Why did the Royal Society need secret meetings?
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Recent events underscore problems with understanding climate and how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) achieved their deception. Comments about my recent article appreciated it was a synopsis. The problems were central in my presentation to the First Heartland Climate Conference in New York relating to climatology as a generalist discipline in a world that glorifies specialization. The dictum in academia and beyond is specialization is the mark of genius, generalization the mark of a fool. In the real world each specialized piece must fit the larger general picture and most people live and function in a generalized world. The phrase “it is purely academic” means it is irrelevant to the real world.
A secret meeting occurred between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and members of the British Royal Society. Why the secrecy? It is likely because this collective of specialists is scrambling to recover reputations after being misled.
Claiming they were deliberately deceived in the propaganda campaign orchestrated through the British Royal Society is no excuse. The supposed prestige of that Society was used to persuade other national Science Societies that human caused global warming was a serious and proven fact. The only Society that refused to go along was the Russian. It was a deliberately orchestrated campaign that allowed media to use the consensus argument with focus. I was frequently challenged with the interrogative in the form of a consensus argument that you must be wrong because science Societies all agree.
Climate science is the work of specialists working on one small part of climatology. It’s a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees, amplified when computer modellers are involved. They are specialists trying to be generalists but omit major segments, and often don’t know interrelationships, interactions and feedbacks in the general picture.
Society has deified specialized academics, especially scientists. Consider the phrase “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist” used to indicate intellectual superiority. Substitute a different occupation and prejudices emerge. “You don’t have to be a farmer”. Now consider the range of specialized areas required for success on a modern farm. Then count the specializations included in Figure 1, a very simple systems diagram of weather. (Note that three “boxes” include the word “flux” but the 2007 IPCC Science report says, “Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed.)
Ian Plimer said, studies of the Earth’s atmosphere tell us nothing about future climate.
An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.
 |
Figure 1: Source: After; Climate Stabilization: For Better or for Worse? William W. Kellogg and Stephen H. Schneider, Science, Volume 186, December 27, 1974
It’s an interesting observation that underscores the dilemma. Climatology is listed as a subset, but must include all the disciplines and more. You cannot study or understand the pattern of climate over time or in a region without including them all.
A frequent charge is I have no credibility because I only have “a geography degree”. It’s, ignorant on many levels, and usually used as a sign of superiority by specialists in the “hard sciences”. My PhD was through the Geography department at Queen Mary College because climatology was traditionally part of geography. The actual degree was granted in the Faculty of Science.
Climatology, like geography is a generalist discipline studying patterns and relationships. Geography is the original integrative discipline traditionally called Chorology. In the late 1960s when I looked for a school of climatology there were effectively only two, Hubert Lamb’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia and Reid Bryson’s program in Madison Wisconsin. Neither was a viable option, although I was privileged to consult with Professor Lamb about my thesis.
Unlike most students, instead of going through the sausage-maker machine of education I pursued my studies later and with deliberation. Environmentalism was a new paradigm changing the focus from the Darwinian view of humans as a passive to an active agent in the environment. An undergraduate course on Soils taught me the formula for soil-forming factors included parent material (rock), weather, and the letter “O” for Organic. I wondered why this included everything except humans.
Early German geography recognized the impact distinguishing Landschaft, the natural landscape, from Kulturschaft, the human landscape. Others were considering the differences. George Perkins Marsh’s work, Man and Nature (1864) and William L. Thomas’ 1956 publication Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth influenced me and provided a central theme – the impact of climate on the human condition.
All three theses were deliberately designed. An Honours thesis titled, Some Philosophical Considerations of Humans as a Source of Change, considered the historical and philosophical context. The Masters thesis titled, The Significance of Grain Size and Heavy Minerals Volume Percentage as Indicators of Environmental Character, Grand Beach, Manitoba provided scientific method especially related to energy inputs in an environment. The doctorate addressed two problems in climatology. Lack of long-term weather records, which Lamb identified, and the challenge of linking historical records with instrumental records. My doctoral thesis title, Climatic Change in Central Canada: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850 involved creating a long term record from daily journals of the Hudson Bay Company. It blended daily weather observations with instrumental records through a numerical coding for each weather variable. Once the data was digitized, statistical and scientific analysis was possible.
Lack of a “science” degree was a focus early. Immediately after a presentation to Forestry graduates at the University of Alberta a professor in the front row asked, “Is it true you were denied funding by the major agencies in Canada?” This referred to two government agencies, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Sciences and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (SSHRC). I was not denied, I just didn’t qualify, my category of historical climatology was considered Social Science by NSERC and Science by SSHRC. Fortunately, the National Science Museum of Canada, particularly Dick Harington head of the Paleobiology division, understood the problem and provided funding.
I knew as a climatologist I needed to consult with specialists. I obeyed Wegman’s warning in his Report on the Hockey Stick fiasco.
As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.
Consultation is essential. The challenge is to know enough to ask the right questions and understand the answers. As a climatologist I try to place each piece in the puzzle. If it doesn’t fit I consult specialists for answers.
The claim that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) didn’t exist is a classic example of a piece that didn’t fit. Many knew it existed and Soon and Baliunas provided evidence in their article Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years; it’s why they were so viciously attacked. Statistician Steve McIntyre showed how the infamous “hockey stick” graph was created. The Wegman Report confirmed his findings and exposed a major misuse of statistics and dendroclimatology. The misuse of tree rings was further confirmed by a forestry expert. Few areas of IPCC climate science bear examination by specialists.
The claim that CO2 is greenhouse gas does not fit. I itemized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deliberate diversions to demonize CO2 for a political agenda. Years ago at a conference in Calgary I heard a skeptic challenged by a knowledgeable audience member about the claim of CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG). The reply was troubling. We (skeptics) would lose all credibility if we suggest CO2 is not a GHG. It is better to say it is, but the effect, especially of the human portion, is minuscule and of no consequence.
I pursued my policy asking physicists about the role of CO2 as a GHG. I thought they would agree. They didn’t. It’s partly reflected in estimates of climate sensitivity. They range from the IPCC high through those who believe it is zero to some who believe it is a negative quantity with CO2 as a cooling agent. The conflict appears to be disagreement in how temperature is modified by the physical processes involved in energy transfer. If the physics was known and agreed presumably weather and climate forecasts would work, but they don’t.
Traditional climatology included a mechanism called continentalism. It measured the modifying influence on temperature range of the distance from the ocean. Here are ranges for three Canadian cities at approximately the same latitude.
Station Maximum Minimum Range
Gander, Nfld 35.6°C -28.8°C 64.2°C
Winnipeg 40.6°C -45°C 85.6°C
Vancouver 33.3°C -17.8°C 51°C
Both Vancouver (west coast) and Gander (east coast) are close to the ocean but they are in the zone of the prevailing Westerlies. Gander experiences continental air more frequently than Vancouver. The different specific heat capacities of land and water explain the difference. Water acts to modify temperature range.
The greatest daily land temperature ranges occur in regions with very low atmospheric moisture (hot and cold deserts). Water vapour acts like the oceans to modify temperature range, as a result desert biomes record the greatest daily temperature ranges. It has nothing to do with CO2. Similarly, lowest daily temperature ranges occur in tropical rain forests where water vapour levels are highest. Total modification of global temperature range is achieved by water in all its phases.
Climatology is a generalist discipline that requires incorporating all specialist disciplines. The modern glorification of specialization allowed climate scientists to dominate by claiming their piece of a vast puzzle was critical. IPCC climate scientists misused specialized areas, especially in climate models, to achieve a predetermined result. It is only exposed when specialists examine what was done or climatologists find a piece of the puzzle that doesn’t fit.
=================================================================
For the record, I don’t agree with Dr. Ball’s opinions on CO2, not being a greenhouse gas, the science is quite clear on that issue long before global warming being an issue. The only valid question is climate sensitivity – Anthony
The above essay is very interesting and just adds to the green shoots of recovery from the climate change disaster.
A bit OT but I wanted to note that for the first time in many years I have found a brand new book on weather & climate for general consumption which has absolutely no mention of AGW or CC even when talking about climate.
There! this just pleased me.
[The moderator notes that you did not identify what book it was? !? Mod]
If you Google ‘Royal Society Climate Change’ you get much to read that clearly sets out the Society’s total belief in man-made climate change. However, what is most evident is the Society’s continued reference to the IPCC. In fact, in document after document, they cannot go a few words without mentioning it. Example: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf
In Britain, our Parliament has a question & answer session once a week. It is common practice for the Prime Minister, when he is being asked about his daily engagements, to say, ‘I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago’. This purposely doesn’t answer the question. The Royal Society ought to have a tag line: ‘We refer to the IPCC – constantly’. They clearly totally rely on the IPCC for their entire material answers.
I don’t know why people insist in calling CO2 a “[greenhouse] gas”, and the supposed cause of AGW “The Greenhouse Effect”. To do so displays their ignorance of how a [greenhouse] actually works.
Let me explain. Solar radiation warms the ground, both inside and outside the greenhouse. Inside it might be slight less than outside since the greenhouse glass will selectively absorb or reflect some of the incident radiation, but the effect is the same, the ground is wamed, which in turn warms the air adjacent to the ground
Outside the greenhouse that air is unconstrained, so that the warm air next to the ground will rise and be replaced by cooler air from the surroundings, or advected away by any wind. Inside the greenhouse that can’t happen, since the warm air is trapped by the greenhouse structure, and so remains where it is. Nothing to do with CO2 or any other gas, and even the reflection/absorption of radiation by the glass has only a minor effect. If you put your hand on the glass of a greenhouse on a sunny day, you will find it doesn’t get hot, unlike any metal objects inside the greenhouse.
I think Dr. Ball is obliged to provide his understanding of what an atmospheric green house gas is, and identify some examples and the characteristics that qualify them as GHG and what affect they have on climate. I also think it is long past time we quick calling this effect “green house” as that term leads one to make comparisons with physical green houses that don’t apply to the free atmosphere.
“A secret meeting occurred between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and members of the British Royal Society. Why the secrecy? It is likely because this collective of specialists is scrambling to recover reputations after being misled.
Claiming they were deliberately deceived in the propaganda campaign orchestrated through the British Royal Society is no excuse.” ~Tim Ball
There are so many prestigious, international societies which give legitimacy through membership. Not just the Royal society but all Scientific Unions and Societies facilitate top-down, lockstep scientific “paradigm shifts.” I believe the Greenhouse Gas Paradigm Shift is but a sample of what kind of science this system of worldwide unions enables.
Kip Hansen http://www.thegwpf.org/nigel-lawson-secret-meeting-royal-society-fellows/
Kip Hanson @ur momisugly 9:06
Here is a link to Bishop hill, which in turn links to the Spectator article:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/11/28/a-right-royal-showdown.html
@ferdberple at 6:08 am
atmosphere is predicted by the kinetic theory of gas to be isothermal. it should be the same temperature at altitude as the surface. and except for GHG it would be
In agreement with Nullius in Verba at 6:37 am
It would only be isothermal if it was evenly illuminated, perfectly transparent and there was no convection (vertical motions driven by temperature differences). Since on any planet illuminated more at the equator than poles, and with a night side, there are going to be temperature differences, there must therefore be convection, and hence a lapse rate. Greenhouse gases as such make no difference. (Humidity makes a difference because it condenses giving up latent heat, not because it is a GHG.)
Nullius, your entire post is very well written and cogent.
This part, however, I’m not so sure about.
The atmosphere radiates the same amount – the same amount that it absorbs from the sun – whether there are GHGs or not.
Tim Folkerts explained well that there is an important spectrum shift. Most of the energy from a 5770 deg K sun passes through the atmosphere and is converted to heat at the surface. That heat, converted spectrum, is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated by the atmosphere. So the atmosphere cannot radiate the same as it absorbes from the sun.
My problem has always been with the 30% one-way mirror albedo argument getting a non-GHG atmosphere to 255 deg K. Your point about condensation and latent heat transport (and two-way albedo) as water vapor being confused with GHG effects is worth remembering. To say that CO2 and H2O are both greenhouse gasses runs to risk of equating the mechanisms of H2O and CO2, when in reality H2O has many more means than CO2 of transporting heat away from the surface.
Addendum to 9:46 am
So the atmosphere cannot radiate the same as it absorbes from the sun. It must radiate more than it absorbs from the sun because it also absores heat radiated from the surface.
I am still waiting for the GHEers that claim CO2 causes warming and not cooling, to explain why there has been no warming for 17 years, despite increases in CO2. And, explain why the records show that CO2 levels LAG global temperatures, not lead them.
LdB. Are you there? I’m waiting,
We (skeptics) would lose all credibility if we suggest CO2 is not a GHG.
This is a very interesting statement! However I think one can just as easily say:
We (skeptics) would lose all credibility if we suggest that mankind was not responsible for the huge increase in CO2 since 1750.
Colder oceans will take CO2 out of the atmosphere which with all things being equal lessens the greenhouse gas effect and any potential water vapor /CO2 positive feedbacks.
Less evaporation would cause less convection which would have a warming effect, however in the tropics where most of the convection takes place I am of the opinion that the temperatures in that area of the globe would not be effected by global cooling ,they would remain the same.
In the areas most effective by global cooling those being N.H. land areas N.of 30 degrees lat. and oceans N./S. of 30 degrees lat. global cooling would cause less evaporation(but very small lesser amounts of evaporation) in those areas, which itself would impact convection very little ,due to the fact evaporation in those areas is low in contrast to the tropics, and convection to begin with in those ares of the globe is much less then it is in the tropics to begin with, which would mean the warming effect would be minimal due to convection changes, in contrast if this process would to take place in the tropics, where convection is much higher and changes in evaporation rates would be much greater IF the temperature of the oceans in that area should change due to a global cooling, but I contend the temperatures of the oceans in the tropical areas would be essentialy the same, nullyfying this effect.
Therefore the ghg effect would become less overall through oceanic cooling and less water vapor overall in the atmosphere , while not decreasing in the mid troposhere regions which would perhaps contribute to warming if it were to take place.
The upshot being the GHG effect due to cooling oceans overall(less co2 in atmosphere) and less water vapor in the atmosphere overall would become less as the energy coming into the climatic system decreased(via the sun), while the convection factor would be at least neutral.
Isn’t the “credibility” argument just a variant of ad hominem? I say let the facts speak for themselves, and let the chips fall wherever they may.
What meeting?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/11/28/a-right-royal-showdown.html
There’s the link folks…
The long-awaited meeting between representatives of GWPF and the Royal Society has at last taken place. Nigel Lawson has a brief report on the meeting at the Spectator, revealing little about the content, except for the fact that he is prevented from telling more by a demand for secrecy imposed by the Royal Society fellows themselves.
This is, to say the least, monumentally pathetic of them. Lawson sounds as though he found the experience slightly frustrating:
Tim makes a good point about the physics of all this which is not adequately known. The last word on CO2 has not yet been heard.
In response to:
“Climate science is the work of specialists working on one small part of climatology. It’s a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees, amplified when computer modellers are involved. They are specialists trying to be generalists but omit major segments, and often don’t know interrelationships, interactions and feedbacks in the general picture.”
WIlliam: Howdy. Best wishes. It appears you do understood system analysis theory and it seems that you do not have practical experience in effective analysis of complex systems and the resolution of problems with complex systems. My specialty was system analysis and system problem solving. I was well paid as I effectively and consistently solved complex system problems which required me to study multiple specialties and to work with groups of specialists from different fields using applied structured team analysis techniques. Academics work as lone wolves and have no processes to force specialists to acknowledge that some of their pet beliefs/theories are incorrect (blocks problem resolution) as well as to forced specialists to work effectively as a team. These are the so called soft problems and people problems that must be addressed to enable the team to work effectively and to solve problems.
The warmists are using incorrect models. It appears that a significant number of warmist scientists are aware that the IPCC models are incorrect. A corruption of the scientific process is very different than the assertion that the failure to correctly answer the question: Is there or is there not a CAGW problem?, after 20 years of research is due to the complexity of the problem. The following are a couple of key observations and analysis points to support the assertion 1) that there is no CAGW problem (planet resists rather than amplifies warming, problem goes away), 2) that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes rather than anthropogenic CO2 (there is a new problem it appears the planet is going to cool), and 3) a significant portion of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was due to the increase in ocean temperature rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions (this is an interesting twist, if point 2 and 3 are correct CO2 levels will drop and we will lose the benefits of higher CO2 levels).
1. The pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not match the predicted pattern of warming if CO2 was the forcing mechanism. As shown in Bob Tisdale’s graph, temperature anomaly, land and ocean, average 2007 to December, 2012 by latitude, the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. That observation contradicts what the IPCC model predicted. The IPCC models predicted that the majority of the warming should be in the tropics where the most amount of long wave (infrared radiation is emitted to space). (P.S. The claim that there is polar amplification is nonsense. The high latitude warming is now reversing which is only possible if CO2 was not the cause of the majority of the original high latitude warming, also this pattern of warming has occurred before.)
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
As CO2 is more or less eventually distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2. As most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
2. The IPCC models predicted that there should be a hot spot (highest amount of warming) in the atmosphere in the tropics at about 8 km above the surface of the planet. There is no observed hot spot which indicates there is something fundamentally incorrect with IPCC models Vs actual atmosphere processes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the assertions concerning the lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
3. The paradox that there is no tropical hot spot and the lack of warming for 17 years could in part be explained by Lindzen and Choi’s analysis that determined the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes by an increase or decrease of tropical planetary cloud cover (or/and an albedo change of tropical clouds which Marshall found).
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
4. There is the fact that planetary temperature has not increased for 17 years which does not make sense as CO2 is increasing.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/
5. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the past where the same pattern of warming that was observed in the last 70 years (high latitude warming and cooling). The past cycles of warming and cooling correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, which support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the pattern of warming and cooling. The cooling occurs when the sun enters into Maunder minimum. The solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to warm and cool by modulating the amount of low and high level cloud cover at high latitudes. The solar magnetic cycle changes also change the optical properties of clouds in the tropics which cause El Niño and La Niña.
5. In the last 70 years, the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 6000 years.
6. The solar magnetic cycle was abruptly slowed down with the fastest reduction in 8000 years of data.
7. Due to the above observations and analysis, the planet should significantly cool due to the abrupt slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle. Observations to support that assertion are record sea ice in the Antarctic and a rapid recovery of sea ice in the Arctic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
8. Lead/lag analysis (phase analysis looking at the timing of changes to determine cause and effect which is a standard system analysis technique) indicates temperature changes do not correlate with CO2 increases. Temperature changes first and then CO2 rises. The Humlum et al phase analysis supports Salby’s assertion that a significant portion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 was due to the warming of the oceans rather than due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions which also indicates that the Bern model used by the IPCC to fundamentally incorrect.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image1.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
This is a paper that summarizes alleged IPCC shenanigans concerning modeling of CO2 sinks and sources in the atmosphere (i.e. How is possible that Salby’s assertion could be correct?)
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.pdf
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma by Tom V. Segalstad
Werner Brozek says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:25 am
“We (skeptics) would lose all credibility if we suggest that mankind was not responsible for the huge increase in CO2 since 1750.”
====================
Assuming “we” had any credibility to lose, the graphs showing the variations of CO2 over past eons, might suggest otherwise ?
Or, did I miss something?, besides vanity.
@William Howard C. Rostron 9:05 am
Well said, sir!
At times, we all need to work with linearized, if even locally linearized, functions as “first order approximations.” The trick is to know what that does to the precision and accuracy of the output and to KNOW that the model error is within the limits that affect our decisions.
In the climate sphere, with decision output measured in tenths and hundreds of degrees C, I don’t see how we can know model error is insignificant to the decision. Not when “Time of Observation” adjustments are deemed essential to teasing out the signal from the noise.
My view is this: A GreenHouse Gas [GHG] is relevant to the GreenHouse Effect [GHE] only.
To use the terminology of a GHG when talking about other explanations or hypotheses, of the atmosphere, is a misnomer. CO2-et-al are just atmospheric gases, and should not be referred to as GHGs.
Also Lord Lawson himself has posted about the meeting in the Spectator.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/diary/9087961/my-secret-meeting-with-the-royal-society/
He makes it clear the press were kept out at the insistence of the Royal Society Fellows.
He doesn’t state if that was because they feared ridicule or are just afraid of open debate.
Can anyone think of any other reason?
Has anyone ever done a study of the downwind rural temperature records of major cities to see if there was a discernible difference in temperature from those rural areas that where not downwind? I am assuming the c02 levels would be higher downwind from the major cities and thus have higher temperatures.
I wish someone would define exactly what is meant by the term “greenhouse gas”. Is a greenhouse gas “matter in gaseous form that both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band”? Is a greenhouse gas “any gas in the Earth’s atmosphere whose presence increases the Earth’s surface temperature relative to the absence of the gas”? Is a greenhouse gas “matter in gaseous form that if placed completely around material possessing an internal source of energy will produce a rise in the temperature of the material”? Or is there some other definition? Using the first definition, I agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Using the second definition, I suspect that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I’m open to arguments either way. Using the third definition, I don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If surrounding material possessing an internal source of thermal energy with CO2 increases the temperature of the material, then it can be argued that material at any temperature for which CO2 is a gas, the rate heat leaves the material when surrounded by CO2 will be less than the rate heat leaves the material in the absence of CO2. If this is true, hot liquids placed in a vacuum thermos bottle will cool faster than hot liquids placed in a thermos bottle whose vacuum region is filled with CO2 gas. If that were the case, vacuum thermos bottle manufacturers are missing a golden opportunity to improve their product.
Thanks for that comment.
The WWF affiliated spy at Yahoo Climate Sceptic is baaack:
“… I can’t resist pointing out that the old paradigm is natural dominance with no human influence, and growing human influence is the new paradigm that has been coming in because it better explains, even if not perfectly, what has been happening in the world over the last 150 or so years. Quite naturally, the new paradigm will have a hard time against the resistant forces offered by those who just do not want to have their long held views over-turned. I too wish the audience comments had focused on the science as they would be pointing out where the old explanation just does not seem to be working all that well.
Mike MacCracken
PS—Now back to my listening mode”
See Donna Laframboise post on Coal and MacCracken’s friends… http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/11/27/that-silly-coal-speech/
You are talking about totally different things here you are talking about the entire climate warming, Dragon slayer lunatics deny that CO2 has any action at all they try to use classic physics and usually try and rewrite the whole of physics. That is a long way from your argument and please don’t try and tell a scientist that CO2 isn’t Quantum active. It is one of the easiest gases to quantum pump with massive number of vibration modes. There will be a pile of natural regulation beyond just CO2 because the earth has managed to sustain life for a couple of billion years and frankly that stuff is not my area.
So are we clear dragon slaying garbage has very little to do with what you are trying to argue. That level of physics is way beyond the stupidity arena of climate science.