Guest essay by David Archibald
President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.
The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:
The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.
This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:
Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.
We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Reference:
Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?
Eli Kintisch
Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 4:47 am
“…. add CO2 to the atmosphere …… and according to Henry’s Law the atmospheric concentration will go up and the ocean concentration will go up”
—————-
Well “DUH”, just what is it exactly that you DON’T UNDERSTAND about the “ingassing of CO2” by the waters of the ocean?
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 3:49 am
“So it is the atmosphere (particularly the pressure broadening of the CO2 spectrum) that is responsible for an increase of about 550K.
Those are the empirical facts about Venus’s temperature.”
—————-
GIMME A BREAK …… and I’ll offer you an education in/on science.
The extreme temperature of Venus’s atmosphere is PRIMARILY due to its extremely slow axial rotation, ….. plus its extremely high velocity atmospheric winds, ….. plus the mass density of its atmosphere ….. and plus its close proximity to the Sun.
The planet Venus is akin to a big hunk of “beef” on a barbeque “spit” that is just barely turning round n’ round above an extremely “hot” bed of burning charcoal.
Just back your arse up real close to a “roaring” camp fire …. or a “red hot” cast iron stove ….. and experience it for yourself.
Iffen you won’t listen ….. then you will just hafta feel.
Samuel C Cogar
August 27, 2014 at 6:55 am
“GIMME A BREAK”
…
Why is the sun facing side of Mercury cooler than the surface of Venus despite it being half the distance to the Sun?
richardscourtney:
By your manner of participation in this blog you continuously break a rule. In scientific or scholarly debate it is impermissible to attempt to win an argument through characterization of one’s opponent or his argument. Thus, it is impermissible to attempt to win an argument through characterization of one’s opponents as “trolls” or characterization of an opponent’s argument as “twaddle.” Instead, one has to address the allegedly faulty argument itself and to refute it if one can. That you frequently find it necessary to break this rule suggests the possibility that you are unable to construct a logical argument. If this is the case, do us all a favor by ceasing your participation.
I agree with your assessment and prescription.
I would expect you to agree with Oldberg. He says he gets “information from the future”.
Where do you get yours?
Samuel C Cogar August 27, 2014 at 6:16 am
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 4:47 am
“…. add CO2 to the atmosphere …… and according to Henry’s Law the atmospheric concentration will go up and the ocean concentration will go up”
—————-
Well “DUH”, just what is it exactly that you DON’T UNDERSTAND about the “ingassing of CO2” by the waters of the ocean?
Nothing, nice cherry picking of the quote, you were claiming that the increase of CO2 was due to the change in temperature whereas in fact it’s due to the introduction of previously sequestered Carbon into the atmosphere and its subsequent partitioning between the atmosphere and ocean per Henry’s law.
Samuel C Cogar August 27, 2014 at 6:55 am
@ur momisugly Phil.: August 27, 2014 at 3:49 am
“So it is the atmosphere (particularly the pressure broadening of the CO2 spectrum) that is responsible for an increase of about 550K.
Those are the empirical facts about Venus’s temperature.”
—————-
GIMME A BREAK …… and I’ll offer you an education in/on science.
You’d have to it understand first.
The extreme temperature of Venus’s atmosphere is PRIMARILY due to its extremely slow axial rotation, ….. plus its extremely high velocity atmospheric winds, ….. plus the mass density of its atmosphere ….. and plus its close proximity to the Sun.
No, primarily due to the the opacity of the atmosphere which as I showed is a function of the atmospheric pressure due to pressure broadening. Due to the high albedo the proximity to the sun is not a factor. Bear in mind that my post was in response to the erroneous statements that pressure broadening was a small factor in the Venusian atmosphere, which you conveniently omitted. Where was your education on the science when that nonsense was posted?
richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 at 8:23 am
” Do you have trouble taking your meds.?”
…
This a prime example of your inability to face facts. I feel sorry for you if you can’t deal with the thermal expansion of the water in the oceans. Having to resort to ad-hominem as a response is indicative of a person incapable of addressing reality.
Edward Robinson
Obviously, you have misunderstood. I feel contempt and not sorrow for you.
It is not an ad hom. to point out that you have only contributed illogical ravings which have disrupted the thread.
I apologise that I was not sufficiently clear, and I hope that this post has corrected any misunderstanding.
Richard
richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 at 9:22 am
“It is not an ad hom”
Of course it is, and you still have not faced the fact that half of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of the water. Solid, verifiable proof that the oceans are warming.
Edward Robinson
It is apparent that I need to be blunt.
Your obfuscations, misquotations, evasions and misrepresentations demonstrate that you are an annoying troll who is determined to disrupt the thread.
I tried to discuss with you and your illogical nonsense made that impossible.
I will not demean myself by further interaction with you.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Contrary to your claim, to accuse one’s opponent of having “only contributed illogical ravings” is an example of an ad hominem argument. To smear one’s opponent with innuendo is one of the ways in which an ad hominem argument can be made and is one that you lean upon again and again when berift of logically legitimate counter arguments.
Terry Oldberg
A statement of demonstrable fact is not an ad hom. I cannot say that Edward Robinson is a man because I have no evidence about the matter. But I can say he/she/they/ it is an internet troll because – as I said – this troll has “only contributed illogical ravings which have disrupted the thread”.
That is not an “innuendo”: it is a clear and unambiguous statement.
Clearly,you have no counter to my clear statements because – to use your language – if you had “logically legitimate counter arguments” you would have made them.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Contrary to your claim, a statement of demonstrable fact regarding one’s opponent’s character is an example of an ad hominem argument when one’s opponent’s character is not the issue under debate. Also, I don’t believe you can demonstrate it as a fact that Mr. Robinson ( or whomever is the target of your name-calling ) is a troll. You’d need a pattern-recognizer that was inerrant in distinguishing trolls from non-trolls but real pattern recognizers (e.g. the ones used in optical character recognition) make errors.
Richard Courtney’s “do you have trouble taking your meds? comment is a de facto admission he has no scientific response to your (excellent) question. We all know that. He knows it.
And this from a member of the advisory board of E&E. Now you see why that journal has the reputation it does.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
SonicsGuy
I am trying to get the troll, Edward Richardson, to accept the reality that I refuse to continue wasting time on its ridiculous and illogical talking points. My refusal has nothing to do with my ability to dismiss its silly talking points and – despite your falsehood – you know that.
Your mention of E&E has no relevance to this thread: it is simple trolling. In this manner it is similar to all your other posts in this thread.
However, E&E has its excellent reputation as a result of publishing important science. For example, E&E published the papers of M&M which demolished the MBH Hockey Stick. As a result of that there were all the other investigations and debunkings of that pseudoscientific graph.
Richard
Wikipedia gives a great summary of the so-called “Hockey Stick Controversy”.
It is interesting that this pivotal scientific discovery is only debunked in contrarian blogs and yet is repeatedly verified and extended as recently as 2013 in mainstream science.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Continuing_research
“New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions, and agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, as in the Ljungqvist 2010 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction.”
“Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.’s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies.”
“The hockey stick graph was further extended and confirmed by Marcott et al. 2013 which used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment#Criticism
“According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. claimed that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact.”
“In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, “Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?””
“A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that “scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists.””
Boehmer-Christiansen (editor) acknowledged that the journal’s “impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it”, but blamed this on “the negative attitudes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/Climatic Research Unit people.”
[Interesting that these critical (skeptical ?) “editorial comments” against Energy and Environment remain inside its Wikipedia entry, isn’t it? .mod]
Richard: Your refusal to answer Edward’s simple question about sea level rise was very, very obvious — you know what the answer is, and what it implies. And you still can’t admit it — and no amount of name calling will change that. . .
katatetorihanzo
You cite Wicki then say
That Connolley, Schmidt and Pielke jnr dislike E&E is very high praise indeed. Especially when their dislike is that E&E refuses to adopt their corrupt ‘pal review’ revealed by ‘climategate’.
And if breaking the ‘Hockey Stick’ is an example of “little impact” then please let us have much more “little impact” on the corrupt practices which comprise so-called ‘climate science’.
Richard
SonicsGuy
I refuse to have any further interaction with the disingenuous and egregious troll posting as Edward Robinson. Dealing with this especially unpleasant troll engenders similar emotion to removing something unpleasant from the instep of my shoe, and I try to avoid the need to do it.
That is not changed by the cajoling of another troll who is hiding behind the cowards screen of anonymity so you can stop bothering to do it.
Richard
Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm
“Why does NO CHANGE in temperature cause a rise in CO2 ?”
Because it is the rate of change of CO2 which is affinely related to temperature.
Phil.
August 27, 2014 at 3:49 am
“No it isn’t, the orbit of Venus is 0.7 AU so its insolation at TOA is ~2x Earth’s, however its albedo is 3x greater so without the GHE of its atmosphere Venus would have about 2/3 the temperature of Earth (~180K).”
Non sequitur. Temperature is related to stored energy, while you are discussing energy flux in time (power). That is the same error those who deny the GHE entirely make when they mistakenly apply the conservation of energy principle to the flow of energy.
richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 at 9:59 am
“you are an annoying troll ”
Name calling is an ad-hom.
You do that often here. Especially when you are unable to face facts.
Edward Richardson
You don’t like my saying “you are an annoying troll ”
OK. Let me correct it for you.
You are a persistent and annoying troll who misrepresents, misquotes and distorts statements so is contemptible and deserves to be shunned.
I tried to engage in rational conversation with you but have learned that the attempt was foolish, I refuse to do it further.
I hope that is clear enough.
Richard
If you can’t face the facts, and have the need to resort to name calling, it is abundantly clear you are lacking the ability to face facts.
I state facts and don’t do name calling.
Clear off, troll. You have ceased to be amusing.
On WUWT I have been called “a troll”, “always-wrong alarmist”, “fanatic”, “anti-science propagandist”, and “deluded”. But my favorite is “warmunist”.
I think it is fair to say that many I’ve encountered here have a playful sense of hyperbole and are quite passionate.
Phil.
August 27, 2014 at 3:49 am
To make your argument work for you, you have to assume all other influences are equal, and then solve for the steady state temperature, which would then have the ratio (2/3)^0.25.
Edward Richardson
August 27, 2014 at 10:02 am
Your “facts” are naive misconceptions.
But you can teach a dog to play the trumpet…..
A plastic toy horn is not a trumpet.
richardscourtney
August 27, 2014 at 10:33 am
” don’t do name calling.”
Calling someone a “troll” is name calling.
Are you incapable of addressing the thermal expansion of ocean water? It is clear evidence that the oceans are warming.
Bart August 27, 2014 at 9:52 am
Edward Richardson
August 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm
“Why does NO CHANGE in temperature cause a rise in CO2 ?”
Because it is the rate of change of CO2 which is affinely related to temperature.
pCO2 is linearly related to the cumulative fossil fuel emission, the temperature effect is a minor modulation due to the Henry’s law coefficient variation etc.
Phil.
August 27, 2014 at 3:49 am
“No it isn’t, the orbit of Venus is 0.7 AU so its insolation at TOA is ~2x Earth’s, however its albedo is 3x greater so without the GHE of its atmosphere Venus would have about 2/3 the temperature of Earth (~180K).”
Non sequitur. Temperature is related to stored energy, while you are discussing energy flux in time (power). That is the same error those who deny the GHE entirely make when they mistakenly apply the conservation of energy principle to the flow of energy.
The effective black body temperature of Venus in radiative equilibrium is ~180K, so sealey’s claim that it’s high temperature is due to it’s proximity to the sun is refuted.
“pCO2 is linearly related to the cumulative fossil fuel emission, the temperature effect is a minor modulation due to the Henry’s law coefficient variation etc.”
Quite impossible, given the data.
“… so sealey’s claim that it’s high temperature is due to it’s proximity to the sun is refuted.”
But, your argument was still non sequitur. Hey, you wrote it in haste. No big deal.
There are, of course, multiple causes beside a global rise in ocean temperature, for a rise in Atmospheric CO2, many of which are known to be occurring.
Soil erosion is obviously foremost, deforestation, terrestrial fuel combustion(of uncertain provenance), concrete production, global colding and drought, etc.
Comparisons of Venus and the Earth are silly.
Why?
After a timeout to take care of Life, I am back to straighten out the beginners.
First, Edward got his panties in a bunch over my reply to Phil., who wrote about me:
“That’s a dumb comment even for you”
My reply: All Phil.’s comments are dumb, even for him. <– that should wad up Edward's panties enough to give him apoplexy.
Phil. doesn’t seem to think that the Sun matters when discussing Venus' temperature. Why even reply to that preposterous nonsense?
Next, sonicsguy says:
Don’t bother [to come back]. That your science is terribly bad just makes it all the worse.
Sonicsguy is full of opinions, no? They are the basis for his entire belief system. With an opinion like that, sonicsguy will never learn anything, because his mind is made up: He believes that I know nothing. Just ask sonicsguy, he will tell you. Sonicsguy instructed me ‘don’t bother to come back’. Question: how does it feel to be impotent, Sonicsguy? You know what it’s like, so tell us. I enjoy explanations of your impotence.
Next, Hanzo says:
The skeptical mouse climbing the long staircase is thus forced to deny her vertical ascent at each stair.
Hanzo is clearly no skeptic. Hanzo Believes that global warming has only hiccuped, and it will resume any time now. Because, like, Hanzo knows the future.
The fact is that global warming has stopped. That fact throws the alarmist crowd into fits of consternation. They never saw it coming. Their predictions were universally that global warming would continue, and very likely accelerate. So their climbdown is: “It’s only temporary! A hiatus! A pause! We can see the future, just ask us.” Well, it’s been almost twenty years sincw global warming stopped. Since Hanzo knows the future, I have a question for him: when will global warming resume? What year, Hanzo?
Global warming stopped many years ago. That fact deconstructs the wild-eyed Chicken Little response from climate alarmists, who were absolutely convinced that rising CO2 would cause runaway global warming.
But Planet Earth gave her response: ‘It ain’t so, people.’
If CO2 causes any global warming, it is a minuscule, unmeasurable, 3rd-Order effect, which is swamped by 2nd-Order effects — which are both swamped by 1st-Order forcings [cf: Willis]. CO2 just does not have the claimed warming effect. Any warming from CO2 is simply too small to measure.
In fact, it has been shown conclusively that temperature controls CO2 levels; the exact opposite of the alarmist view. The peanut gallery here doesn’t want to accept that fact, but that’s why they can’t learn anything. Their minds are already made up and closed tight. They operate on confirmation bias, on cherry-picking, and on True Belief. Their religion is enough. The Rev. Algore told them so, and to heck with the real world, the scientific method, the null hypothesis, and empirical evidence. They have their religion:
That religious belief underlies the climate alarmist arguments. They argue with a thin veneer of science, but the truth is that they believe that human CO2 emissions are evil.
The truth is exactly the opposite: CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better. But to the Rev. Algore’s acolytes here, that is apostasy. They cannot give one inch. They cannot admit to one fact that contradicts their religious belief. And thus, we get the kind of mindless arguments we see here.
dbstealey
August 27, 2014 at 11:07 am
..
“In fact, it has been shown conclusively that temperature controls CO2 levels”
..
Can you explain what change in temperature caused this?
..
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png
Ice core data directly measuring CO2 content is invalid. First because no linear conversion of the one measure to the other has been established(assumption of equality is deprecated), and Secondly because the time resolution is inadequate for the purpose.
Edward Richardson,
Thank you for yet another chart showing that changes in temperature are followed by changes in CO2.
As for your constant demands for an ‘explanation’, you really don’t need explanations. Your belief is religious, and that is enough for you.
For the rest of us, we are always looking for rational explanations. Unlike you, we are scientific skeptics.
Salby can.
Because if CO2 causes any global warming, it is a minuscule, unmeasurable, 3rd-Order effect, which is swamped by 2nd-Order effects — which are both swamped by 1st-Order forcings [cf: Willis]. CO2 just does not have the claimed warming effect. Any warming from CO2 is simply too small to measure.
Yeah, that really is the long and short of it.
gary gulrud
August 27, 2014 at 11:17 am
“Ice core data directly measuring CO2 content is invalid.”
Citation please.
Google is your friend.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Note that the Vostok data is useful for paleogeology, as a relative measurement. As soon as we get data from 2000 AD, you of course are allowed to use it.
Your citation does not say anything about “CO2 content”
…
It makes two mentions of CO2, namely,
” CO2 correspondances between dated ice-cores [4] and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores [4].”
….
Can you please “google” a better citation?
Secondly, could you please find a peer reviewed citation?
katatetorihanzo says:
On WUWT I have been called “a troll”, “always-wrong alarmist”, “fanatic”, “anti-science propagandist”, and “deluded”. But my favorite is “warmunist”.
Don’t forget: Rent-seeking rider on the climate gravy train. That’s your primary motivation.
When your income depends on your opinion, your opinion is predictable.
dbstealey
August 27, 2014 at 11:37 am
…
“you really don’t need explanations.”
…
You need to explain what recent temperature change caused the 120 ppm change in CO2.
You have been saying all along that ∆T causes ∆CO2.
…
All you have to do is identify what ∆T caused the recent 120 ppm increase in CO2.
..
If you cannot provide the ∆T, your “∆T causes ∆CO2.” hypothesis is falsified.
Both of you guys Edward Richardson and DBStealey -KNOCK IT OFF!
Your pissing match is getting out of hand. You two aren’t going to agree, so give it a rest.
Friends
The troll says to dbstealey
The troll’s assertion is nonsense and only demonstrates that the troll does not know – or is pretending to not know – that correlation does not indicate causation but coherence does.
In case there are onlookers who may be misled by the troll, I provide the following explanation.
Both correlation and coherence can each and both provide information pertaining to causality.
Correlation is a mathematical relationship between two parameters. If the correlation is known over the length of the data sets, then their correlation indicates the magnitude of a change in one parameter that is expected when the other parameter changes by a known magnitude.
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct a causal relation between two parameters.
Coherence of two parameters indicates that when one parameter changes then the other parameter changes later.
Coherence can disprove that change of one parameter causes change in the other; i.e. if change in parameter A follows change in parameter B then the change of A cannot be the cause of the change of B (because a cause cannot occur after its effect).
So,
1.
absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relationship
and
2.
when there is a direct causal relationship then coherence indicates which of the two parameters is causal.
Furthermore, coherence in the absence of correlation is strongly suggestive that both parameters are affected by another parameter (or other parameters).
For example, leaves fall off trees soon after children return to school following their summer break.
The coherence is great; i.e. both effects occur each year.
But the effects do not correlate; i.e. the number of returning children is not indicative of the number of falling leaves.
In this example, the time of year is the additional parameter which causes children to return to school and the leaves to fall off trees.
So, if it is known that there is a causal relationship between two parameters. The coherence between the parameters indicates which is causal.
Richard
Mr. Courtney prefaces his reply to Mr. Robinson by calling him a “troll” for the umpteenth time. In a past exchange of points of view on this topic, Courtney claims this is not an illogical ad hominem argument because it is a “demonstrable fact” that Robinson is a troll. If this were true, Courtney could logically use the fact that Robinson was a troll as a premise to an argument that discredited Robinson’s testimony. An argument along the lines of:
Robinson is a troll
All trolls are unreliable witnesses
Therefore, Robinson is an unreliable witness
would do the job if both of its premises (the top two sentences) were true.
However, that Robinson is a troll is not a demostrable fact for in determining that he is a troll, Courtney would have to use a pattern recognizer that distinguished trolls from non-trolls but all real pattern recognizers make errors. Thus, that Robinson is a troll has no more than a probability of being true. In assigning a value to this probability Courtney would have to conduct a scientific study featuring: a) certified trolls b) certified non-trolls and c) Courtney’s pattern recognizer. I don’t believe there are any certified trolls. Thus, it appears that Courtney could not have conducted such a study. Rather than using an inerrant pattern recognizer, Courtney must have used one of unknown reliability and implied it was perfectly reliable.
I’ve already identified this weakness in his argument to Courtney. Though he has not responded to this issue he continues to call Robinson a troll. This behavior matches a pattern in which Courtney ignores weaknesses in his arguments when they are identified for him and switches the topic as soon as possible to the allegedly bad characters of his opponents.
Thank you Mr Terry Oldberg for your analysis of Mr. Courtney
Mr. Richardson:
It was my pleasure and I apologize for calling you Robinson.
If interested in jointly pursuing a defamation lawsuit against one or more of the smear artists who inhabit the climate blogs please be in touch. My email address is terry@knowledgetothemax.com . Phone 650-941-0533 (Pacific time zone).
Oldberg and Richartdson have a group hug. Sweet.
Pity they don’t have their ‘love in’ privately instead of polluting this thread with it. But I suppose these egregious trolls cannot help their shameless behaviour.
Richard
dbstealey August 27, 2014 at 11:07 am
Phil. doesn’t seem to think that the Sun matters when discussing Venus’ temperature. Why even reply to that preposterous nonsense?
Why even make up such ‘preposterous nonsense’ in the first place, it has no bearing on what I posted?
The fact is that the combination of Venus’s distance from the sun and its albedo gives a temperature cooler than Earth’s, so Venus’s high temperature is not a result of its proximity to the sun, but rather to the properties of its atmosphere contrary to your assertion.
Phil.,
Thanx for your speculation. It’s always fun to speculate, isn’t it?
You speculate that it’s high albedo is the reason Venus is not cooler than earth. That means Venus reflects a lot of light, right? It reflectes a lot of energy.
The fact — not speculation — is that Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere. CO2 has nothing to do with it; the thickness of the atmosphere retains plenty of heat. It retains heat to the extent that the night side of Venus is the same temperature as the sunlit side. That proves that the atmosphere retains a lot of heat. Albedo has an effect. But your claim that a planet that much closer to the earth, with an extremely thick atmosphere, would be colder than earth except for it’s albedo is nonsense. A thick atmosphere that retains heat, and close proximity to the sun are the rerasons that Venus is hotter than the earth.
And if CO2 itself caused a lot of warming, then Mars’ 95%+ CO2 atmosphere would cook the planet. But Mars is cold.
Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun, and it has a thick atmosphere. Nothing more is necessary to explain the observations. As Occam’s Razor says: stick with the simplest explanation. It is the one most likely to be correct. Adding extraneous variables, such as a magic gas, unnecessarily complicate an elegant explanation.
Richard Courtney:
Agreed. Correct as usual.
And thank you, Anthony. Teaching a dog algebra is impossible.
One can calculate the surface temperature of any of the planets as if they had no atmosphere. For Venus, based on it’s surface area, magnitude of its average incoming solar radiation (662 W/m^2) and albedo, it would be -41 Celsius.
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html
Something about the Venusian atmosphere brings the temperature up to 462 Celsius, which is hotter than Mercury (the closest planet to the sun).
Hanzo says:
“Something” is making Venus hot.
Yes. “Something”.
What is that ‘something’?
It is certainly not CO2, because CO2 canot have that effect:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
Citation?
dbstealey wrote:
“Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun, and it has a thick atmosphere. Nothing more is necessary to explain the observations.”
So then, explain this observation (Figure 1) of Venus’s nightside radiance spectrum:
“Retrieval of air temperature profiles in the Venusian mesosphere from VIRTIS-M data: Description and validation of algorithms,” Davide Grassi et al, JGR-Planets Volume 113, Issue E (2008)
:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JE003075/pdf
Venus is as hot on the night side as on the day side.
Also, this isn’t about Venus and it really doesn’t interest me — unless it is about Venus and CO2.
Previous discussions about Venus have gotten wildly off-topic, so unless this concerns the article, and/or CO2’s warming effect, I’m not interested.
Talk to Phil. He can always take time out of his work day to discuss these things.
“Also, this isn’t about Venus and it really doesn’t interest me — unless it is about Venus and CO2.”
Of course it’s about CO2. See the dip in radiance at 4300 nm and 4800 nm? Explain.
dbstealey August 27, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Phil.,
Thanx for your speculation. It’s always fun to speculate, isn’t it?
Who’s speculating? I’m talking about the science.
The fact is that Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere. CO2 has nothing to do with it; the thickness of the atmosphere retains plenty of heat. It retains heat to the extent that the night side of Venus is the same temperature as the sunlit side. That proves that the atmosphere retains a lot of heat.
CO2 has everything to do with it, if the atmosphere was nitrogen with the same sulphuric acid clouds the temperature would be about 180K. It is CO2 that has the opacity to IR which causes the elevated temperature.
However, if CO2 itself caused a lot of warming, then Mars’ 95%+ CO2 atmosphere would cook the planet. But Mars is cold.
It would not cook the planet because in the absence of pressure broadening (Patm ~0.01atm) the atmosphere is rather transparent to IR.
Mars:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2-001atm.jpg
Compare with Venus:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/CO2-93atm.jpg
Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun, and it has a thick atmosphere. Nothing more is necessary to explain the observations. As Occam’s Razor says: stick with the simplest explanation. It is the one most likely to be correct. Adding extraneous variables, such as a magic gas, unnecessarily complicate an elegant explanation.
The physics don’t support the ‘elegant’ explanation because in that case you’d have a surface temperature of ~180K.
Who’s speculating? I’m talking about the science.
You’re still speculating, because you are trying to describe something that doesn’t exist. You may believe otherwise. But that’s how I see it, and I much prefer real world, empirical evidence as opposed to guesses, no matter how sciency they are.
The entire debate question is about the effect of CO2. Climate alarmists claim that CO2 is a magic gas that can push the earth into runaway global warming and climate catastrophe — by rising from 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand, over 150 years.
Yes. That is their claim. [Well, that is their claim until they move the goal posts.]
The Venus question came up years ago because the same crowd tried to argue that because Venus’ atmosphere is CO2, that is the reason it is so hot. Venus is hot because it has an immensely thick atmosphere, and it is close to the sun. CO2 is not a credible explanation [although I will admit that today that has not been the explanation given. This is just a preemptive strike.] But that claim failed under scrutiny:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
Also, explain the TOA-observation of Earth’s outgoing spectrum:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/co2-absorption/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg
You did not respond to my comment, so I won’t bother responding to yours.
Also, every time you demand “Citation”, or “Source”, you can be sure I will laugh at your impotence. Especially in your typical one-word demands.
Say “please”, and you are much more likey to get what you’re asking for.
See reply below @ur momisugly August 28, 2014 at 10:06 am
“Venus is hot because it has an immensely thick atmosphere, and it is close to the sun.”
1) Why is Venus’s atmosphere thick while Earth’s is not?
2) Explain the outgoing radiance of Venus (Figure 1):
“Retrieval of air temperature profiles in the Venusian mesosphere from VIRTIS-M data: Description and validation of algorithms,” Davide Grassi et al, JGR-Planets Volume 113, Issue E (2008)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JE003075/pdf
sonicsguy,
Please. I doubt very much your education revolves around the atmosphere of Venus. So rather than reading the items you find by trolling the iternet, why don’t you try to answer your own question, in your own words, rather than posting someone’s models?
As I have repeatedly made clear, I have no confidence in models. If you can’t post empirical evidence, then admit it. The stock market is much simpler than the atmosphere, and if someone could accurately model the atmosphere, they would become immensely wealthy in short order by modeling the stock market. Models like the one you posted are good for grant-trolling, and I understand that. But they do little to advance knowledge, no matter what you may believe.
If you can’t answer your own question of why Venus has a thick atmosphere, please don’t lay it off on others. If the answer was there, I am sure you would have found it on the internet, and posted it in your continuing effort to appear that you know things you don’t.
So spare us. Stick to the article. No more inane questions.
‘K? Thx bye.
1) Why is Venus’s atmosphere thick while Earth’s is not?
I can explain this observation. Can your theory of Venus?
2) Explain the outgoing radiance of Venus (Figure 1):
I can explain that, too. Can you?
3) Earth’s TOA outgoing spectrum.
I can explain this. What is your explanation?
dbstealey wrote:
“‘K? Thx bye.”
I understand why you’re leaving. and so do others here. And so do you.
I’ve enjoyed your posts SonicsGuy and i salute your patience. My purpose at this contrarian site is not so much masochistic as it is pedagogicaI creative outlet for me. I think the best way to learn something deeply is to patiently explain it to another in alternative and creative ways. My approach is to review an interesting contrarian claim, delete the creative ad hominem and conspiracist speculation, and contrast its essence with mainstream understanding and attempt to persuade.
While it is hard to build a model in which one can have confidence, we have to build such a model if we are to control a system for the events of the past do not recur. Fortunately, using the best available technology it is often possible to do so. Unfortunately, in addressing global warming climatologists have used some of the worst available technology. In doing so they have created models that convey no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. These models are useless for the purpose of making policy. However, climatologists have magnified the disaster they have created by leading policy makers to the conclusion that the models are eminently useful for this purpose.
Terry Oldberg wrote:
“However, climatologists have magnified the disaster they have created by leading policy makers to the conclusion that the models are eminently useful for this purpose.”
Not so — modelers are well aware of the limitations of their models. Watch this talk from a climate modeler, especially near the end:
http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change
SonicsGuy:
Thanks. In your post, I don’t find a URL. Can you supply?
Here’s the URL. I think the blogging software automatically converts links to pictures if it can, so I’ve altered the URL in an obvious way. Or searech for “Gavin Schmidt Ted talk”
ht—–tp://ww—–w.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change