Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics
National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as
“a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.
Global Warming Theory Has Failed
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology
Related articles
- Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Schellnhuber Slips, Confirms Ocean Cycles Do Play A Major Role, Yet Hasn’t Added Them To Climate Models (notrickszone.com)
- To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here (forbes.com)
Was reading a story yesterday on the Argentine economic debacle and the follies of their socialist government, and this quote really nailed it for me as I think it pertains not just to failed economics but also to failed theories like global warming. The “other side” is infuriating because they have goals other than logic and the truth. Maintaining the status quo is their primary objective.
“When it comes right down to it, any government, not just the Argentine government, will simply do whatever it thinks it needs to do to keep the status quo intact, with no moral or ethical considerations.” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-05/argentina-textbook-case-government-gone-mad
@ur momisugly Dodgy Geezer; Agreed. This is why, whenever I refer to the “consensus”, I always use quotation marks. Not only do they need to fabricate the science, but they need to fabricate their consensus as well.
@DirkH
You have forgotten
E) Don’t fix the theory, don’t collect new data [er, wrong], ignore all new data you can’t stop from being collected [contradicts last clause so both can’t be true], and let a Cartoonist and a Scientologist [debunked but since the meme is being continued it is fair to point to the phoney theology that the writer of the post under discussion has signed up to] write a paper saying that everyone agrees that the theory is correct.
Since it doesn’t seem to be fashionable to provide links, I’ll let you do your own searching as that is what a true sceptic would do.
Interesting how various posters take the primary topic and divert it in so many directions in these threads.
If by “Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax”, the “Global Warming “theory”” is that “human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” (Thanks to Petition Project), then I agree with Joseph D’Aleo.
I disagree that it is, or ever was, a theory, however. An “idea”. perhaps. that hasn’t passed any validation tests which would elevate it further.
So if (C)AGW has failed all tests, and as C(AGW) is firmly rooted on the GHE (man’s extra CO2 causing/increasing back radiation which further heats the surface), which is the IPCC’s and most politicians and policy makers position, why is it not fair to say therefore that the GHE has failed all tests?
I find it really strange though that here is a group (PSI) whose aim is to find true scientific and evidential reason for why CO2 is not the evil culprit C(AGW) pitches it to be, something you would think a skeptical environment such as WUWT would be only to pleased to support to help rid the world of this irrational C(AGW) stupidity, yet it meets with wild and vicious vitriol, from those supposed to be Christian at heart. I can only say, and I direct this straight to you Anthony, that this is wholly unnacceptable behaviour. It is childish, ugly, vile and uncaring behaviour, and has no place in science and this debate. You should step back and take a good long look at yourself. PSI are not the bad guys, but your continued utterly horrible response to them is rapidly making you the bad guy, something that is not going unnoticed and something I’m sure you don’t want to be.
I wonder…the anomalies may be flat, but they only measure departures from the average. Is the global temperature per se flat over the last 16 years, or just the anomalies?
Steven R. Vada and others who do not understand greenhouse effect (GHE) and back radiation. Point a spectrometer to the sky. What do you see? Do you only see the 3 K cosmic microwave background radiation or do you see also IR radiation from the atmosphere?
Simon C-S says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Gary,
The whole AGW/CAGW business is grounded in and synonymous with the GHE. Without the claimed CO2 GHE there would be no claimed (C)AGW. If AGW has failed, then GHE has, they cannot be separated.
Your stance seems to be that the fastest way to bury all the global warming baloney is to fight baloney with baloney. The problem is that the opponents are better-armed. Better to go back to the science.
If I eat 20 more calories per day than my present body weight and activity level require, say 2,020 rather than 2,000 calories, I will cause AWG (anthropogenic weight gain). However, I will not cause CAWG (catastrophic AWG) if I continue that same behavior of eating 2020 calories per day. Eventually, my weight will level off at a somewhat higher level as the additional body weight I would be carrying around during my consistent daily activities was causing me to burn that extra 20 calories I’ve been eating each day.
The additional calories will cause AWG, but a negative feedback exists that prevents CAWG, provided I continue my daily activities as before. Of course, if I were completely sedentary, or ate an additional 1,000 calories per day thereby gaining so fast that I couldn’t maintain my previous level of activity, CAWG might indeed occur. Given this complication, perhaps it would indeed be easier to simply ignore all evidence to the contrary and simply deny that additional caloric intake causes weight gain? That way both AWG and CAWG become impossible. Case closed. Really?
Now, getting to Voisin’s paper the other day, suppose my 2,000 calories of daily input were from a store, purchased with money I make doing a sedentary activity. Instead, I decide for health reasons to grow my own food supply. In doing so, I become far less sedentary (and make less money) but now require 3,000 calories per day to maintain my weight, a weight that was excessive due to my previous sedentary life, say 300 pounds.
A year later, due to my change in lifestyle, and a choice to only eat 2,500 calories (instead of the 2,000 I was eating or the 3,000 I would require to remain at 300 pounds), I now weigh a trim 180 pounds and the 2,500 caloric intake, combined with my higher activity level, is sufficient to fuel my 180 pound body each day and maintain a steady weight. Hmm, higher caloric input combined with other system changes resulted in lower body weight? Someone looking only at the caloric input would certainly be confused, no?
When we finally understand all there is to know about carbon sources and sinks, maybe it will be simple to understand their relationship with the climate. Right now, we appear to understand very little of all there is to know, and many refuse to understand even that which we actually do know. At least that’s my view as an observer.
Mario Lento says:
Some skeptics of CAGW do believe in GHE theory in varying degrees. Most of us do not believe that CO2 is the main driver of climate that will lead to catastrophe. I think CO2 has some affect on climate, but that its effect is difficult to measure and is probably very small. I have believed that we were headed for cooling back about 5 years ago. The warming that was impossible to stop according to CAGW proponents, has stopped. It seems that their understanding of climate is based too strongly in preconceived notions that are just not panning out.
That is pretty much how I see it. CO2 may have a minuscule effect, but because it is so inconsequential, it should be disregarded for all practical purposes. Regardiung global warming, CO2 simply does not matter. It is too small to even measure.
It also appears that Planet Earth is in full agreement with that view. Anyone who disagrees needs to post testable, verifiable measurements of AGW. Without that, everything they claim is just speculation.
Jim Brock – Anomalies are temperatures minus a single reference value (which is usually the average of measurements for some designated prior time period) so anomalies vary exactly the same amounts as the temperatures. The anomalies (or temperatures) have varied some but the trend (a straight line with best fit to the values) has been flat. Reported anomaly measurements since 1996 from 5 agencies are graphed at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
There is no CO2 climate crisis. There will be no dangerous warming. There does appear to be a real risk of dangerous cooling but that is a problem for another thread.
The warmists will not participate in a debate as they would lose the debate. Observations and scientific analysis unequivocally supports that assertion. To avoid a debate which is based on facts, observations, and analysis, they are trying a bait and switch policy. Regardless of whether the warmists want a debate, the so called ‘skeptics’ are morally obligated to force a debate to occur. The following is relevant to the discussion or lack of discussion of the science of climate change and needs to also be ‘debated’.
A number of books by high profile blue ribbon warmist academics have recently been published that layout very basic facts and analysis to show that green energy is a scam and will not work. The ‘war’ on climate ‘climate’ change cannot change facts and reality. A paradigm shift (change in the basic beliefs of a person concerning climate ‘change’) is occurring among academics due to the newly published books. There has been no discussion of world mandated energy rationing (and more importantly the amount of rationing required) and implications of enforced energy rationing. It is astonishing that it has taken this long for this issue to be raised.
There are two alternatives if there truly is a CO2 climate crisis which requires that world CO2 emissions must be reduced by 80% in 20 years (actual 80% reduction in world CO2 emissions not just talked about reduction based on cooked calculations that are very close to lies.)
1) A mandated and forced massive conversion to nuclear power. This option would require Stalin like enforced policy (end of world democracy) and would require a world war or a threat of direct military action to get agreement from all countries. Due to the delay in construction of the new nuclear reactors elements of option 2 will be required, including but not limited to the end of air travel for tourism, energy rationing, and some population control.
2) If nuclear is not an option for some unexplained reason, then the only option is an incredible reduction in the standard of life for all humanity due to the mandated limited on carbon emissions which rationed/reduces the amount of energy use for all countries on the planet, in addition to increasing the cost of energy by 5 to 10 fold if we insist on using soft green energy to try to achieve a true 80% reduction in world CO2 emissions. In addition there would need to be mandated population control and significant population reduction. Option 2 would require Stalin like enforced policy (end of world democracy) and would require a world war to get agreement from all countries and a world military force to enforce policies.
The ‘war’ on climate ‘change’ has been used to mandate, legislate, green scams such as wind farms, photovoltaic installations, and particularly egregious the mandated conversion of food to biofuel. The green scams have not significant reduced carbon emissions in the countries where the scams have been installed if unbiased economic and engineering analysis is apply and have absolutely not reduced total CO2 emissions. If the mandated, legislated food to biofuel scam is continued, 100% of world available agricultural land will be used/required to grow food to convert to biofuel. That of course is practically and politically impossible. There will be mass starvation and a world war for food and for the right to burn fossil fuel for economic development. Energy is required for economic development and to support the number of people that current live on this planet.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/green-paradox
The Green Paradox – A supply side approach to global warming by Hans Werner Simn, published 2012. (Translated from German)
Hans-Werner Sinn is Professor of Economics and Public Finance at the University of Munich and President of the CESIfo Group. Author of Can Germany Be Saved? The Malaise of the World’s First Welfare State (MIT Press) and other books, he is former president of the International Institute of Public Finance, and former chairman of the German Economic Association.
“… to a large extent, these people (William: population increase from 630 million industrial revolution to 7,000 million current) owe their very existence to the exploitation of fossil fuel since the Industrial Revolution, and they can’t be assumed to go away by wishful thinking simple because we now want to close the fossil fuel carbon channel.”
“… The development path described above (William: consequences of the food to biofuel scam) described above is a horrific vision, and one hopes it is not a realistic … … This would pose a problem not only for those who would starve but also for those who would have to defend themselves against starving nations fighting for survival. If we decide to let this market mechanism work, and tolerate the replacement of fossil fuels with biofuel …. … hundreds of millions of people will be affected and they will not merely take to the streets in peaceful protest. They will wage war.”
“…of course the problem of global warming is still there but that problem is secondary to the horrors of starvation in the developing world and the horror of a world war for food.”
“Chapter 2 listed the technology options available to mankind in the form of “green” replacement technology. There are not many options alas. Wind power and photovoltaic devices, unfortunately aren’t serious alternative to fossil power. (William: Author provides facts and analysis to support that assertion. As noted above wind power and photovoltaic devices are viable if we reduce are standard life and reduce world population.) “
“… nuclear fission will work someday, which would be a blessing for the poor and those who otherwise would have to suffer from global warming. At present, however, mankind has no other options to choose policies that would limit biofuel production, resource-intensive growth, and population growth.”
@dbstealey: Now how can we help people like Simon C-S to actually have a meaningful interchange. I understand that people who have taken a position of belief want to be right. Most of them resist a change of belief. Wanting to be right, when you know you are wrong is willfully destructive to the progress of anything.
Seriously Simon C-S, can you respond here or are you a troll?
Steven R. Vada says (June 6, 2013 at 1:46 am): [snip]
Steven, did you really have to repost the entire list? You could have proclaimed your misunderstanding more easily just by writing, “But, but, but, what Joe wrote!!!!”
RGB explained better than I could, so why don’t you re-read (or read) his comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/#comment-1327489
“Gary Hladik says: [snip fabricated quote]”
OMG, you’re in the Pink Unicorn Brigade (PUB), too! That explains a lot.
Let’s explore your delusion a bit:
1) Do you think your view is a) in accordance with “establishment physics” (e.g. textbooks, engineering manuals, actual working products like thermocouples); or b) in disagreement with “establishment physics”, which is deluding the public and all science/engineering students for some unknown but decidedly sinister purpose?
2) There is at least one experiment that would–according to the PUB–unambiguously disprove the so-called GHE, no ifs, ands, or buts, i.e. Dr. Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” (so far) thought experiment. So, and here’s my question, why hasn’t the PUB performed this experiment and claimed a place in the pantheon of scientific heroes? I mean, wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic to use Dr. Spencer’s own design against him? Wouldn’t the revenge taste oh-so-sweet, despite being served cold? 🙂
Gail Combs says (June 6, 2013 at 4:50 am): ‘SIGH, My husband looked at this piece and said “NO, it would take too much time and the commenters here are already doing a great job.”’
Wait, your husband said “no”, and you let him get away with it?
blink blink
Dang, 40 years married and NOW I learn I have a choice…
@Mosher
“The bottom line is that no theory is “falsified” by observation. Observation and theory are always in conflict because observations never ever fit a theory exactly. Never ever. ”
I postulate a theory that 2+2=5
But I observe (counting fingers, pennies, or matchsticks, take your pick) that 2+2=4
Looks pretty damn falsified to me.
I think your point is an extreme interpretation.
All that Cook’s study “proves” is that the scientists he claims as supporters are either misquoted (as several have pointed out), or else are blithering idiots, not sicnetists at all but propagandists – as he is.
I would strongly recommend that everyone posting here go to CFACT and read Craig Rucker’s comments on the Bonn climate conference.
It’s apparent that Cook’s twaddle is the basis for recent statements by der Fuehrer that he is “increasingly impatient with ‘deniers’,” and new Secretary of Energy Moniz’s declaration that he “will not debate what is not debatable.” There is no question that our dictator is determined to shove his climate change/economic destruction programs down our throats. It’s the de-development of the US economy, enrichment of the crony capitalists who back him up, and submission to the UN that are his real objectives, and he will not give AGW up as it is the entoire rationaloisztion for this.
His attacks on the Associated Press, Fox News and other dissenters make it clear that he does not respect, or even acknowledge the existence of, free speech rights and will go to any length to silence opposing opinion. Skeptics should be on the lookout for attacks by the IRS and the Departmemt of Justice – “audits” by the likes of Eva Braun (uh, Lois Lerner) and possible “search warrants” carried out by Himmler’s (uh, Holder’s) goons.
Chad: You bring up something very important. Liberalism in its best form protects freedom of speech. In its most perverse form, they attack speech –think IRS, SkS, MSM and the current US administration including Holder and our president.
Simon C-S says:
“I find it really strange though that here is a group (PSI) whose aim is to find true scientific and evidential reason for why CO2 is not the evil culprit…” &etc.
Simon, you need to understand the Scientific Method, in which the onus is on the purveyor of a hypothesis or conjecture to defend it. It is not the duty of those questioning a conjecture or hypothesis to prove a negative — for example, whether or not AGW exists — when there is no measurable evidence to support that belief.
Radiative physics supports the position that CO2 has an effect on temperature. But it has not been shown by anyone that CO2 causes any measurable global warming. That is probably because the effect [if any] is simply too small to measure at current CO2 concentrations. You can see here why that is: almost the entire effect of CO2 is found in the first 20 ppm. At current concentrations, the effect of CO2 is simply too small to measure.
Therefore, if adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does not result in any verifiable global warming, it is irresponsible to throw more money at the non-problem of “carbon”. That funding is not doing anything except starving other, more deserving areas of scientific research of needed funding.
At this point, global warming alarmism is caused by the enormous funds that are paid to find it. No one is going to pay several billion dollars every year for someone to report back that there is no problem. So the alarmism continues, based on the money involved — not on any testable science.
Simon C-S says:
June 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm
So if (C)AGW has failed all tests, and as C(AGW) is firmly rooted on the GHE (man’s extra CO2 causing/increasing back radiation which further heats the surface), which is the IPCC’s and most politicians and policy makers position, why is it not fair to say therefore that the GHE has failed all tests?
I already explain that GHE and CAGW are two different things. read my comment to you at: June 5, 2013 at 9:52 pm.
If you cannot understand the difference, I cannot help you. In a simple short answer GHE is shown to have some affect. It is also shown to have a small effect. CAGW claims that GHE is different than what has been shown. They claim that their models prove its effects are multiple times more significant. Their models have been shown to be wrong. I’m happy to provide a more complex answer.
Simon C-S says (June 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm): “…yet it meets with wild and vicious vitriol, from those supposed to be Christian at heart.”
Simon, if your feelings are hurt, why not just prove Anthony, IPCC, etc. wrong with the relatively simple “Yes, Virginia” experiment, or one like it? PSI certainly hasn’t done it, and I’m utterly at a loss to understand why. I’m beginning to think (OK, I’m sure) they don’t really believe their own propaganda. Why do you?
Steven R. Vada says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:22 am
You know you’re deep into big foot / area 51 / GHE when 25 ways a hypothesis has failed is listed, and the believers come out saying “that doesn’t mean GHE isn’t real.”
If it wasn’t wrong when they showed you the 168 watts into the earth and out, into some gas acting as a mirror with 324 X 2 coming back out after 168 went in,
There’s nothing short of psychiatric treatment that’s going to help you over your belief in the GHE.
Konrad says:
June 5, 2013 at 8:11 pm
rgbatduke says:
June 5, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“Did you ever wonder why Anthony, and I, and Roy Spencer, and Dick Lindzen, and many others who actually have a clue about physics and meteorology spend an entirely disproportionate time bashing PSI’s absolutely absurd claims and their bad science just so that they might, one day, stop being an active embarrassment to the entire skeptical community and an active obstacle to its arguments?”
———————————————————————————————————————
I would say those behind PSI succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. How many sceptics are now too afraid to challenge the radiative GHE hypothesis for fear of other sceptics pointing the finger and shrieking “slayer”?
============
Steven – having nothing to do with the “slayers” as PSI, but having been at the receiving end of censorship by a mod saying my post was..
I have, on my own, in my own fashion, worked out why the GHE is duff science. I call it the Greenhouse Effect Illusion because the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases” does not actually exist. It was created out of a complex set of sleights of hand, with magicians’ tricks, deceiving the mind by tricking the eyes and ears by using terms from real physics, but giving them different meanings, giving the properties of one thing to another for example, which resulted in a completely fake fisics being passed off as being real physics, and consequently, the physically impossible world created out of the fake physics being passed off as the real world around us.
None of it is easy to explain.. I’ve just been discussing some of the aspect you bring up in the Dr Gray thread, but in summary. AGWScienceFiction has taken out, excised it completely from their GHE energy budget, the real direct heat from the Sun which is longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared, in order to pass off all downwelling longwave infrared as being “from the atmosphere” and not from the Sun – so they can pretend all real world measurements of any downwelling is “from backradiation by greenhouse gases”.
They have two explanations for why we “do not get longwave infrared direct from the Sun”, both nonsensical. The first that “longwave infrared is blocked at TOA by an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse”; this invisible barrier in unknown in traditional up to date real world physics.. The second is that “the Sun produces insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and we get insignificant of insignificant”; they are not aware that what they are actually saying is that we get no direct heat from the Sun..
They’re not aware they are saying this because In its place they make the claim that it is “shortwave from the Sun, mainly visible but with the two shortwaves either side of uv and infrared (shortwave infrared as 1% of that total), which heat the Earth’s surface”. The AGWSF meme here is “shortwave in longwave out”.
In other words, they have given the properties of longwave infrared to shortwave. In real world physics, they have given the property of heat to lightwaves.
In real world physics, shortwave cannot physically heat land or water or us, and, in real world physics we know that the direct heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared. We know the shortwaves are not thermal.
So, they attribute all the energy from the Sun at TOA to their shortwave. They have not changed that figure from traditional physics, they have simply given that proportion of it which in traditional physics is longwave infrared to their “shortwave in”.
What they are measuring as “downwelling from the atmosphere”, actually includes the real downwelling longwave infrared direct from the Sun which they say doesn’t exist; they have double counted it.
What the actual amount, if any, of “downwelling from the atmosphere from backradiation” would be is, of course, now not available..
How they get their 168 I don’t know. This could be from actual measurements of visible light at the surface from which they then divvy up the remainder attributing to reflection/scattering and so on, but, as this TOA figure is based on the whole real world including longwave infrared and if they are simply getting the amounts by proportion, they are including in that, the amount of real world longwave infrared which isn’t actually being reflected/scattered by clouds because clouds, being water and matter, absorb it. Aggh, it’s late.. Hope at least you get what I’m trying to say. Because they are attributing longwave infrared at TOA to shortwave they have more to account for as “missing on route”, if they are using real world measurements of visible at the surface.
Gary Hladik says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:02 pm
Simon C-S says (June 6, 2013 at 3:17 pm): “…yet it meets with wild and vicious vitriol, from those supposed to be Christian at heart.”
Simon, if your feelings are hurt, why not just prove Anthony, IPCC, etc. wrong with the relatively simple “Yes, Virginia” experiment, or one like it? PSI certainly hasn’t done it, and I’m utterly at a loss to understand why. I’m beginning to think (OK, I’m sure) they don’t really believe their own propaganda. Why do you?
Why hasn’t Spencer produced the “Yes, Virginia” experiment?
Simon, your saying that ANY of the above responses to your inane arguments are “wild and vicious vitriol,” proves that you are either:
1) unaware of the definition of those terms;
2) suffering from a persecution complex (i.e., not thinking rationally); or
3) a l-i-a-r.
Take your pick. For your sake, I hope it is #1.
Christians care about TRUTH. They [and all the above posters, some (most?) of whom are not Christians] will defend truth fervently against those who are clearly twisting it as you are in your above posts. They will be especially stern with people who try to hide behind a façade of pseudo-naivete.
For example: ” ‘ You are like [a] whitewashed tomb[] … on the outside you [try to] appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy … .’ ” [Matthew 23:27, 28]
Forgive me, if you really are mentally impaired, but, I must say that even in that case, you are recklessly writing posts here. Your posting is, thus, an intentional act on your part to knowingly incur the risk of appearing ridiculous. In other words, Simon, you, not we, are the problem. The one who owes an apology (if one is, indeed due) is YOU.
Simon: I will forgive you if you repent. I know, I am not a good Christian, since I am giving you a condition. But, you see, it’s people like you that bring in the wrath of government to control our lives. Your ilk require my tax money to fund this nonsense, your ilk have causes harm on this world only to make certain people wealthy –and all to solve a problem that is not there.
So all I ask for is an apology.
Myrrh says (June 6, 2013 at 6:41 pm): “Why hasn’t Spencer produced the “Yes, Virginia” experiment?”
Good question. Two good answers:
1) Dr. Spencer (or any scientist, for that matter) has no incentive, since it would only prove (again) what he already knows. The Pink Unicorn Brigade (PUB), however, has everything to gain, yet for some obscure reason refuses to “prove” their “theory” empirically. Weird, huh?
2) If Dr. Spencer did the experiment, the PUB would only reject the inevitable result, claim fraud, and spout even more useless verbiage. To be convincing, the experiment must be done (honestly) by people who expect a result different from the one they’ll get (and even then may reject their own findings).
If you doubt point #2, think about our earlier discussions of the Herschel experiment. You reject others’ results (i.e. that “visible” light can heat matter), yet (correct me if I’m wrong) have not so far done this simple backyard experiment yourself. Would you be convinced if Anthony or Dr. Spencer ran the Herschel experiment yet again? Would you be convinced if you ran it yourself?
Gary Hladik says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:02 pm
“[PSI]… don’t really believe their own propaganda.”
——————————————————————-
Bingo!