Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were “the principle risk to the world.” These countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.
Compare the industrialized nation to an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuel. You can stop the engine in two ways; cut off the fuel supply or plug the exhaust. Cutting off fuel supply is a political minefield. People quickly notice as all prices, especially food, increase. It’s easier to show the exhaust is causing irreparable environmental damage. This is why CO2 became the exclusive focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.
In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.
1. IPCC Definition of Climate Change Was First Major Deception
People were deceived when the IPCC was created. Most believe it’s a government commission of inquiry studying all climate change. The actual definition from the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limits them to only human causes.
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
In another deception, they changed the definition used in the first three Reports (1990, 1995, 2001) in the 2007 Report. It’s a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
It was not used because Reports are cumulative and to include natural variability required starting over completely.
It is impossible to determine the human contribution to climate change if you don’t know or understand natural (non-human) climate change. Professor Murray Salby showed how the human CO2 portion is of no consequence, that variation in natural sources of CO2 explains almost all annual changes. He showed that a 5% variation in these sources is more than the total annual human production.
2. IPCC Infer And Prove Rather than Disprove a Hypothesis
To make the process appear scientific a hypothesis was inferred based on the assumptions that,
• CO2 was a greenhouse gas (GHG) that slowed the escape of heat from the Earth.
• the heat was back-radiated to raise the global temperature.
• if CO2 increased global temperature would rise.
• CO2 would increase because of expanding industrial activity.
• the global temperature rise was inevitable.
To further assure the predetermined outcome the IPCC set out to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis as scientific methodology requires. As Karl Popper said,
It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.
The consistent and overwhelming pattern of the IPCC reveal misrepresentations of CO2. When an issue was raised by scientists performing their role as skeptics, instead of considering and testing its validity and efficacy the IPCC worked to divert, even creating some false explanations. False answers succeeded because most people didn’t know they were false.
3. CO2 Facts Unknown to Most But Problematic to IPCC.
Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.
• Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.
• Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.
• Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC. It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.
• Figure 1 from ABC news shows the false information. It’s achieved by considering a dry atmosphere.
Figure 1
• The percentages troubled the IPCC so they amplified the importance of CO2 by estimating the “contribution” per unit (Figure 2). The range of estimates effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”
Figure 2 (Source Wikipedia)
4. Human CO2 production critical to IPCC objective so they control production of the information.
Here is their explanation.
What is the role of the IPCC in Greenhouse Gas inventories and reporting to the UNFCCC?
A: The IPCC has generated a number of methodology reports on national greenhouse gas inventories with a view to providing internationally acceptable inventory methodologies. The IPCC accepts the responsibility to provide scientific and technical advice on specific questions related to those inventory methods and practices that are contained in these reports, or at the request of the UNFCCC in accordance with established IPCC procedures. The IPCC has set up the Task Force on Inventories (TFI) to run the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme (NGGIP) to produce this methodological advice. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the IPCC Guidelines in reporting to the convention.
How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines? Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.
They control the entire process from methodology, designation of technical advice, establishment of task forces, guidelines for reporting, nomination of experts to produce the reports, to final report approval. The figure they produce is a gross calculation, but it is estimated humans remove 50% of that amount.
Regardless, if you don’t know natural sources and variabilities of CO2 you cannot know the human portion. It was claimed the portion in the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels was known from the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12. Roy Spencer showed this was not the case. In addition, they ignore natural burning of fossil fuels including forest fires, long-burning coal seams and peat; as Hans Erren noted, fossil coal is buried wood. Spencer concluded,
If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
The answer is, it was done to prove the hypothesis and further the deception.
5. Pressure For Urgent Political Action
Early IPCC Reports claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere as very long. This implied it would continue as a problem even with immediate cessation of CO2 production. However as Segalstad wrote,
Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: “This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean”.
6. Procedures to Hide Problems with IPCC Science And Heighten Alarmism.
IPCC procedures and mechanisms were established to deceive. IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI produces the Physical Science Basis Report, which proves CO2 is the cause. WGII produces the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report that is based on the result of WGI. WGIII produces the Mitigation of Climate Change Report. WGI and WGII accept WGI’s claim that warming is inevitable. They state,
Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).
They knew few would read or understand the Science Report with its admission of serious limitations. They deliberately delayed its release until after the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). As David Wojick explained,
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
…
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
An example of this SPM deception occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, as lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
The phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline as planned.
With AR5 (2013) they compounded the deception by releasing the SPM then releasing a correction. They got the headline they wanted. It is the same game as the difference between the exposure of problems in the WGI Science Report and the SPM. Media did not report the corrections, but the IPCC could now claim they detailed the inadequacy of their work. It’s not their fault that people don’t understand.
7. Climate Sensitivity
Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature. Then it was determined that the first few parts per million achieved the greenhouse capacity of CO2. Eschenbach graphed the reality
 |
(Figure 3).
Figure 3
It is like black paint on a window. To block sunlight coming through a window the first coat of black paint achieves most of the reduction. Subsequent coats reduce fractionally less light.
There was immediate disagreement about the amount of climate sensitivity from double and triple atmospheric CO2. Milloy produced a graph comparing three different sensitivity estimates (Figure 4).
 |
Figure 4.
The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.”
8. The Ice Cores Were Critical, But Seriously Flawed.
The major assumption of the inferred IPCC hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., the Antarctic ice core records appeared as evidence in the 2001 Report (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Antarctic core core record
Four years later research showed the reverse – temperature increase preceded CO2 increase contradicting the hypothesis. It was sidelined with the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years and insignificant. It was so troubling that Al Gore created a deceptive imagery in his movie. Only a few experts noticed.
Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?
Figure 6; Lag time for short record, 1958 to 2009.
IPCC Needed Low Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
A pre-industrial CO2 level lower than today was critical to the IPCC hypothesis. It was like the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period because it showed the world was not warmer today than ever before.
Ice cores are not the only source of pre-industrial CO2 levels. There are thousands of 19th Century direct measures of atmospheric CO2 that began in 1812. Scientists took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst Beck thoroughly documented.
In a paper submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski stated,
“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”[1]
Of equal importance Jaworowski states,
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
There are other problems with the ice core record. It takes years for air to be trapped in the ice, so what is actually trapped and measured? Meltwater moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the bubble. Bacteria form in the ice, releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at considerable depth. (“Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice.” Brent C. Christner, 2002 Dissertation. Ohio State University). Pressure of overlying ice, causes a change below 50m and brittle ice becomes plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear with increasing compression. It requires a considerable depth of ice over a long period to obtain a single reading at depth. Jaworowski identified the problems with contamination and losses during drilling and core recovery process.
Jaworowski’s claim that the modellers ignored the 19th century readings is incorrect. They knew about it because T.R.Wigley introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science community in 1983. (Wigley, T.M.L., 1983 “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” Climatic Change 5, 315-320). However, he cherry-picked from a wide range, eliminating only high readings and ‘creating’ the pre-industrial level as approximately 270 ppm. I suggest this is what influenced the modellers because Wigley was working with them as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. He preceded Phil Jones as Director and was the key person directing the machinations revealed by the leaked emails from the CRU.
Wigley was not the first to misuse the 19th century data, but he did reintroduce it to the climate community. Guy Stewart Callendar, a British Steam engineer, pushed the thesis that increasing CO2 was causing warming. He did what Wigley did by selecting only those readings that supported the hypothesis.
There are 90,000 samples from the 19th century and the graph shows those carefully selected by G. S. Callendar to achieve his estimate. It is clear he chose only low readings.
Figure 7. (After Jawaorowski Trend Lines added)
You can see changes that occur in the slope and trend by the selected data compared to the entire record.
Ernst-Georg Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated their findings. In his conclusion Beck states
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.
The pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level claimed.
Beck found,
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
The challenge for the IPCC was to create a smooth transition from the ice core CO2 levels to the Mauna Loa levels. Beck shows how this was done but also shows how the 19th century readings had to be cherry-picked to fit with ice core and Mauna Loa data (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Variability is extremely important because the ice core record shows an exceptionally smooth curve achieved by applying a 70-year smoothing average. Selecting and smoothing is also applied to the Mauna Loa data and all current atmospheric readings, which naturally vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Smoothing done on the scale of the ice core record eliminates a great deal of information. Consider the variability of temperature data for the last 70 years. Statistician William Brigg’s says you never, ever, smooth a time-series. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing make the losses greater. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon and ignored natural sources. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 m up the volcano. As Beck notes
“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude. (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol. 19, No.7.)
Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2measurements.” He is a co-author of the IPCC reports, that accept Mauna Loa and all other readings as representative of global levels.
As a climatologist I know it is necessary to obtain as many independent verifications of data as possible. Stomata are small openings on leaves, which vary in size directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. They underscore effects of smoothing and the artificially low readings of the ice cores. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period (9000 – 7000 BP) illustrates the issue (Figure 9).
Figure 9.
Stomata data show higher readings and variability than the excessively smoothed ice core record. They align quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core record shown is approximately 265 ppm while it is approximately 300 ppm for the stomata record.
The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.
The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.
Source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation: CCNet 14/10/13
1. [1] “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004
Related articles
- IPCC ‘s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming (americanthinker.com)
- 2013 On Track to be Seventh Warmest Year Since 1850 (climatecentral.org)
- Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means (wattsupwiththat.com)
- UN climate panel corrects carbon numbers in influential report (trust.org)
- The IPCC’s muddled definitions of climate change (ipccreport.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One presumes that Ban ki-Moon is complicit in the aims of Maurice Strong. If he isn’t, then he should show he isn’t by sacking Strong forthwith.
I’ve read that the concentration of stomata on leaves varies with BOTH CO2 and humidity.
But cannot now remember where!.
On Maurice Strong: Why is it that so many hypocrites who got rich from fossil fuels suddenly turn against it without giving back their fossil fuel powered money? Al Gore also comes to mind.
Who is Maurice Strong?. Is he suffering from the Messiah Syndrome?
• In the 1950s he acquired a small natural gas company called Ajax Petroleum & renamed it Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Co.
• He is a former businessman engaged in the ‘Alberta Oil Patch‘ under M.F. Strong Management.
• Until 1966 he was president of Power Corporation of Canada.
• He was chief executive officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978.
Give back all the money Maurice if you are sincere. Then ask yourself about the immense damage you have caused to humanity itself.
“The tin foil hat is strong in this one.”
bobl says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:29 pm
“This sounds remarkably like what has happened though I’m not prone to conspiracy theories. I’m inclined not to believe this was consciously made up. ”
So I guess the 1972 Stockholm summit on the environment where Maurice Strong got all the paid Green NGO stooges carted there to protest for more environmental protection happened by pure chance; just one of those weird molecule configurations the Schrödinger equation is known to produce.
Brian H says:
November 14, 2013 at 12:18 am
“None of this is news. When my personal lib-green bubble first burst around 2000, I began reading more widely, and all of this was known and available, as time went on. Good summary, though.”
It must be repeated over and over again. The average person getting his info from MSM / state media knows NOTHING of this story to this day. They all believe in the official legend of idealistic Greenpeace heroes fighting the system.
SanityP says:
November 14, 2013 at 2:13 am
“The tin foil hat is strong in this one.”
Yet you can’t refute one bit of it, because all of this is documented not least in the writings of UNEP, UNIPCC and Club Of Rome itself.
Here is the former Big Oil man in an interview with the Guardian in June 2010
Then give back the oil cash. It really is as simple as that.
TFN Johnson:
re your comment at November 14, 2013 at 2:03 am.
I mention the values of ice core and stomata data in my post at November 14, 2013 at 1:33 am. However, it is stuck in moderation (probably because it includes several links) so you may not notice it when it appears at some future time (which is why I am writing this post).
If my post does appear then I think this will then be a link to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#comment-1474908
Richard
In his exploration of “why”, Dr. Tim Ball misses an important point, money. More precisely money for the UN.
No matter what you set up a bureaucracy for, within one employment/promotion cycle it’s primary goals always default to survival and expansion.
The collectivist kleptocrats of the UN desperately want a guaranteed income, yet they are forced to survive on the contributions of the very first world nations they wish to subjugate and they hate it, they absolutely hate it. They have tried before to get agreement on extra-sovereign taxes on all international shipping and failed. Carbon taxes are just their next attempt.
If the UN managed to con the first world into paying extra-sovereign carbon taxes, they could pretend to redistribute money to developing nations, ensuring support and power.
The good news is that in overreaching on AGW the UN have utterly destroyed their credibility. They can never be trusted again. The great news is that they have done it in the age of the Internet and their shame will burn forever.
It does not matter what they try next, bio-crisis, sustainability or water-crisis, it won’t work in the post AGW hoax age. Years of work on the Fabian long march through the institutions has been undone by the Professional Left’s own inanity. They thought they had the compliance of the lame stream media and they did. But it was all for naught. No amount of William Connolleys can destroy the democracy of the Internet, but the democracy of the Internet can destroy every last one of the Professional Left.
And this just in:
Prairies vanish in the US push for green energy
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/112757353
And let me add: http://classicalvalues.com/2013/11/green-failure/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0027.jpg
Now show a pie chart with CO2 v the rest of the atmospheric gasses.
Oh dear the CO2 doesn’t show up in Excel.
“Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG.”
That would be a little over 20 grams of HCN for every 70 kg of body weight. Small concentrations can’t matter, you are invited to try it 🙂
“Then there is, as I noted, the continuous emission from Kilauea, & the undersea baby volcanoes nearby.” – getting more active all the time 🙂
@ur momisugly Pat November 13, 2013 at 11:11 pm, concerning volcanic vents – reefs around PNG etc.
Here’s some examples:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/28/the-fishes-and-the-coral-live-happily-in-the-co2-bubble-plume/
and
http://goo.gl/k6qpZ
[jennifer marohasy’s web page on CO2 and Dobu Island]
Thanks for the info and responses. To those that don’t understand the calibration problem:
Let’s say Mr. Plumb True runs a level business. He doesn’t just make levels used in carpentry and construction, but calibrates and re-trues levels for everyone. In fact, he’s the only one that does so. The procedure that Mr. Plumb True uses is to compare your level to his, and then adjust your level so that it reads the same. Now back on about the mid 50’s accuracy wasn’t a big deal and a 1/2 bubble to either side in reality was good enough for a center bubble reading. And Mr. Plumb True did this by placing both levels on his shop floor. But Mr. Plumb True is a professional, a craftsman of the finest quality, and so when he moved his shop to a new location, he wanted to do something better.
So he explicitly chose a new shop in a location suitable for his calibration services. A shop built with a single slab floor, with half-the slab over bentonite, It’s an exquisitely laid bit of concrete and is guaranteed to be straight as a whistle. The only problem is that the level of the floor changes with moisture in the air, due eh bentonite, as well as all the other issues of foundations settling, shifting, and so on. So Mr. Plumb True created an adjustable table in his shop. The angle of the tables surface has an adjustable angle so that he can offset the changes in the shop floor.
Only thing is, he’s the only one truing levels. So he either needs to true his table with his own uncalibrated level. Or calculate a guess as to how the floor has changed since the last time he trued his own level. And he know it is out of true as he explicitly chose the place with bentonite under the foundation. But by his calculated guesses, so long as they aren’t too out of line with his own level, which he also knows has come out of true, he sets the angle of the table and then proceeds to retrue his own level. But as a value add service he longer requires you to send your level in to be trued. He produces a set of calibrated reference levels on his cock-eyed table on his cock-eyed floor and sends them out to everyone else, so they can make their levels match his.
Now who has a true level?
The problem with such a condition is that you are not calibrating per se. You are not setting each level in a standard way to as fixed and unchanging a quantity as possible. You are synchronizing, much like you do with clocks. Pick one clock in your house and set all other clocks to the same value. What time is it? If the only thing that matters is that every clock reads the same as your preferred clock then you don’t know, and don’t care. If all your clocks read 4 in the morning at solar noon, it makes no difference to you. But if you’re interested in solar noon at all, then this is not how you get it done. For while they’re synchronized, to a reference; the reference isn’t calibrated itself.
[Snip.]
Another omission of “Figure 2” is that clouds are also a significant GHE contributor.
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf
What? All that and no Mann? No Hockey Stick?
I’ve wondered for a while if he is rightly advising or being advised of his rights.
===========
Dr Ball, the information you have on methane is wrong. Methane is an insignificant absorber of radiant energy, Have a look in Chapter 5 of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook (Heat and Mass transfer) sub-section Heat Transfer by Radiation (written by the great Prof Hoyt Hottel -I think he also wrote a similar section in Marks Mechanical Engineering Handbook). The 21 times CO2 comes from the burning of methane (CH4) to CO2 +2H2O taking into account the radiation absorption of water vapor (which according to IPCC does not count as a green house gas). However, methane does not burn in the atmosphere because, there, it is below the ignition temperature of 650C and at 1.7ppm it is below the flamability lower limit of 5%.
The assumptions on Methane by the IPCC is just another lie.
It was Maurice Strong who tried to get Ontario Hydro to set up an offshore (tax-free) company to buy rights to a Costa Rican rain-forest in the form of an environmental credit for the pollution it was causing in Ontario back in 1994. My first thought was “who owns that land and what would they do with all that money – $34 billion?”. My second thought was “shouldn’t we be spending that money making our own energy production more efficient?”. Third thought was “it must be a scam”.
I’ve brought up this issue previously on WUWT, but it bears repeating. I can say many good things about this article, but I cannot say that the figures are good. They are dreadful, and the reason they are dreadful is because a low-Q jpeg format is used. Please, please, when showing line drawings, use PNG format! Looking at these horrible images is painful.
jpeg is [for] photographs: use it for photos.
Oil and food together are like birds of a feather. Maurice Strong just could [not] get oil out of his friggin mind. Money also for that matter. Here are a few links into his embroilment in the bribery and corruption scandal of the UN oil for food. Hey maaan, we all sometimes accidentally POCKET $1,000,000 and don’t ask whether it’s laundered money from a man later convicted of bribing UN officials. We just trust those who give it to us then dash of to China by mere coincidence.
I once sat in on an informal meeting with some UN folks outside the USA. One of the first things they talked about was their ‘cut’ from a public project. Great stuff! They are corrupt to the core, it’s about the money. The rooooooot of all evil.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122368007369524679
http://www.canadafreepress.com/oil-for-food.htm