By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Shock news from the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Climate Change Conference: among the 600 delegates, the consensus that Man contributes to global warming was not 97%. It was 100%.
During my valedictorian keynote at the conference, I appointed the lovely Diane Bast as my independent adjudicatrix. She read out six successive questions to the audience, one by one. I invited anyone who would answer “No” to that question to raise a hand. According to the adjudicatrix, not a single hand was raised in response to any of the questions.
These were the six questions.
1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
At a conference of 600 “climate change deniers”, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.
One of the many fundamental dishonesties in the climate debate is the false impression created by the Thermageddonites and their hosts of allies in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that climate skeptics would answer “No” to most – if not all – of the six questions.
That fundamental dishonesty was at the core of the Cook et al. “consensus” paper published last year. The authors listed three “levels of endorsement” supporting some sort of climate consensus.
Level 1 reflected the IPCC’s definition of consensus: that most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made. Levels 2 and 3 reflected explicit or implicit acceptance that Man causes some warming. The Heartland delegates’ unanimous opinion fell within Level 2.
Cook et al., having specified these three “levels of endorsement”, and having gone to the trouble of reading and marking 11,944 abstracts, did not publish their assessment of the number of abstracts they had marked as falling into each of the three endorsement levels. Instead, they published a single aggregate total combining all three categories.
Their failure to report the results fully was what raised my suspicions that their article fell short of the standards of integrity that the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have expected of a paper purporting to be scientific.
The text file recording the results of Cook’s survey was carefully released only after several weeks following publication, during which the article claiming 97% consensus had received wall-to-wall international publicity from the MSM. Even Mr Obama’s Twitteratus had cited it with approval as indicating that “global warming is real, man-made and dangerous”.
The algorithm counted the number of abstracts Cook had allocated to each level of endorsement. When the computer displayed the results, I thought there must have been some mistake. The algorithm had found only 64 out of the 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, marked as falling within Level 1, reflecting the IPCC consensus that recent warming was mostly man-made.
I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in “,1”.
Next, I read all 64 abstracts and discovered – not greatly to my surprise – that only 41 had explicitly said Man had caused most of the global warming over the past half century or so.
In the peer-reviewed learned journals, therefore, only 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3% – and not 97.1% – had endorsed the definition of the consensus proposition to which the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, had assigned 95-99% confidence.
Now that we have the results of the Heartland Conference survey, the full extent of the usual suspects’ evasiveness about climate “consensus” can be revealed.
Cook et al. had lumped together the 96.8% who, like all 100% of us at ICCC9, had endorsed the proposition that we cause some warming with the 0.3% who had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition that we caused most of the warming since 1950.
In defiance of the evidence recorded in their own data file, they had then explicitly stated, both in their article and in a subsequent article, that 97.1% had endorsed the IPCC’s proposition.
Amusingly, 96.8% is 97% of 97.1%. In other words, 97% of the abstracts that formed the basis of the “97% consensus” claim in Cook et al. (2013) did not endorse the IPCC’s definition of the consensus, as the article had falsely claimed they did. However, those abstracts did endorse the more scientifically credible Heartland definition.
Among the unspeakable representatives of the MSM who came to the Heartland conference to conduct sneering interviews with climate “deniers” was a smarmy individual from CNN.
He asked me, in that supercilious tone with which we are all too familiar, how it was that I, a mere layman, dared to claim that I knew better than 97% of published climate scientists. I referred him to Legates et al. (2013), the peer-reviewed refutation of the notion that 97% of scientists endorse the IPCC’s assertion that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made.
The CNN reporter said that the result in Legates et al. was merely my “interpretation”. So I pointed to a row of internet booths nearby and said, “If I count these booths and find that there are, say, 12 of them, and if you count them and find there are indeed 12 of them, then our finding is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of fact, that any third party can independently verify.”
I challenged him to go away, before he broadcast anything, and count how many of the 11,944 abstracts listed in the Cook et al. data file were marked by the authors themselves as falling within Level 1. If he counted only 64, I said, then his count would accord with mine. And our counts would not be an “interpretation” but a fact, whose truth or falsity might readily and definitively be established by any third party performing exactly the same count as ours.
He said he would check, but with that look in his eye that seemed to speak otherwise.
The results of my survey of the 600 Heartland delegates reveal that the difference between the Thermageddonites and us is far less than they would like the world to think. Like most of them, we fall within Cook’s endorsement levels 2-3. Unlike them, we do not claim to know whether most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made: for that is beyond what the current state of science can tell us.
Above all, unlike them we do not misreport a 0.3% consensus as a 97.1% consensus.
You may like to verify the results recorded in Cook’s data file for yourself. I have asked Anthony to archive the file (it resides here: cook.pdf ).
[UPDATE: David Burton writes: I’ve put the Cook 2013 data into an Excel spreadsheet, which makes it a lot easier to analyze than from that cook.pdf file. There’s a link to it on my site, here: http://sealevel.info/97pct/#cook ]
If the reporter from CNN who interviewed me reads this, I hope he will perform the count himself and then come back to me as he had undertaken to do. But I shall not be holding my breath.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kristian;
You just don’t get it, do you? There is no ‘mean radiating level’. There is only a temperature S-B calculated from a measured mean flux. Again you’re not reading what I’m writing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh I am reading what you’re writing. Of COURSE there is a “mean radiating level”. How could there NOT be one? Even if photons escaped from the atmosphere completely random, even if they escaped from the atmosphere exactly as Konrad claims, there would STILL be a mean radiating level. If you want to deny that there is one, there’s nothing more to discuss because your premise is that something that obviously exists, doesn’t. I’m trying to show you that 2+2=4 using pospsicle sticks and you’ve defined one of the sticks as not existing. No point discussing further with you which is unfortunate because you have a lot of physics right, just a belief system that prevents you from taking the last logical step.
Pay attention to Kadaka, he’s pretty much nailed it. I’ve no more patience for this.
From Ursa Felidae on July 14, 2014 at 5:28 pm:
Basically the “Slayers of the Sky Dragons” claim there is no greenhouse effect by using inaccurate views of assorted scientific principles. It’s sort of like claiming you won’t get hurt when someone shoots a blunt-nosed bullet at you because the tip builds up a pressure wave that provides a cushion of air.
Don’t test that.
Here’s a helpful piece by Dr. Roy Spencer that explains some things while linking to further info.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
P@ur momisugly Dolan says:
July 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well written.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer,
Coming from you sir, high praise! Thank you!
P@ur momisugly Dolan:
Thankyou for your superb post at July 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm.
It provides a fine overview of the conduct of the battle over the ‘AGW issue’ as it is being conducted on blogs.
Perhaps you would consider using extracts from your post as the basis of an article for submission to our host with a view to his considering it for publication. I think such an essay would be useful.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
July 14, 2014 at 3:39 am
re. David A says:
July 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm
1.” The informal pole was NEVER represented to be scientific, but intended to make a simple point;…”
This is a straw man. I never said that it was science [quite the contrary] or that it should have been science, even though the poll was touted as an analogue to the ’97%’ poll which was supposed to be scientific. My point in general is that the questions were cleverly posed to achieve the intended propaganda effect, and that the ‘result’ was probably not even representative of the opinion of the audience [c.f. Jennifer]. Contrast the propaganda effect of ‘the consensus is not 97% it’s 100%’ with [the more correct] ‘the consensus is not 97% it’s 95%’. So, the poll was a PR-stunt, and this is not a way to conduct the debate or to ‘fight the good fight’. Better to be a ‘sneering’ lion than a bleating, corralled sheep.
==================================================
sorry Leif, but again you somehow fail logic. I never said that you said it was science. You complained that it was not science. I explained to you that it was not intended to be science but intended to make a simple point; (Now where is your straw man) That point being…
…that skeptics also overwhelming answer yes, just like the warmist brigade does, to the over simple unscientific questions purported to be answered in the pseudo scientific 97% poles. (Since that was the simple dual purpose of the question put to the skeptical community, Monckton was not “falling to their level” or any BS sophistry) Since I was being critical of your complaint that the poll was not scientific, and explained to you that it was not intended to be scientific, it is unfathomable how you can call that a straw man. (except that via a complete misrepresentation of my point, whereby you created a straw man.)
As to your 95% claim, that is a scientifically meaningless assumption on your part, and irrelevant to the simple message of the poll and the post. (By the way, having repeated once again what the simple message of the poll was, I notice you again failed to address that simple dual message.)
You then end with a pitiful repeat of a previous “sneer”, and claim to be a roaring lion. (really a bit sad)
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:35 pm
…So it was a lousy poll, a pure PR-stunt, no science….
P@ur momisugly Dolan says:
July 14, 2014 at 7:20 pm
————————————
Did you mention my name in vain? Try that three times and the results may be … legion.
Allow me to introduce myself. I am not a “slayer” or a “sky dragon”. I just work in engineering. Any claims I make are supported by empirical experiments that I have simplified so others may build and run them for themselves. No harm in that surely?
Most of those branded “slayer” or “skydragon” were not. They were “false flag”
That operation was a dead end. Yet the warmists still pin their sorry hopes on it.
Any who now question the idea of a net radiative GHE at WUWT may now be branded “slayer” and silenced. Funny thing, that tactic has not worked at Talkshop, Jo Nova or Climate etc..
You just received high praise from –
A. Sleeper
B. False flag
C. Snow-stormer
This one shouldn’t be too hard….( I mean it’s multiple choice and “C” clearly wasn’t the answer).
davidmhoffer says, July 14, 2014 at 6:24 pm:
“Oh I am reading what you’re writing.”
Obviously, you’re not. If you did, you wouldn’t keep repeating your completely unsubstantiated tripe.
Again, be a sceptic, not a useful idiot.
“Of COURSE there is a “mean radiating level”. How could there NOT be one?”
Yes, we get it. You base this ‘mean radiating level’ on the purely mathematical 255K BB temp of Earth as ‘seen’ from space. Even though we all know the radiative flux to space (the 240 W/m^2 one) in reality is a final, cumulative flux with contributions from ALL layers of the Earth system, from solid surface to ToA. It isn’t related to any one temperature at all. It is just the flux that the Earth system as a whole needs to shed to balance the incoming from the Sun. No matter where it’s being radiated from. Most of it is emitted from layers at temperatures much warmer or much colder than your 255K. Because the surface emits a fair bit directly out to space. And because convection brings water vapour from the liquid surface high up into the troposphere, towards the tropopause, for it to release its latent heat to warm the tropospheric column, from where it can then be radiated to space.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/surface-1/rain_ANN.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/column-1/hatm_ANN.png
And you still don’t see the logical short circuit going on in trying to relate this purely theoretical construct of yours directly to the physical mean temperature of Earth’s surface.
I say good luck to you, David. Because I have no patience with people like you, totally blinkered by dogma. Try to think. That’s what sceptics do. The dogmatic don’t think. They don’t need to. They already ‘know’ the answer. Because it’s been handed to them.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 14, 2014 at 9:14 am
————————————–
Well step up to the plate!
Are you good enough? Did you make the idiot mistake of thinking I’m a “slayer” or “sky-dragon”?
Let’s look at the idea of a polished aluminium planet receiving an average of 240 w/m2, without atmosphere. After mistakes and discussion at Talkshop, the average temperature of such a surface is probably around 450K*. ( lower than what I had previously indicated)
What would that look like from space? Well, with reflection and emission combined, about 240 w/m2 outgoing ( like 255K from a blackbody).
Let’s add a thick methane atmosphere. Now the surface cools by conduction and convection. For surface pressure of 1 bar, surface temp is now below 450K.
And from space? 255K.
The reason? UV/SW absorption is almost 10 times greater than IR emissivity of aluminium.
Aluminium is a “selective surface” not a “near blackbody”
But we don’t live on planet aluminium, we live on planet ocean. Are the oceans a “near blackbody” or are they a selective surface?
Please, show me your “sleeper powers”. Go on, dreg up those papers measuring apparent emissivity for water and claim that equals the effective emissivity of water.
Have you, like me, empirically checked with background IR minimised? I bet you haven’t. You’re just another light weight aren’t you?
The plate. Step up. I’m swinging. Come on, you have the advantage. I am permanently on moderation delay at WUWT because some people have jelly for spines. Have a free swing. WUWT won’t censor you because they have to hide their burning “lukewarmer” shame….
(awww, come on, it’s good bet. WUWT is now entirely aligned with the ‘softlanding” hopes of the warmists.)
And
– – – – – – – –
To P@ur momisugly Dolan – Yes, I have had many extensive dialogs with richardscourtney going back several years that have been the basis of fundamental disagreements on a wide range of topics. OTHER NOTE: My initial comment on this thread was responding directly to a Monckton comment that seems quite out of place on this venue.
To F. Ross – Monckton knows of Jennifer Marohasy’s observation. Here is Monckton’s comment on Marohasy’s observation:
F. Ross, so, a Monckton update to the main post does seem to be an appropriate step to me.
John
From Konrad on July 15, 2014 at 4:25 am:
Thank you for confirming the state of debased debauched decrepit devolved deviant deficient neo-science rumored to be found at ShortSheila’s Gabfest, a site of “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”, where after group discussion it was decided you can get 2,330W/m^2 coming out of a polished metal sphere with only 240W/m^2 going in.
At an almost ten to one ratio, you should all be seeking investors for research and development as what you have discovered has far more potential than eCats and similar devices.
@ur momisugly Konrad says:
July 15, 2014 at 3:27 am
Whups— Please, simmer down. I didn’t call anyone anything, other than saying Mr Whitman was an “obvious-seeming troll”. I was pointing out that you quoted CM of B accurately about “interentially paid” and then in your remarks to his words, said “paid directly”. The way I read the original, it means they got something from it, but not money. I infer it to mean a quid pro quo, but not of the mercantile sort—in the way that some people will not accept gratuities, but will thank you for making a charitable contribution in their name/memory. For some, and in certain situations, has the power to make a quid pro quo which, if consumated with money would seem wrong, perfectly acceptable.
I merely pointed out that your quote was not the equivalent of what he said, and I infer very different meanings of both, and so might others.
I in no way meant to claim you were anything, since I don’t know you or anything about you. For all I know, you consider yourself the Lost Dauphin and a non-skeptic. I sorta think not, but how would I know? I meant no insult, meant no implication in my communication with you.
So I’ll kindly ignore your question, if that’s ok. I prefer not to answer hypotheticals or leading questions generally speaking.
And not speaking of you specifically at the moment, so again, no offense intended, but what I see in the last few hundred posts or so is not only a lack of civility among responses, but an almost eagerness to be provoked in most everyone else. The environment on this thread has been toxic almost from the first. I’m no scientist, but this is not how intellectual inquiry is performed, that I’ve ever heard.
I don’t have any answers for you. And speaking for myself, I don’t see that anyone else has, either. People have lots of data, but haven’t hit upon the hypothesis to string them all together.
@ur momisugly John Whitman, my apologies. While I still think it appears that you threw excrement in the game for your own purposes, I don’t generally go in for name-calling. I was rude. Please forgive me. But if you would, in the future, please quote what it is to which you comment? As Willis says, that helps eliminate misunderstandings. A little.
@ur momisugly richardscourney, I will take your suggestion under advisement. I consider myself a neutral party among those that are not alarmists; I don’t need a label for myself, and what others have called me over the years… Well, one thing the Navy does is cure a sailor of being thin-skinned!
One thing to note about alarmists: they’re very united in their beliefs and cause. This is their strength: not their dogma, or the non-thinking adherence to whatever the high-priests of Green say, but perhaps because of this, they aren’t fragmented into groups, and present a very united front. In my estimation, were it not for this, their entire argument would’ve long-since been swept away by the plethora of evidence that suggests or in some cases proves many of their theories are wrong.
But a lack of cohesion among “skeptics” doesn’t help rid us of the problems the alarmists are creating.
Let us be clear here: the BIG problem is not whether or not the globe is warming. It will do what it will do with little we can do about it. The big problem is what the policymakers are doing, armed with a “crisis” to exploit. Another big problem is corporations (like Big Oil, those guys who supposedly pay our host so much) who exploit the situation. All exacerbated by academics who exploit the situation either for grants or for their ego. And I don’t simply mean the obvious characters—all those unknowns who submit papers which give lipservice to “climate change” in order to get published, even though they don’t really have anything to do with the subject (h/t to @ur momisugly Brandon Shollenberger who first brought this problem to my attention)…each and every one who bows to peer pressure in order to get through peer-review furthers the cause of the alarmists, the policymakers, the corporations, and everyone else who exploits this situation.
That is, in my estimation, the true problem. The science is never a problem: sooner or later, someone will, willy-nilly, accidentally or of a purpose, discover a new theory, and life will go on.
I see the agenda of those who are NOT exploiters as two-fold: to help end the hoax so as to remove the tool which the exploiters are harming people, to the point of freezing, starvation and abject misery, an we do that by proving the alarmists wrong.
Hard to get where we need to go if we’re fighting with ourselves every step of the way.
Duh… Mods, can you fix my unintentional boldness?
Thanx…
P@ur momisugly Dolan:
In your post at July 15, 2014 at 10:09 am you say you don;t intend to provide a lead post. I regret this because you make a very good case.
I especially like your concluding statement that says
And that is why the comment of Monckton of Brenchley at July 14, 2014 at 9:11 am is so important.
Richard
@ur momisuglyrichardscourtney
I’m not saying no, more like, I would like to, and will if I can arrange the time. I feel very strongly on the subject, as I believe you have demonstrated you do as well.
@ur momisugly kadaka (KD Knoebel),
I am schooled. I’ve seen them addressed that way before, and seen their replies that way, and simply followed example. I’ll keep your advice in mind. Regarding the mistakes; I’m a some-time coder who has done webdesign; force of habit using tags on the fly without preview. Pride, and stupidity, I may add, go-eth before the fall…
Cheers to you both!
p@ur momisugly
@ur momisugly P@ur momisugly Dolan:
If you wish the attention of the moderation staff, it is best to use their full title in your comment as that automatically sends it to the filter for review by one of them.
I usually start off my polite requests with:
Dear Moderators,
Using “please” in your request doesn’t hurt.
BTW, that error would have been apparent if you were using CA Assistant which gives you a Preview function. I can catch practically all my formatting mistakes by using it.
John Whitman says:
July 15, 2014 at 5:34 am
“…so, a Monckton update to the main post does seem to be an appropriate step to me.”
Update to what point? Lord M simply says he is aware of Ms Mahorasy’s post;, he can’t go back and retro-actively count unseen raised hands that might change a spoof poll by some few percentage points. After all, his point was to show how ridiculous Cook et al. “consensus” paper is, and he did just that.
P@ur momisugly Dolan (@ur momisugly7:20pm),
Well said. I wish I (still) had your patience.
Keep paying attention. I look forward to your continued input here.
– – – – – – – –
P@ur momisugly Dolan,
Your response appreciated.
I was not offended by any of your comments directed at me. Your apology was well intended and sincerely done, so even if unnecessary it was a very nice gesture.
Please note in my comment to Monckton that I did reference his comment header so it was known clearly which comment of his I was talking about and I was talking about his whole comment.
Also, please understand that I think calling people trolls (as Monckton and richardscourtney did on this thread and which they often do on WUWT threads) is the most inanely juvenile type of namecalling I see here at WUWT. My evolved concept of troll makes me see essentially no trolls at WUWT in the last year or two.
Finally, richardscourtney and I can and often do have profoundly incompatible fundamental concepts (philosophies) while it can also be possible we both often find some key aspects of CAGW false / unsubstantiated but for different reasons. : )
[ NOTE: I have never found substantiation in the aggregate views which some refer to as the so-called ‘Dragon Slayer’ position. ]
John
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:49 am
————————————-
Well, you swung and you missed 😉
“Thank you for confirming the state of debased debauched decrepit devolved deviant deficient neo-science rumored to be found at ShortSheila’s Gabfest, a site of “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory”, where after group discussion it was decided you can get 2,330W/m^2 coming out of a polished metal sphere with only 240W/m^2 going in.”
Well you have just confirmed much about those supporting the AGW hypothesis 😉
Perhaps a little brush up on your spacecraft thermal control reading will help –
http://www.tak2000.com/data/Satellite_TC.pdf
– try page 53.
Your claim “where after group discussion it was decided you can get 2,330W/m^2 coming out of a polished metal sphere with only 240W/m^2 going in.” is utterly false. I was never claiming 2330 w/m2 leaving a polished metal sphere for 240 w/m2 entering.
Is this your best way to combat the evil “no net radiative GHE” sceptic? Lying?
Polished metals have very low absorptivity and emissivity. However for many polished metals, their ability to emit IR is lower than their ability to absorb SW/UV/SWIR. It is this difference in absorptivity to emissivity that allows polished metals to achieve high temperatures when exposed to sun in a vacuum.
Many polished metals are effectively “selective surfaces”. Polished nickel would be an extreme example. In full sun at 1AU in a vacuum it can heat to incandescence.
My “Planet Aluminium” example is valid. Why? Because the oceans on our planet are also a “selective surface” with UV/SW/SWIR absorptivity greater than their IR emissivity.
So for “Planet Aluminium” surface temp in absence of an atmosphere would be around 180C for an average of 240 w/m2 of solar radiation. Add a highly radiative methane atmosphere and that surface temperature would drop. From space planet aluminium would now appear to be emitting 240 w/m2 from its methane atmosphere. For planet aluminium, a radiative atmosphere reduces surface temperature. The same is true for our planet, Planet Ocean.
From Konrad on July 15, 2014 at 5:03 pm:
http://www-eng.lbl.gov/~dw/projects/DW4229_LHC_detector_analysis/calculations/emissivity2.pdf
Polished Aluminum at 100°C has a total emissivity of 0.095.
Polished Nickel at “low” temperature has a total emissivity of 0.12, at 1204°C it is 0.32.
If polished nickel is an “extreme example” while it has a higher emissivity than polished aluminum, then a polished aluminum planet would be hotter than a polished nickel planet.
As you believe your polished aluminum planet would only reach 450K, then polished nickel must reach incandescence at considerably lower temperatures.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 15, 2014 at 8:15 pm
————————————
Nope, no way out there.
The table you linked to shows emissivity only. It is for calibrating IR instruments. (It does give you a clue to one important thing though – emissivity is not constant with material temperature)
You need to know both absorptivity AND emissivity to work out the temperature response of polished metals in a vacuum. And when you look you will find the ratio is more extreme for nickel than it is for aluminium. So no, a polished aluminium planet would not be hotter than a nickel planet.
The point of the “Planet Aluminium” thought problem is to demonstrate two things –
A. A radiative atmosphere can cool a planet.
B. Errors in the basic assumptions about surface properties can cause alarming errors in calculations.
AGW and indeed the entire radiative GHE hypothesis is invalidated by just such an error. Every single claim of AGW has the same foundation – that the average surface temp would be -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. This claim depends on the surface being a “near blackbody” and the oceans most assuredly are not. They are instead a “selective surface”.
The selective surface problem for the oceans is twofold. First like some polished metals they have a UV/SW/IR absorptivity higher than their IR emissivity. (empirical experiment shows that the effective, not apparent, emissivity is far lower than the 0.95 figure used by climastrologists).
Second they are semi transparent to UV/SW and opaque to IR. This causes a second selective surface effect not encountered with polished metals. It can be demonstrated by this very simple experiment you can build and run for yourself –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Illuminate the blocks equally with IR and they will both rise to the same temperature. However illuminate with SW and block A will exceed the temperature of block B. Use 1000 w/m2 of SW and you can create a temperature differential of 20C in 3 hours.
These two selective surface effects combined mean that 71% of our planets surface would not be at -18C in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling. Average temperatures for the oceans would be well above their current temperatures. Ocean surface Tmax could exceed 80C. That means our atmosphere is cooling the oceans. And the atmosphere in turn has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases.
Climastrologists have not just gotten it “a little bit wrong”, they have gotten it totally and utterly wrong. The lukewarmer and AGW believer hopes of “warming but less than we thought” are in vain. AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility on Planet Ocean.
From Konrad on July 15, 2014 at 9:13 pm:
It is a known corollary of Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation that at thermodynamic equilibrium (aka radiative equilibrium, thermal equilibrium) emissivity and absorptivity are the same. In understandable language, energy out equals energy in at equilibrium, therefore the ability to emit must equal the ability to receive.
You are discussing the final temperatures these planets will reach, that is at thermal equilibrium, not temperature response on the way to thermal equilibrium. Therefore the lower emissivity planet would be hotter, the polished aluminum planet would be hotter than the polished nickel planet.
Now for the bonus question. Emissivity and absorptivity are surface effects. Therefore a polished aluminum foil planet, a hollow sphere of thin material around vacuum, should likewise attain a 450K average surface temperature, as the energy that would be retained by a solid sphere would necessarily be retained within the hollow sphere as the only way for it to be lost either way is through a polished aluminum surface. True or false?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 15, 2014 at 10:19 pm
———————————-
Still not winning?
“It is a known corollary of Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation that at thermodynamic equilibrium (aka radiative equilibrium, thermal equilibrium) emissivity and absorptivity are the same. In understandable language, energy out equals energy in at equilibrium, therefore the ability to emit must equal the ability to receive.”
No, at equilibrium temperature energy absorbed equals energy radiated. Emissivity and absoirbivity need not be equal. The issue is the temperature that the material needs to rise to to effectively radiate at the rate it is absorbing. For polished nickel this temperature is higher than polished aluminium.
“Therefore the lower emissivity planet would be hotter, the polished aluminum planet would be hotter than the polished nickel planet.”
Again, false. You need to know the ratio between absorptivity and emissivity. Emissivity alone is no good for polished metals.
“Now for the bonus question. Emissivity and absorptivity are surface effects. Therefore a polished aluminum foil planet, a hollow sphere of thin material around vacuum, should likewise attain a 450K average surface temperature, as the energy that would be retained by a solid sphere would necessarily be retained within the hollow sphere as the only way for it to be lost either way is through a polished aluminum surface. True or false?”
Actually false. The calculation for ~450K is actually one for surface only, effectively a foil planet. It ignores mass and speed of internal conduction. A solid aluminium planet would actually be hotter than the ~basic S-B calc of 450K.
This is important because this is in part what is behind the second selective surface effect for the ocean I described. The thermal capacity and speed of internal non-radiative transport become serious factors in semi transparent UV/SW selective materials.
The simple response for those who doubt a human contribution to climate change. You simply say you are agnostic and there is nothing Leif or Mosher can do about it, as it is a completely legitimate scientific position to take.
Poptech says:
July 17, 2014 at 6:19 am
———————————
Pretty good. Not good enough.
Fair effort thought. The whole “sceptics need to be pal-reviewed to be credible” thing.
I won’t say “you almost got away with it”, because YOU didn’t 😉
Oh, in case you missed it, your lot just exposed and lost another “sleeper” debating on this thread 😉
You personally blew it way back attacking “pattern recognition”. Smoke and flames. Visual to impact. No chutes…
Do you have anyone left? Anyone I haven’t already marked?
20mm hexolite. Don’t leave home without it…;-)