Apparently, one of the proudest achievements of the website SkepticalScience is their “Down the Up Escalator” gif animation. They prominently display it in their right sidebar. The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.
The first version was created using the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) land surface air temperature dataset. That, of course, made SkepticalScience appear two-faced, because the papers associated with the BEST dataset had not yet appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journals and SkepticalScience downplays any research efforts that haven’t been peer reviewed.
ONE OF THE TRENDS IN THE REVISED ESCALATOR IS MISREPRESENTED
Bogus Escalator
In an effort to distract from their duplicity, SkepticalScience revised and reissued the animation (modified screen cap above), using the average of the GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4, and NCDC land surface air plus sea surface temperature anomaly datasets. If you were to click on the mini “Escalator” animation along the right-hand side of their main page, you’re brought to the updated GISS-, UK Met Office- and NCDC-based Escalator. SkepticalScience describes “The Escalator” animation as (my boldface):
Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through August 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, May ’77 – Dec ’85, Jan ’86 – June ’94, Nov ’94 – Dec ’00, Jan ’01 – Aug ’12.
You’ll note that they’re now calling it “The Escalator”—no longer calling it the “Down the Up Escalator”. Yet each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly.
SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.
Actual Linear Trends During Fourth Step of Escalator
How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880.
GISS LOTI Global Surface Temperature Anomalies Since 1880
The following animation will give you an idea what “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step. Depending on your browser, you may need to click on the following gif animation.
The Escalator With Actual Linear Trends
A COUPLE OF NOTES
As noted in my WUWT-TV presentation “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans”, “The Escalator” is an exercise in cherry-picked start and end dates. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming will incorrectly cite “The Escalator” during my blog discussions of ENSO-related upward shifts in Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific (90S-90N, 80W-180) sea surface temperature anomalies. (In recent years, I typically present that dataset as the “Rest-of-the-World”, because I usually now start with the East Pacific data, which shows no warming over the entire 30-year term of the satellite era.) When the disciples of SkepticalScience link “The Escalator”, they are simply trying to distract from the process-caused shifts. Those natural processes were described in the WUWT-TV presentation and detailed with numerous datasets in my book Who Turned on the Heat?
Rest of the World Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies With Linear Trends
The above graph was presented in the post Does The Sea Surface Temperature Record Support The Hypothesis Of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Proponents of anthropogenic global warming have another, related, inconsequential complaint about my research. They claim the decade-long time periods between the 1986/98/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 El Niño events are too short for the trends to be significant. Curiously, when SkepticalScience is trying to make a point, they have no trouble presenting a series of decadal trends, and when SkepticalScience is trying to mislead their followers, they have no trouble misrepresenting the trend for a shorter 6-year period. Apparently, linear trends over periods as short as 6 years do have significance. Looks like another example of the double standards of the proponents of anthropogenic global warming.
In the next few days, I’ll present PBS’s sleight of hand about “The Escalator” when they presented it in their Frontline report Climate of Doubt. They were pretty blatant about it.
Renewable guy, you handwaving and assertions based on beleifs don’t count as facts
renewable guy said
CO2 is not the only driver of climate but is necessary to explain what is happening
henry says
so how did you figure out you NEED CO2 to explain things?
There is not one study that shows that an increase in CO2 causes warming.
Those that do exist are more than a 100 years old and lack the cooling part and not one of any recent studies has a balance sheet of the amount of cooling and warming caused by an increase in x% of CO2 in the atmosphere with the right dimensions…….never mind the fact that the increase is (largely) caused by natural warming: (gigatons of bicarbonate in the oceans)
HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Can I suggest you read this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
and you will figure out the science that we have all been trying to explain here to you from the beginning.If you do not try to understand it you will just stay ignorant.
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/
It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth. The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B. Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will ‘react’ to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly. With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies. This process occurs with plankton too. But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility. As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).
####################################################
The world is planning on adding 1000 new coal plants mostly in india and china which effects the whole world. 4*C is considered destabilizing to the human civilization.
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
This report provides a snapshot of recent scientific literature and new analyses of likely impacts and risks that would be associated with a 4° Celsius warming within this century. It is a rigorous attempt to outline a range of risks, focusing on developing countries and especially the poor. A 4°C world would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on ecosystems and associated services. But with action, a 4°C world can be avoided and we can likely hold warming below 2°C.
Venter says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:14 am
Renewable guy, you handwaving and assertions based on beleifs don’t count as facts
###################
I have provided sources. This is the science that I am basing this in. You are welcome to rebut my sources.
Tom in Indy says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:00 am
The takeaway I get from the graph is that a continuous increase in CO2 concentration since 1970 causes (1) long periods of constant temperature change of random length, followed by (2) brief bursts of warming of random size.
What’s the mechanism in AGW theory that explains these 2 features of the data, given that the effects of nina’s/nino’s are assumed away as noise?
######################
Over 90% of the heat goes into the oceans.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=46
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/a-reply-to-vonk-radiative-physics-simplified-ii/
So finally, as a formal skeptic of AGW extremism, NONE of this should create any alarm. Sure CO2 can cause warming (a little) but warmer air holds more moisture, which changes clouds, which will cause feedbacks to the temperature. If the feedback is low or negative (as Roy Spencer recently demonstrated), none of the IPCC predictions come true, and none of the certainly exaggerated damage occurs. The CO2 then, can be considered nothing but plant food, and we can keep our tax money and take our good sweet time building the currently non-existent cleaner energy sources the enviro’s will demand anyway. If feedback is high and positive as the models predict, then the temperature measurements have some catching up to do.
###########################################
THe computers run the calculations for us to see what kind of sensitivity we come up with to changes in the atmosphere for a doubing of co2. The possiblity of climate sensitivity to be below 2*C appear to be very low. THe possibility of being higher are much higher than being lower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frequency_distribution_of_climate_sensitivity,_based_on_model_simulations_(NASA).png
They run this simulation thousands of times, each time changing the starting assumptions of one or more processes. When they put all the predictions from these thousands of simulations onto a single graph, what they get is a picture of the most likely outcomes and the least likely outcomes.
The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 °C of warming—near the low end of estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Some simulations result in significantly more than the 4 °C, which is at the high end of the IPCC estimates.
This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.
Renewableguy – Why should anyone believe a model which leaves out water vapor when water vapor has a concentration of 40,000 ppm vs. the CO2 concentration of less than 400 ppm?
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
___________________________________
Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.
70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.
graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”
It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)
We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on
26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
___________________________________
Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.
70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.
graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”
It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)
We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on 26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
___________________________________
Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.
70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.
graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”
It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)
We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on
26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 6:50 am
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gif
It appears that from this graph one is saying that the ocean isn’t being heated directly by sunlight. I find that true in that sunlight can only penetrate so deep into the ocean….
___________________________________
Read the labeling on the second graph. The higher wavelengths (UV) penetrate to 100m or 330 ft. Or look at Dr. Robert E. Stevenson’s statement The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean.
70% of the earth’s surface is water. The higher wavelengths of sunlight, visible and above are where the ‘action’ is, not at the infrared wavelengths. And guess what? NASA has recently found that although Total Solar Insolation (TSI) may not vary much the mix of wavelengths does.
graph black line is the expected, blue line is the actual from SIM.“(red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM”
It remains to be seen if that decrease in the sun’s “irradiance” in the wavelengths that effect the oceans have any effect. My SWAG is we will see more La Nina’s and a drop in Sea Surface temperatures over time if the sun remains in a funk. (Two days in November have been essentally spotless official sources found four groups of very tiny specks with a F10.7 flux less than 100 and we are at sunspot MAX!)
We are already seeing a stop in warming in the global sea surface temperatures according to the EPA graph, and the expected El Niño has not developed. The Update prepared by the Climate Prediction Center / NCEP on
26 November 2012 shows ENSO-neutral conditions continue and ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2012-13.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of 0.01% of CO2 that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.
################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate-intermediate.htm
Greenhouse gases and ozone contribute warming of +2.9 Wm-2. The majority of this is from CO2 (+1.66 Wm-2). This warming is offset by anthropogenic aerosols, reducing the total human caused warming to 1.6 Wm-2. So the warming from CO2 actually exceeds the final total radiative forcing. The other important point to glean from Figure 2 is that we have a relatively high understanding of greenhouse gas radiative forcing. The probability density function (PDF) shows a much higher probability than the aerosols PDF, meaning the uncertainty associated with greenhouse gas forcing is much lower. This is also confirmed by experimental observations from both satellites and surface measurements which confirm the enhanced greenhouse effect from rising greenhouse gases.
So in summary, there are two reasons for the focus on CO2:
CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing
CO2 radiative forcing is increasing faster than any other forcing
Greg House says: “I am sorry, but who exactly and how experimentally proved that CO2 causes warming on the surface by sending back to the surface some IR it gets from the surface? Because IR from colder bodies does not necessarily cause warming of warmer bodies, it needs to be proven first….”
Gail Combs says: “There is this From Dr. Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ […]”
========================================================
Gail, I opened the first 5 links you presented and, frankly, I am not surprised: all of them are completely irrelevant, they contain neither description of even a single physical experiment in question nor a link to such an experiment.
I just hope it was not an act of obfuscation and you simply did not understand the topic.
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:07 am
….. The relationship between H2O and co2 is the main driver of our climate….
___________________________________
No, the relationship between the SUN and H2O is the main driver of our climate. Without the sun we are a block of frozen gases. The Milankovitch cycles show the sun’s impact as dependent on the earth’s relative position link The other biggy is the position of the continents. Look up the colliding, of the Pacific Plate and the Caribbean Plate.
Everyone seems to forget to look at climate on geological scales. graph (Present on the left) The Holocene has been a very stable interglacial compared to the others. graph (Present on the left) and the temperature as expected from the Milankovitch cycles is trending in a downward direction graph (Present on the right, instrument record in red)
renewable guy says
THe computers run the calculations for us to see what kind of sensitivity we come up with to changes in the atmosphere for a doubing of co2. (sic)
henry says
you cannot “calculate” that which has not been measured first. What actual measurement results can you show me?
It is people like you who only want ‘renewable” energy who retard science. How do you think mankind can do terra forming (for example on Mars) with 300 ppm CO2? You want at least 10 x as much to speed things (=life) up a bit? (up to 4000 ppm has been OK for submarines?)
Anyway, as I said before, do you really want to learn something here or do you just want stay ignorant?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/#comment-1157617
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 7:50 am
Over 90% of the heat goes into the oceans.
Then what happens? If AGW assumes nina’s/ninos are white noise, then how does continuous increase in CO2 cause random bursts of global heat over the period 1970 – present?
If you attribute these bursts of heat during the period to changes in CO2, then shouldn’t each step up in the chart be getting higher and higher? Or, at least the trend in step height be getting higher? 2 of the last 3 steps are shorter than the first.
renewableguy says:
November 26, 2012 at 8:14 am
###########################################
THe computers run the calculations for us to see what kind of sensitivity we come up with to changes in the atmosphere for a doubing of co2….
…This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.
______________________________________
The computers only run the formulas and data they have entered into them. If the wrong formulas are used it is GIGO. The fact NONE of the models predicted 15 years of no warming says they have a lot of kinks. ‘Fudge factors’ such as arosols have been added.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” ~ John von Neumann.
You can find the detailed argument Probabilistic(?) estimates of climate sensitivity here
Then there are the estimates based on OBSERVATION not models:
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
“As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.” link
Full paper http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
NASA, NOAA: total climate sensitivity is below 1.65 °C
link
Spencer & Braswell’s new paper
RenewableGuy, how do you propose to hold warming down to 2C when China and India are adding so many coal plants?
RichardM, SkS does not accept that their is a flattening of temperatures. 1998 was a warm year, but the years around it, especially before were much cooler. So the overall decade of 2000s was warmer than 1990s, with no dropoff in trend.
What this shows is that the trend calculation is flawed as an analysis method. I’ve been arguing this with this thought experiment. Say I want to argue that global warming stopped in 1998 or global cooling started then. Now to prove my point, I fiddle with the temperature numbers that I use to make my calculation, and adjust 1999 and 2000 downward. The problem is, under the existing calculation method, this makes the trend HIGHER. Making temperatures colder increases the trend.
Renewableguy says
From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of 0.01% of CO2 that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.
henry says
That looks like something I said. Good. At least you read something. You might be on the right track.
so where is it \, that balance sheet with the right dimensions?
how much cooling is caused by a certain increase in CO2 by the re-radiation of sunshine?
how much cooling is caused by the increase in greenery? (Vegetation/ trees need CO2 and warmth, you know. Or did you ever see a tree grow where it is very cold?)
Finally, how, EXACTLY, does that all compare with the warming by the re-radiation of earth shine?
hint: I might be looking for something with TIME in it? And CO2 CONCENTRATION? etc.
renewableguy: Great job of hijacking the thread. Are you aware that people who do what you have done are called trolls?
Have a nice day, troll.
HenryP says: “In fact, I doubt if you can even show me one calibration certificate of a thermometer from that time.”
Bob Tisdale says
I only present data, HenryP.
henry says
don’t worry about the ignorant, (like renewable guy), we will have them always with us.
they are just here to boost the website’s visits numbers.
(seeing that we all get upset with him/her and want to get in our penny’s worth)
I must say that I honestly seriously doubt data presented from, say, before 1925.
They could hardly build a car back then.
Fact is, you could not produce a calibration certificate of a thermometer from back then so I wonder how anyone can think that we really have a basis for “global” temperature from 1880 – 1920.
It seems our records of the flooding of the Nile (and perhaps other rivers?) are good from before 1925 and this seems to confirm my fit for the drop in maximum temperatures.
This forms the basis of my belief in a weather cycle of around 90-100 years.
Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, to explain this weather cycle, rightly or wrongly.See here.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
To quote from the above paper:
A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
(The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started, looking at maxima!)
Indeed, one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools more, it condensates to form more clouds and more water (i.e. more rain).
Now put my sine wave next to those dates?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
1900- minimum flooding : end of warming
1950 – maximum flooding: end of cooling
1995 – minimum flooding: end of warming
So far, to explain this for myself, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, i.e. O3, HxOx and NxOx, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.
Hope this helps a few people.
Greg House says:
November 26, 2012 at 8:47 am
Gail, I opened the first 5 links you presented and, frankly, I am not surprised: all of them are completely irrelevant, they contain neither description of even a single physical experiment in question nor a link to such an experiment.
I just hope it was not an act of obfuscation and you simply did not understand the topic.
_____________________________
I started with the theoretical physics.
Here is a description of one of the actual experiments behind the physics: http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap02.html
What is wrong with Al Gore’s popular schoolroom experiment that was debunked by Anthony:
American Journal of Physics — May 2010 — Volume 78, Issue 5, pp. 536
Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics the full PDF
I have not run the actual experiment so I can not verify the results. Perhaps someone with access to very sensitive thermocouples and a well equipped lab could try several times and report the results.
I should add: The Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physicsExperiment should be run in an open top box or with a pressure relief valve of some type and measurements of the pressure.
PV=nRT and all that.
Bob Tisdale says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:16 am
….. Great job of hijacking the thread…..
_____________________________________
Bob, you have done such a good job of investigating ENSO there is nothing much to add.
Loved your WUWT-TV presentation BTW. Renewableguy really needs to watch both your videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsYdhRhKURg
RHS says:
November 26, 2012 at 8:35 am
Renewableguy – Why should anyone believe a model which leaves out water vapor when water vapor has a concentration of 40,000 ppm vs. the CO2 concentration of less than 400 ppm?
######################
Im not aware that water vapor is left out of all models. CO2 is a noncondensing gas while H2O is a condensiing gas. That makes CO2 the driver of the absolute humidity of the atmosphere.
Bob Tisdale says:
November 26, 2012 at 10:16 am
renewableguy: Great job of hijacking the thread. Are you aware that people who do what you have done are called trolls?
Have a nice day, troll.
##########################
This is a good open sight for discussion. Am I hearing from you that you dont want that discussion?
If you are an open science site for open discussion, then why call people names?
Why not be the example that you would like SKS to treat your fellow skeptics?