People send me stuff. This time it is a press release from the laughably named “Institute for Public Accuracy”. Even in the midst of hurricanes, these people don’t give up trying to tie weather to climate. It’s shameless desperation.
Here’s my response to this Tabloid Climatology™ they are pushing. In addition, go look at the history of the Great Atlantic Storm of 1962 and explain how CO2 at much lower levels than today fit into that. Also, explain why this:
One of the strongly held assumptions of climate change is that the variability of precipitation will grow with an increase in temperature. Storms will become heavier but less frequent. Flash floods and droughts will increase.
Has been falsified today by the American Geophysical Union saying:
However, drawing on seven databases representing global monthly mean precipitation values, Sun et al. find that from 1940 to 2009 global overland precipitation variability actually decreased.
I pity any news organizations dumb enough to buy into this activist schlock they are pushing. I urge readers to counter them with facts anywhere they see them popup in the media.
==============================================================
From: Institute for Public Accuracy
Date: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Subject: Interviews Available — Hurricane Sandy and Climate on Steroids
To: Institute for Public Accuracy
Institute for Public Accuracy
980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Monday, October 29, 2012
Hurricane Sandy and Climate on Steroids
Interviews Available
BILL MCKIBBEN via Phil Aroneanu, (551) 486-5833, phil@350.org, http://350.org
The group 350.org organized activists in unfurling a giant “End Climate Silence” banner in Times Square on Sunday. McKibben, the founder of 350.org said today: “Meteorologists have called this ‘the biggest storm ever to hit the U.S. mainland,’ which is a reminder of how odd our weather has been in this hottest year in American history … scientists are connecting the dots between increasingly extreme weather and global warming. Yet for most of this year’s presidential election, the words ‘climate change’ have gone unmentioned.”
JOE ROMM, (202) 483-1024, jromm@americanprogress.org, http://ClimateProgress.org
Romm is a senior fellow at Center for American Progress, edits Climate Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He said today: “Like a baseball player on steroids, our climate system is breaking records at an unnatural pace. And like a baseball player on steroids, it’s the wrong question to ask whether a given home run is ’caused’ by steroids.” See the video: “Steroids, Baseball and Climate Change.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421711/video-steroids-baseball-climate-change
“We also know that as we warm the oceans, we end up with more water vapor in the atmosphere — 4 percent more than was in the atmosphere just a few decades ago. That is why another basic prediction of climate science has been more intense deluges and floods.
“A new study finds, ‘we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large [storm] surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years.’
“Global warming and the loss of Arctic sea ice has been linked to the kind of blocking pattern that is driving this storm.” See “NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/11/989231/noaa-bombshell-warming-driven-arctic-ice-loss-is-boosting-chance-of-extreme-us-weather/
Romm recently wrote the piece “CNN Bans Term ‘Frankenstorm’, But It’s A Good Metaphor For Warming-Driven Monster: ‘Largest Hurricane In Atlantic History.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/28/1101241/cnn-bans-term-frankenstorm-but-its-a-good-metaphor-for-warming-driven-monster-largest-hurricane-in-atlantic-history/
JOSEPH NEVINS, (914) 631-0403, jonevins@vassar.edu
Nevins teaches geography at Vassar College. He recently wrote the piece “Ecological Crisis and the Need to Challenge the 20 Percent,” which states: “Although you would not know it from what passes for debate during the ongoing presidential campaign here in the United States, the biosphere is under siege. A historically high rate of ice melt in the Arctic, devastating floods from the Philippines to Nigeria, a record-setting decline in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, and extreme levels of drought in much of the United States are just some of the recent manifestations.” http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2012101085331931338.html
TYSON SLOCUM, (202) 454-5191, tslocum@citizen.org, http://www.citizen.org
Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, Slocum recently told IPA: “For the first time in 24 years, neither the presidential nor vice-presidential candidates were asked a question about climate disruption during the debates. And the candidates have failed to highlight the issue as well — unless you count Governor Romney’s use of climate change as a punchline to a joke in his convention speech. Some argue that the issue isn’t high on voters’ minds, but polls demonstrate otherwise. Rather, the hundreds of millions of dollars that the fossil fuel industry and their allies are spending saturating the airwaves with anti-regulation messages is likely the culprit. Obama’s ‘all of the above’ strategy locks in fossil fuels as the status quo, forcing us farther behind on the sustainable era of renewable energy. There is no such thing as benign fossil fuel production and consumption, and the future of fossil fuels will only become more expensive.”
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
Anthony,
When you say “I pity any news organizations dumb enough to buy into this activist schlock”, it would appear that you believe that your highly read blog, WUWT, is a cut above those news organizations with respect to scientific rigor. Yet, most real professional climate scientists – that is, those scientists who do research on the subject every day and report the results of their studies in the best peer-reviewed journals of our country – believe that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events will increase throughout the world as the average temperature of the Earth increases due to man-caused global warming.
While any single weather event cannot necessarily be blamed on AGW, it is nevertheless a distinct possibility that any one might be. It is appropropriate therefore for news organizations and especially the metrologists or “weathermen” on those news programs begin to recognize and discuss this possibility. To date, in my opinion, they have been negligent in that regard.
I have to say, I find this downright offensive. Sandy isn’t going to affect us over here in the UK, but I have friends in Vermont who are expecting the worst and doing what they can to prepare.
Given that this storm is going to cause a lot of worry at best and real problems, if the worst happens, for a great many people, to pre-emtively tie it to a political point smacks of the worst possible bad taste. The fact that the connection they’re making is a spurious one only makes it even more reprehensible!
Weather is not climate except when the Warmists say it is.
This article from the National Post seemed to start off well, until I read this:
“Lohan, good intentioned though she may be, doesn’t seem to grasp that, as it is an unstoppable force of nature caused by low pressure fronts, high pressure fronts and probably climate change.”
It is in the arts section which May help explain the nonsense of adding a climate change reference.
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/10/29/louis-c-k-shows-full-understanding-of-hurricane-sandy-lindsay-lohan-kim-kardashian-not-so-much/
While I’m at it, I might as well inform WUWT readers that a regular columnist of the National Post, Jonathan Kay, called us “cranks” in a somewhat recent column. I shall not read anything he writes ever again.
“Institute for Public Accuracy” Ah, yes. Newspeak is newsspeak. Alarm sells… at least for a while.
@ericgrimsrud
Did you happen to read the post below this one about a new paper on precipitation variability? Here is a quick link :Sun et al
It would appear that your hypothesis is completely falsified.
I pity any news organizations dumb enough to buy into this activist schlock they are pushing.
The problem is that the current stamp of ‘journalists’ just lap this kind of ready made junk up. Research – Nein, Danke! Much easier to cut and paste a ready meal from the Internet supermarket.
“Institute for Public Accuracy” – they owe me a new keyboard, minus the Coffee.
ericgrimsrud – Calling a weather forecaster negligent without a statistical basis is rather myopic.
ericgrimsrud says:
Nonsense. “Most real professional climate scientists” are almost certainly aware that weather is driven not by temperature, but by temperature gradient.
With polar temperatures supposedly increasing at a higher rate than in temperate/tropical zones, the temperature gradient in a hotter world will be lower, so extreme weather events will be fewer – and less extreme.
I guess the US must have more co2,
here in the Uk 1987 was the last great storm and before that 1703.
ericgrimsrud says:
October 29, 2012 at 9:14 am
“To date, in my opinion, they have been negligent in that regard.”
It is clear that you have not incorporated into your ideology anything that anyone has presented to you in Anthony’s forum. What does this say about you as a student of the sciences?
To date, in my opinion, you have been negligent in that regard.
Frankenstorm – old school:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b21g-5YBLs&w=420&h=315%5D
ericgrimsrud says: Yet, most real professional climate scientists think..
..that [they are] nobel laureates too. 🙂
When I read comments from anybody claiming that some climate parameter important to the AGW controversy is up or down, I go to Humlum’s site to see if he has some data on the subject. He usually does. McKibben said water vapor in the atmosphere is up. The data in Humlum’s site says it is down since 1983, the earliest year in his charts.
Does McKibben have some older data saying that before 1983 water vapor was was lower? If so, I would like to understand why water vapor would climb up to 1983 and fall thereafter and how such a trend is consistent with ever increasing CO2.
Plain language please. I am just a layman on this issue.
To Physics Major and RHS,
With due respect to your comments, let me inject a bit of common sense.
How is power transported throughout the atmosphere? It is via its only component, H20, that can undergo phase changes, from its solid to liquid to vapor forms – thereby either releasing energy in locations where condensation of the vapor to either the liquid or solid forms can occur. No other component of the atmosphere is condensible and, therefore, can transfer energy in that manner.
Note that if the Earth’s temperature was so cold that very little water vapor was present in the atmosphere, then there would be relatively little energy released by water condensation and there would be fewer severe storms.
As the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere increased it will hold more water and there will be more condensation of that vapor when that air mass comes in contact with colder air. These events will then release more energy and the intensity of storms will increase. Also the amount of precipitation throughout the Earth simply has to increase as the Earth’s temperature is increased – what goes in must come out.
So consider what you have said above and think again. It seems to me that one cannot get around the basic and comment sense points I have made above. Can you?
” I am concerned when I see people substituting fear for reason”.
Klaatu in “The Day the Earth Stood Still”
Don’t feed the trolls. Romm et al will die back on the vine if you ignore them.
To David Ball,
Concerning your comment at 11:12 am above, I have no interest in developing a mindless pissing match with you over a trivial issue. I will admit here that my comment came from my own observation that the TV Weathermen I see on my local (Montana) and national (US) news programs very seldomly mention the possibility of a “climate change” cause while reporting stories of draught or floods.
If you don’t mind, I’ll leave it at that and not return any insults. ERic
Romm not that long ago tried to recast himself as moderate: “This notion that the environmental movement — or any other major play in the media landscape — is pushing non-stop apocalyptic messages like a broken record is one I debunked ….” – Joe Romm, April 29, 2012
More here: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/05/alarmism-romm-both-ways/
baseball players blood test data not being released..next step is metaphor in the scientific method..
ericgrimsrud says:
“How is power transported throughout the atmosphere? It is via its only component, H20…”
Forgetting convection, are we? How about conduction? Radiation? Energy [power] is transferred by all of those.
Scottie,
I believe that you might be misunderstanding some recent insights concerning the effect of decreasing the “temperature gradient” between the Arctic regions and those of lower longitude in the NH.
This is occurring as you say because the T of the Arctic is rising about twice as fast as that of the lower latitudes. But, as I understond this recent literature, the main effect of that gradient decrease is to weaken and broaden the Jet Stream which runs around the NH and tends to break up existing weather patterns. This, in turn, is expected to cause existing weather conditions everywhere in the NH to persist longer than before. I do not understand, however, as you seem to, that this effect will decrease the severity of storms.
One of us is clearly misunderstanding this bit of recent research. Please correct me if I have it wrong.
“…we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years.’”
We knows that in the cooler years we had more violent hurricanes – 1962 was mentioned. I’ve warned that sceptics should be proactive on this. We should be forecasting more hurricane activity, droughts, wild fires, tornadoes, etc as we slip into a cooler period (or if we do go cooler, for those who think talking about coming cooler periods is a bit too aggressive a stance). Otherwise (as is happening now) we leave the warmists to take the initiative and our tardy efforts lose their weight. Look at the record of extreme weather in mid 50s – 60s. Anyone tuned into this idea should do a post on the history and timing of extreme weather events before the wrong story is out there first.
Yes, Of course, energy is also transported by radiation (emitted by everything) and convection (powered by thermal gradients primarily in the troposphere). My comments concerned the only component in the atmosphere that carries “latent heat” via its phase changes – that is, water. Without water vapor so that radiation and convection, only, were transfering energy, I would think that the Earth’s weather would be quite boring.
As for conduction (the motion of charged particles through an electric field) I don’t think that one has much at all to due with E transfer throughout the atmosphere.
To Dennis Rushworth,
It will be interesting to see if you get any response to your request for data concerning the total content of water vapor throughout the entire atmosphere. Imagine how very difficult such measurements would be – the concentration of water vapor varies so greatly in both the horizonal and vertical directions throughout the planet and water vapor is also rapidly transported in moving air masses – while more is continuously added (evaporation) and elimnated (condensation) everywhere. Thus, as important as the point is – how much water vapor is in that air relative to some previous date – I’ll be surprised (pleasantly) if good answers can be offered by anyone.
ericgrimsrud;
How is power transported throughout the atmosphere? It is via its only component, H20, that can undergo phase changes, from its solid to liquid to vapor forms –
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REPLY
Oh, my, god. You have a PhD in Chemistry you say? You’ve completely neglected conduction, convection, and wind currents!
So consider what you have said above and think again. It seems to me that one cannot get around the basic and comment sense points I have made above. Can you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric,
Time to study some physics instead of chemistry. Weather is driven by (amongst other things) pressure differentials which in turn are caused by temperature differentials driven by the regular cooling and heating cycle of the planet as it alternates between facing the sun and facing outer space. The flaw in your argument is the assumption that because a warmer world had more energy in it, then when this energy is alternately concentrated and then dispersed by natural processes, the outcome must be higher energy processes expressed as more severe weather events. This is incorrect.
Consider two car batteries, fully charged. If one hooks them up in parallel, despite both batteries being at their maximum in terms of energy storage…. nothing happens. With no voltage differential between them, no current will flow. Hook them up in series however, and they’ll weld your jumper cables solid in a matter of seconds. (IF YOU’RE GOING TO TRY THIS, WEAR EYE PROTECTION!)
Given that we expect warming to be more pronounced at high latititudes, elevations, winter seasons and night time lows, the corresponding temperature differentials which in turn drive pressure differentials which in turn drive wind and water currents, will be lower. So, even with more energy in the system, just as with the car batteries in parallel, potential energy differentials are lower, not higher, no matter that the system is “fully charged” or not.
You may want to look into the data regarding Total Cyclone Energy which has been measured with some accuracy and which has been declining since measurements began in 1979. Putting aside the merits of your argument versus mine, the fact is that the data doesn’t support the theory you espouse.
ericgrimsrud;
As for conduction (the motion of charged particles through an electric field) I don’t think that one has much at all to due with E transfer throughout the atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is not the meaning of conduction in this context. Wow, you’re physics knowledge isn’t weak, itz pathetic!
ericgrimsrud – my point to you is, Anthony is a weather man/forecaster. And like most weather forecasters, he finds no link to a trace gas and weather. Understanding the difference between possibility and probability is what separates wishful thinking and understanding.
I understand that CO2 has increased but I like many feel it is insignificant because there is no mechanism or model which has identified how less than 400 (methane and CO2 combined) parts per million has an exaggerated affect on the remaining 999,600 parts per million. Even with the increase of man made activity, the ratio of CO2 to everything else isn’t really changed much.
Even the father of the Greenhouse effect (Svante Arrhenius) retracted/changed his mind after talking/discussion/arguing with Knut Ångström. Ångström was able to show the means of transferring (your) referred to energy is not significant because the IR spectrum of water vapor covers/overlaps CO2. Since water vapor is roughly 40,000 parts per million, CO2 will never overwhelm water vapor for heat transfer.
@ericgrimsrud
Yet, most real professional climate scientists … believe
Belief is a characteristic of religions (cults?), not of science.
You condemn “Climate Science”© in a word.
ericgrimsrud says:
“most real professional climate scientists… believe that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events will increase… as the average temperature of the Earth increases due to man-caused global warming.” and “It is appropriate therefore for news organizations and especially the meteorologists or “weathermen” on those news programs begin to recognize and discuss this possibility. To date, in my opinion, they have been negligent in that regard.”
Yes, simple logic (and numerous climate model runs) suggest the frequency and severity of extreme weather events should increase as the average temperature of the Earth increases (regardless of the cause). They also suggest that rising CO2 concentrations over the past 25 years should be warming the earth to a much greater degree than is actually occurring. Unfortunately, the heart of the problem with climatology is that pesky, unforgiving empirical data. The majority of research by “scientists who do research on the subject every day and report the results of their studies in the best peer-reviewed journals of our country” is based on computer models, questionable data adjustments, and irreproducible statistics rather than empirical data. Empirical data shows extreme weather events have not increased the way simple logic suggests and the Earth’s temperature has not increased the way the models projected (abundant references are available here at WUWT).
And your opinion “that weathermen have been negligent to recognize and discuss ‘this possibility’” is shared by Dr. Heidi Cullen, who does recognize and discuss this possibility at length at “Climate Central” and formerly on The Weather Channel’s “Forecast Earth” (cancelled). She was fired for publically calling for dissenting meteorologists to lose their professional registration for ‘negligence in that regard’ (aka heresy).
To Davidmhoffer,
Yes, in this application a definition of conduction would certainly include the transfer of heat via physical contact with a body of different temperture. ( I did initially miss that one – being a chemist for whom this term usually refers to the transport of charged particles in an electric field rather than heat through a temperature gradient. So yes, conduction might have some importance in the atmosphere and particularly in the stratosphere where convection is so slow. Even there, however, I would suspect that heat transfer via conduction would be very small relative to that caused by radiation. In the troposphere, I would think that conduction is definitely negligible relative to the combined effects of radiation and convection.
Note also that your additions of other forces, such a pressure and temperature differentials are reduncant – these are covered under the general term, convection (the motion of the medium such as will occur in response to pressure or temperature differentials).
I hope that you also don’t mind if I do not include any insults here. While I have noted before, as well as now, that you do your very best to be a real horse’s behind on WUWT, for all I know, you might really be a nice person.
TO RHS,
A question for you. What is the most abundant, well-mixed, permanent GHG in the atmosphere? That is, the one that has the greatest concentration, does not condense out in places with low T, and lasts for a very long time on a time scale of relevance to human civilizations.
Yes, all good scientist remain sceptical of all conclusions – as Svante Arrhenius was of all of his numerous accomplishments (for which he won the Noble Prize). Concerning the overlap of CO2 and water’s absorptions of IR, that question got resolved only much later when high resolution IR spectrometer were invented. Also other reasons for CO2’s nonimportance were envisioned in the first half of the 20th century and were similarly found to be wrong in the later half. In short, read the entire history concerning the Earth’s GH EFfect and the role that CO2 plays in it.
ericgrimsrud @ 12:04 pm
There is nothing special about “existing weather conditions”. I simply noted that weather, and in particular wind, is driven ONLY by temperature gradient. The steeper the gradient, the stronger the wind, and in a hotter planet wind speeds will be lower.
I do not understand how a calmer planet can be subject to more severe weather.
Basic meteorology.
ericgrimsrud;
I hope that you also don’t mind if I do not include any insults here. While I have noted before, as well as now, that you do your very best to be a real horse’s behind on WUWT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First a statement that you’re not including insults followed by…. an insult. Typical Grimsrud.
I would like to refer you to the comment by rgbatduke on this thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/29/global-precipitation-variability-from-1940-to-2009-contradicts-models/ at 1:08 PM. I know you discount everything I say because I don’t have a degree, so please, take a look at what a PhD in physics is saying on the same topic.
BTW, your contention that pressure and temperature are redundant because they are covered by convection is dead wrong. Look up the coriolis effect (and that’s just for starters).
Eric, please stop while you’re behind with the physics.
Claiming that “a definition of conduction could include…” is so transparent as to be invisible. Even a chemist would (should) know from basic High School science that the three classic transport mechanisms for heat are conduction, convection and radiation. Certainly, my 12 year old son knows it and he’s more interested in football (soccer) than science!
How did you obtain your chemistry qualifications without doing any of this basic science at school? How on earth did you get a place on any science course at University? Or did you simply “forget” this very basic bit of physics over the years?
As for conduction having some importance “particularly in the stratosphere”. Again basic science says that it will be far LESS important there because of the greatly reduced pressure. Look at it this way (as my 12 year old has just commented) – “there’s less molecules to bump into up there so conduction won’t work well”.
Please stop digging.
PS, Eric, I think you mean the “coriolis effect” – was English also not on your school’s syllabus for chemists? 😉
Joe:
At October 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm you say to Eric Grimsrud
It seems you are not aware that Grimsrud claims to be a retired academic who taught chemistry to students.
Assuming his claim is true (yes, I know that is doubtful) then God alone knows what his students ‘learned’. the poor souls.
Richard
To LouisHooffstetter,
I too do not pay so much attention to models as I do the basics, because, I suppose, I understand the latter far more than the former.
And I understand that the most difficult parameter to use to “prove” that AGW is occurring is the final result – the temperature change. That is because only relatively small changes in T will occur – even though those small changes in T will be exceedingly important. Also other things mask the T increase due to AGW. This include natural variations, man’s other effects on T – such as the cooling effect of sulfate based particulates and the very large thermal inertia of the Earth due mainly to its oceans.
Eventually, however, the forces of AGW will overcome those masks and we won’t be able to go back. That thermal inertia factor is our friend now but will be our enemy later. And the heating effect of the EXTRA CO2 will be with us for many centuries ( it takes a very long time to put that biological carbon back into geological forms).
And finally, I suspect that TV Weathermen might pay a lot more attention to the obvious observables (T changes, to date, must indeed seem tiny in comparison to the daily changes they focus on) than they do to the thoughts of those academic “eggheads” and “alarmists”.
PS: It is interesting to note that that our community of atmospheric scientists already saved mankind’s butt once before when they sounded the alarm concerning the effect of CFC’s on stratospheric ozone. “Eggheads” and alarmists, what do they know ?” is the cry we also heard then from Dupont and Corp America. between 1974 and 1985. That CFC alarm was also just a big Hoax, right? And now we know that that community of scientists not only saved the ozone layer, but also, if the production of CFC’s had continued to increase as it was prior to 1975, the CFC’s would now be our most powerful GHG’s !!!!
What hope is there for a country that distrusts their very best professionals in any field?
Joe, I am pleased to learn how smart your 12-year old is in view of the expected outcomes when determined by generics.
All this talk about climate weirdness came about when countries around the world began experiencing severe winters and heavy widespread snowfalls, some of the first excuses when AGW flopped, was when the media latched on to the term “snowmageddon”, they’d say “weather isn’t climate” global warming causes more precipitation due to melting ice caps (or some nonsense like that), and now it’s claimed that all meteorological events are the result of a changing climate caused by human C02 emissions, but “you just have to connect the dots” i.e. use your imagination to fill in the blanks, and that’s just super! they’re not even trying to put across a scientific argument anymore.
Richard,
I was aware he claims some form of chemistry qualification but not the details. I must say that I find a claim to be “retired” makes his apparent lack of any breadth of education outside his chosen field even more surprising.
I’m still a fair way from retiring (short of a lottery win) but, even as I went through school, those slightly older were bemoaning the fact that we were being allowed to specialise “too much and too early”. One would expect someone older (past retirement) to have had what was known as a “good general education” strictly enforced before being allowed anywhere near a specialised degree or teaching course!
ericgrimsrud – Not sure your point but (per Wikipedia) dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Broken down by PPM, we get 780,900 for Nitrogen, 209,500 for O2, 9,300 for Argon and 390 for CO2. None of those precipitate out at temperatures or pressures normally experienced by humans.
If “all good scientist remain sceptical of all conclusions”, then why do the mainstream/public climate scientists refuse to be skeptical of their conclusions? Several refuse to show their work, all refuse to debate in public, most claim there is a consensus and engage in other behaviors which they show they have no skepticism of their “conclusions”? Does this mean they aren’t good scientists?
RHS,
The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation.
All scientists are skeptics and assign “probabilities” of occurance to their predictions of some occurance. Many then some to “believe” in a given probable outcome but never claim to “know” what the outcome will be. The same is true, as you know, for medical surgeons. They do the best they can with what they know. When you are sick you seek their advice, but they do not “promise” you anything. Why would it be any different when the Earth is sick and you are interested in how to cure it ? You have the same choice.
More to RHS,
Concerning your comment about scientists not being willing to debate in public, a few thoughts”
The working scientist has a “day job” on which he is focussing. Their work is likely to include some aspect of climate change, but not the total picture.
Climate science includes many scientific discipliness and in order to “argue” about things in public one must spend a lot of time studying as much of the total issue as one can. Few have the time required to do that.
Working scientists are concerned about be labelled “biased” on this topic. That label might interfere with the maintenance of their “day job”. I dont’ think it should, but it does. Take the example of Jame Hansen. He is one of the leading day job climate scientists in the world and he is also very much involved with public activism. Because of the latter, some cry out that he should be fired from his day job. Other prominent scientist who sick mainly to their day jobs have even been harrassed by US Congressmen and their “investigative committes’ just because of the science they have produced. The message to them – do not try to affect public opinion.
I am different from those day job scientists in that I am now retired and have no conceivable conflicts of interest or other demands on my time and energy. I spend my time studying anything I wish and can speak and write as I consider proper with no conceivable tie to any organization. I understaind why there are so few working scientists that spend their time and energy the way I do and wish that there were more retired scientists that were willing to jump into the fray.
The two driving forces behind my activities are: I have come to believe that strong action against AGW is the right thing to do and I now have 5 grandchildren all under the age of 5.
ericgrimsrud:
At October 29, 2012 at 2:51 pm you assert:
OK. If “the Earth is sick” then we need to investigate the malady.
So, where do you suggest I insert the rectal thermometer?
Richard
PS I know where I think it should be shoved.
There was actually an error in one of the responses to ericgrimsrud that would, when corrected, be supportive of the AGW hypothesis. I’ve been waiting for him to jump all over it…. but nothing. He responded in detail to that commenter, so hard to believe he simply missed it.
Or else he doesn’t understand the physics involved….
2nd chance to find it Eric. Show us how smart you are.
That’s really not a good analogy, Eric.
If I go to a doctor, in most cases they will be able to tell me exactly what’s making me sick, and why. They may not be prepared to “promise” a cure, but there’s a very good chance indeed that they’ll be able to identify what’s causing the sickness with absolute certainty.
The analogy to climate science breaks down on two fundamental levels:
First, we really have no idea whether or not the earth is “sick” Because of the timescales involved, saying that it is would be like a doctor listening to your heart for the second or so between two beats and then declaring you dead because your heart’s stopped!
Second, even if the Earth is “sick”, they can’t make any promises about the cause [i]or[/i] the cure. A bit like the days when GPs used to hand out penicillin for every snuffle and sneeze. More often than not, the cause of the illness was wrong for the prescribed cure and all that happened was they produced lots of antibiotic resistant bugs.
ericgrimsrud – You put forward a logical explanation of why rising global temperatures should lead to increased storm activity, and say “It seems to me that one cannot get around the basic and comment sense points I have made above. Can you?“.
There is always a risk in following clear and persuasive logic, without first checking it against the facts.
Klotzbach and Gray are hurricane ‘experts’ who publish papers in the scientific journals and regularly publish hurricane forecasts. Sorry, I don’t have the online link to an original, but I kept a copy of one of their charts here
http://members.westnet.com.au/jonas1/Hurricanes.jpg
which indicates that increased North Atlantic hurricane activity is associated with global cooling, not global warming.
Their chart appears to be supported by the NOAA National Hurricane Center data
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
which shows the greatest major storm activity occurred from 1940 to 1970 (approx), with declining activity since.
Obviously, this data is for part of the globe only, and your comment related to global activity. There is support for your hypothesis in the global storm index:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
This shows increasing global storm activity from c.1970 to c. 1998 – a period when global temperatures were increasing – and reducing storm activity after that. It has been noted by many commentators that global temperatures stopped rising around 1998.
So while I agree that your logic is very clear and convincing, I would suggest that it could be a good idea to pull back from the idea that it is necessarily correct, and to investigate a little more just how it is that the North Atlantic, which has had temperatures in ‘sync’ with global temperatures, can have a storm pattern that is so out of sync. I suspect that everyone still has a lot to learn about storms.
And, of course, you should also pull back from any notion you might have that global temperatures are going to go on increasing, given the unexpected global temperature underperformance of the last ~15 years.
In another comment, you refer to the Antarctic ozone hole. You used slightly oblique language, and I couldn’t work out whether you were serious or tongue in cheek. Certainly there is no data to show that the ozone hole is anything other than a natural phenomenon with its own ‘cycles’. The recent sudden ozone hole in the Arctic would also seem to indicate that the effect is natural and not driven by man-made CFCs.
So, I would re-phrase your question about trusting experts, as follows:
“What hope is there for a country that trusts their professionals in any field, without checking?“.
ericgrimsrud says:
October 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm
[…] Working scientists are concerned about be labelled “biased” on this topic. That label might interfere with the maintenance of their “day job”. I dont’ think it should, but it does. […]
That’s it, you’ve just blown any credibility you might possibly have had as a self-proclaimed scientist / chemist. Do you really believe it’s ok for any scientist, in any discipline, to openly exhibit bias in their work? Science has to be objective to be of any value whatsoever, bias (by definition) is not.
Joe, I beg to differ. I thing the analogy to the surgeon is a very good one which becomes clearer in the following example. Lets say you are profoundly obese and have a heart problem. The Doc tells you what he thinks is the most likely cause of your heart problem. He tells you you are much too obese at 400 pounds and in order to improve the health of your heart, you must lose about 200 pounds as well as endure some surgury. You don’t like that “solution” so you look for a “second opinion” that will not require the diet bit. In this case, as with that of our sick planet, we know how we got into our present conditions, but we don’t know how to get out other than biting the bullet as recomended by the heart surgeon.
Mike Jonas:
At October 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm you write to Eric Grimsrud
You seem to not be aware that Eric Grimsrud claims to be a published authority on CFCs and the ozone hole.
Clearly, your comment that I quote does not give adequate obeisance to Grimsrud’s authority in this matter.
Richard
ericgrimsrud,
Show the difference between a hurricane or tropical storm that is natural compared with one that isn’t? Hence, you can’t so it is not science to believe something is causing it, when the planet is showing opposite signs with water vapor and cloud albedo of what CO2 should had caused. The Earth is not doing anything different than over many thousands of years, therefore how can you tell the planet is sick?
Changes in global cloud albedo can easily account for the recent warming period that so far ended years ago. CO2 relies on feedback with water vapor increasing in the atmosphere, but over recent decades it has been declining. Global cloud albedo during this warming period declined, again opposite what should had happened. This decline in global cloud levels easily changes a warming period since the early 1980’s flat when removed. Fair enough what had caused this is not really known, but is opposite to what the affect from CO2 should had been.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/6873/had3vlowcloudvsolar2.png
Joe,
I am sorry to have to inform you that scientists are human beings. They do tend to come to their own personal conclusions especially on topics that they spend their life studying and on subjects for which the conclusions seem clear to them. For example, when do you think a geologist should come to firmly believe and confidentently state that the Earth is round? Would that be when the last FlatEarther has died or do you think the time required would be forever, as you seem to suggest – if he is to remain a credible geologist. Many on this blog seem to think scientists are crooked but very few, I would guess, think they are as naive you suggest they should be.
ericgrimsrud says:
October 29, 2012 at 11:48 am
“mindless pissing match”
That is quite funny. Last time we chatted I supplied articles and you chose to ignore them.
Then bring your mind to “bear” on this and get back to me. No insults. Just science.
http://drtimball.com/2012/it-occurred-to-me-global-warming-is-another-undelivered-government-promise-polar-bear-propaganda-in-context-a-useful-tool-for-the-promotion-of-environmental-hysteria-and-politicized-science/
For the Record and contrary to the “contributions” to this discussion by RichchardCourntey.
I do not claim to be an authority on the subject of CFC – stratosheric ozone effect. I merely made the first measurements of the major carriers of the Cl atoms in the atmosphere, Freon 12 and methylchloride, in 1974, and developed several other methods of analysis for other ozone depleting compounds for several decades after that. Thus, I have both contributed to and followed the literature of the CFC – ozone issue for the last 38 years. That is what I claim – no more or less. AS always, RC is out of bounds with what he says others claim.
His only motive here and everywhere it seems is to “smear” and, as I have related on another thread or two, he is very well qualified for that function. He is only too happy to smear anyone with a substance he himself appears to be so full of.
I live in Manila, Philippines. We get these every year. Hundreds die, lose their homes, suffer massive flooding, landslides, disease. It’s called Typhoon season. No one in the West cares or notices. Usually after hitting us they go and hit one or more of Vietnam, Taiwan, HK, Korea and Japan. It’s part of life.
Now 1 storm in many, many, years hits the US East Coast and it is a global catastrophe. Give me a break. Yes, it’s bad, but at least the West have the emergency services to cope, building codes mean houses should be stronger.
Still no good as an analogy, Eric, because we don’t know what the weight or heartbeat of the planet “should” be. As far as the planet’s concerned, in all human history we haven’t even got past the pleasantries as it walks into the consulting room.
Ergo, we have no idea whether or not it’s sick in the first place – for all we know, it might just be here for some contraceptive advice.
To David Ball,
Would you feel vindicated if I gave you a reading list with more courteous instructions – that being that you should feel free to do what you wished with them – including ignoring them if you like?
At the same time, I do like to learn more science and if I find any of mutual interest in the references you provide, I might get back to you.
Remarkable amount of “natural variation” this year. Artic Sea Ice record low, monumental midwest drought, and now an unprecedented monster storm in the N.E. Seems like a lot of natural variation for one year. JP
To Mike Jonas, you say,
“Certainly there is no data to show that the ozone hole is anything other than a natural phenomenon with its own ‘cycles’. The recent sudden ozone hole in the Arctic would also seem to indicate that the effect is natural and not driven by man-made CFCs ”
Please!! There is a mountain of exceedingly convincing evidence concerning the cause of the Antarctic Ozone Hole that was first detected in 1985. That evidence shows, for example, that ozone is lost in the Antarctic springtime specifically due to the reaction, O3 + Cl -> ClO + O2, in the Antarctic stratosphere. And guess where the Cl atoms come from ? Look it up yourself. The whole story is everywhere if one looks including a full chapter devoted to it in my own book (see ericgrimsrud.com – warning – an e-version of my book might set you back a few bucks so I recommend a google search on the ozone hole first”
Now, at the same time, is it possible that ozone holes holes occurred previouslyand naturally? Yes, that is possible ( Boy, would I like to tell you about a bridge I have for sale in Outer Mongolia)
ericgrimsrud says:
October 29, 2012 at 2:51 pm
“The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation. ”
Bull, and false, they do, please check the hitran database and since you didn’t know this then I call what you say are qualified in Bull too
To RC,
I must protest to your comment:
“PS I know where I think it should be shoved.” the thermometer, that is.
I have heard this comment many times before, but have found myself that Corpus Christi TX is not that bad a town.
( I realize that this bit of humor is waisted on a man that has no sense of – unless he delivers it at the expence of others. Will Rogers never met Richardscourtney !!) .
For Joe and others who don’t know why the Earth might be very sick.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere is now about 40% higher than it has been in 800,000 years for sure (unless the ice core record is also a big hoax) and very probably in the last 3 million years.
Since 1850, about 500 gtoms of carbon has been burned. Over that same period the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (contained in CO2) has increased from about 550 gtom to about 800 gtons, that is an increase of about 250 gton. THis means about 1/2 of the C burned stays in the atmosphere (about 1/4 goes to the sea and about 1/4 goes into plants and soil.)
So why wouldn’t one consider the Earth to be sick? It would have to be that CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas.
So that’s it. If you want to argue that the Earth is not sick, please do show that the excess CO2 does not matter. And while you’re at it, why not also show us all that a heavy diet of candy is OK – for the additional amusement of the non-adults in our midst.
I think we need to start promulgating the term “Voodoo Climatology”. These guys have flipped out; the hysterical propagandising is nauseating.
ericgrimsrud,
CO2 is very healthy for Mother Earth. It is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
But don’t take my word for it. There are more than 31,000 scientists and engineers who have signed a statement saying exactly that.
So who should we believe? Them? Or you?
To ericgrimsrud,
Typical of warmist troll i prove you wrong in a statement you made
“The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation. ”
You completely ignore it and go on to write more false and incorrect “facts”.
Please answer me
Regarding ericgrimsrud
In his first post on this thread, he opined
and I quickly responded that if he would only read the previous post about the analysis of Sun et al he would see that the data do not support the conclusion that “extreme weather events” have increased, at least not in the 1940-2009 period studied by Sun et al, and thus his basic hypothesis is falsified by the data.
I wish he would address this point.
REPLY: So would I, Anthony
Poor Eric hasn’t got a clue. He should live here in Australia and experience the days when a high pressure cell sits over Central Australia for a few days then moves across to the east coast and drives temperatures into the 40’s. No water there. Eric is a very foolish and deluded man (if he is a man).
HarveyS,
My understanding is that molecules that have vibrational modes which alter the center of electron density within that molecule as it vibrates with be able to both absorb and emit IR radiation at the same frequency as that of the vibration. Symetric diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 have only one vibrational mode – the symetric stretch – during which the center of electron density within those two molecule does not change.
Any molecule with 3 or more atoms will always have vibrational modes that are not symetric however and will be accompanied by a change in the center of electron density within that molecule. CO2 for example, which is linear, i.e. O=C=O has three asymetric vibrations, two being rocking motions and the other is the asymetric stretch. These will interact with IR radiation of the same frequency. Its symetric stretch mode does not interact with IR radiation.
So that is why I believe that N2 and O2 and Argon, of course, do not interact with IR radiation and, therefore, are not considered to be greenhouse gases. But please do continue to explain in your own words why I am wrong. And if you can show me an IR absorption spectrum of N2 or O2, please do. I love learning new things and this would certainly be new to me and many other scientists.
to ericgrimsrud
I told you where to go and look The HItran database, you said
“The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation. ”
Ok Nitrogen absorbs infrared radiation at between 3.8 and 5 micrometers. This this wavelength falls inside the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is a similar case for Oxygen which also has many absorption bands within the range of infrared radiation.
Now i am not going to do the research job for you since all you can do is repeat typical warmist falsehoods.
ericgrimsrud – The earth needs us like a dog needs a flea. The case for AGW is trying to preserve some unlikely climate balance which is believed to have been experienced. However, as in any system, there is entropy, a decay, a constant change where balance is never found.
ericgrimsrud;
So why wouldn’t one consider the Earth to be sick?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because there are no symptoms of disease.
You’ve really dropped off the deep end of the rational spectrum at this point.
The Financial Post has a related article:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/29/terence-corcoran-frankenscience/
ericgrimsrud – You say “There is a mountain of exceedingly convincing evidence concerning the cause of the Antarctic Ozone Hole“.
That is quite simply not good enough. Like I said before, you need to check it against the facts. There is no data to show that the ozone hole is anything other than a natural phenomenon with its own ‘cycles’. In other words, for all the elegant theories about the effect of CFCs on the ozone hole, and for all the effort that went into replacing CFCs with ‘harmless’ compounds, they do not show up in the ozone hole data. The actual data does not indicate anything other than a natural process.
To Steve B.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments – they fit in very well, it appears, at WUWT. But your conclusion,
“Eric is a very foolish and deluded man (if he is a man)”
might only be partially correct. I did just check on that latter possibility and to my great relief, they were still both there !! Sorry to see your regard for science down under is no greater than that in my country. Have a nice life. Eric
DHoffer,
The question was why might one consider the possibility the Earth might be sick. The answer was because of its high CO2 level which it has not had in 3 million year – 40% higher than than ever observed for at least 800,000 years. And at the same time – understanding that the symptoms of the disease show up gradually but steadily – provided one believes that the Earth has great thermal inertia (which unfortunately works both ways).
The question was not why we might consider the Earth not to be sick. I can provide many of those, such as I went for a walk today and everything looked just fine.
The fatuous grimsrud says:
“The question was why might one consider the possibility the Earth might be sick. The answer was because of its high CO2 level which it has not had in 3 million year – 40% higher than than ever observed for at least 800,000 years.”
Therefore, the Earth was “sick” 3 million years ago??
Dope.
RHS, You might be pleased to learn that a system can work against the 2nd Law and those forces of entropy by a constant input of energy. Fortunately, the Earth is a closed system w.r.t. material only but not w.r.t. energy. We get a huge amount of it (some 1,600 watts / sq m) all the time from that big object at the center of our planetary system and with wise use of it, we can work against that 2nd Law (which BTW is “shit happens”)
To PhysicMajor,
Concerning your reference suggesting that the frequency and intensity of severe weather events has not increased, let me just day at this point that I am sceptical of the conclusion you have drawn from it because it appear to go against expectations for which there are probably far more papers of support. I will look at this issue more closely than I have. And, of course, I will try to get a copy of the paper itself rather than start with someone’s summary of it. Primary authors often provide qualifiers of their statements that summarizer sometimes omit.
At the onset, however, I also wonder how one measures such things with a good level of confidence – all over the surface of the Earth including over the oceans and all remote uninhabital places. For good reason, I suspect we have a lot more to learn about these things called extreme weather events and am not even sure if we have workable definitions of them yet.
My own thought still is that with more water vapor in the atmosphere, the power of latent heat will be delivered to more places in the planet when condensation occurs and that should increase both the intensity and frequency of those releases of power. I would have thought that meant that we would see a corresponding increase in “extreme weather events” whatever that term means.
Mr. D Boehm, Please try to imbed at least a bit of science in your cuteness. Sure, some readers of WUWT might get a good belly laugh out of your little “jokes” but don’t you also know that group includes only the likes of Sir Richart, the Uncourtly, and his jolly group of lackeys at WUWT? What meaning do you think your post of 8:56 pm above would carry to anyone else?
REPLY: I’m really growing tired of your commentary Mr. Grimsrud, and I’m sure people here don’t like being referred to as lackeys. Take another time out as your presence here dies nothing but cause moderation headaches these days, and quite frankly I have more important things to do than moderate these wars of words. See you in 36 hours – Anthony]
Ericgrimsrud,
Harking back to your original post, I have questions and observations.
1). I try to keep up on the various surveys. I have not heard of a survey of the range of scientists your describe in your Appeal to Authority that has determined that most of these scientists believe that extreme weather will increase throughout the world.as the world warms due to man-made global warming. Moreover, just because they publish in Climate Science does not mean they are “Extreme Weather” experts, so an Appeal to Authority would have to be limited to those who study Extreme Weather Climatology. I especially haven’t heard of a survey of that sector. Can you please give us an attribution for this survey?
2). I find it very odd that you think that weather reporting should include speculative Climatology. Don’t get me wrong; when meteorologists like Anthony take an interest in Climatology, I think it’s great; it stands to reason that a cross-discipline perspective on these sciences would give a different, and perhaps better, perspective on both sciences than can be achieved by those isolated in, say, the ivory tower of pure Climatology. But I don’t understand why you think this should be done as a matter of course.
I tune into the weather report to find out if I should wear a coat, or abandon my home in the face of Hurricane Sandy. The weather report is about giving me current info I need. Climatology is a nice bonus, but it’s not the point of a weather report.
In other words, there’s a reason it’s called a weather report instead of a climatology report. The point is that it’s weather news, and requiring that, say, that the weather report should report stuff somewhat related, such as that the rain ruined the princess’s wedding, doesn’t make a lot of sense.
However, the scientific speculations you yearn for are available in plenty in Science News reporting, which seems a pretty reasonable place to expect news about Climatology science.
3) , You seem fascinated by the speculative side of Climatology, such as the fact that a particular storm “May Be to some degree attributable to CAGW”. This doesn’t interest me very much, because “May Be” also means “May Not Be”. I’m more interested in what scientists have to say after they’ve done the science, not when they speculate. I would have thought that as a scientist yourself that you’d feel the same way.
I find that when I wait for the science to be done, I keep finding the scientists report that this Russian cold snap and that drought are NOT attributable to CAGW…Do you track this as carefully as you track the speculations, and if so, can you give us some examples of extreme weather events that have been scientifically attributed to CAGW? (We can take Arctic melting as a given…more interested in Russian/European cold snaps, American drought, American snowstorms, hurricanes, etc…the kinds that have been in the news and speculated on in the last 5-10 years or so).
ericgrimsrud;
Concerning your reference suggesting that the frequency and intensity of severe weather events has not increased, let me just day at this point that I am sceptical of the conclusion you have drawn from it because it appear to go against expectations for which there are probably far more papers of support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The point being Eric that you can have all the papers on the planet all having the same expectations, but if they are contradicted by the data…. well then they’re wrong. The paper by Dr Ryan Maue is behind the AGU paywall, but you can see the important excerpts from it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper/
I’d encourage you also to re-read my explanation to you about the importance of energy differential versus total energy in a physical system, and to read the explanation by Dr Robert Brown that I pointed you to upthread. It was written at nearly the same time as my explanation, but in response to an entirely different thread.
“Institute for Public Accuracy”; reminds me of states referred to as “The Peoples Republic of blank”. Both are funny and transparent in that they really mean the opposite.
Thanks Anthony. whew, where do these people come from?
ericgrimsrud failed to find the error he missed, so I am going to help him out. Not because I want to help eric, but because as skeptics, it is important that we get the science right. In debating matters with ericgrimsrud, RHS said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RHS;
Since water vapor is roughly 40,000 parts per million, CO2 will never overwhelm water vapor for heat transfer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s a nuance to this that I think is important. At sea level, water vapor is 40,000 ppm. At high altitudes, temps drop to -20C and lower. The vast bulk of the moisture precipitates out. The air is bone dry. As a consequence, CO2’s effects are much more pronounced because there’s almost no water vapour to compete with.
But that brings up an interesting point. Since, at altitude, CO2 is in fact significant (as in NOT overwhelmed by water vapour) and it intercepts both upward and downward LW, the math suggests that there should be a peak concentration of additional energy at some point in the mid troposphere. This is the tropospheric “hot spot” that we frequently hear being discussed. While ericgrimsrud will probably point to the large number of papers that expect this hot spot to exist, the data says otherwise. It just isn’t there. Does this mean that CO2 doesn’t absorb and re-radiate LW after all?
IMO, no. What it does mean is that there are feedbacks, and we don’t understand their complexity, order of magnitude, or even their sign. That being the case, anyone who expresses certainty in regard to CO2’s ultimate effects on surface temps is fooling themselves.
ericgrimsrud says at October 29, 2012 at 9:13 pm
“Concerning your reference suggesting that the frequency and intensity of severe weather events has not increased, let me just say at this point that I am sceptical of the conclusion you have drawn from it because it appear to go against expectations for which there are probably far more papers of support.”
And so if empirical evidence disagrees with expectations Mr Grimsrud feels the real world is wrong, not the expectations. Thus we see that he is not a scientist. And neither are those scientists whom he consistently shows respect to, actually scientists at all.
We have here two proposed hypotheses; natural variation and cAGW. They are suggested by history and theory respectively. One fits the empirical evidence and the other doesn’t.
So what do you call a man who ignores the real world in favour of his beliefs and exxpectations?
At best a fantasist.
ericgrimsrud,
“The CO2 level in the atmosphere is now about 40% higher than it has been in 800,000 years for sure (unless the ice core record is also a big hoax) and very probably in the last 3 million years.”
Just shows with increasingly strong evidence that it has nothing to do with the general trend of climate because we are in the coolest period since then. Only the main greenhouse gases absorbing energy is also wrong, they are the big players, but how do you explain absorbance around 10 percent where none of these main greenhouse gases are in the wavelength bands.
Finally most of the warming has occurred at the surface where water vapor just above the ocean is saturated. The greenhouse effect from CO2 is not demonstrated here so can only rely on zones above land masses or much higher up in the atmosphere, where water levels decrease with height. Higher levels in the atmosphere either show very little warming compared with the surface or none, so the majority observed by instrumental stations on the surface show the warming can’t be caused by CO2. My previous post backs up this with what is the likely cause.
Yeah right. Now back to the real world.
Weird weather anyone?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full
And just for fun…….
“New paper shows warming causes decreased extreme weather”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-shows-warming-causes.html
davidmhoffer – one question/item I think which is overlooked (certainly by me) is the relative density of the layers of the atmosphere and how they are less dense higher in altitude. My thought is, the less dense (regardless of concentration to some extent) the less engergy that can be reflect or absorbed.
I think this feeds into the feedback you refer to as well as why we don’t have a tropospheric “hot spot”.
I’m not disregarding the feedback, I just think this is a good example of, we barely know what we don’t know.
With respect to how much CO2 is released, I’ve that nature alone during the fall season in the Northern Hemisphere releases 1 – 2 Peta tons of CO2, while human sources contribute about 300 Giga tons. Does anyone have other information? The main point is, we release way less than nature does.
@ericgrimsrud
It is somewhat strange now that ericgrimsrud is now seeming to make H2O out to be a major contributor to the earth’s climate when at his ”short course”, he basically discounts it as being not a very big factor in how the earth’s climate reacts.
”H2O-%=0 to 3; PPM=0; last only days
CO2-%=.039 ; ppm=393; last more than a 1,000 years.”
I have tried to go through his ”short course” and it would be very short indeed if he dealt with known facts and not conjecture but what else could one expect from a person that has held a far left philosophy and taught for over 30 years? If one goes to his site and does not issue complimentary comments, they are soon ”frozen out” of his warming world of despair and certain catastrophe where in his ”short course” he shows an actual heat trapping ”canopy” at an unspecified altitude. How many college freshman shuttered in fear at such a picture and continue to do so because they have been denied the desire to actually learn just what the truth is about this issue?
I have posed a challenge to Eric and that is to provide the results of an actual experiment using the present day conditions in the earth’s atmosphere that prove that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has the effect on the climate that he and his fellow alarmist claim that it does.
One does not need to do any experiment regarding H2O and its bearing on the earth’s climate other than simply observe that the coldest nights of the winter in the higher latitudes, where there is actually winter, always occur when there is no cloud cover. It is a known that the desert areas on earth can have temperature of over 130*F during the day and freeze at night. One need not be a university chemist, I would hope, to figure out that it is the lack of cloud cover that creates these conditions.
I have noticed on Eric’s site that he fears the oceans are becoming acidic. This is a strange fear to possess since this is the truth according to NASA and certainly has some bearing on the claim that the oceans are heating up to an unprecedented degree:
“As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/
If any one is interested in exploring Eric’s mind more fully, go to his site for a close look:
http://ericgrimsrud.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/one-politician-on-board/
@ericgrimsrud
”Yet, most real professional climate scientists – that is, those scientists who do research on the subject every day and report the results of their studies in the best peer-reviewed journals of our country – believe that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events will increase throughout the world as the average temperature of the Earth increases due to man-caused global warming.”
I do believe that a fair question to ask the good professor is, regarding his statement, why none of these all time record high temperature extremes have not been broken in his frying hot world of his own making?
If what you are saying is true about CO2 causing this “catastrophic” rise in world temperature, then why do these world high temperature records still stand?
What follows are world record high temperatures: World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya; Sept. 13, 1922, (136F):
North America (U.S.), Death Valley, Calif.; July 10, 1913 (134F);
Asia; Tirat Tsvi, Israel, June 21, 1942, (129F):
Australia ,Cloncurry, Queensland; Jan. 16, 1889 (128F):
Europe, Seville, Spain,Aug. 4, 1881 (122F):
South America, Rivadavia, Argentina; Dec. 11, 1905 (120F):
Canada,Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan, Canada; July 5, 1937 (113F):
Oceania;Tuguegarao, Philippines, April 29, 1912 (108F):
Persian Gulf (sea-surface): Aug. 5, 1924 (96F):
Antarctica; Vanda Station, Scott Coast, Jan. 5, 1974 (59F):
South Pole, Dec. 27, 1978, (7.5F).
Highest average annual mean temperature (world): Dallol, Ethiopia (Oct. 1960 Dec. 1966), 94° F.
Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30s
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
The above information can be confirmed here also:
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weather_extremes.php>
It does seem that the record high temp has been changed:
Death Valley, Calif. now holds the record for the hottest temperature ever recorded in the world with a maximum temperature of 134 degrees. This temperature was not recorded this past summer, but nearly 100 years ago on July 10, 1913. So, how can it be a new all-time record?
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released information on Thursday showing that the now previous all-time world record of 136 degrees on September 13, 1922 in El Azizia, Libya has been ruled invalid.
http://www.weather.com/news/death-valley-new-world-temperature-record-20120913
Give me your best educated explanation for these FACTS, Eric.
RHS;
davidmhoffer – one question/item I think which is overlooked (certainly by me) is the relative density of the layers of the atmosphere and how they are less dense higher in altitude. My thought is, the less dense (regardless of concentration to some extent) the less engergy that can be reflect or absorbed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Took me a while to get my head wrapped around that issue. At day’s end, as you said, we don’t know what we don’t know. That aside, we’re talking about gases, not solids, and radiated energy not conduction. The issue at hand is the shear scale of the atmospheric column. One of the analogies I often hear used is put four blue bb’s into a jar of 10,000 yellow bb’s. The resulting image makes 400 ppm look pretty insignificant.
Now make two changes to that mental image. First, imagine that the yellow bb’s are invisible. Next imagine 100,000 jars stacked one on top of each other. Looking from the side, one would see a spec of blue here and there. But look straight down from the top, and you would see…. solid blue. Even though there are only 4 blue per 10,000, there’s now a total of 400,000 in the column from top to bottom. Assuming they are evenly distribututed, they will cover the entire cross section of the jar many many times.
An upward bound photon from earth surface has no free path to space because of this. So, even with much lower density, the issue is still one of over all scale. That photon has to be absorbed and re-emitted in a random direction many times, bouncing sideways much of the time to find new pathways both up and down. The decreasing density ensures that there are increasing upward pathways as a photon gains altitude, and the higher it gets, the more likely it will have a free path to space on the next re-emission.
There are some obsessed with the supposed increase of 280 ppm to 392ppm of CO2 and I hope that this information will help them to sleep better at nights.
This, I hope, will put this into some kind of a perspective that makes one understand just how insignificant this increase is.
A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large
kitchen sink.
A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There
are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons
per gallon.
Some other things that are one part per million are…
One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
One inch in 16 miles
About one minute in two years
One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from
Cleveland to San Francisco.
One penny in $10,000.
I know that you understand that these 112 additional ppm are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 392 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
At 392 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO2 compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the EiffelTower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO2 would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts
This interesting site comes from, of all sources, the Green Party of Canada. I’m certain that after this was exposed to the light of day, Richard Belshaw, was crucified and the ”Excel spreadsheet extension of CRC 85th edition 2004-2005 handbook on physics and chemistry……” With the ”Equations worked out in Maple 12 by Maplesoft.” that shows ”The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 1.06186E+14 x 10^14 kg” was destroyed like a heretical document, in the alarmist eyes, should be if it states the truth about this trace gas that everyone that has ever used a CO2 fire extinguisher knows that CO2 is 1 and one half times heavier than the rest of the earth’s atmosphere that it is contained in.
ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic
(copy to your browser to open)
To davidmhoffer, concerning your comment on October 29, 2012 at 1:37 pm,
According to my understanding of the means by which matter can be transported, the definition of the term “convection” includes everything that cause the gross medium and everything in it to move – as occurs due pressure or temperature differential, or to physical “stirring” of a liquid or gas, and even the colriolis effect (just for starters). Of course, what we are discussing here is simple the nomenclature of science and that might differ somewhat between the subdisciplines.
Thus, convection differs significantly from “diffusion” which is defined to be the motion of a given substance through that medium – due to a concentration gradient of that substance. In the troposphere convection dominates the transport of material and in the stratosphere convection is very slow so that diffusion becomes competitive.
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
[snip]
To All ( Assuming that my “36-hr time out” assigned to me two days ago is now over).
On this thread and another entitled “Global precipitation variability from 1940 to 2009 contradicts models” there has been a lot of discussion concerning the validity of “Extreme Weather Events” and their frequency. As I have said above, I am skeptic of claims that AGW has not caused EWE if increase in both frequency and intensity. I have provided a good example of why I am skeptical on my last post on the other thread mentioned above so I will not repeat it here. Nevertheless, I would encourage anyone who is interested why we should be skeptical of so called “clear evidence” concerning this topic should read both my comment, that entire thread, and the reference to Sun et al provided in it.
(Note to the mods, If this post does not meet your requirements for some reason, would you kindly explain why so that I can made necessary corrections to it?) Thanks, ERic
[Reply: Your time out has expired. But I caution you regarding your incessant thread-bombing commentary, which violates site Policy. — mod.]
To ericgrimsrud
Stil waiting for to say you was wrong about nitrogen and oxygen not absorbing IR.
HarveyS, Yes I know you were waiting, but my response was snipped.
I can find no IR adsorbtion coeficients for N2 and O2 that would suggest importance in the case of the Earth’s atmosphere. You claims those absorbances are important. So please do the “proof”. With Beer’s Law, your absortion coeficients, and the known amounts of N2 and O2 in the vertical column, show me that IR absorption by N2 and O2 is important. That claim is yours to prove first. Don’t ask others to disprove it first.
To the mods,
[snip]
Apparently, a definition of the term “thread-bombing” might be in order. Whatever it is, I’ll accept it. Again I do not run this web site, Anthony does. I just want its operational rules to be clear to all.
[Reply: Engaging in a running commentary and arguing with everyone else becomes tedious. Since you want a definition, speaking just for this moderator: posting 200%+ more than anyone else should qualify as thread bombing. Note that there are several moderators, and each has some latitude in their moderating. We generally moderate with a light touch and when in doubt, approve the comment. But on occasion, a particular commentator can get obsessive. — mod.]
to ericrimsrud
No you said They dont absorb IR radiation they do, therefore you were WRONG.
You then, which is a typical response of a warmist go onto try to change the subject . So I shall stay on your original point. and i shall just re-quote you so u dont forget
“The greenhouse gases are the ones with 3 or more atoms. Thus within your list, carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. N2, O2, and Ar contribution nothing to the GH effect – they do not absorb or emit IR radiation. ”
If you cant admit you were wrong then dont respond with a different answer. Because i will not be further responding to u, and the crap you type
To the Moderator, Thanks for that clarification. In veiw of it, I will not in the future respond to many of the numerous questions specifically addressed me on WUWT. But please do also share this with others so they will know why I will not respond neither to their questions or statements so often. That procedure sure works for me – like Anthony, I also have other things to do.
To All from the New Me. Why I like WUWT
The reason I like to interact with others at WUWT is because when doing so, I am not just “signing to a proverbial choir”. I realize that I am going against the direction of the predominant grain at WUWT and, therefore, the shortcoming of my own thoughts are quite likely to be exposed – and I will be the wiser for that whenever it occurs.
One learns very little by preaching before one’s “yes men” and I spend very little of my time doing that. Tea parties and pep fests with one’s comrads are nice, I suppose, but I don’t care for them very much because relatively little is learned from them. They tend to provide a form of positive feedback instead of negative and, as I hope we all now, the former type of feedback can drive things over the cliff. Moreover, I would be exceedingly happy to learn that my grandchildren will not have insurmountable problems to address when they become adults. So with respect to any good news of that type that might be out there, I really am all ears and would love to change my present view of the AGW issue.
One last response here to the very persistent HarveyS.
OK, turns out that you are right – both nitrogen and oxygen will absorb IR radiation – when compressed to their liquid states – as all forms of condensed matter do.
You got me there. So good for you. You were right and I was wrong. In addition, I will also confess to you that I had knew this all along but had assumed for some reason that you were referring to a gaseous state of N2 and O2 of the sort existing in our atmosphere.
(Sorry Mods, will try harder to ignore questions addressed to me in the future, I promise. )
ericgrimsrud – nice words – “I really am all ears” – but not supported by your comments, in which you stick to your beliefs and ignore the evidence. Ears are only useful if they are connected to the brain.
Eric: You have finally posted something that I agree with but one can believe from what you have posted to WUWT that you are too old and far left and, I might add, because of the a fore mentioned conditions, unable to ever realize that ”the shortcoming of my own thoughts are quite likely to be exposed – and I will be the wiser for that whenever it occurs.”; ”whenever” being the key word because for folks with your mindset, that day will never occur.
I, in a way, wish that your comments on this thread had not been ”snipped”. Because of that occurring, I did not see what your total thoughts are regarding this issue. You can now come to understand that it can be frustrating to be shut out of the conversation, such as you do if only ONE comment is presented that disagrees with your opinion at your blog site, while here, WUWT did allow you to make many replies and presentations during the course of this thread.
I do find it different that when making comments on Alarmist sites, there seems to be a great deal of hostility, usually from the site owner, and in some cases an ample use of profanity, used to show just how much an opposing view is found to be intolerable. We have seen WUWT give much space to your views being presented while over at a site that I use to go to and no longer do because it is, quit frankly, run by a person that does appear to be insane:
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/western-australias-catastrophic-forest-collapse/#comment-195
Another site that holds no interest for me is one operated by a Martin Lack who was not even smart enough to realize that he proved himself to be a liar. I have seen him post to WUWT and Anthony tolerates his inane take on the issue of the day.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/an-open-letter-to-richard-lindzen/#comments
This link is interesting because it demonstrates Dr. Lindzen’s knowledge of this subject , AGW.
Martin at the globalclimatedebate
http://youtu.be/69kmPGDh1Gs?t=5m30s
Martin even had the gall to bother Judith Curry with his nonsense:
Martin Lack | February 29, 2012 at 2:52 am |
”What is the matter with you people. I have not actually accused Lindzen of doing anything “wrong”. I just wnat him to explain to me why he says what he says (and omits to say so much).”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/
There is one, that I have found, alarmist site that does have a certain degree of integrity and a sense of fair play and that is this one operated by Peter Sinclair:
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/06/25/duluth-storm-yet-another-postcard-from-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-11285
Eric could learn something about tolerance and being just a little bit open-minded about; well, about any issue, from Peter.
Eric: Now to the actual issue: ”Hurricane Sandy and Climate on Steroids”
I do not understand why the debate should turn to the effect that N2 and O2 might have on the earth’s atmosphere. The fact that H2O in its various forms in the atmosphere is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
This site gives much credence to this claim:
This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered.
“One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(Acording to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html
I would like Eric to look at the 2.04 min. video at the site that I had submitted before that shows in no uncertain terms just how insignificant the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is. I know that Eric believes that simple demonstrations and graphs are a good teaching tool from his 2J graph that distinctly shows a ”canopy” that I assume he wants folks to believe ”traps heat” or something. When has anyone ever been able to trap anything with a gas?
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts
This site seems to show that perhaps, contrary to what the alarmist want us to believe, that there have been disasters in the past.
Read About The World’s Worst Disasters
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/read_about_the_worlds_worst_disasters/
Believe it or not there were even disastrous storms back in distant past and how could that have been without Al Gore calling the shots and blaming every weather occurrence on the alarmist devil, CO2?
The First Invasion, 1274
The Mongols relented, and the great armada sailed out into open waters – straight into the arms of an approaching typhoon.
Two days later, a third of the Yuan ships lay on the bottom of the Pacific, and perhaps 13,000 of Kublai Khan’s soldiers and sailors had drowned. The battered survivors limped home, and Japan was spared the Great Khan’s dominion… for the time being. http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/Mongolinvasion.htm
The Second Invasion, 1281:
Kublai Khan was determined to smash Japan this time. He knew that his defeat seven years earlier had been simple bad luck, due more to the weather than to any extraordinary fighting prowess of the samurai.
On August 15, 1281, a second typhoon roared ashore at Kyushu. Of the khan’s 4,400 ships, only a few hundred rode out the towering waves and vicious winds.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/Mongolinvasion.htm