surface temperature of Venus (about 400C) which is only about 1/3 closer to the Sun.”
Venus also has ~300,000 times as much CO2 in it’s atmosphere as the Earth does. Plus, CO2 has a strong absorption band at ~4u (~850F), that will return a much larger amount of the energy of outgoing radiation. For the most part, Earth has no such temperature source. And in fact I think because of this, CO2 is most effective for a surface temp below ~40-50F, at which point Water takes over as the predominate GHG. This would explain why it takes so long for the planet to come out of ice ball stage, water freezes out, and it takes a long time for enough CO2 to build up in the atm, all it would require is the planet stay above ~-70F
to Greg House who posted on
August 15, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others?
=================================================
You “Of course”, Eric, is not a substitution for a scientific verifiable experiment. I did
Come on, Eric, there is no way around it. I am sure you have understood my “And please, no more explanations, experiments only“not ask you “do they?”, I asked to present… you know… Just focus.
=====================================================
OK, Greg, if you insist, let’s just do the experiment ourselves.
On a bright sunny day walk up to window in your house that is facing the Sun and open the drapes. Note if you instantly feel those visible photons being converted to thermal energy on your skin.
Now walk up to a stove of any kind that has been turned on. Hold your hand up say a couple feet away from the stove. Note which side of your hand feels warmer. Then block your hand’s straight line view of the stove with a hand-sized piece of paper held between the stove and your hand. Does your hand now feel differently? Record your results and then ask yourself if the IR photons being emitted by the stove are also convert to thermal energy upon striking your hand.
If you like actual temperature measurements instead, repeat the experiment using a colored solution (grape juice) for the window experiment and any solution for the stove experiment and record the temperature measured with a thermometer. Invariably I suspect that you will note that both of visible and IR photons will cause the temperature of the solutions to rise.
Hope I have “just focussed” here sufficiently well.
Eric
I
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:22 am:
“OK, Greg, if you insist, let’s just do the experiment ourselves. … the Sun …thermal energy…stove… your hand feels warmer. …Hope I have “just focussed” here sufficiently well.”
==============================================
Well, maybe not quite, unfortunately, but I am not saying you did not try (lol).
The hot Sun warms my skin, the hot stove warms my skin, very nice, thank you, but this is not the issue.
The warmists’ point is, that the colder hand also reduces the cooling of a warmer stove e.g. . This is what needs to be proven directly experimentally, as I said so many times, otherwise it seems to be a fiction unsupported scientifically.
So, no experiments proving that?
Greg House says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:42 am
The warmists’ point is, that the colder hand also reduces the cooling of a warmer stove e.g. . This is what needs to be proven directly experimentally, as I said so many times, otherwise it seems to be a fiction unsupported scientifically.
So, no experiments proving that?
—————————————————
Take a mug (a dark colour works best) with a thermometer in it. Place it well away from vertical surfaces. Hang a piece of paper alonside it, close enough for your hand to feel the heat Add hot water (boiling if your thermometer can take it) and take the temperature every minute for ten minutes. Do it again without the paper, as a control. Plot your measurements on a graph.
If the paper reduces the cooling of the water, that graph should show a flatter slope than the control. If not, the two slopes should be the same.
Let us know how you get on. In my teaching days I always encouraged my pupils to try things for themselves, rather than just take my word for it.
OK, Greg House, this is a better experiment that you need to do or at least consider.
Inside a stainless steel vacuum chamber at room temperature (about 25C), suspend a metal block that has a heating element and thermocouple embedded in it. Then pull a vacuum on the chamber.
Next heat the block to say 200C by passing a constant and controlled level of electrical current through the heating element. Let the system sit until you are sure the temperature of the block has reached a stable level.
Now wrap the vacuum chamber with heating tap and heat it up to 100C.
Watch the thermocouple’s reading of the block’s temperature. It will increase – even though the block is still surrounded by walls that have a lower temperature.
Why? Because the block was being heated by two sources. One is the resistive heating provided by the constant current source and the other is IR photons that are coming from all directions from the walls of the container – which in both cases was of lower temperature than the block. Clearly the warmer object is being heated by the colder walls. The hotter the walls the more IR heating of the central block.
I cannot do that experiment in my kitchen now, but know what the result will be having noted this effect on the inners of vacuum chambers that I used in my own research with mass spectrometers. So I’ll leave it up to you to either do it or look it up – somewhere in the ancient literature of physics.
to Fred Staples,
I don’t see the connection of what you said to my previous post. At the beginning you said
“Ericgrimsrud presents a radiative explanation for atmospheric warming which was once believed to be the source of heating in terrestrial greenhouses.”
Sorry, but there were no glass window the model I described so I don’t know what you are talking about. And later you say:
“Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot).”
Do you not realized that the mass of Venus is actually somewhat less than that of the Earth and according to Newton, the force of gravity on a planet’s surface is proportional to its mass.
If you had a point to make concerning any of my previous comments, sorry, but I did not catch it.
jjfox says:
August 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. “
It certainly does. The tails of the surface emissions spectrum extend into the range of any atmospheric emitter. Those emitters respond by abosorbing and re-emitting the radiation in random directions, some back at the surface. The surface temperature thereby increases, which extends the tail, creating more radiation for the emitters to absorb and partially reflect back to the surface, raising the temperature and extending the tail, creating more radiation… and so on in a positive feedback loop. The process continues until the amount of radiation escaping equals the amount coming in.
I realized the necessity of such a dynamic when someone on these boards brought up what seemed a quandary: if the GHGs in the atmosphere warm the planet, how did the planet ever get warm enough in the first place to excite the GHGs? The answer lies in the fact that the tails of the surface emissions spectrum, though decreasing rapidly, extend out theoretically to infinity, so even a small amount of emissions in the range of the GHG band will feed on itself to raise the temperature until such as time as equilibrium is achieved.
“Cooling slower is not the same as warming”
In a very real sense, it is. Because there is a continuous influx, and a continuous outflux, of energy. The planet will always seek a point at which the net energy flux, which is the time rate of change of incoming minus outgoing energy, is at equilibrium. But, if you extend the time to reach equilibrium, then the integration of the net flux, which is the retained energy, becomes greater, and that results in a temperature rise.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:56 am
“Clearly the warmer object is being heated by the colder walls.”
Here’s a test you might be able to try once it gets cold out.
Stand in the middle of a warm room, where at least one wall is an interior wall, and another wall is an external wall which has a large picture window that’s not covered with curtains(and this may not even be required, in my case the wall did have a picture window). Take your shirt off, and turn to face both the internal wall and the external wall.
My room was about 12×14, and you could easily feel which wall was which.
Bart says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:57 am
“But, if you extend the time to reach equilibrium, then the integration of the net flux, which is the retained energy, becomes greater, and that results in a temperature rise.”
The key is, this is a dynamic system, with continual inflow and outflow. It is analogous to turning on the water in your sink to full on such that, assuming your drain cannot handle the flow, will result in accumulation of water in the sink. The water will rise, and the resulting increase in pressure at the drain will cause the water to drain faster, until such a time as equilibrium is reached. If you now decrease the area of the drain, the water level will increase, until such a time as the pressure at the drain is high enough to reestablish equilibrium of inflow and outflow. Draining slower results in a rise of the water level, which increases the drain rate, and the process continues until such a time as the water drains as fast as it is coming in.
jjfox;
What critical details do you think I have overlooked?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are two.
1. You posited as your starting premise a planet with an atmosphere composed of radiatively inactive gases. In that scenario, the atmosphere would warm through conduction until it was in thermal equilibrium with earth surface. After equilibrium was established, the surface temperature would be 100% determined by the amount of insolation and would have a temperature commensurate with Stefan-Boltzmann Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law which is that P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with P in watts per meter and accounting for all incoming energy sources and T being in degrees K. The atmosphere, being radiatively inactive, would have an affect on temperature of precisely nothing.
2. In the latter part of your explanation, you compared a radiatively inactive atmosphere to one with a concentration of radiatively active gas such as CO2. Putting aside the critical detail discussed above, this is not a valid comparison for the purposes of the climate debate. We’re less interested in the difference between an atmosphere with and without trace amounts of a radiatively active gas than we are in the differemnce between an atmosphere with different amounts of a radiatively active gas.
Eric Grimsrud has provided a pretty good working explanation that addresses both these points upthread, and I would encourage you to review them. He’s missed some critical details of his own, but I’m focused right now on assisting Dr. Grimsrud in convincing Greg House of the folly of his reasoning, and shall leave those aside for another day or so.
Entropic man says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:28 am
Take a mug (a dark colour works best) with a thermometer in it. Place it well away from vertical surfaces. Hang a piece of paper alonside it, close enough for your hand to feel the heat Add hot water (boiling if your thermometer can take it) and take the temperature every minute for ten minutes. Do it again without the paper, as a control. Plot your measurements on a graph.
If the paper reduces the cooling of the water, that graph should show a flatter slope than the control.
=================================================
Paper reduces convection thus reducing cooling. If you mean that it is radiation from the colder paper too, you need to prove it.
Eric Grimsrud;
While I agree for the most part with your last response to Greg House, I can suggest from extensive experience that he will either no longer respond at this point, or reply with his dogmatic “that’s not an actual experiment, I asked for an actual experiment”. Given the number of physicists, engineers, chemists and other scientists he has already engaged with, who have presented information similar to your own, I can only assume that he believes the earth to be flat (there being no peer reviewed experiments to the contrary) that the sun circles the earth (there being no peer reviewed experiments to the contrary) and that internal combustion engines are impossible (there being blah blah blah) and the same would go for televisions, radios, telephones, photocopiers, and fax machines. Perhaps even the internet doesn’t exist by Greg House’s standards. That said, I shall attempt to assist you in the matter by providing the very experiment that Greg House insists upon.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
ulate
On the one hand, I disagree strongly that this experiment falsifies the order of magnitude effects on temperature that a doubling of CO2 would cause because it fails to simulate the scale of the atmospheric column, and hence produces a measurable effect that is orders of magnitude too small for the purposes of understanding effect on climate. That said, what the experiment does conclusively show is that doubling of CO2 in an atmosphere exposed to LW of the frequency emitted by earth surface would cause a measurable temperature increase in dirfect opposition to Greg’s position.
I’ve suggested this experimment to Greg before, which he believes to be a “trick” of some sort on my part. Please feel free to make use of it in your explanation to Greg as you see fit.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:56 am:
“OK, Greg House, this is a better experiment that you need to do…”
====================================================
Eric, do you really think that if you make an assertion, it is not your job to prove it? I hope you do not.
It looks like you can not present any link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body. Why not admit it?
I mean, no warmist can probably do that, it is not just you.
Greg House;
Paper reduces convection thus reducing cooling. If you mean that it is radiation from the colder paper too, you need to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a thin sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane (we use the expression “paper thin” for a reason) would suppress convection by an amount significant to the proposed experiment?
Greg House;
It looks like you can not present any link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body. Why not admit it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you sir for stepping up as predicted and proving my prediction to be accurate. Much appreciated.
davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm:
“Eric Grimsrud; While I agree for the most part with your last response to Greg House, I can suggest from extensive experience that he will either no longer respond at this point, or reply with his dogmatic “that’s not an actual experiment, I asked for an actual experiment”. Given the number of physicists, engineers, chemists and other scientists he has already engaged with, who have presented information similar to your own, …”
=================================================
Exactly, davidmhoffer, they have presented “information”, “explanations” and suggestions I should conduct an experiment, but no link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body.
You can take any science fiction novel and find a lot of “information”, too.
A “paper-thin” substance affecting convection?
Absolutely.
ANYTHING (even a spider web, tissue paper, or aerogel) that is between a surface (of one temperature) and the gas (or fluid) around it that is a different temperature (or touches a substance of a different temperature) will reduce convection heat transfer.
Now, how effective that paper-thin substance becomes depends on the geometry of the heat transfer problem: where the hot substance is, how much distance is between the two materials, what the material is made of, how much gas (or fluid) can be exchanged, where the cold temperature is, etc. …..
davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm:
“Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a thin sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane (we use the expression “paper thin” for a reason) would suppress convection by an amount significant to the proposed experiment?”
=============================================
That depends on where you place your paper or whatever. And he did not present an experiment meaning exact data etc., it was just a sort of a hint, it can not be taken seriously in the context of this debate. Let us talk about real experiments that already proved the core assertion of warmists. I mean, we have been talking, and the result is zero.
Now, how effective that paper-thin substance becomes depends on the geometry of the heat transfer problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The experiment proposed made use of a sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane “alongside” the object. That said, paper would actually not be the best material for this. Aluminum foil would have a much larger and more easily measured effect.
Greg House;
Let us talk about real experiments that already proved the core assertion of warmists. I mean, we have been talking, and the result is zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I respectively surrender the field to Dr Grimsrud.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
Gail Combs:
At August 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm you make the blatantly false assertion:
It is Al Gore and other politicians on the left who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
No! It is Margaret Thatcher and other politicians on the right who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
___________________________________
Actually it was the politicians who were all for increasing the power of the United Nations (Left or right)
Well before Margaret Thatcher
So the issue was on the floor of the UN from 1972. It is also interesting to see what else Maurice Strong was up to:
davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm:
“Eric Grimsrud;…I shall attempt to assist you in the matter by providing the very experiment that Greg House insists upon. http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm ”
===============================================
I remember that link. And you still assert the proved the point in question there? Look how this assertion can be easily debunked. Any layman can do that. The method is simple: a search for a key word. In this case it is the word “temperature”. Because if they really experimentally proved warming or reduced cooling, they would use the word “temperature”.
So let us open your link and look for the word “temperature” using the CTRL+F…
OMG! The word “temperature” is there! But it occurs only 2 (two) times in the whole text. That’s a bad sign, davidmhoffer. Let us see then, what they mean by that. This is the one occurrence: “One problem is that the radiative transport depends on the temperature gradient in the atmosphere – but this cannot be preset but ought to be calculated.”. Well, nothing about what you mean they proved. The other one is this: “Every scientisct who is familiar with basic IR spectroscopy from analytic chemistry would agree that there is a noticeable temperature increase for a CO2 doubling.” So, they assert that what is to be proven is a fact. Very nice.
Do you still insist that your link presents an experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body?
Greg House;
Do you still insist that your link presents an experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I already said, I have surrendered the field to Dr Grimsrud.
Greg House, I have been doing my best to relate some basic principles of physics along with an some classic examples. IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense believed only by “warmists”, have a look at:
t”http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Roy Spencer is skeptical of AGW and a professional physicist who understands the basic principles of physics. In addition, like me, he has worked with vacuum chambers and is all to well aware the problems that can be caused in experiments by the heating of objects in vacuum chamber by the colder walls of the vacuum chamber.
Now I don’t care at all if your admit that you are wrong and if you want to continue to discuss this point, please take it up with Roy Spencer who does not appear to be a “warmist”.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
And to Gail, let me explain at bit more my previous response, which was….
We now have 393 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, rising at the rate of 2 ppm or more each year.
All I can say from my own limited knowledge on this point is that the ice core record indicates that we had about 180 ppm CO2 in the global atmosphere during the long glacial periods that separated relatively short interglacial periods. To my knowledge the vast unglaciated regions of the world (including all that south of Kansas into Central America and most of South America – just to mention the Western Hemisphere) still had plants.
_______________________________
And that is just the point. The ice core measurements of 180 ppm CO2 during glaciation are falsified by the continuing presence of trees. At 180 ppm, especially anywhere above sea level, trees could not reproduce because they are C3 and 180 ppm is starvation level. (Original data was 200 ppm but that has disappeared from the internet because it made the discrepancy too noticable)
Here is a newer paper: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
Even though the CO2 is now at ~400 ppm that does not take into account the sharp decrease in CO2 during glaciation when plant productivity will be the most critical for the survival of human civilization. During Glaciation the atmosphere is also much drier and higher levels of CO2 help “Drought proof” C3 plants. (Much of our food plants and livestock fodder is C3 and not C4)
No one, warmist or skeptic disagrees that we are near the end of the Holocene interglacial. Some warmists think the increase in CO2 has prevented a descent into glaciation that otherwise should have occurred.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution warns we may be looking at warming when the danger is actually cooling.
There is also a well known 1470 year cooling event due soon. Bond Event Zero
Some warmists think we will have a “Double Interglacial” but that has been ruled out.
Even NOAA supports the Milankovitch theory.
So we are NOT going to escape the next glaciation and if we by some miracle do it will be because of our increasing CO2. Also any increase in CO2 will also mean healthier more productive plant life during the next glaciation.
If you weight the options producing MORE CO2 has less downsides then not producing CO2. Returning to a major Ice Age with the CO2 levels much reduced due to cold ocean is going to be a real bummer compared to a couple degrees higher temperatures with flourishing plant life.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm:
Greg House, I have been doing my best to relate some basic principles of physics along with an some classic examples. IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense believed only by “warmists”, have a look at: ”http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
================================================
Maybe you should read it again. It was not a real experiment, Eric. It was a so called “thought experiment”, I hope you understand the difference.
@ richardscourtney:
Interesting stuff about Maggie! I think I’ll look into that more.
This blog, which provides much valuable scientific discussion and lots of resources, is also, unfortunately, a magnet for libertarian-conspiracy theorists who see the black boot of totalitarianism in any sort of rule or regulation. We have Thomas Jefferson and others to thank for that particular strain of political delusion (although he was no slouch at hefting state power when it suited him).
Well, as Stephen Decatur said, although ‘conservatives’ who quote him never fully quote him:
“My country – may she always be in the right – but, my country, right or wrong.”
ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm:
“IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense”
================================================
I have never used this term in my discussions here. Why nonsense? I see it as unproven, because the “explanations” are based on an assertion that is not proven experimentally. There is a lot of science fiction stuff that is even logical in itself, but unproven, that is the point.
Lichanos says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm:
“… is also, unfortunately, a magnet for libertarian-conspiracy theorists who see the black boot of totalitarianism in any sort of rule or regulation.”
==============================================
Totalitarianism happens and not just like that. Communist totalitarianism was based on regulation too. They regulated profits, earnings and economy. A lot of people were considered to be an obstacle and therefore killed.
Some Greens are talking about reducing population, what do you think this concept can lead to?
Dr Grimsrud;
So, how have you enjoyed your “discussion” with Greg House? By now you may have surmised that I goaded you into explaining some rather elementary physics to him. You may have surmised that I knew in advance how the conversation would go.
Did you enjoy having your carefully worded explanations simply dismissed with a wave of his hands and a perfunctory “that’s not proof”? Did you appreciate having the time and effort you put into examples and explanations simply dismissed out of hand? Did you find it frustrating that he made no attempt what so ever to even begin to understand the very well verified facts that you put before him? Was your discussion with him nothing but a complete waste of your time? In fact, it was a waste of your time, and I knew what the outcome would be, which is why I goaded you into it. So let us both put Greg House on ignore, and instead talk about you.
What is the difference between Greg House’s behaviour on this thread and your own on the Inhofe thread? I shall answer the question for you. Your behaviour was worse.
In addition to dogmatically asserting the same information over and over again, refusing to so much as acknowledge, let alone discuss the explanations and references provided to you by myself and richardscourtney, you repeatedly attempted to belittle us by demanding our credentials, suggesting that we were not scientists and so had no business commenting at all, and rubbing your PhD in our faces. I told you to discuss the science or STFU and my position on that has not changed.
You compounded your arrogance by continuing to call myself and richardscourtney quacks and charlatans, and so focused were you on denigrating us in that fashion that you even attempted to do so in the thread dedicated to the remembrance of Robert E Phelan. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and it is a tribute to Anthony’s patience and diplomacy that he simply snipped the the offensive remarks and left the balance of your remarks intact. I doubt that I could have done the same, but I’m willing to bet that if REP had to deal with the matter himself, he would have shown the same diplomacy and tact. Part of me wonders if perhaps REP guided Anthony’s hand.
So, I ask you again, to discuss the science. If you would like, I shall explain the critical errors that you have made in your explanation to Greg House. I’ll show you that the very warmist scientific literature you purport to explain doesn’t agree with your explanation and why. I’ll even entertain any comments you wish to make in rebuttal, consider them seriously, and respond to them. But at the first sign of you trying to rub your credentials in people’s faces, or belittling them for not having any, the discussion is over.
The smartest man I ever knew was a guy named John Carlson, who has long since passed on. He built a piece of equipment that was of immense value to the oil companies back in the late 70’s. But John was also a very religious man, and just before his invention could be put into production, he had a vision in which his deity told him that the invention was evil. The next morning we found the prototype cut to pieces in the back of my dad’s shop. I remember to this day engineers with Phd’s from Esso, Shell and Husky Oil trying to figure out from the pieces how it worked. One of them showed me a steel ball which the engineer had cut in half to reveal channels that had been drilled through the ball and which flared in the centre. He remarked “it is bad enough that I can’t figure out what it is supposed to do, even if I did, I cannot understand how the h*ll he machined it.”
John Carlson had a grade 8 education.
So it is your call Dr Grimsrud. Are you prepared to discuss science or not?
Gail Combs:
Thankyou for your reply at August 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm to my post at August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am.
Firstly, I draw your attention to my post replying to James which I posted at August 16, 2012 at 2:14 am which says
(Emphasis added: RSC)
And, with respect, I answered your point about Maurice Strong et al. in my reply to Mr Lynn at August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm. I said there:
As you rightly say, the likes of Strong were ready to grab the opportunity when Thatcher provided it. They would have created the opportunity themselves if they could have created it, but they could not so they did not. And then along came Thatcher.
After that, many jumped on the bandwagon she created. And I explain this at
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
One curiosity – which many now forget – is that AGW did not start as an environmental issue. Indeed, Greenpeace initially opposed the AGW-scare because it was a distraction from the ‘acid rain’ scare which was then their major preoccupation. But AGW was soon adopted by environmentalists when it became clear it was useful to them.
Richard
Lichanos:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm.
It includes:
Sadly, I have to agree. And there was one thread where some ‘lefties’ like me joined in but were driven out of WUWT. I urge you to stick with it despite the provocations of ‘lefties’ on this thread being trivial compared to some that happen on WUWT.
All of us who value freedom need to oppose totalitarianism so we need to unite in opposition to AGW-scare and its accompanying Lysenkoism. History shows that failure to defeat these evils has terrible consequences.
Richard
davidmhoffer:
David, as you requested, I was “patient” and – as you predicted I would – I now understand. I hope you are successful.
Richard
davidmhoffer
Hats of for an excellent education provided to Eric Grimsrud. It was priceless.
The Bomb exploded in Hiroshima, because during World War II, there was no possibility for even a contact between two Japanese and American chefs.
1-There are no signs of weakness in Krupp’s remark, on the contrary, some of Joe Best conditions are not convincing.
2- Fortunately, there is no room here for boring scientific discussions. Some friends still continue the same non-constructive procedure. If this was efficient, it was not necessary to insist on preconditions for negotiations.
3- We still have trouble taking the first step. Black is the consensus? And white is the debate? The first step is to reach a consensus, which results in the desired Debate. Without passing through this stage, we’ll go nowhere.
4- Look at the second, third and fourth items made by Joe Best. Joe Best did not pay attention to Fred Krupp who says: -“One scorching summer doesn’t confirm that climate change is real any more than a white Christmas proves it’s a hoax.” And about the third item; the world is one world not U.S and the others. Atmosphere is border-less and it has one scientific definition nothing less/more. And about the forth item, we want Joe Best to reduce TAX? Is he the right individual to ask for it? After the Debate, policy makers would be convinced to do what we need.
In regards to the fifth Item, we are not asking the world to enter chaos, yet Joe Best is right,He says: ” we have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. ”
The technology here means ALL THE TECHNOLOGIES. We are asking for breaking subsidies on all energy sources, we leave the technology itself and the market to decide when and where their use is beneficial.
Greg House @ August 16, 2012 at 7:21 pm said:
Some Greens are talking about reducing population, what do you think this concept can lead to?
This calls to me a joke. Orthodox Jews do not permit mixed dancing, i.e., men will not dance with women at weddings, etc.
An orthodox man goes to his rabbi and asks him whether the Talmud (the commentary on the Bible) permits various positions during sex with his wife.
-Is sex with women on top permitted?
Yes, this is permitted.
-Is sex with the man behind the woman permitted?
Yes, this is permitted.
-Is sex while lying on the side permitted?
Yes, this too is permitted.
-Rabbi, is sex while standing up permitted?
No! This might lead to dancing.
Anyway, reducing the worlds population is a good thing, but obviously, forcing reductions is not. Personally, I feel the attention to population growth (and immigration) by environmental groups frequently treads into racist-nativist territority.
You can never tell what a good idea will lead to.
richardscourtney, Venter;
Thanks for both your comments. The collective exchange on the previous Inhofe thread and this one are a demonstration (in my mind anyway) of just how difficult it is to have the meaningful debate that Joe Bast is trying to promote.
I only hope that I didn’t spank Grimsrud so hard that he simply withdraws. My sense is that he is capable of making a positive contribution to the discussion if he sets aside his elitism.
davidmhoffer:
In your post at August 17, 2012 at 9:07 am you say
I could not agree more. And this thread makes clear the especial problem in the US where the issue divides on political grounds.
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
Richard
It is unbelievable. Joe Bast thinks he is the winner of the climate war. And now it is time for signing a treaty. Fred Krupp statements led him get excited.
Denier or Skeptic, is Joe Bast’s problem the label? His proposed five items are not even “preconditions”. Hopefully this is not a game of political posturing and propaganda.
richardscourtney;
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I liked the suggestion. I didn’t comment at the time because I was more focused on other parts of the thread. I think the limitation to your suggestion is that we can’t have the mitigation vs adaptation debate until we first have the order of magnitude debate. Adaptation is a completely different issue if sensitivity is high versus low. We have to have, I think, at least a range both sides can agree on and then predicate the debate on that range. The problem with that is that even the range is rather polarised. We have raging alarmists who think we’re all going to die from spontaneous human combustion and we have skeptics who think it impossible that LW can warm anything at all. The new “consensus estimate” for AR5 sounds like it is going to be in the range of 2.4 to 2.6 degrees per CO2 doubling. I think that the debate would have merit at that range, even though I think it a very high number. Then there’s the likes of Hansen et al who want to have the debate at 6.5 degrees!
Even if we agree to debate at 2.6 degrees, we also need agreement on how that 2.6 degrees manifests itself. That it won’t be uniform is openly discussed in the AR4 science, but by the time it gets to policy maker summaries it implies something else. Debating a uniform 2.6 degree sensitivity would imply a completely different adaptation cost than would very large changes to winter lows and very small changes to summer highs (as an example).
To Greg House,
In looking back at one of your last posts to me, I will acknowledge that I have not yet found the perfect reference for you that would describe an actual experiment specifically designed to prove the point concerning the flow of energy from a cold to warmer body – and I have been thinking about where exactly such a demonstration might be found in the literature.
The phenomenon of “black body” radiation was first noted and characterized, I believe, sometime around 1850 or so and only began to be understood in terms of “photon” emissions in about 1900 by the work of Planck. So once people began to think in those terms and with vacuum technologies coming on strong in the late 1800s, I suspect that there were papers published during that period that directly demonstrated the transfer of radiant energy from cold object to warm. When I have some time, I will try to locate some of that literature. I consider such historical literature to be extremely interesting and I would like to fill in that specific gap in my knowledge of science history for myself.
As you might have noted, DavidMHoffer appears to view our recent interactions as some type of “joke” that we has played on us. As evidenced by my comments to you, I have not considered out interactions to be anything of the sort – because you have repeatedly asked honest questions continuously pressing me for more and better details and answers. It has therefore been a scientific discussion that I have enjoyed. It is always good to reexamine the reasons for your believes.
It is only when I suspect that the other party is just playing “games” and is no longer sincere, or just trying to “save face” for previous humiliations they might have suffered (such as might have occurred near that end of that Inhofe threat DavidMHoffer referred everyone to) that I stop interacting with them. I have not suspected that of you, however, and I hope to get back to you when I find those experiments that both of us would obviously like to see.
Eric
richardscourtney;
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
davidmhoffer says: @ August 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm
….. Adaptation is a completely different issue if sensitivity is high versus low. We have to have, I think, at least a range both sides can agree on and then predicate the debate on that range. The problem with that is that even the range is rather polarised. We have raging alarmists who think we’re all going to die from spontaneous human combustion and we have skeptics who think it impossible that LW can warm anything at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And then there are those of us who are not really worried about a 1 to 2C increase but about the fact a DECREASE in temperature is not even on the table when that is by far more devastating.
That is the elephant in the room that everyone ignores while squabbling over the mouse. It is also an elephant that will happen we just can not say when except it will be soon in geologic terms.
When I am feeling very cynical I sometimes think the movers and shakers are well aware of the problem and are trying to make sure they destroy the first world’s transportation systems so their boltholes do not become over crowded with useless eaters.
David and Gail:
Thankyou for your considered opinions. As all can see, you both make good points.
However, I remind that I pointed out that climate always changes so determinations of adaptation options would be valuable whatever the degree of warming or cooling.
Please note that I make this reminder because neither of you mentioned it and not to diminish your points in any way.
Personally, I think that if genuine dialogue is to be accomplished then consideration of the wide range of possible warming and cooling would be needed at least as a staring point. And this would be the needed ‘common ground’ for any dialogue whatever the initial discussion was to be about. However, it should be noted that this view may be influenced by my trade union background (negotiation has to start by accepting the full range of ‘desires’).
Richard
Again to Gail,
First, sorry I am a bit slow to reply. My “life” sometimes gets in the way of these important discussions – which I truly do enjoy – especially when they provide me with a central point not previously considered – as related below.
While I hope you are not still standing by your comment “CO2 ….. has become dangerously -limited” – in view of the fact that our atmosphere now has 393 ppm of the stuff in it – , I had not before thought of the other point you raised later – that trees and plant could not have grown in an atmosphere containing only 180 ppm.
As you indicated that would suggest that the CO2 levels of the glacial period that have been deduced from the ice core record are incorrect – since we know for sure that plant life existed during the glacial periods.
Thanks for pointing that interesting possibility out to me. I will certainly be looking into it myself – starting with the references you cited.
Since you have studied this point extensively, however, let me ask you straight off. Are you sure that trees die when CO2 is lowered to 180 ppm? While this point has nothing to do with what is going to happen in the foreseeable future, it sure is an important one with respect to the credibility of the ice core record.
Eric
Oh dear. Dr Grimsrud is of the opinion that he has handed me a humiliatinng defeat.
Wow.
Well Dr Grimsrud, allow me to make three points:
1. I predicted you would be unable to convince Greg House with your explanation, and by your own admission, you have failed. FAIL
2. You provided Greg House with an approximation of the greenhouse effect that failed to take into account Holder’s Inequality. As a consequence, you produced a number that is far too LOW. Proper math arrives at a much higher number, and the use of the moon as a proxy adjusted for albedo confirms this. FAIL
3. Your explanation based on layers of atmosphere is for the most part correct. You failed to provide sufficient detail however. The consensus estimate is that doubling of CO2 results in an extra 3.7 w/m2 of downward LW. In your model, this would be manifested by a small downward flux at each layer. The total of all the layers add up to 3.7 w/m2, the important point to understand being that the calculated 3.7 w/m2 doesn’t occur at any given altitude, nor at the surface. It is a downward flux that is spread across the atmospheric column as a whole. At equilibrium, there is an equal upward flux of an additional 3.7 w/m2, also spread across the atmospheric column, a small portion appearing in each of your layers. It is for this reason that the IPCC, based on a large number of peer reviewed papers, goes out of their way to point out that the 3.7 w/m2 value can NOT, repeat can NOT, be used for determining temperature changes at the surface. Further, the upward LW and the downward LW, while exactly equal and opposite across the atmospheric column, are not exactly equal and opposite in any given one of your layers. At any given point in time the combination of the two results in a maximum at some altitude that should be exhibited as a “hot spot” where temperatures are elevated more than the average of the column as a whole. That this hot spot hasn’t evidenced itself to date suggests that there are secondary processes that are minimizing the effect. It is further instructive to understand that since doubling of CO2 makes no change to the energy flux absorbed by the system in the first place, at equilibrium there is also no change to the amounf of energy flux dissiptaed to space. In other words, as seen from space, the earth’s temperature at equilibrium would change by exactly zero. What would change is the altitude from which any given photon would have an average chance of seeing a free path to space, and this altitude is higher than before CO2 doubles. So the primary change is the average altitude from which a photon escapes to space, and the secondary effect is that the temperature gradient from TOA to surface is modified. The IPCC discusses this at length also, and go out of their way to explain that the modification to the temperature gradient cannot be linear, and will be much more pronounced at some altitudes than at the surface. In fact, at low altitudes and low latitudes, the preponderance of water vapour, at 40,000 ppm versus CO2 at just 400, ensures that very little of the 3.7 w/m2 will be measurable in either direction as water vapour’s effects in those regions make any additional absorption and re-emission by CO2 simply a rounding error. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL.
But no need to argue with me Dr Grimsrud, I’m just passing on what the IPCC says Go argue with them.. I provided you the links to the IPCC documentation in the Inhofe thread, clearly you didn’t read it or you wouldn’t continue to be gettinng your explanations wrong. I’d post the links again, but what is the point if you are determined to ignore them? I also pointed you at the specific work by the specific author whose peer reviewed papers were the basis of the caveats expressed by the IPCC, and I expect you didn’t read that either. I expect there’s no value in point out that Ramaswamy has since published additional research that updates his findings and further reinforces what I’ve just tried to explain to you. Work that in part serves as the basis for AR5 reducing, for the second time in a row, the IPCC estimate of sensitivity, to 2.6 degrees or less, and completeley tossing out Hansen’s 6.5 degrees as unsupportable.
FAIL Dr Grimsrud. Abject and total FAIL.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 17, 2012 at 2:48 pm:
“…such as might have occurred near that end of that Inhofe threat…”
=================================================
Eric, I am just curious, what exactly is the “Inhofe thread”?
To All,
I request here the right to defend my reputation against some remarks davidmhoffer made in his post of Aug 16, 9:01 pm.
He wrote:
“You compounded your arrogance by continuing to call myself and richardscourtney quacks and charlatans, and so focused were you on denigrating us in that fashion that you even attempted to do so in the thread dedicated to the remembrance of Robert E Phelan. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and it is a tribute to Anthony’s patience and diplomacy that he simply snipped the the offensive remarks and left the balance of your remarks intact.”
For the record, the snipped comments provided the highest praise for REP. They mentioned how fair he was in protecting even the likes of me (a “warmer”, perhaps, to most of you) from the repeated humiliations and trickery of a couple of apparently “in house” “regulars” at WUWT. His professional level of moderation both surprised and truly impressed me (I am new to WUWT and had never posted until recently). As a result, I had looked forward to future interactions with the man and the web site he represented so well. He will certainly be missed – and certianly by the likes of me who happen to believe that AGW is our most serious problem today and must be addressed forcefully and immediately. He did his best to give me a fair hearing in the tread concerning Senator Inhofe and I appreciated that very much.
Now concerning the first line in davidmhoffer’s statement, I plead guilty and, in fact, I am pleased that he knows what I think of him and his partner. They operate on a much lower level of fairness and respect for others participants. Note if you look back and read the entire statement referred to above how davidmhoffer admits how he has been “playing games” with others – and even appears to be proud of it. As his little story points out, it is impressive, indeed, how clever a person can be even with only an 8th grade education – and especially so when one also has no class or character. For DH to openly admit what he has doing and has not been reprimended for it, provides a sad indication of REP’s loss at WUWT. As I also said in my praise of him – he will be missed and, perhaps, hard to replace.
.
While what I think if the two jolly regulars I have referred to here is entirely my own business, of course, if any of you need to know why I came to this assessment, please do go back and read the recent Inhofe thread, as davidmhoffer has suggested, in its entirety.
davidmhoffer says:
August 17, 2012 at 3:58 pm:
” The consensus estimate is that doubling of CO2 results in an extra 3.7 w/m2 of downward LW”
==================================================
Yeah, “consensus”, of course. Your “consensus” is just another fiction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119
Greg House
I never endorsed the estimate, I only referenced it.
Hi again Greg House,
I am glad to be able to provide you with a precise reference in this case.
The “Inhofe threat” can be found at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/inhofe-exposes-another-epic-fail-by-global-warming-alarmists-thursday/
Eric
To All:
There is someone on this blog who is posting “stuff” that is generally incomprehensible and when comprehensible, is either inaccurate or misleading. For example when he recently said:
“the IPCC estimate of sensitivity, to 2.6 degrees or less, and completeley tossing out Hansen’s 6.5 degrees as unsupportable.”
He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks. This point is very important, of course, because the first applies to the short term (the next couple decades) while the latter applies to the longer term (next couple centuries).
For this person to imply that there is a serious contradiction in these two sensitivity estimates tells us something only the person who said it. Either he does not know anything about this very basic and important aspect of climate science or (to use a word he suggested describes my view of him – even though I never used that word myself – I am not even sure I could have even spelled it correctly) he is a charlatan.
For very good reasons (concerning universally appreciated human characteristics such a trust and credibility), I will no longer communicate directly with the person who posts this “stuff”. Nevertheless, I am inclined to help clean up the air occasionally after I see that he has polluted it.
ericgrimsrud;
He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cite?
Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?
J. Hansen (1 and 2), M. Sato (1 and 2), P. Kharecha (1 and 2), D. Beerling (3), R. Berner (4), V. Masson-Delmotte (5), M. Pagani (4), M. Raymo (6), D. L. Royer (7), J. C. Zachos (8) ((1) NASA GISS, (2) Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, (3) Univ. Sheffield, (4) Yale Univ., (5) LSCE/IPSL, (6) Boston Univ., (7) Wesleyan Univ., (8) Univ. California Santa Cruz)
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2008 (this version, v3))
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica.
What’s this fast feedbacks and slow feedbacks stuff? Sounds like made up excuses.
ericgrimsrud;
I repeat:
cite?
I’ve already read the Hansen paper. I’m asking you to provide a link to the relevant documentation from the IPCC showing what they do and do not include in their sensitivity calculations. I have provided you with many links directly to the IPCC reports to substantiate that claims I have made in regard to their position on various matters. I’m asking you to do the same.
So why did I discuss a terrestrial greenhouse, Ericgrimsrud. Because the mathematics of the (demonstrably false) radiative arguments are the same as the “back-radiation” argument which you apply to the atmosphere. Let me try again without the glass.
Take a bare rock earth, with and without a single slab, isothermal, model of the atmosphere. For the bare rock, if the incoming radiation from the sun is W, the outgoing radiation will also be W. Now add an absorbing atmosphere, which will pass incoming and absorb outgoing radiation. Half of the absorbed radiation will be returned to the surface. So, the outgoing radiation will be reduced to W/2, and the surface will receive the original W plus W/2. The additional back-radiation will heat the interior until it radiates 2W, when the original balance will have been restored. (W in, 2W radiated from surface, W back from the atmosphere, W out.
The Stefan-Bolzmann equation relates radiative energy to temperature (back radiation, incidentally, is its negative term). Radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. So, if surface radiation doubles, the temperature will increase by the fourth root of 2, or 1.19, or 19%, from 255K to 303K.
Plausible, at first sight, but nonsensical. Why? Because, as you say, the atmosphere absorbs radiation rapidly over a short distance. Introduce a second layer, balance the flows, and the surface radiation becomes 3W. The temperature ratio to a bare rock becomes the fourth root of 3, and the temperature 335K. Three layers, equally plausible, produce a surface temperature of 360K.
If n is the number of layers into which you divide the atmosphere, the ratio of Tsurface to Ttop is the fourth root of (n+1). It is easy to prove, and is set as a problem in Grant Petty’s book on Atmospheric Radiation, Page 144.
So how does the atmosphere warm the surface? Principally via the lapse rate, the increase of temperature with pressure, which is a function of gravity and specific heat.
Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot ). You can observe the effect on a car temperature indicator by driving up a hill, at about 6 degrees per kilometre of altitude. It has nothing to do with radiation.
So why does any scientist think that additional CO2 will increase surface temperatures? Because of the “higher is colder” theory, as follows.
If we add CO2 to the top of the atmosphere, it will act as a kind of radiative insulation, impeding the escape of energy to space. The effective emission level – the average level at which the earth’s energy is radiated to space – will rise. The effective emission temperature, because of the lapse rate, will fall.
At the lower emission temperature, outgoing radiation will be reduced, and the whole system, including the surface, must warm (via the sun) to compensate.
This idea is plausible, and allows all the energy transfers involved to increase entropy, in accordance with the second law. However, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever to confirm the theory or quantify its effect. There is much to the contrary in radio-sonde and satellite data (UAH mid-troposphere, for example).
ericgrimsrud:
I freely admit that I would not have been so gracious as to provide you with the opportunity which David is giving you, and I write to offer you some sincere kindly advice.
At August 17, 2012 at 4:29 pm you write:
Do not “defend” your reputation: recover it by behaving properly.
On the Inhofe thread you completely trashed any good reputation you may have had and proved to all that you are an arrogant, ignorant bigot.
David is giving you the opportunity to replace your existing reputation for arrogance, self-imposed ignorance and bigotry. If you are wise then you will thank him for this and you will use this opportunity which he has given you.
Richard
Fred Staples:
At August 18, 2012 at 3:45 am you rightly say:
As you say;
“there is no evidence whatever to confirm the theory or quantify its effect”
but there is a possible method to confirm and quantify the effect.
Simply, the experiment consists of taking measurements during the onset and cessation of solar eclipse totality using sensors at surface level and at elevations up the tether of a balloon to determine (a) the air temperature and (b) the upward and downward fluxes of IR in the 15 micron band.
I have twice attempted the experiment and failed; once in Cornwall (weather prevented the measurements) and once in Africa (mongoose damaged power cable at critical moment which many people find to be funny but causes me despair). Both attempts were at my own expense because empirical data which may refute the AGW-scare is not wanted, and I cannot afford another expedition like that to Zambia.
The measurements would enable direct comparison of the fluxes at the same time (within seconds) and the same place through a range of altitudes both with and without solar input and as temperature changes rapidly. The effect of dircet solar input would also be indicated. Thus the enhancement of backradiation and its change with altitude and temperatures could be doconvoluted from input of solar variation.
Several people have argued that night-time and day-time measurements could be compared to obtain the similar determinations, but so many changes occur at any locality over very short times that valid comparisons are not possible by this method. An eclipse ‘switches the Sun off’ and ‘switches it back on’ in seconds.
I hope this aside has been of interest.
Richard
To All:
Why all this hang up concerning the primary authority of the IPCC? The IPCC is merely an international organization that does it’s best to take info from the literature and turn it into recommended policy. The IPCC puts out a document once every several years and its info always lags far behind that put out by the scientists every day. Thus it is not considered an up to date source of info by scientists who are capable of reading the primary and recent literature all by themselves.
And why would I even care in the least about receiving the good graces of the likes of Richardscourtney and Davidmhoffer. My experiences – including those I acquired on this and the Inhofe threat – repeatedly have shown me that if one plays with feces, the only likely outcome is that one is likely to get feces on one.
These guys are definitely not worth associating with and are now clearly just in the “saving face” mode in all of their references to me. In other words my advice to them is simply “get lost”. They have neither the knowledge or ethical standards required for honest discussions of this critically important subject.
ericgrimsrud;
Why all this hang up concerning the primary authority of the IPCC?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you provide a cite for the claim you made about what the IPCC includes in their sensitiivity calculations or not? THIRD REQUEST.
Eric Grimsrud:
I offered you kind advice at August 18, 2012 at 3:57 am. You have rejected that advice in your post at August 18, 2012 at 6:56 am which includes, for example, this:
I am incredulous that you are sufficiently stupid as to post something which again says more about you than anything or anyone else.
Us “Saving face”?! Are you insane?
In the Inhofe thread I discovered that dealing with you was like removing something nasty found on the instep of my shoe. Despite that, I freely offered to help you with your much-needed education in radiative physics. You ignored that offer even when I repeated it in case you had missed it.
In this thread, David has tried to give you a chance to repair your reputation which you trashed in the Inhofe thread. He has given you that chance despite your disgraceful comments in the Robert Phelan memorial thread (and in this thread you lied when you claimed David misquoted you because I read what you wrote before it was snipped: indeed, I drew attention to it in another thread). You have rejected that chance which David so very kindly offered you.
Instead, you make the ridiculous claim that David and I are trying to “save face”. Save it from what? Surely, you cannot be so deluded as to think anything you have said or done has affected our ‘faces’.
Go away. You are a waste of space.
Richard
ericgrimsrud;
Keep calling richard and me FECES. It says much about you.
ericgrimsrud;
Please note that when I expanded upon your explanation to Greg House and added the additional detail that you neglected, I included a single, and obvious to anyone with a grounding in physics, error. This was a test to see if you would pick up on it. With your massive intellect and boundless knowledge, and clear and obvious intent to discredit me in every possible way, I was certain that you would leap upon it. Once again ericgrimsrud, FAIL.
But I won’t explain it right now, I’ll give you a second chance to go back and find it. Or, you can choose to FAIL again.
davidmhoffer:
David, please note that I am sincere in this post. I mean exactly what I am saying.
I remind you of the following.
1. When you invited the discussion between House and Grimsrud I wrote to say I hoped that discussion would not happen because it would – I thought – be likely to do much harm and no good.
2. You asked me to be patient, and you reminded me of that request when you thought – rightly – that my patience may be being stretched.
,
3. I was patient, and eventually it became clear that you were creating a chance for Grimsrud to redeem himself. I then wrote to say I hoped your attempt would be successful (those who know my main activity will recognise why my hope was genuine).
4. Unfortunately, Grimsrud has responded with his usual arrogance, self-imposed ignorance and bigotry.
(a) Arrogance.
Not content with having claimed superior knowledge to Lindzen on the Inhofe thread, on this thread he claims superior knowledge to the IPCC.
(b) Self-imposed ignorance.
On this thread he ignores repeated requests to substantiate a blatantly wrong assertion he has made: I lost count of such errors he refused to justify on the Inhofe thread.
(c) Bigotry.
He attempts to justify his arrogance and self-imposed ignorance by abusing people (e.g. saying they are “feces” and lack “ethics”) when they dare to question his assertions or to provide information which refutes his assertions.
So, I respectfully suggest that your attempt to offer Grimsrud a way to redeem himself has proven to be a failure. And I conclude that your attempt is doomed to failure because redemption can only be found by those who want to be redeemed.
Hence, I am writing to suggest that your time and your contributions to WUWT are much too valuable for you to be wasting them on Grimsrud.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:21 am
Could you, perhaps, utilize cloud cover for the same effect of rapidly switching the Sun “on” and “off”? I’m thinking maybe a tethered balloon with sensors spaced along the tether for different altitudes. Or, is that effect over too localized a space for your calcs?
ericgrimsrud says:
August 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks.”
That makes a nice soundbite, but what is the evidence for such long term sensitivity? Upon what hard experimental evidence is it based? Can YOU explain it simply and directly, without redirecting to a source which you claim backs you up, but offers little genuine insight?
Less chest thumping and more detail would do your cause good. It took a long time myself to realize when posting here, but you are not simply arguing with a couple of other guys and trying to establish who has a larger tool. You are playing to a larger silent audience, which is tossing away the immaterial jibes, and looking for meat in your argument. When, instead, we find “feces”, the dinner tends to become distinctly unappetizing.
richardscourtney;
So, I respectfully suggest that your attempt to offer Grimsrud a way to redeem himself has proven to be a failure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. I was very surprised that he failed to look himself in the mirror, I genuinly thought I could get through to him. We’ve seen a lot of trolls come and go over the years at WUWT, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one so completely pummeled into the ground yet leap back to his feet and declare himself victorious. I’m done with him save for correcting my error once I’ve left enough time to show that grimsrud is incapable of finding it. This thread is pretty much dead but I wouldn’t want to leave the error uncorrected in the long term and inadvertantly leave some innocent reader with a wrong impression.
Bart:
Thankyou for your interest in my aside at August 18, 2012 at 6:21 am. In your response at August 18, 2012 at 9:52 am you ask:
No, that is not the problem with cloud cover. Low clouds themselves provide backradiation and cirrus reflect sunlight but are high altitude. Importantly, radiation is scattered in the atmosphere so solar radiation is not ‘cut off’ when a cloud occludes the Sun, and effects of this scattering at low level are greatest when the clouds are high.
Simply, I don’t have a clue how to deconvolute the radiation sources unless the Sun is ‘cut off’.
Ferdinand Engelbeen was a useful foil to help me understand what I could and could not analyse: he disagrees with me about almost everything – I sometimes think he disagrees with me on principle (joke) – so I found his criticisms especially helpful.
Please tell me if you have any other ideas. I really, really would welcome a new one so it does not matter if I have heard many of the suggestions.
Richard
To Bart and Richard,
Energy transmission by radiation is “fast as light and line of sight”. Every night the sun is “cut off” except at the poles where a day is a year long. We can calculate an estimate of the outbound longwave radiation (OLR) from the rate of fall in the surface air temperature on clear winter nights when dew points are low. I’ve been working with the hourly data from Luke AFB, Arizona. I am comparing January, 1960 data with January, 2012 data to see what effect the difference in CO2 may be. You can not get this kind of information from global monthly averages except possibly at the poles.
davidmhoffer:
re. your reply to me at August 18, 2012 at 10:15 am.
I want to make it clear that I admire your attempt to “get through” to Grimsrud. I lack the patience to have made such an attempt. And it would have been wonderful if you had managed it. But that’s life.
Richard
richardscourtney;
Please tell me if you have any other ideas. I really, really would welcome a new one so it does not matter if I have heard many of the suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the idea is sound, it is your approach to the grant application process that appears flawed 🙂
You can’t get money to prove something that the money granters don’t want to hear, so don’t ask for it.
Just write it up as “the hypothessis being that current estimates of global warming are too low due to low latency feedback mechanisms that mask instantaneous equilibrium response, the proposed experiment will allow for these to be eliminated from the data and the hypothesis that global warming potential of GHG’s is higher than the current consensus literature allows for to be confirmed”
Then publish whatever the data is. Nothing in the grant process says you cannot publish if your hypothesis turns out to be “wrong”.
richardscourtney says:
August 18, 2012 at 12:51 pm
I’m just throwing out stuff here to try to be helpful, with only a sort of a vague impression of what you are trying to do because I’m not able to look too closely right now, so if this is dumb, I apologize in advance. But, I was just thinking, is it possible that the measurements are scalable so that you could make them using low levels of solar input? There are some artificial sources of low level insolation which turn on and off fairly rapidly.
David, Fred and Bart:
Thankyou for your helpful suggestions. I hope none of you is offended that I respond to them all in this one post. Also, I may not be able to reply to any responses to this post until tomorrow evening (it is approaching 11.30 pm here as I write this, and it is Sunday tomorrow).
David, yes, you are right.
I tried to get the grants in a manner similar to your suggestion, but to no avail. Please remember that I was probably the very first ‘climate realist’ so my desire to find whatever I find without ‘adjustments’ is known to all. This is not cynicism: it is merely facing facts.
Fred, yes, such estimates exist.
However, with respect you miss the point of the intended determination. This surprises me because the intention is to determine an effect that you mentioned. The effective emission height to space varies with temperature and GHG concentrations. At time scales less than a few seconds the GHG concentrations (including humidity) approximate zero at each altitude. But temperature drops rapidly when an eclipse totality occurs. Hence, the measurements would determine variation of effective emission height for the ‘same’ conditions and at a range of temperatures when the radiation sources are (a) Sun and Earth surface, and (b) Earth surface alone. Thus, effect of temperature on effective emission height can be directly measured for temperatures throughout the measured range. Hence, effect of GHG concentration on effective emission height for constant temperature can be directly calculated for temperatures throughout the measured range. Indeed, this is why scattering is such a problem if one uses localised solar obscuration (e.g. by clouds or an artificial mask at altitude): the additional variable prevents deconvolution of the radiation sources such that the only environmental variable is temperature at each measurement height.
Bart, you make an interesting suggestion about low levels of solar input. Sorry, but that does not work for the reasons I explain to Fred in this post. However, to avoid you spending time on the proposal which usually arises from your suggestion, I also address that proposal. In principle a large diameter opaque vertical tube could be used instead of a tethered balloon. In that case, obscuring (but not sealing) the top of the tube would switch the Sun off and on inside the tube. However, both the costs and the technical difficulties of building such a tall tube would be severe.
Again, I thank you all for your suggestions. Please throw any more ideas at me if you get them. I strongly want to find an empirical approach to determination of the radiative greenhouse effect as distinct from climate sensitivity (although that datum would probably ‘fall out’ from the determination).
Richard
Oops!
Of course, in my reply to Fred I intended to write
At time scales less than a few seconds the VARIATIONS IN GHG concentrations (including humidity) approximate zero at each altitude.
Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney;
David, yes, you are right.
I tried to get the grants in a manner similar to your suggestion, but to no avail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunate, because this would be a rather cool experiment.
Do you still have the apparatus? If so, can I assume that the major cost is travel to a location on earth where a solar eclipse is going to happen in a timely fashion?
Someone on this threat has the impression that I used the IPCC as a reference for information. What that person said exactly is:
“Can you provide a cite for the claim you made about what the IPCC includes in their sensitiivity calculations or not? THIRD REQUEST.”
Since I never did use the IPCC as a source of information (the current literature is much better and much more up to date), I suspect that the person who that is, shall we say, “full of it” as I have pointed out previously now on several previous occassions. Now if, on the other hand, I am the one that is “full of it”, it will be a simple matter for the person who wrote those words to prove that possibility by pointing us all to the claim that he aledges I made. But agian, don’t hold your breath on that one. You are not likely to be shown that evidence. As usual, he just seems to makes “stuff up” and apparently has a green light to do so at WUWT..
What you are likely to see instead is simply more “stuff” (where stuff = crap). I can only guess why he and his buddy regularly shared this “stuff” with us. I presently does appear to be for the purpose of saving face before the peanut nut galleries of WUWT. I am told by WUTW that WUWT is the “most watched” web site in America – so there undoubtedly is a some “show money” at stake here. WUWT probably does not want their in-house “climate experts” to be shown up by some old retired guy who lives on the fringes of civilization up in MW Montana whose advisors include only his scientifically untrained (but scientifically unbiased!!) wife and dog.
When I first posted on this sight, I didn’t realize that my two buddies where so tightly connected to the WUWT web site in which they so regularly pontificate. I have now come to suspect, however, that they might actually be paid by WUWT to do there best to undermine our country’s confidence in our scientific communities. If so, that would explain why these scientifically uneducated and inexperienced vermin have not yet been reigned in with respect to their domination of threads at WUWT.
(Note to the boss of WUWT: the two gentlemen being discussed here do make a very poor impression on educated and experienced scientists, you know. Condescension, sarcasm, and wit is indeed entertaining for a while, but rapidly wares thin when there is no substance. As revealed on the Inhofe threat, neither of them can discuss the basic science involved at a level that is understandable to the lay public. I challenge you to go to it and compare what they said with what I said. They simply “blast’ your audience with “stuff” that no one understands even though it might sound “impressive” to some. Now, with REP gone, these inhouse goons could run amock at WUWT and completely destroy whatever credibility WUWT previously enjoyed. By the way, all of this advice is free of charge. My only motivation is to improve future living conditions on this planet for my grandchilden.)
Sincerely, Eric Grimsrud (website ericgrimsrud.com)
To Venter, you asked: What’s this fast feedback and slow feedbacks stuff?
These terms concern the net temperature increase expected to be caused by increased levels of atmospheric CO2.
First, let’s consider a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – if nothing else also changed. By straightforward calculations, we believe this would cause a temperature increase of about 1.0C.
But other things would also happen with this 1.0 degree increase in T. One of these would be an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Another would be a change in clouds. Another would be a decrease in sea ice. Another would be a change in the nature of landscapes. All of these changes would also affect the net T change caused by a doubling of CO2 (due to their GH and albedo effects) and these changes in T would be apparent in the short term – say a decade or two. These are called the “fast feedback” effects of CO2 change and are generally thought to increase the T effect of a CO2 doubling to about 3 C.
Now if CO2 is doubled and remains at that level for several centuries, then we must also be concerned with expected “slow feedback” effects. These are due primarily to changes in the land-ice of the plant – such as that on Antarctica and Greenland. There is little theory that has been developed, to date, for explaining the slow feed back effects. Perhaps our best indication of its contribution is that suggested by the ice core record. It suggests that the sum of the slow and fast feedbacks over the glacial / interglacial periods resulted in a total CO2 sensitivity of about 6C. This would suggest that the slow feedback effects contribute about 3C to the sensitivity while fast feedbacks also contribute about 3C.
Note that it is the exact magnitude of these sensitivity terms that much of the scientific research is focussed on today.
Hope this helps with your question. If interested in learning more, see the short course on my web site: ericgrimsrud.com.
ericgrimsrud;
Since I never did use the IPCC as a source of information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I quote your words from your comment of August 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm
“He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks”
And for now the FOURTH time (or is it 5th?) I ask you to provide the evidence to substantiate the claim you have made in regard to the IPCC number.
eric grimsrud has lost a lot of credibility here.
ericgrimsrud:
“I have now come to suspect, however, that they might actually be paid by WUWT to do there best to undermine our country’s confidence in our scientific communities”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>”
ROFLMAO
Here is a most complete representation of my post referred to by DH above:
” To All:
There is someone on this blog who is posting “stuff” that is generally incomprehensible and when comprehensible, is either inaccurate or misleading. For example when he recently said:
“the IPCC estimate of sensitivity, to 2.6 degrees or less, and completeley tossing out Hansen’s 6.5 degrees as unsupportable.”
He does not seem to realize that the IPCC number includes fast feedback effects, only, while that of Hansen included both fast and slow feedbacks. This point is very important, of course, because the first applies to the short term (the next couple decades) while the latter applies to the longer term (next couple centuries). ”
Note that I did not quote the IPCC estimate of sensitivity – he did. I merely pointed out that the IPCC number included only fast feedback effects and did not appear to know that (I suspect he might not have even known the difference).
If DH wants to contest this point, bring it on!! I love to discuss science.
I have sometimes suggested that DH does not communicate in a manner that is easily understood by the public. If incorrect, my applogies. ROFLMAO!!! to you all !
(note to the Boss, we sure do miss REP on the thread).
ericgrimsrud says:
August 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm
“There is little theory that has been developed… suggested by the ice core record. It suggests …This would suggest …”
And, the mottled visage of the Moon suggests it is made of moldy cheese.
When you have something more than suggestions, please let us know.
ericgrimsrud;
Note that I did not quote the IPCC estimate of sensitivity – he did. I merely pointed out that the IPCC number included only fast feedback effects and did not appear to know that (I suspect he might not have even known the difference).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you could be so kind as to substantiate your claim that the IPCC only includes fast feedbacks, I would be most appreciative. FIFTH REQUEST
First off, a very Well Done! to Mr. Bast. I can’t say I’m too surprised at the lack of publication though. My general success in getting letters to the editor published in papers on smoking ban type issues has been about 1 in 4. Over the past fifteen years or so I’ve written close to sixty to the NY Times without a single publication. I believe the same mechanism was at work here: if a letter challenges a strong editorial stance *too* successfully, and makes its case *too* well, it will generally be passed over in favor of letters that may espouse the same “opposing view” to the Times’ position… but perhaps just not do it as well.
Of course there’s also the question of simple “amount” of opposition allowed by the Times. It would seem to be a fairly obvious piece of research, but I don’t recall ever having seen it done: a simple analysis of the numbers of letters published (and perhaps their word count and some sort of measurement of informative content) on opposite sides of contentious ideological issues that the Times has strong stands on? I’m not talking party politics or war-supporting/opposing type equilibrium here — I think that the balancing there would be more carefully done as it would be more carefully watched over — but of issues like global warming, drug legalization, smoking bans, church/state funding/separation: issues where the Times might have a strong position and it which there are major “power players” and closely reasoned arguments and factual disagreements and presentations out there in addition to grass roots activists’ simple desire to have their feelings heard.
Is there a resource that would put such research within reach of people without extensive grant support? Something perhaps that would let one gather together ALL the letters published in the Times over a ten year period that addressed a particular topic without having to separate them from all the stories published on those topics? Has such research ever been done that anyone knows of? The same sort of research might be worthwhile on their Op-Eds as well: how well do they ACTUALLY serve as a balance to the paper’s editorials and editorial positions?
– MJM
Bart, What do you think science is? Since I don’t do religion, I’ll will not be “letting you know”. Eric
Bart
Welcome to the world of ericgrimsrud, where opinions are science and facts are religion.
ROFLMAO
For anyone who would like to know what the IPCC report in 2007 included in their estimates of CO2’s sensitivity, see:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007, Solomon , et al. (eds), Cambridge Univ Press: New York, 2007; pp. 996.
Bart, My point is that there is no such thing as absolute certainty in our determinations of scientific concepts, ideas, and theories. There are only observable facts from which we do our best to draw our conclusions and personal opinions. This is how its always been and always will be. Even the best theories of science are continuously being modified by new discoveries and insights. While ultimate truths are the goals, all we can ever achieve is our very best approximations of them. Again, I am speaking here in scientific terms and make no claim to the understand or know anything about the power of religion to achieve certainty in these issues. So, yes, welcome to the real world of science – indeed, as I have learned it.
ericgrimsrud;
Nice try. No quote from the material as to what it actually says, nor a link to it so we can read it for ourselves. Is this what you call providing a reference to support your assertion?
Here, let me help you out. The last IPCC report in fact includes both fast and slow feedbacks. They tend to focus on the next three hundred years only though, here is a graph predicting future temps that goes out 300 years. You can find it in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html
Now I’m guessing that ericgrimsrud will argue that taking into account the full effect of slow feedbacks requires a longer timeframe still. The reason that IPCC doesn’t do this is fully visible in the graph I have linked to above. The response after the first 300 years tails off to a nearly flat line and is pretty much negligible after that. He’ll no doubt argue also that AR4 is obsolete and that newer literature should be used instead. On that point I agree. The newer literature supports an even lower and flatter curve than the one adopted by AR4 and this will be reflected in the publication of AR5 based on early releases of the text. Sensitivity estimates, based on the most current literature available, will be reduced even further and Hansen’s 6.5 degree paper from 2008 is pretty much being ignored.
ericgrimsrud;
Now that we see WHY you tried to weasel out of providing a reference to support your claim, and then made matters worse for yourself by posting a reference with no link and no quote (oops! I forgot to say when exposing you on that one FAIL!) we can turn our attention to the error in my expansion of the explanation ericgrimsrud wrote for Greg House. Have you found the error yet ericrgrimsrud? You know so much about this topic, you have a PhD in Chemistry, you’ve written and published dozens of peer reviewed papers, you are a SCIENTIST and I am not. Surely finding this error ought to be trivial for you.
Or are you going to FAIL on that issue as well?
ericgrimsrud;
Sorry, I was wrong. Turns out that the IPCC does include projection on a 1000 year time scale. My apologies, my fault, it has been some time since I read the document and I’d forgotten about that section. Here ya go.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-34.html
You’ll notice that not only do they include slow feedback responses, they are nearly negligible after the first 300 years. No don’t whine to me about more recent papers, the Hansen paper you keep referring to has been soundly rejected and AR5 will feature even lower estimates than this one.
As for your assertion that the IPCC doesn’t include slow feedbacks…
FAIL
ericgrimsrud says:
August 18, 2012 at 7:05 pm
“Bart, What do you think science is?”
Science is what I do every day, when I sit down at my desk and derive new equations to describe physical processes, then send my info down to the guys in the lab to test on equipment built to my specifications. I never assume I know things for which there is as yet no information available, and the equipment I design assumes the worst possible outcome in such situations, or things could end in a catastrophic fireball.
Science is, or should be, about labeling as “tentative” those things which we do not know for sure, and pursuing the loose ends in the vein of a working hypothesis until discrepancies are resolved, or a new understanding emerges which moves the theory forward from a new starting point of established fact (which, incidentally, happens frequently). It is not about plowing on heedless of consequences or contrary data, assuming one is right until catastrophe strikes and forces a rethink.
It is NOT about advocacy. It is especially not about advocating a cure which is worse than the disease. The first rule is always primum non nocere.
‘Since I don’t do religion, I’ll will not be “letting you know”.’
I think you do, you just won’t allow yourself to acknowledge it as such.
davidmhoffer says:
August 18, 2012 at 7:31 pm
“Welcome to the world of ericgrimsrud, where opinions are science and facts are religion.”
I must admit puzzlement at the insinuation that I am a religious fruitcake. I don’t think I’ve said anything which would suggest that I have even vaguely religious tendencies. As it happens, and for the record, I am a devout agnostic, which is in keeping with my scientific philosophy as described above. When you do not, cannot, know something for certain, why do people insist nevertheless that they do?
Bart, I was clearly telling you that I don’t use religion in scientific discussion. Of course, I have no idea what your religious views are and do not care what they are. Your suggestion that I did know anything about your religious views has no basis. Thus you can relax your sense of puzzlement.
To All:
For some reason I am hestitant to “play the games” that DH likes to set up for us all in this threat.
Nevertheless, I hope that all of you have read the various references to the 2007 IPCC report provided above and, thereby, have learned what feedbacks the IPCC report used for their projection. While they provided projections out to several centuries, the type of feedbacks they envisions where only those that could be included in their models.
Now I also hope you have all also read more modern literature such as the Hansen et al article in the Open Atmopsheric Science Journal 2008 vol 2 217-231.
{{{{{Time out: Note that DH has claimed that this article is the “most debuked” in the literature. Therefore I asked him to provide some references for that statement. This article is coauthored by almost 20 other scientists from some of our top universities and research institutions. I have found no such “debunkiing” myself. So while DH loves to send us off on missions to “prove” our statements, he does not “play these games” when he is asked to do so }}}}}
Now note that the main point in the Hansen et al article was to point out that models, such as used in the then outdated IPCC 2007 report had no way of including the real slow feed back effects that are apparent over the time periods of several centuries and millenia. If you look back at the 2007 report you will note that the authors might have thought they were including them and probably were – to the best of their abiltity. But it is unlikely that they could because we do not even now understand the science of land ice breakup.
In the Hansen article they did not claim that they did either, but argued that the Ice core record indicates what the sum of fast and slow feedbacks really are. This led to their estimate that the total was closer to 6 C than 3C.
So in the light of the most modern literature the IPCC report really has relatively litte to say about the long term feedbacks as have been subsequently revealed by Mother Nature within here ice core sample. Their assessment could only include factors the could be reliably modelled.
IF the readers of WUWT don’t mind too much, I will stop there and not include cute little “put downs”.
davidmhoffer:
David, I am replying to your post at August 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm. I am ignoring Grimsrud because he exhausted my patience on the Inhofe thread and my tolerance is now lower than usual because of a slanderous troll on another thread.
You ask me
Sorry, but no, I don’t have the apparatus except for a few wires and an outdated computer. I hired or borrowed most of the kit.
Expedition cost is the major cost. Travel was a large part of that when going to Africa but not Cornwall. Employing assistants was a small cost in Africa but a large cost in Cornwall.
Richard
ericgrimsrud
Now note that the main point in the Hansen et al article was to point out that models, such as used in the then outdated IPCC 2007 report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. ericgrimsrud appears to be relying upon what a report by Hansen says about the IPCC report rather than having any first hand knowledge of what the IPCC reports actually say. FAIL
2. ericgrimsrud assumes that IPCC estimates of sensitivity rely exclusively on models. FAIL.
Slow feedbacks taken into account by the IPCC a few examples:
Surface Mass Balance
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-4-1.html
Ice Sheets
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-4.html
Glaciers and Ice Caps
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-3-3.html
And many others. The IPCC reports are not limited to the models alone, they take a much bigger view of things than that. The reason you were unable to answer my question is that you clearly haven’t read them, or even a fraction of the literature upon which they rely. You rely instead on what you are told by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and read only the literature that supports that point of view. You seem to believe everything in Hansen’s paper because you haven’t read it with a critical eye, nor have you sought out contrary literature, nor have you even thought about why it is that AR5 will reject Hansen’s paper.
You are living in an echo chamber of your own creation.
August 18, 2012 at 6:56 am
To All:
“ ….IF the readers of WUWT don’t mind too much, I will stop there and not include cute little “put downs”.
________________________
Simple Facts:
You can argue till eternity, but here you do not earn anything.
You think the thread is about “Why We Need Debate, Not Consensus, on Gravity“?
You believe Global Warming is real, even though the current value is negligible. But here nobody believes in Global Warming, unlike, everybody thinks about Global Cooling.
Just return to the topic; Debate or Consensus on Global Warming.
Fred Krupp said something in two items; in return, Joe Bast submitted a proposal in five items.
It is useless to focus on scientific persuasive controversies. It’ not the right time.
Say how we can start the Debate. Everybody should keep the documents ready when the Debate takes place.
Ericgrimsrud says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:56 am
To All:
“ ….IF the readers of WUWT don’t mind too much, I will stop there and not include cute little “put downs”.
________________________
Simple Facts:
You can argue till eternity, but here you do not earn anything.
You think the thread is about “Why We Need Debate, Not Consensus, on Gravity“?
You believe Global Warming is real, even though the current value is negligible.Here nobody believes in Global Warming, unlike, everybody thinks about Global Cooling.
Just return to the topic; Debate or Consensus on Global Warming.
Fred Krupp said something in two items; in return, Joe Bast submitted a proposal in five items.
It is useless to focus on scientific persuasive controversies.
Say how we can start the Debate. Everybody should keep the documents ready when the Debate takes place.
CORECTING MY ERROR
In my expansion of ericgrimsrud’s explanation I said:
“Further, the upward LW and the downward LW, while exactly equal and opposite across the atmospheric column, are not exactly equal and opposite in any given one of your layers.”
Since the focus of the discussion was the absorption and re-emission of photons by CO2, this statement is an over simplification and technicaly inaccurate. To understand what is happening from a LW perspective in any given “layer” we must break the LW down into several categories:
1. Photons emitted from CO2: Some of these will be up and some down, and if we were to measure up versus down, they would in fact be equal and opposite.
2. Photons in transit; At any given layer, the bulk of the photons are simply passing through. For the troposphere, this will invariably result in more photons going up than photons going down. The sum total across all layers from surface to TOA of photons going up less photons going down will result in a w/m2 total exactly equal to the incoming w/m2 from insolation.
3. Photons being absorbed; Since there are more photons going up than down in any given layer, more upward bound photons will be absorbed than downward. However, since the re-emission of these results in an equal number of up and down, the ratio of up vs down in any given layer will be slightly altered in favour of down.
4. All of which alters the temperature gradient from surface to TOA such that increased temperatures in some layers high enough to generate additional upward LW emissions such that they equal the shift in downward LW noted in 3. above, What is important about this, and which I shall repeat again, is that this achieves a maxima at some point ABOVE the surface rather than the surface itself because water vapout at low altitudes is as high as 40,000 ppm and just as it resists the attempt of photons emitted from the surface to travel upward toward TOA, it also resists photons absorbed and emitted above it from travelling downward toward the surface.
And now Dr Grimsrud, I am done with you and this thread. You will no doubt use my absence to pee all over me, further insult me by calling me “feces” or worse, and declare yourself the brilliant victor in our little debate. You’ve accomplished nothing but to demonstrate the futility of discussing science in an open and honest debate that Joe Bast called for in his article above.
dropping thread
ericgrimsrud says:
August 19, 2012 at 6:07 am
Eric – your definition of “science” is not science. It is a grotesque, self-serving mockery of science. Science is not about assuming you are right until proven wrong. It is about searching for answers and holding off judgment until the answers become clear.
Your “science” is medieval, of the kind which bled patients to eliminate bad “humours”, or tossed virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods. You have convinced yourself that Nature is beneficent, so long as we do not anger her, as we are wont to do. And, therefore any rank speculation floating along which supports that point of view, you snatch up and thrust forward as scientific “truth”, perversely placing the burden of proof upon those who would question your biased intuition and defining “science” as the unassailable standard of your views against which they must labor.
With nary a shred of confirming evidence for your divine inspiration, you seek to compel the tribe to take actions, courting the anger of the Gods if they disobey. All I can say to you at this point is, not in the 21st century. Take a hike, and take your primitive superstitions along with you. We’re not listening.
And, bye the bye, welcome to the REAL, real world of science.
smipp:
At August 19, 2012 at 9:55 am you say
I like your sentiment but it seems few want the debate. If you check the thread you will see I tried to start discussion of how to start the debate on three separate occasions (first at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am).
But people wanted to discuss politics and later science. Also, the thread was interrupted by a paid troll, but that was not a major reason why the thread has been almost entirely off-topic. The major reason is that few if any have much interest in the thread’s topic.
So, when the thread offered David a chance to gain interaction with Grimsrud (i.e. a self-professed sock-puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists) it seemed that attempt at interaction was the nearest to the thread’s topic which was likely to occur. And if that interaction were achieved then its process could have been informative of how to obtain ‘the debate’. Sadly, David’s attempt proved too ambitious.
This failure to interact with Grimsrud does not prove the debate cannot happen. Grimsrud is such an extreme case (his behaviour on the Inhofe thread was worse than on this thread) that any sensible interaction with him was unlikely to occur.
If the debate cannot happen then it is because so few people want it to happen.
Richard
Note to All:
While Davidmhoffer is has now exited from this tread, you will note that he never did provide those references that support his claim that the Hanson et al 2008 paper is the “most debunked” paper in the literature. If it was, in fact, “the most”, one might have thought that he could at least have pointed to “just one” peer reviewed paper that “debunked” it. It would appear therefore that might simply have been something he made up – he is very good at that. To bad he’s now gone (I am afraid that my last response concerning his aledged discrepancy between the 2007 IPCC and the Hansen et al paper of 2008 might have caused him to run for the exists). In any case, Goodby Davy, we will miss your clever barbs, however void of substance they might have been.
And concerning that recent conversation I had with DH concerning the sensitivities claimed in the 2007 IPCC report and the 2008 paper by Hansen et al, note that DH did not even seem to realize that in Hansen et al’s paper, the authors were specfically claiming that the IPCC estimate was probably too low because the IPCC could not possibly have correctly modeled all of the slow feedback effects in 2007. We cannot still do that today because we don’t have a quantitative understanding of them yet. Yes, it is true that Hansen’s estimate of about 6C for total feedback – which was obtained entirely from observations of the ice core samples – is about double that obtained from the models of the 2007 IPCC document – and they were saying that for very good and defensible reasons. Thus, DH apparently did not understand what Hansen et al were saying in their landmark paper – even though DH assured us here that he had read it. Given this lack of understanding of the key point in the Hansen et al paper, one wonders why DH thinks it should be “debunked” (again DH whereever you are hiding – references please)
At any rate, DH is gone now and his politically correct and amazingly self righteous buddy, RC, claims that he is also “done with me” – even though he repeatedly comes back again just to throw in a few more jolly good “put downs”. That’s OK with me, Old Sport – In the extended exchanges I frequently have with other scientist, I usually come away with having learned something at least slightly new or interesting. In this case, I can not think of anything whatsoever that I have learned from either DH or RC. Almost all of their efforts have been expended to either “put down” or “save face”, all done with an impressive string of “sweet knowthings” or intentional (and even admitted) deceptions. I can not see why the WUWT boss would think that they have anything to teach anyone about the science of climate change.
REPLY: Well I could make the same argument about some of your posts, but I try to give everybody a fair shake here, until such time that they start violating site policy. For the majority, that never happens, but a few hit it on the first few comments. You’ve been fine. so have they. But, your last sentence needs some attention.
Just because you think they have nothing to add is no reason for me to ban them from debating you, nor do I understand why you think that by allowing them the forum to debate in, that somehow I’m endorsing their position over yours. You might want to check that ego at the door sir, because I think perhaps it won’t fit through it. Cheers, Anthony
Yo Bart, Sorry you feel that way about me. With this setback, I’ll have to be content with the admiration of Kathy and Bek. Have a nice day. Eric
richardscourtney says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
“Anyway, that is my suggestion, and I would welcome other suggestions of possible starting points for dialogue which do not require either ‘side’ to capitulate before the dialogue can start.”
and
richardscourtney says:
August 19, 2012 at 11:48 am
“..If you check the thread you will see I tried to start discussion of how to start the debate on three separate occasions…But people wanted to discuss politics and later science. ….. The major reason is that few if any have much interest in the thread’s topic.”
_______________________
Richard,
You got the point earlier. It is a strange buzz. If the topic is “Milk “and “Onion”, likewise, discussions are misled to CO2, solar activities, sea ice etc. Here is like a conference with no subject. However the problem is; how we can manage and lead the case to enter CONSENSUS on “Start the Debate”. We have Fred Krupp and Joe Bast written proposals on the table. All our friends argue about in this room is useful for when there is a debate. This topic is to determine the scientific war which is already underway. Take care.
Note to Anthony, I understand about deleting that last sentence – please do so if your wish. Concerning my ego, I generally like it. It comes in handy when I am dealing with certain individuals. As a rule I treat people like they treat me – but sometimes, unfortunately, no better. I agree that this is a problem that I should work on. Thanks for your comment. You (as well has REP) have treated me very fairly and I really do appreciate that. Sincerely, Eric
REPLY: OK, fair enough – Anthony
Anthony,
I know you can’t possibly read every comment so I think it fair to advise you that ericgrimsrud has:
o accused richardscourtney and me of being paid by you to derail the science discussion
o accused you of taking money from big oil
o in the Inhofe thread he was repeatedly snipped by REP for various site offenses including if memory serves insulting you
o subsequent to which he has claimed that it was REP controlling myself and richardscourtney when in fact neither one of us was snipped in that exchange a single time.
I admire your patience with people like ericgrimsrud (and with me) but it will only be a matter of time before his arguments by assertion, authority, and less than clever ad hominem attacks (he characterised richard and me as “feces”) wears thin. My vote (yeah, I know, WUWT isn’t a democracy) depsite all that is to keep him around. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with the debate.
Very good Davidmhoffer, But please do not forget to provide us with the evidence behind your claim that the landmark and crititically important paper by Hansen et al in 2008 has been the “most debunked” in the literature (need go back and show your exact statement?) Sure, policitical correctness has its place in the public square, but basic honesty and credibility does also. In my “‘humble” opinion, the latter is even more important. So lets see those references, please! If you can produce them, my impression of you will be improved. (And by the way, it did not say you are feces – I just simply shared a thought that is very well known out here in Montana). Eric
Since it is referred to in this and the Inhofe thread so often, I should tell you about my association with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). About three or four years ago they invited me to be on their “science team” (ST). They essentially wanted me to continue doing what I has already doing – that is writing op eds to newspapers and posting comments to the e-versions of newspapers.
They did not provide me with any specific messages to relate. In fact, they wanted me to simply act on my very own as before – which, of course, I was happy to do. The very useful role they played for me was to give me a heads up whenever there was an article or opionion in one of our country”s major newspapers on which I might like to post a comment.
After less than one year of being on that ST, they decided to discontinue that “heads up” function I mentions. Of course, I have continued as always with my op eds and comments to as many newspapers as I can.
Thus my association with UCS has actually been very minimal. As one reader on the Inhofe threat noted, I do not even know where their headquarters are. Thus I will revise that reference to my connection with UCS on my website to make clear that my association with them was only in the past – just to be absolutely correct on a very minor point that some seemed to think was a big deal.
Oh David, There you go (at 2:52), “telling” on me again – most of which can be easily seen to be BS, lifted out of context. A little brown-nosing to the boss sometimes does help, however. Good luck. Eric
ericgrimsrud,
You are in good intellectual company. Anthony’s DOG, Kenji, is a member of the Union of Concern Trolls. You are his equal. I have no doubt.
Thanks Smokey, I have the highest regard for dogs and accept your compliment. But also please tell me what you guys mean be your frequent use of the term, Troll. Really, I don’t know. So please do “let me have it” as I am requesting. If its worse than feces, let it fly. I have thick skin. Eric
Smokey;
You are in good intellectual company. Anthony’s DOG, Kenji, is a member of the Union of Concern Trolls. You are his equal. I have no doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Smokey! Shame on you! Insulting Kenji like that! I am shocked that the mods let it through.
ericgrimsrud:
At August 19, 2012 at 4:09 pm you say
I could not agree more. And I am sure I am not alone when I say I would appreciate your adopting these principles.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:46 am
ericgrimsrud:
At August 19, 2012 at 4:09 pm you say
Sure, policitical correctness has its place in the public square, but basic honesty and credibility does also.
I could not agree more. And I am sure I am not alone when I say I would appreciate your adopting these principles.
________________________________
I however completely disagree. Political Correctness should be booted out the door. Drawn and Quartered, tarred and feathered. I HATE Political Correctness!
Political Correctness is the opposite of free speech and is now used to shut up and punish those who do not fall in line especially in schools.
Gail:
Sorry I offended. But you may care to notice that I was commending the principles of “basic honesty and credibility”.
Grimsrud’s mention of “political correctness” was an attempt to justify his insults, ad hominem and abusive (e.g. feces) language. A call to political correctness is irrelevant to this: common courtesy is all that was required.
Richard
Gail,
Concerning political correctness, I completely agree with you that it should not carry so much weight in the public square as it often appears. For one, it is too commonly used as the last refuge of the scoundrels of the world when they find that they cannot carry the day with the substance of the argument. Even though they repeatedly heap personal abuse on their oppositions, they then cry foul to the “authorities” when the opposition responds in kind. They might even go so far as the plead with the moderator to not allow the opposition to participle (as RC did twice to REP on the Inhofe thread, for example).
Having spend many years in the university scene, I have witnessed all sorts of PC that gets in the way of open and fair dialog. It is a very good thing that the moderators at WUWT (both REP and Mr. Watts) also recognize this misuse of PC when it occurs and have not let their “regulars” use it inappropriately against newcomers to this website.
Gail Combs says: [I got screamed at for 15 minutes for saying “two pretty little black girls” last week ~G. C.]
As the grandfather of a “pretty little black girl(s)” I see nothing wrong with that. I tell her she is pretty all the time.
I fully agree with your comments regarding PC. It is stiffling. Keep up the good work.
To Davidmhoffer, Alas, it appears that you are still here – at least in order to post comments concerning dogs – one of my favorite supjects also. But since you are here, let me remind you (for the nth time) that back on the Inhofe threat you said:
on August 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm on the Inhofe threat you said, “Grimsrud’s cite turns out to be Hansen et al 2008 which is one of the most debunked papers in history”.
On that and this threat, you have sent me on countess missions to provide references for things I have said while I have sent you on only one. That is, again for the nth time, please provide the references for your “fact” that the Hansen et al (including about 20 authors from numerous top ranked universities and research institutions) article, has been “debunked” in the literature. Not only are you calling into question the reputations of these scientists and institutions, you are also claiming that the ice core record, on which that paper is primarily bases, does not provide a valid source of information. While that latter possibility might be correct, your suggestion merits at least a reference or two or even many, as your suggest there are, that back up your very, very significant claim.
So David, please come out of of your hiding place just long enough to provide those references !!! Surely you realize the very central importance of your claim with respect our understanding of the science of climate change.
ericfgrimsrud;
On that and this threat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did not threaten you, not even once.
erigriumsrud;
you have sent me on countess missions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you do with a countess is entirely your choice.
ericgrimsrud
to provide references for things I have said while I have sent you on only one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked you for a single cite. Please substantiate your claim that I asked for more than one by quoting the exact words and comments including time and date, else please retract your accusation which I suggest to the readership is a blatant falsehood.
Guys… With apologies to Monty Python, this thread is dead. It’s passed on. This thread is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’d be pushing up the daisies. It’s metabolic processes are now ‘istory. It’s off the twig. It’s kicked the bucket. It’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible. THIS IS AN EX-THREAD!
Let it go…. Eric isn’t worth it.
richardscourtney;
Forgive me!. He makes it so easy!
Bart;
LOL
Bart:
re your post at August 20, 2012 at 9:59 am. I entirely agree.
In fact, the thread never ‘got off the ground’ as I explained to smip at August 19, 2012 at 11:48 am.
Now, the thread is interacting with Grimsrud and I have been ignoring him except to try to give him kindly advice (which rolls off him like water from a duck’s back).
Richard
richardscourtney;
Now, the thread is interacting with Grimsrud and I have been ignoring him except to try to give him kindly advice (which rolls off him like water from a duck’s back).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whoa! Maybe he’s a duck? We thought he was a troll, but given the quality of trolls around here, that’s probably unfair to the rest of the trolls. Made all the more amusing by the fact that he appears to not know what a troll is. Yes, I think we can confer upon him the rank of duck, for quackery appears to be his strong suit.
Ok, NOW I am going to drop this thread for real. The last time I said I was dropping it was a ruse to see what ericgrimsrud would do, and as I expected, he jumped in nearly immediately with a string of insults and bs. He didn’t even manage to come up with something I wasn’t expecting. He is highly predictable and easily manipulated, this latter trait clearly having been taken advantage of by the UCS and others. He truly does believe his own drivel, and worse, he truly believes he scored some kind of victory. He deserves, I suppose, some level of pity rather than scorn.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 6:55 am
….Grimsrud’s mention of “political correctness” was an attempt to justify his insults, ad hominem and abusive (e.g. feces) language. A call to political correctness is irrelevant to this: common courtesy is all that was required.
No problem. “Political correctness” is a hot button. You are correct common courtesy is all that was required, but with the ever changing “politically correct” language that has become difficult. I resent having traps laid so I can then be verbally abused for being “Racist” or whatever. It has happened several time lately and I am downright sick of it.
richardscourtney says:
August 18, 2012 at 6:21 am
“Several people have argued that night-time and day-time measurements could be compared to obtain the similar determinations, but so many changes occur at any locality over very short times that valid comparisons are not possible by this method. An eclipse ‘switches the Sun off’ and ‘switches it back on’ in seconds.”
Richard, I’d love to have you look over the work I’ve done with Min/Max temperatures (follow the link in my name). While I agree that your experiment is unique, and worthwhile, I think by looking at a large number of day/night cycles you can average out changes and mine useful data.
And what I’ve found is that there’s no loss of daily cooling as CO2 has gone up.
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 11:13 am
An essay you might find of interest.
I think the decoupling you desire is more or less futile. There is a game theoretic aspect to it, akin to the classical Prisoner’s Dilemma. The side which seeks accommodation first will get hammered.
“The side which seeks accommodation first will get hammered.”
Which is not to say that the sides are morally equivalent. I think I hardly need to specify which side I believe is the least deserving of trust.
By a rather wide margin.
Oh Davy, Davy, come out, where ever you are. This threat is not done until you have provided the evidence for your quote:
on August 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm on the Inhofe threat Davidmhoffer said, “Grimsrud’s cite turns out to be Hansen et al 2008 which is one of the most debunked papers in history”.
The 20-some authors of that landmark paper which along with its companion and exceedingly extensive “supporting material” paper has significantly altered and affected our long and short term view of climate science. Wouldn’t you think that the person, David M. Hoffer, who trashed it on this website by making the statement provided above would agree to either provide references that support his statement or retract and apologize for it? Has he no respect for anyone who happens to have an advanced degree and many years of professional experience?
Perhaps the behavior of Davidmhoffer is a reflection of the politicial correctness influence we have also been discussing on this thread. That is, perhaps he thinks that because I have told him a sage bit of Montana wisdom concerning feces (Oh my goodness!! that awful word again!!), this allows him to trash the reputations of the authors of this paper – who have not said anything on this thread.
Whatever it is. Davy, Davy, please come out of your PC refuge and provide those references (or apologies). What minority class do you belong to that makes you think you are not responsible for holding standard levels of respect and decency for others? Or perhaps you are a white male anglosaxon who just happens to be a bit more “sensitive” that the rest of us – I certainly don’t know – on the Imhofe threat you repeatedly refused to tell us all you your are.
Since I really am coming to believe that the bit of Montana wisdom I shared – concerning what happens when one plays with feces – applies in this case, I don’t really expect that either DH or his psuedo science tag team partner, RC, will provide any evidence at all for their disrespectful remarks concerning the work of the reputable scientists who contributed the Hansen et al 2008 paper.
Hope you both enjoy that PC refuge of scoundrels.
David, Gail, MiCro and Bart:
I hope you forgive this single answer to you all. It is nearing midnight here and I only checked this thread to see if it is really dead before going to bed. One post is quicker – which is why I am doing it – but I do not intend to demean anyone.
David, thankyou. I enjoyed the duck-quackery joke as I suspect you knew I would.
Gail, I take your point about ‘political correctness’. I, too, was accused of “racism” a few months ago and I was shocked that anybody could say such a thing in the light of my history. Strange world now, isn’t it?
MiCro, I have not yet followed the link on your name and will not until tomorrow night. I am appreciative of your interest in the matter and will follow the link, but it is now late and there are other priorities tomorrow. Sorry. I will get the old computer out of the garage and try to recover the old data, but it is useless because of the clouds in Cornwall and the failure to record anything in Zambia. I am really, really interested in seeing your work: if we can obtain effective emission height as a function of GHG concentration from it then that would be a wonderful end to what I consider to be one of my great failures.
Bart, thanks for that. I am familiar with ‘Prisoners Dilemma’ and several other game strategies: we Preachers have to learn them as part of philosophy and human behaviour studies. Having said that, I noticed you saying you are an agnostic which I consider to be an honourable position (in contrast to proselitysing atheists who claim to not have a religion while promoting their religion). Also, I enjoyed the discussion on Curry’s blog which you linked: I used to go there to engage but concerted troll attacks made it not worth the bother.
Goodnight all.
Richard
Eric:
I made a post and intended to go to bed (it is past midnight here) but upon posting I then discovered your most recent post.
I beg you to consider what you write. Your abusive, ranting posts are doing you harm and no good.
I hope you have a close friend in whom you can confide and whom you trust. If so, then perhaps you could show him or her what you have been writing here so they can explain to you the impression you are presenting of yourself.
Please do try to understand that I am trying to be helpful.
Richard
Bart,
Once again, you cut to the quick when you say “Eric isn’t worth it”. Oh, how that hurts. But even though I have no idea who or what you are, I suspect that you are right and appreciate your advice. And I do agree with you that his threat is dead – except for that one important unresolved point – that is, the evidence owed us by DH for his unkind and so far unsubstantiated trashing of the authors of that Hansen et al paper of 2008 .
I will try to sign off now on this treat – as you suggest I should, But since we have become such good buds in our initimate communications, can I ask you to encourage DavyH to come out of his PC refuge. You should assure him that it is always OK actually to do the right thing and that there are more important things in life that just “saving face”. With your help, perhaps he could also be encouraged to sign off in a manly and responsible manner.
All the Best, Eric
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:01 pm
I hope I didn’t create false hope, my work was in calculating how much temps went up during the day, and then how much they fell that night and the difference between these values.
I see this as a key issue/confirmation of the AGW position.
That said, I’m looking forward to your review tomorrow though.
davidmhoffer says:
August 20, 2012 at 9:39 am
ericfgrimsrud;
On that and this threat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did not threaten you, not even once.
==============================================
davidmhoffer, Eric has used the word “threat” meaning “thread” 10 times on this thread. It is impossible that you have not noticed that. What you are doing using his spelling error is really nasty.
Richard,
Please do go to bed and enjoy your dreams. In the morning, however, you should try to get your buddy, David, to come out of his PC haven and provide the evidence we owes us for his disrespectful statement concerning the authors of the Hansen et al paper. And please do cut the crap concerning your concern for my welfare. We all saw how deep that concern went went you tried twice and failed to get REP to kick me out of the Inhofe thread – and that was even before I related the sage Montana advice concerning the perils of playing with feces.
And how many times do you have to say “I am done with this thread” before you actually do us all the favor of stopping your face saving efforts.
Eric
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“…in contrast to proselitysing atheists who claim to not have a religion while promoting their religion,:
A loathsome and obnoxious species, indeed. Worse than Bible thumping fundamentalists, in my book. They’ve killed far more people in (mostly relatively recent) history than all the crusaders and jihadists combined.
MiCro:
I have failed to find the data on your fine blog. I am sure the problem is my incompetence but would be grateful if you were to direct me to the data and your analysis of it..
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 21, 2012 at 11:30 am
“MiCro:
I have failed to find the data on your fine blog. I am sure the problem is my incompetence but would be grateful if you were to direct me to the data and your analysis of it..”
Sure Richard. Start with the following link to get an idea of what I was doing.
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_annual_daily_temperatures_19292010-81063
But over the months I worked on it, I figured out I was truncating the data, here are updated charts:
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/updated_temperature_charts-86742
But I really like this chart
http://www.science20.com/files/images/1950-2010%20D100_0.jpg
Which is the daily average difference from 1950 to 2010
There is no loss of nightly cooling as CO2 increased from the 50’s on.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm
“for his unkind and so far unsubstantiated trashing of the authors of that Hansen et al paper of 2008 . ”
Eric, have you traced back the origin of the Climate Sensitivity value added to GCM’s back in the early 80’s(?) ?
MiCro:
Thanks. I have copied the links and hope to study them tomorrow. I will get back to you.
Richard
To Davidmhoffe (where ever you are):
Apparently this threat is still going. So please do come out of your PC refuge and provide that reference or apology concerning what you said about the Hansen et al paper of 2008. As I recall, you said it was the “most debunked on history”. For the (n+1)th time, either references or apologies, please. Or, alternatively, perhaps you don’t think that the operational standards of WUWT require that we stand behind our statements when asked to do so. Buck up, Dave, you can do this. Doing the right thing has its merits. If you need verification, perhaps the moderator might be able to help you.
Sincerely, Eric
To Richardscourney:
Let me return the favor here that you have granted me repeatedly by offering you some of my advice to you concerning the maintenance of your excellent reputation.
First, concerning some terms sometimes used my country: the USA, of course, is not nearly as mature and sophisticated as is your country. In the USA , yes, we still use some terms that appear to have horrified you. For example, we do probably too often refer to animal emissions when denigrating some idea or even some person. Thus, in addition to my use of the word, feces, (which I thought was an improvement over a more commonly used term that starts with the letter, s), one also sees that a more recent thread on WUWT has been centered on the words, poo and poop. And another even more recent thread has focused in the verb “pissing on”.
I can understand how all of this must be most distressing to someone of your sensitivities and abhorrence against violations of political corrections that routinely do seem to occur in the USA. At the same time, however, I should think that many people of the UK might also think you are just a bit too wimpish in this respect. I suspect that even Winston Churchill might have considered you to be “a sheep, in sheep’s clothing” (an assessment he once made of Neville Chamberlain).
My evidence to for that comment: at a cocktail party, the story goes, a sophisticated lady came up to Winston and, while poking him on his massive protruding belly, said “what are you going to name it, Winston?” Winston then thought for a moment and responded “If it is a boy, I shall name it after my paternal grandfather, the Duke of Wellington. If it is a girl, I shall name it after my maternal grandmother, the Countess of XXXXXXX. But if, as I suspect, it is just gas, I shall name it after you!”
And while I have your attention, let me also ask you, Sir, did you urge DH to step up to the plate and “finish his business” as I asked you to do? (now, please Sir, pardon that bit of bathroom humor, also. I just couldn’t resist. We are indeed a bit on coarse side over here and, like Winston, also sometimes suffer the consequences of having a sense of humor.
Eric:
Your continued posts indicate you are hurting. I don’t ignore that. I am responding to it.
I understand you think people are “trying to save face” in response to you. And I recognise there is nothing I can say to help you understand nobody is “trying to save face”. But I have severe worries about your posts.
I again ask you to seek advise from a friend whom you trust. Indeed, I plead with you to do it. Show him or her what you have been writing here. And get his or her opinion on what you need to do in your own interest.
I sincerely hope you do have such a friend. If not, then seek advice from a counsellor or a minister of religion. I beg you to do this as a matter of urgency.
I know it is hard for you to understand, but I am writing this FOR you and not against you. Please, please try to accept this.
Richard
[Reply: Not aimed at your comment, Richard, just this is the last comment in the chain so I’m using it as a vehicle. I’m sure you are sincere. Can all of you (you too, Eric) cut the ‘mutual assassination society’ behaviours and get less bathroom and more content? I just had to read this whole comment thread to figure out what was going on and I’m not liking the ‘tone’ of it. -Mod]
Eric,
As Anthony is typically too polite to ‘defend himself’ ( or perhaps just too busy with things that matter) I’m going to point out a couple of things you said that are, er, “an issue”.
Moderation at WUWT is in accord with Site Policies. Those do not prevent anyone from “making stuff up” including you. Moderation is done “lightly” and with an eye more to tone and relevance to the thread / topic than to stopping anyone from making a fool of themselves. Even you.
WUWT has no in-house anyone near as I can tell, other than Anthony. The moderators are all volunteers and the articles are contributed. There are some advertisements, but WordPress has control of them and they get inserted into blogs that have enough volume. I was reading here when the ads first started and it was explained.
So many errors… so little time…
It’s a ‘site’ not a ‘sight’; but I assume you are typing phonetically… and I’m prone to it too. Oh, and “were” instead of “where”?
To the best of my knowledge (and I’ve been here about 5? years) the “two” in question have no particular greater ‘connectedness’ than other posters. Lots of folks here pontificate quite a lot. Even you. Nobody is paid to post. (Heck, folks aren’t even paid to moderate or write articles…) There is no ‘money tree’ on the skeptics side. All the loot is in the Government Funding and NGO troughs.
With that said, I’m surprised that you’ve been given so much leash. Direct insults “to the person” with names like ‘vermin’? Don’t know who was ‘moderating’ that one, but I’d have snipped it on my site. If anyone needs some ‘tighter leash’, I’d apply it there.
There is no “Boss”. Just Anthony, who’s a generally nice guy and way too busy to babysit. BTW, good advice you gave. You ought to follow it… Oh, and does “wares” mean “wears”?
As noted before, everything here is ‘free of charge’. You want money for your “advice”, look to a “Warmers” site…
WIth that said: There are no “in-house goons”. (I’d have snipped that one too…) But the participation of folks with strong opinions (from both sides) is what makes WUWT as interesting as it is. Even yours (sometimes…)
I would suggest that you drop the references to REP. We all miss him. But there are many moderators who all do very similar work. Taking his name in vain is tiresome at best and poor form… Rejoice that he lived and participated, and let the past go. Please.
A general comment:
You do often act in a “troll” like manner. But also said you don’t know what a Troll is. Here’s a link to one definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
My working definition is that it is someone more interested in stirring up trouble and tossing insults than in contributing to polite discussion. But it can include more.
Often characterized by tossing out lots of requests for pointers, links, or information, while refusing to actually follow them or read them. Asserting inflammatory and then sitting back to watch the results of the pot stirring.
While Anthony has a large tolerance for Trolls, others have less, so sometimes “flame wars” break out between the Netizens here and the sporadic Trolls.
As there is so much slush money on the AGW side, there are paid trolls from that side. (Not to mention all the folks with cushy government and NGO jobs that spend their days Trolling and posting on the Taxpayer Dime.) So sometimes we get tired of them. Sadly, there is no money for Skeptic trolling. (I guess too many of us comment for free 😉
So I would strongly suggest that you drop the accusatory phrases aimed at Anthony, and at the site in general. It does you no good (and mostly makes you look silly – as it’s pretty well known around here that things are unpaid and open to both points of view.)
Oh, and I’m not likely to return to this thread. I don’t have much time for any given thread these days. Too busy trying to find a way to make the rent…
To All and especailly Mr. Smith.
Fine, very good, points taken, I am new to WUWT – thanks for the clarifications concerning its commendable operational principles. And I look forward to finding out hat a Troll is – since I have been called one here so many times.
And since we are disclosing financial assistance, let me repeat what mine are. I have none (as in zero). My wife and I have spent a bunch, however, in the self publication of my book and a host of volunteering services. We could have left our grandkids lots more $$ when we are gone, but have the notion that our efforts concerning AGW might provide a far better gift to them.
But also please note, Mr. Smith, when I said
” As usual, he just seems to makes “stuff up” and apparently has a green light to do so at WUWT ”
That comment was directed – for the n+1)th time – at Davidmhoffer. Thus, once again, for the (n+2)th time, please do come out of your PC refuge, David, and provide that reference or apology concerning what you said about the Hansen et al paper of 2008. Again, you said that that paper, authored by almost 20 very credible scientists, was the “most debunked on history”, so either references or apologies, please. Again you apparently do think that standard operational standards are not at play at WUWT – which would require that we stand behind our potentially slanderous statements when asked to do so. So please read the statement by Mr. Smith which suggests that WUWT does have such standards. Thanks for your help, Mr. Smith – perhaps you should also have a word with Mr. Hoffer about this point.
To All:
Now that Mr. Smith has provided me with a definition of the word “Troll”, I should defend myself against the numerous accusations directed at me on this and the Inhofe thread that I am one. This is easy to do.
First, go to my web site, ericgrimsrud.com, and read it’s contents. My entire life and work is related there.
Then take my short course that is available free of charge on it.
Read the few comments I have posted so far on my new blog – it is partnered with my website.
Finally, purchase a copy of my book (the e version if really cheap and can be obtained instantly on your Kindle) and read it from cover to cover.
Look at the several extended conversations I have had with several persons on this and the Inhofe thread and ask yourself if I did not treat the people, in general, with the greatest of respect and give them a great deal of my time and energy. (Note also: I was not awarded the major teaching awards of Montana State University for being a smart-ass).
Now look back at both threads from their beginnings and ask yourself, was I treated with a descent level of respect initially that one might expect at WUWT by the two regulars (RC and DH) at WUWT? (Sorry, but I do not regard RC’s more recent expressions of his great concern for my welfare to be much more face saving for his previous behavior – in the words of Hercule Peroit, ” I was not born on the previous day”).
After doing that, read further and observe another characteristic of EPG – I do also tend to treat people like they treat me – especially when they are being sarcastic and pompous.
In addition, I have a great propensity to expose the scientific illiteracy of self righteous pontificators who come on very strong in their own criticisms of bona fide professional scientists (such as that criticism lobbed at the 20 authors of the Hansen et al paper) and then cannot even tell us what their own credentials are or where their past contributions to science can be found. And cannot provide reference in support of their criticism of others. If something quacks like a duck (or say a psuedo scientist) it usually is a duck (or you know what).
In short, I do not think I am a Troll (as defined in that reference that Mr. Smith provided). I am, however, as Scientist, Citizen, and Grandpa who does his very best to Bridge the Gap Between Scientific and Public Opinion of the subject of Climate Change.
It is because of the great urgency of the action that is need on this issue, that I will do my very best I can while I am still living to influence public opinion of that subject. It is at the public interface that most of the uncertainty still exits. The ball is clearly now in the political court and, as a retired scientist without a “day job” I have the time to enter that fray and will continue to do so. And I am appreciate the general inclination of the leadership of WUWT to allow me do that here.
Eric
Eric:
I think I need to state that my concerns both for you and about you are completely sincere and genuine. I have repeatedly attempted to give you kindly advice and I don’t do that unless it is genuine.
Richard
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 6:39 am
“We could have left our grandkids lots more $$ when we are gone, but have the notion that our efforts concerning AGW might provide a far better gift to them.”
That’s really not healthy. This site itself has a large overall impact because it reaches so many people. But, individual posters to comments should have no illusion that what they write here will have anything but a minimal impact at best. Even writing a book, unless it garners a large readership or provides information otherwise inaccessible to researchers, will have minimal impact.
As far as your grandkids are concerned, the lottery would be a better investment – the odds of a payout are higher. My advice, and I would offer it equally to someone sympathetic to my viewpoint who started displaying obsessive-compulsive tendencies, is: STOP. Step back, and look at the larger picture with a reasonable sense of proportional to your place in it. And, take care of your grandkids, because proportionally speaking, that is where you will have the greatest impact on the future.
Bart,
The only problem with your advise is that we can not wait until my grandkids are adult enough to see what their ancestors have done to them and their planet. It is entirely possibly that by the time they reach the age of 20 (all 5 of them are now under 5), that the planet will have shifted off its previous stable posiition and will be moving irreversibly to a much warmer and less human-friendly state. The real bummer there would be that nothing could then stop that drift no matter how forcefully corrective measures are then taken.
I do not want the legacy my generation leaves to their grandkids to be a world without hope. I realize that much of this sounds like non-scence to folks that have the impression that Man has been around a long time and, as before, will always to able to solve most any problem as it becomes clear. The fact is, however, that on the geological time scale man just got here and does not seem to realize how he has already caused enormous changes our planet’s chemistry.
Nevertheless, your advice that we also spend time now with our grandkids is excellent. You can be sure that we do.
Eric
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Take a pill, Eric.
A) The planet’s not in any danger.
Really. The worst case scenario is fairly benign compared to the things humankind has had to endure in the past, and we can easily adapt to it. Strolling the historical family gravesites, I am always amazed at how many of the children died from one thing or another before even reaching adulthood, or how many of the wives died in childbirth. I’m far more concerned, e.g., about drug resistant strains of disease than I am about anything to do with the climate, whether human induced (personally, my actual concern about that is zero) or entirely natural (actually, there’s plenty to be concerned about there!).
B) You and I couldn’t stop it if it were.
If I were as concerned about an asteroid impact, you would justly conclude that I was worrying myself silly over something over which I have no control. And, you would be right.
Your grandkids will revere your memory a great deal more if you leave them with some competitive advantage in this dog-eat-dog world, versus whether you made some miniscule impact on a debate which would have been decided one way or the other anyway without you.
OK Richardscourtney,
Guess what? I will hereafter do my best to consider you to be a sincere and honest person.
We got off to a distinctly bad start when Davidmhoffer tried to belittled my thoughts and credibility and you chimed in. Our downward spiral then continued until it reached the bottom. OK, so now let’s pick up the pieces and move on from there.
But now, also very SERIOUSLY, there is a very IMPORTANT bit of business that is still on the table and it should be resolved ASAP. For the (n+3)rd time, where is the evidence in support of Davidmhoffer’s claim that the Hansen et al paper of 2008 has been “debunked” in the literature? Since DH himself is hiding somewhere, perhaps you can help verify that claim.
That claim is, indeed, of the greatest importance because, if correct, it’s consequences concerning our understanding of the future effects of our ever increasing CO2 levels would be enormous. That is, if CO2’s sensitivity does not gradually increase with time from less than 3 to 6.5 C, that insight, if true, would be extremely important. Also, if Hansen et al’s interpretation of the ice core record is flawed or if the ice core record, itself, does not provide valid information, it is most important that we all know that ASAP.
So for very good reasons, I ask again, where in the literature has Hansen et al’s paper been debunked, as Davidmhoffer has claimed. I have been unable to find such papers.
Of course, if the Hansen et al paper has not actually been debunked then it would appear that Davidmhoffer’s claim was little more than an unjustified and irresponsible attempt to “kill the messenger”. If that is the case, it would then be helpful for the readers of WUWT to be informed of that also.
Bart, Sorry, but only the bit about taking a pill sounds good to me. Perhaps I am cursed with too much knowledge concerning the impacts of Man on our planet. Eric
Or, perhaps Eric, you are cursed with too much disinformation concerning the impacts of Man on our planet. Just sayin…used to be right where you are.
ericgrimsrud says:
“…only the bit about taking a pill sounds good to me.”
That could explain a lot.
Anthony, That would be great if my “knowledge” turned out to be merely “disinformation”. For that reason, I am always looking for some “good news” indicating that our leading scientist’s understanding of climate science is significantly in error. For that reason, perhaps you could also encourage Davidmhoffer to provide us with that good news concerning the debunking of the paper by Hansen et al. Would love to learn how wrong I have been and thus not be so cursed. Eric
Eric,
I would like you to review some of my analysis that I have been doing for about five years. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf. http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf. You can post your comments on my wordpress blog. http://www.retiredresearcher.wordpress.com. I will respond to them objectively as long as you want.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm
“Perhaps I am cursed with too much knowledge concerning the impacts of Man on our planet.”
Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I’m pretty familiar with that kind of expressed sentiment. Hope it provides you comfort. Sayonara for now.
ericgrimsrud says:
August 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm
“I am always looking for some “good news” indicating that our leading scientist’s understanding of climate science is significantly in error. ”
I brought this up in earlier posts, but didn’t get a reply. You should look into the genesis of the climate sensitivity value inserted into GCMs. What I’ve read, was that Dr Hansen, when they could not get GCM’s to replicate measured temperatures trends, added a fudge factor to CO2’s influence, and have spent the last 20-30 years trying to justify the value.
I have 15+ years professionally supporting modeling and simulators, and while these types of adjustments aren’t uncommon (the same thing was done to identify Dark Matter), they must be physically validated. I’ve been following this debate for more than a decade, and as far as I can tell all of the validation is based on proxies of some kind or another. No actual physical verification has been done.
This is why I started analyzing nightly cooling, and from the measured data, there is no loss of cooling.
MiCro says:
August 23, 2012 at 2:43 pm:
“…and while these types of adjustments aren’t uncommon (the same thing was done to identify Dark Matter), they must be physically validated. …No actual physical verification has been done.”
==============================================
Speaking of physical verification, do you have any problem with the apparent absence of physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect”? I mean real experimental verification, of course.
150 years of absence of experimental physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect” does not sound good to me.
Greg House says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:38 am
“Speaking of physical verification, do you have any problem with the apparent absence of physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect”? I mean real experimental verification, of course.”
All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate heat. There’s nothing stopping a warmer object absorbing photons radiating from a colder object. But you must account for the amount of energy these photons carry. For instance if you have two black bodies, one radiating at .5u and the other radiating at 10u, it takes 20x the time at 10u to radiate some amount of energy.
This is what happens here, we get IR at .5u from the sun, the joules absorbed in 1 hour will take 20 hours to radiate away at 10u (~61F). Factor in the density of the air, and the back radiation can’t carry much energy.
I think this is apparent if you measure air and ground temps over a 24 hr period with clear skies.
Greg, if you haven’t read my blog, you might find it interesting.
MiCro says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Greg House says:
August 24, 2012 at 10:38 am
“Speaking of physical verification, do you have any problem with the apparent absence of physical verification of the “back radiation warming effect”? I mean real experimental verification, of course.”
All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate heat. There’s nothing stopping a warmer object absorbing photons radiating from a colder object. But you must account for the amount of energy these photons carry. For instance if you have two black bodies, …
==================================================
I see. This a well known tale and you apparently can live happily without a real experimental physical verification. It looks good on paper, right?
The tale about a famous Baron Munchausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his hair sounds good, too.
Greg House says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:54 pm
“I see. This a well known tale and you apparently can live happily without a real experimental physical verification. It looks good on paper, right? ”
This (Stefan-Boltzman law) has been well tested, here’s a useful link http://www.kilty.com/freeze.htm This law has been well tested. While the law is well tested, the parameters as they apply to the earth and sky need to be measured. I think this is what you’d like to see tested, as would I.
Another observation, I live in the midwest, and during the spring and fall, you can have a clear warm day, followed by frost, followed by the same clear warm day. Consider the amount of heat that must be radiated to go from the 50’s to water vapor freezing on your grass. So not only is the heat of about 20+ degrees, you also have 2 state changes on the water vapor.
MiCro says:
August 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
“This (Stefan-Boltzman law) has been well tested, here’s a useful link http://www.kilty.com/freeze.htm This law has been well tested. While the law is well tested”
This well tested message was brought to you by the Dept of Redundency Dept.
MiCro says:
August 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm:
“… I think this is what you’d like to see tested, as would I.”
====================================================
This is absolutely not what I would like to be tested, first of all, and second, it is not that I would like anything to be tested.
I would like warmists to present a real experimental proof of their key assertion about “back radiation warming effect”. Alternately they can admit that there is none. Then we’ll see what remains from the so called “greenhouse effect”.
Greg
Exactly what assertion do you want tested, how would you like it tested, and what would you consider proof?
It is my opinion the theory behind the effect is well defined, how it applies specificly to ghg is less so.
Mi Cro says:
August 25, 2012 at 9:18 am:
“Greg
Exactly what assertion do you want tested, ”
==================================================
I told you 1 posting ago: “…and second, it is not that I would like anything to be tested.”
Greg, which part of the back radiation warming effect do you not accept? The back radiation or the warming?
And is there any evidence that would get you to accept that there is some amount of
warming, even if its insignificant?
Mi Cro says:
August 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm:
……… …………. ……….
================================================
I have already answered that in my previous comments on this thread, many times. Come on.
Greg House said:
“The problem is, it is not clear that this back radiation would warm. Yes, radiation generally can warm, we know that, but we also know that heat does not flow from a colder body to a warmer body at least through conduction. Again, some people say yes, it does flow in both directions but the net effect is that a colder body does not warm a warmer body and the same goes for radiation. Others say no, it is against the laws of thermodynamics.
Now, I am trying to be objective. Knowing that thermodynamics started with experiments and not just with laws, and not knowing exactly that the experiments included experiments with radiation, I am asking a simple question: is it proven experimentally? Is it proven experimentally that a colder body can influence the temperature of a warmer body by means of radiation?
Then I ask people if they can provide a link to a real direct scientific verifiable experiment proving that well known assertion. And guess what: nothing comes up. Only explanations or irrelevant stuff or references to other unproven assertions.
So, Eric, do you have something real proving that your explanation is not a science fiction? And please, no more explanations, experiments only.”
The Stefan-Boltzman law doesn’t care what temperature the objects are, only the difference between them. All black-bodies above absolute zero radiate IR, this law quantizes the exchange of heat(photons) between objects.
I’ll give you two examples, one with visible light, since we can see that with our own eyes.
Image riding is a blimp above a NFL football stadium with all of it’s lights on while someone walks onto the field and points a key ring led light at you. You might be able to see the light, but it’s effect is minimal compared to the rest of the stadium lighting. This is how a cold object warms the warmer object, the end effect is that the warmer object cools a little slower as the objects exchange ir photons.
The second example is when you get into a cold bed, your body starts warming up the sheets, as you feel the sheets warming up, it’s less and less of drain on your bodies internal heat. The better the insulators, the faster it warms, the worse, the slower it warms. This is exactly like the GHG effect.
I already mentioned how the energy of the IR changes by wavelength (and relates to specific temperatures), longer wavelengths (ie colder) transfer less energy than shorter ir. And that I to wants to see an actual experiment to measure the back energy, and I agree it’s probably much lower than what’s used in the GCM’s.
But the physics of the effect have been well tested.
Greg,
You might also review some of these experimental procedures:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Stefan-Boltzman+experiments&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&
The Wiki page includes equations for the Sun and Earth.