I liked this part:
According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.
From CSIRO Australia
Southern Hemisphere becoming drier
A decline in April-May rainfall over south-east Australia is associated with a southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone according to research published today in Scientific Reports, a primary research journal from the publishers of Nature.
CSIRO scientists Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher explored why autumn rainfall has been in decline across south-eastern Australia since the 1970s, a period that included the devastating Millennium drought from 1997-2009.
Previous research into what has been driving the decline in autumn rainfall across regions like southern Australia has pointed the finger at a southward shift in the storm tracks and weather systems during the late 20th century. However, the extent to which these regional rainfall reductions are attributable to the poleward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone has not been clarified before now.
Mr Cowan said rainfall patterns in the subtropics are known to be influenced by the Hadley cell, the large-scale atmospheric circulation that transports heat from the tropics to the sub-tropics.
“There has been a southward expansion of the edge of the Hadley cell – also called subtropical dry-zone – over the past 30 years, with the strongest expansion occurring in mid-late autumn, or April to May, ranging from 200 to 400 kilometres,” Mr Cowan said. The CSIRO researchers found that the autumn southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone is greatest over south-eastern Australia, and to a lesser extent, over the Southern Ocean to the south of Africa.
“The Hadley cell is comprised of a number of individual branches, so the impact of a southward shift of the subtropical dry-zone on rainfall is not the same across the different semi-arid regions of the Southern Hemisphere,” says CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai.
The researchers tested the hypothesis that the dry-zone expansion would give rise to a southward shift in the average rainfall during April and May, and questioned how rainfall across semi-arid regions, including southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa, would be affected.
“During April and May, when the dry-zone expansion is strong, rainfall over south-eastern Africa, south-eastern Australia and southern-coastal Chile is higher than over regions immediately to their north,” Dr Cai said.
Using high-quality observations and an atmospheric model the CSIRO team found that for south-eastern Australia, up to 85% of recent rainfall reduction can be accounted for by replacing south-eastern Australia rainfall with rainfall 400km to the north. Such a southward shift of rainfall can explain only a small portion of the southern Africa rainfall trend, but none of the autumn drying observed over southern Chile.
“For south-east Australia, autumn is an important wetting season,” Dr Cai explained. “Good autumn rainfall wets the soil and effectively allows for vital runoff from follow-on winter and spring rain to flow into catchments.”
According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.
This research was conducted through CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, and was funded by the Goyder Institute for Water Research and the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher are from CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research division.
UPDATE:
Some commenters can’t look beyond the title and see the bigger picture, so here’s an update just for them. Note that the study deals with the Hadley cell, which is NOT regional, but hemispherical. They looked not only at Australia, but also rainfall in southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa.
This is where I was coming from, which I thought would be obvious to anyone who’s been following the positive water vapor feedback issue for any length of time.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/hall0001.pdf
===============
Abstract. Using two versions of the GFDL coupled ocean-atmosphere model, one where
water vapor anomalies are allowed to affect the longwave radiation calculation and one
where they are not, we examine the role of water vapor feedback in internal precipitation
variability and greenhouse-gas-forced intensification of the hydrologic cycle. Without
external forcing, the experiment with water vapor feedback produces 44% more annualmean, global-mean precipitation variability than the one without.
We diagnose the reason for this difference: In both experiments, global-mean surface temperature anomalies are associated with water vapor anomalies. However, when water vapor interacts with longwave radiation, the temperature anomalies are associated with larger anomalies in surface downward longwave radiation. This increases the temperature anomaly damping through latent heat flux, creating an evaporation anomaly.
The evaporation anomaly, in turn, leads to an anomaly of nearly the same magnitude in precipitation. In the experiment without water vapor feedback, this mechanism is absent. While the interaction between longwave and water vapor has a large impact on the global hydrologic cycle internal variations, its effect decreases as spatial scales decrease, so water vapor feedback has only a very small impact on grid-scale hydrologic variability. Water vapor feedback also affects the hydrologic cycle intensification when greenhouse gas concentrations increase. By the 5th century of global warming experiments where CO2 is increased and then fixed at its doubled value, the global-mean precipitation increase is nearly an order of magnitude larger when water vapor feedback is present.
The cause of this difference is similar to the cause of the difference in internal precipitation variability: When water vapor feedback is present, the increase in water vapor associated with a warmer climate enhances downward longwave radiation. To maintain surface heat balance, evaporation increases, leading to a similar increase in precipitation. This effect is absent in the experiment without water vapor feedback. The large impact of water vapor feedback on hydrologic cycle intensification does not weaken as spatial scales decrease, unlike the internal variability case. Accurate representations of water vapor feedback are therefore necessary to simulate global-scale hydrologic variability and intensification of the hydrologic cycle in global warming.
=================
So if positive water vapor feedback were occurring, based on this idea, we’d see an “intensification of the hydrologic cycle”, i.e. more rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. That would apply to the southern hemisphere continents too.
And the researchers by their own admission can’t even fit GHG feedbacks into the Hadley cell migration equation successfully. It is just more evidence of uncertainty in the “settled science” of AGW.
ericgrimsrud,
You are quite the despicable character. You were forced to issue an apology for falsely claiming that Richard Courtney never wrote a peer reviewed paper. I found the first paper within one minute of searching. Now you are reneging/welching on your apology by raising the same ad hominem issue again.
You are obviously unable to support your pseudo-science beliefs, so you revert to character and attack an individual rather than conceding that your beliefs are falsified.
And I am still waiting for you to post a chart showing that ΔCO2 causes ΔT. If you are unable to post such a chart, you lose the scientific argument. That is why you fall back on your attempted ad hominem nonsense. You have already been proven wrong, and you have been forced to apologize. But we see that your ‘apology’ was insincere. Despicable.
Finally, grimsrud bloviates: “We think that a major reason for that was the increased CO2 levels of that time.”
You ‘think’ wrong. That is a classic example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy: ‘Since I can’t think of any other reason, then CO2 must be the cause’. Ignorant nonsense. But prove me wrong: post that [non-existent] chart showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. Otherwise, you lose the argument, just like you have lost every other argument.
To All, While the positive temperature effect of CO2 and the other GHG’s is obvious to all, DBoehm continues to whine and babble “stuff” about some additional proof he apparently needs in order to see that increased CO2 will result in increased temperatures.
As I would to an elementary school student, I would prefer to first get D Boehm past his silly notion that there is no such effect by reminding him of “Mother Natures opinion” is on this topic. Via the information She left us in both the ocean core samples over the last 100 mYears and the information She left us in the ice record of the last 800,000 years, She has told us what “She thinks” the relationship between CO2 and Temperature is. Also, on another planet in our solar system, She has shown us what conditions are like when its atmosphere contains a very large amount of CO2.
I do not want to get into a theoretical babble, babble, bable – bla, bla bla so called “disscussion” with anyone who does not even know and acknowledge the most basic information that Mother Nature has placed right in front of our nose. Need I once again relate that time-tested bit of wisdom we have here in the ranch lands of Montana concerning the perils of playing with feces?
to all:
[Snip. Dial it back. – Mod.]
#1) 50 million years ago the average temperature of the Earth was about +12 C higher than today. If not due largely to the GHG effect of CO2 (which was then about 1,500 ppm, much higher than the our preindustrial level of 280 ppm) why do you think the temperature then was so much higher then – so that aligators lived in Alaska.
#2) The surface of Venus has a temperature of about 700 degrees Fahrenheit. It is closer to the Sun but only about 33% closer. So why do you suppose the surface of Venus is so hot (sufficent to melt lead).
[snip]
ericgrimsrud apparently forgot how thoroughly we deconstructed his Venus/CO2 beliefs with a link that he probably did not even read. Otherwise, he would not embarrass himself by referring to that debunked nonsense again. At the same atmospheric pressure, Venus’ temperature is fully explained by its distance from the sun. CO2 has no measurable effect on Venus, despite Venus having an atmosphere of 96% CO2. If the atmosphere of Venus was 96% Nitrogen the temperature would be the same.
I note that grimsrud is incapable of producing any charts showing that CO2 changes cause temperature changes. That is because there is no such scientific evidence. grimsrud’s childish, scatological responses show clearly that he has no evidence to support his belief. The only charts available are those showing that CO2 is a function of temperature. In other words, grimsrud’s belief is baseless.
Finally, grimsrud is still engaging in his usual psychological projection. I am providing verifiable links showing that his belief is wrong, but grimsmud’s response is to pretend that I am complaining. Of course, I am not. I am actually enjoying proving grimsrud is wrong. It is fun ‘n’ easy, and I’ll be here all week.
And grimsrud should drop his constant references to ‘feces’. He is obviously fixated on feces, but showing his weird psychology in public is questionable at best.
Attention World, DBoehm has declared:
“At the same atmospheric pressure, Venus’ temperature is fully explained by its distance from the sun. CO2 has no measurable effect on Venus, despite Venus having an atmosphere of 96% CO2.”
Amazing!!! Amazing !! Amazing !! And the surface T of Venus is about 700 degrees F and the solar flux at Venus’s location in the solar system is only about twice that of Earth and that factor of distance accounts for its exceedingly high temperature !!
I think I’ll just sit back and watch to see if any readers on WUWT will step up to help Mr. DBoehm out and thereby tell him how totally out of it he is w.r.t. scientific knowledge and understand.
So Venus has no greenhouse effect !!!!! And this guy regularly holds forth at WUWT without being corrected by the readership (with the exception of myself). Both amazing and sad.
I have provided this resource several times now, but ericgrimsrud has either neglected to read it, or it was beyond his understanding:
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
grimsrud makes the basic error of presuming that the temperature of the Venusian surface is the issue. It is not. As I have patiently explained to him, the temperature comparison must be made at the same atmospheric pressure as Earth’s surface. When that comparison is made, there is no difference between Earth and Venus that is not accounted for by their respective distances from the sun, per the inverse square law. Thus, it would make no difference if Venus had a Nitrogen atmosphere or a CO2 atmosphere. At the same barometric pressure, the temperatures of both planets is the same, after accounting for their distance from the sun.
This same explanation has been provided to ericgrimsrud several times now, but he still cannot comprehend it. There is simply no measurable ‘greenhouse effect’ on Venus. “Amazing!”. But scientifically factual. Sorry about that catastrophic AGW nonsense.
The effects of sulfate aersols in the Venusian atmosphere are likely stronger than the greehouse effect anyway
“It turned out that the greenhouse effect of sulfate clouds reflecting heat back to the surface of Venus was outweighed by cooling due to their reflection of incoming sunlight.”
This is all from Carl Sagan and Jim Hansen in the early days of space exploration, when GISS actually did space studies before they became a CO2 whore to save their outfit from the funding chopping block post NASA Apollo.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm
There’s no financial interest in revisiting the early claims about Venus for Hansen, so he doesn’t.
Here’s the current understanding of Venusian sulphates in the atmosphere via Wikipedia:
Here’s a couple of gaseous absorption spectra graphs that might help in understanding:
Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synthetic_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif
Venus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Synthetic_Venus_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif
Note that very little visible light reaches Venus surface through the atmosphere, so there’s very little conversion of Visible light to LWIR as we see on Earth, and thus less upwelling LWIR to be reflected back by the Greenhouse effect.
There’s a upwelling greenhouse effect on Venus no doubt, I also have no doubt it is small in comparison to the sulfate aerosol effects. While the analysis done by Henry Dale Huffman here http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html doesn’t explain everything about the Venusian atmosphere, it explains a lot.
Mr. Grimsrud would do well to at least read it.
Here’s another paper that tackles the subject: http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
EXCERPT:
The large amount of radiation escaping (from Venus) was measured by five different Pioneer Venus vehicles. In fact, a number of analyses, discussed below, were published confirming that its intensity is approximately 250 times that radiated by the Earth.The large net radiated energy measured by the Pioneer Venus instruments essentially ruled out the runaway greenhouse effect (RGE) hypothesis of Sagan and Pollack as the cause of the high temperature.The carefully worded NASA report Pioneer Venus, belies the truth of the matter (5).
In fact, it fails to support the runaway greenhouse effect, since these words are never used. It states only that a [ordinary] greenhouse mechanism is apparently active between 50 and 35 kilometers, and that ‘global dynamics’ transfer the heat down to the surface. But the temperatures where the greenhouse effect exists, are only about minus 13 and 63 degrees Celsius. At most, the greenhouse effect creates a temperature comparable only to that at the surface of the Earth, and any ‘global dynamics’ must provide the means by which the temperature is increased to the 475 degrees, measured at the surface of Venus. This is precluded by the stable stratification of the lower atmosphere, and the absence of significant horizontal winds (6).
Based on the small amount of H2O measured by Venera 11 and 12 and the large up- versus down-welling thermal flux measurements from Pioneer Venus Net Flux Radiometers on three separate probes (SNFR), Pollack and his successors pushed every parameter to its limit in order to make the runaway greenhouse model reproduce the measured surface temperatures. But the model has never come close to duplicating the up- and down-welling radiation measured by the three SNFR instruments in the lower atmosphere (Figure 2).Ackerman Fig 2This is a fatal flaw in what is essentially a one dimensional radiation model.
To compound the problem, the model predicted that the atmosphere as a whole was losing energy by thermal radiation to space at a rate of about 205 W/m2 – an amount far in excess of the incident solar energy absorbed by the planet, which is 132_+13 W/m2, thus contradicting the fundamental assumption on which it is based – that the Sun is the sole source of heating.In one paper (7), Pollack ignored the measured up-welling radiation and instead contrasted the measured down-welling flux with an ‘expected’ value of up-welling energy predicted by a theoretical paper (9) written prior to the Pioneer Venus mission.
Assuming Venus is an ancient planet, he dismissed the possibility of a significant internal heat source and declared that solar heating is the sole determinant of the surface temperature. Pollack acknowledged that the measured net cooling flux is two or three times greater than predicted by his model, stating that “better understanding” of the data is necessary. This has never been realized.Several other papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the planet than is being received from the Sun. Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate that Venus is radiating 153 + 13 watts/meter2 while absorbing only 132 + 13 watts/meter2 from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21 watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet (6).
Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer (LIR) on the large probe, designed to detect visible and near infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km) to the surface, “all channels produced signals that increased unreasonably” (9).Thus independent measurements on five vehicles, one measuring the energy emitted into space from the cloud tops, and four measuring some component of the up-welling or net (up- welling minus down-welling) energy flux in the atmosphere at completely different geographic locations, are consistent and indicate that Venus is radiating an enormously larger amount of energy than it receives from the Sun.
In spite of this data, the authors of every one of these papers deferred to the theoretical model of Pollack, suggesting that all five of the radiation instruments on which their analyses are based, might be in error – even though there was no indication of problems in the calibration data. Based strictly on a thermodynamic analysis of the Pioneer Venus radiation data another group stated that neither the greenhouse effect nor global dynamics can explain the net outflow of energy, and that an internal source on Venus must be responsible for the emanating some 250 times the flux radiated by the Earth (10). Unfortunately, these authors also defer to the Pollack model, suggesting the possibility of instrumental error or that perhaps two of the three small probe sites are atypical of the planet as a whole.Later re-analysis of the SNFR and LIR measurements were said to identify ‘plausible’ sources for the measurement ‘errors’ and derived ‘corrected’ fluxes (11). When these were incorporated into the model they only confirmed earlier results which suggested that an additional source of thermal opacity was required to match the Pioneer Venus data. In spite of all attempts to address the so-called ‘opacity deficit’, a complete, self-consistent model of the Venus deep atmosphere thermal structure has still not been developed
Thanks, Anthony. As usual, you are up to speed on the subject.
Anthony. Before working my way through the references you provided (none of which have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature, it appears), I have a couple of comments for your consideration right off the top.
Yes, the solar radiation at Venus is about x2 that of Earth.
But the albedo (reflection of that incoming sunlight) of Venus is about 90% versus 30% for the Earth. Thus, Venus actually receives less solar radiation than Earth.
The only remaining factor that can affect the surface T of Venus is a greenhouse effect. Thus the GH effect of Venus is enormous – in order to account for its 700 degree F surface T. Note that there as not other factors that affect T other than solar intensity, albedo and the GH effect of gases and cloud.
So what are the GH gases of Venus. They are CO2 and SO2 and many some other minor molecules – their water is gone, I believe. The cloulds are sulfate abased and reflect solar on the top side and due emit some IR in all directions even though they are high and probably relatively cold.
So I don’t get it. What heats the surface of Venus other than a very strong GHG effect of the clouds and IR active molecules – that is, the same thing as on Earth.
IN short and to save time, what additional mechanism are you suggesting that can add heat to the surface of Venus? There is only solar intensity (x2 of Earth), the albedo (90% versus 30% for Earth) and the greenhouse effect? Yet, these reference claim that there is no GH effect operative on Venus. I don’t see where this new insight is going and can already see why it has not (I believe) made it into the literature (where I would have noted it).
The atmosphere of Mars is more than 95% CO2. Even at a lower atmospheric pressure, Mars has MUCH more CO2 than the Earth has ever had.
Where’d all that Martian global warming go?? ☺
Just off the top, I would not expect Mars to be hot. First, Mars has no liquid water. Only the solid and gas forms are possible since the total atm pressure of Mars is only about 0.01 Atm and the triple point of water lies above 0.01 Atm). Thus water vapor can not be emitted in abundance in the warmer zones as it is on Earth. I believe some solid water is present in the solid CO2 packs at the poles of Mars. Thus Mars probably enjoys very little amplification of CO2’s effect by attendant rises in water vapor concentration and cloud formation as the Earth does. Also since there is no liquid water and probably little total water, Mars has much less thermal inertia in its various zones compared to Earth. Thus, temperatures at its Equator can be Earthlike during the day and colder than anywhere on Earth during the evening. Since Mars is on average is much colder than the Earth, its most intense IR emissions are undoubtedly at longer wavelengths than the Earth’s – thus not being so centered as the Earth’s emissions are near the main absorption band of CO2 at 16 um (CO2’s other other absorption bands are at even shorter wavelengths). The upshot of all of this is that Mars undoubtedly does enjoy a greenhouse effect, but it is not strong enough to make the planet hot anywhere and does not make it warm throughout the day anywhere. On a nice day at its Equator, it is thought to be pretty nice – about 70 degrees F. Not bad considering everything.
Both Mars and Venus deconstruct the pseudo-science fantasy that ericgrimsrud is so desperately peddling. There is no scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming — or any measurable global warming, for that matter. That is why grimsmud is incapable of producing a chart showing that CO2 causes any warming. He cannot back up his speculations with scientific evidence.
If I am wrong, grimsmud needs to produce the chart. Otherwise, he loses the argument.
DBoehm,
You need charts? Have a look at the the temperature and CO2 levels indicated by the ice core records. Or CO2 concentrations and average temperature over the last 100 years. Of course, you will then say that correllation does not prove causation. Then I will say, of course not, cause is only suggested by a model or theory for which correlation provides evidence that either supports or refutes the model. And then you will say, Just as I thought its only a theory. And then I will say but that’s the way science always works. And you will say ……… etc.
I deal with science which always involves probabilities as well as uncertainties. You seem to think someone can provide a chart that “proves” that increased CO2 is causing warming – a scientifically impossible request. Thus, until you learn what science can do and the proper language of science, there is no conceivable endpoint to your “argument”. It is an argument that only two scientifically illiterate persons would indulge in. So I am afraid you’ll have to find someone else to hold up the other end.
ericgrimsrud is now trying to imply that CO2 leads temperature in the ice core records.
grimsrud is wrong, as usual.
On all time scales, from years to hundreds of millennia, CO2 always follows temperature, never the reverse.
Every claim made by grimsrud has been easy to falsify. The reason is clear: grimsrud begins with a false premise, that “carbon” causes runaway global warming. But empirical evidence falsifies his belief. There is no runaway global warming. Currently, there is not even any global warming. The real world is not being kind to grimsrud’s delusions.
I will never alter grimsrud’s anti-science belief system, which is purely religious in nature. But I am happy to correct the nonsense he posts, and I will continue to correct him for the benefit of other readers. We cannot allow wild-eyed climate alarmists to go unchallenged when they post their provably wrong ‘facts’.
@ur momisugly Grimsrud
Highlighted above:
“It states only that a [ordinary] greenhouse mechanism is apparently active between 50 and 35 kilometers, and that ‘global dynamics’ transfer the heat down to the surface.”
Top down heating, transmission of heat (Brownian motion) down to the surface due to the thick gaseous atmosphere (100x density that of Earth) combined with high insulative properties of the atmosphere. There may by internal heat sources rising to Venus surface as well, either from radioactive decay and/or volcanism and the thick atmosphere prevents efficient radiation of that heat to space.
How much volcanic activity is going on? We simply don’t know.
How much of the heat is radioactive decay?
We don’t know much about that either. What we do know is that the planet radiates more energy than it receives. The Greenhouse effect can’t possibly cause that.
We know so little about the dynamics of the Venusian planet that even basic discoveries are still being made. For example from earlier this month:
http://www.sci-news.com/space/article00629.html
To simply hold on to a decades old pronouncement of “CO2 is the cause” when even less was known about the dyanmics of Venus is pure folly in my opinion.
When we have a complete understanding of the atmosphere and the planetary heat budget based on measurements, then we’ll have a complete understanding of the role of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. Right now all we have are speculations and educated guesses.
Hell, we don’t even have that for Earth yet, given the limited measurements, why could we fully understand Venus?
@ur momisugly Watts,
If the energy emitted by Venus is 15% greater than the energy it receives from the Sun then, yes, that does suggest that an ancient fuel, radioactive nuclides, is contributing to the surface T of Venus. I will look into that.
The reference you provided, however, is quite old (1980). Certainly we know a lot more today about the interesting questions it raised 30 years ago. Will look into that.
In the meantime, however, I don’t see why you and others at WUWT can rule out the possibility of a run away greenhouse effect on Venus and embrace this other possibility.
In addition, I don’t see how your other suggestion of some sort of energy transfer from the top of the Venus atmosphere to lower levels goes anywhere. If this were so, one still requires an additional energy source for that mechanism if you are suggesting that it adds additional heat to the planet.
ericgrimsrud cannot accept the fact that there is no measurable greenhouse effect on Venus. That fact alone negates his entire belief system. And the fact that the atmosphere of Mars has immensely more CO2 than Earth’s atmosphere, without any greenhouse effect, proves that any putative warming from CO2 is so small that it can be ignored for all practical purposes. If any such warming exists at all, it is too minuscule to measure.
There might or might not be an effect, but at this point it is only a conjecture. If so, it is well below 0.5ºC per 2xCO2. That is what the real world is telling us in no uncertain terms, just as Venus is telling us that the excess heat produced at the surface must come from internal sources.
ericgrimsrud will never admit that his CO2=CAGW belief has been completely destroyed by scientific evidence and real world observations. Such is the effect of his cognitive dissonance. But he has served the scientific method well in this thread, acting as the foil against which scientific truth has emerged triumphant.
The catastrophic AGW conjecture has been falsified for all to see. That is the result of having a site that allows all points of view: the truth gets separated from the nonscience, like wheat from chaff. And that is why climate alarmist blogs can never allow skeptical points of view. If they did, the end result would be the same as here: their CAGW belief system would be destroyed by scientific facts. They cannot allow that, so they censor comments from scientific skeptics. And by censoring, they turn themselves into an echo chamber bubble, which forms the basis of their self-reinforcing anti-science cult.
What credible scientist would ever claim that it is “fact” that Venus has no measurable greenhouse effect? None I should think. So when D Boehm says:
“ericgrimsrud cannot accept the fact that there is no measurable greenhouse effect on Venus”
What does that make him? Even Watts seems to acknowledge that we don’t know enough yet about Venus.
As predicted, ericgrimsrud cannot admit that his belief system has been falsified. I provided proof by H.D. Huffman that there is no measurable greenhouse effect on Venus. When faced with that fact, grimsrud blusters. He can hardly do otherwise:
DBoehm, So you call that stuff on Huffman’s website “proof”, do you? Off da!!! If it was merely a valid idea, I should think it would have made it into the peer-reviewed literature by now, right? If so, could you tell us where this appears? If not, perhaps you should expand your own reading beyond comic books.
REPLY: I’m about ready to give you another time out sir. Dial it down.
Some people don’t want to go through the hassle of peer review, and some people have simply given up on peer review because it is so full of flaws and biases and gatekeeping from people exactly like yourself that have low tolerances for challenges. -Anthony
Anthony,
Thank you for clarifying an important point, that is apparently assumed to be true at WUWU. That is “peer review … is so full of flaws and biases and gatekeeping” even to the point that it is of questionable value to some.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with the discussions and claims being made here at WUWT – and especially so if those ideas don’t get exposed via the traditional literature. Nevertheless and at the risk of being issued another “time out” let me add, even the arguments being made here can be strengthen if one can point to a peer-reviewed paper making such claims. This is especially appropriate if the claim in question is stated to be a “fact”.
REPLY: Yes there’s a number of “facts” showcased on http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Facts are stubborn things, they stand on their own merit, and generally don’t need to be bolstered by a stamp of approval from on high to be true. Traditional peer review/publication is about to go by the wayside, much like the dinosaurs. – Anthony
ericgrimsrud cannot falsify H.D. Huffman’s facts, so he falls back on an appeal to authority. That is simply hand-waving. If Huffman is in error, show us exactly where he is wrong in his analysis.
Anthony, You make a good point when you say:
“Traditional peer review/publication is about to go by the wayside, much like the dinosaurs”
This statement presently applies equally to all of the exceptional efforts and accomplishments of man including those in the arts and all of the humanities. They are likely to all go the way of the dinosaurs
We are presently on a course designed to please and fullfill human gratifications in order to cash in on the short term no matter what the environmental consequences might be for future generations. If science no longer helps us proceed in that direction, just define “science” to be something that no is longer trustworthy. So the bottom line opinions of all of our national scientific organizations say we are now in great danger from AGW that required forcefull action? What do they know? Just forget about it !!
The dinosaur’s fate was not quite so far as our will be. They did not cause that meteorite to crash in the Yucatan peninsula. Our fate is more deserved thanks largely to the efforts of so many that presently do their very best to undermine the public’s confidence in their traditional communities of science so that business as usual can continue in the short term.
[snip – you’ll need to reword that BS about servants, you’ve earned extra moderation status – Anthony]
Some clean up here. DBoehm claimed above that I said
“ericgrimsrud is now trying to imply that CO2 leads temperature in the ice core records”
Of course, I said not such silly thing. The ice core record tells us that temperature changed first due to the Earth’s orbital change followed closely by changes in the albedo. Then the change in T caused a change in CO2 levels. Anyone who has studied the ice core record knows that. They also know that the change in CO2 level, then caused a change in T ( that is commonly known as a “feedback effect”.
So I can’t image why DBoehm made the statement quoted above. IF he would be so kind as to show me where I made such a statement, I would be most please to correct it.
ericgrimusmud says:
“I think I’ll just sit back and watch to see if any readers on WUWT will step up to help Mr. DBoehm out and thereby tell him how totally out of it he is w.r.t. scientific knowledge and understand.”
Well, Mr Grimsrud, no one seems to be coming to your rescue, are they? Anthony specifically corrected you regarding your Venus misconceptions, and I corrected you regarding both Mars and Venus. Mr. H.D. Huffman has logically proved that at the same barometric pressure, Venus temperatures are essentially identical to Earth temperatures. Your preposterous notion that the greenhouse effect raises the surface of Venus to 700º is not worth debating because it is not even wrong; it is so lacking in basic understanding that explaining to you what is happening would be a worthless time sink. Besides, Anthony has already explained it to you.
If you can falsify Huffman’s logic, I will sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, all you have done is hand-wave. That wins no arguments here.
I also posted a chart of ice core records proving that you have cause and effect exactly backward: CO2 lags temperature on all time scales, in all ice core records from both hemispheres, and on yearly, decadal, and millennial time scales. Therefore, ∆CO2 clearly is the result of temperature changes, not vice-versa.
Grimsrud has already admitted that he cannot produce a chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. Therefore, all available scientific evidence supports the fact that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary.
To recap: we have Venus, which at the same STP has the same temperature as Earth at the same STP, when accounting for their respective distances from the sun, and…
We have freezing cold Mars, with >95% CO2 in its atmosphere and no greenhouse effect, and…
We have empirical evidence showing that ∆CO2 always follows ∆T, on all time scales, and …
We have at least one ‘credible scientist’, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who gives the effect of a doubling of CO2 as 0.0ºC, thus falsifying grimsrud’s claim: “What credible scientist would ever claim that it is ‘fact’ that Venus has no measurable greenhouse effect? None I should think.”
Grimsrud’s basic error is the result of his mistaken premise, in which he believes that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. But he has no empirical evidence to back up that Belief. In fact, all the available evidence falsifies grimsrud’s belief system.
So who should we believe? Eric Grimsrud’s evidence-free, hand-waving nonsense, and his appeals to corrupt climate authorities? Or Planet Earth, and our lyin’ eyes? The answer seems pretty clear.