Old Tactics Revived as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deception Fails. An Open Letter to an Open Letter

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Recently an Open Letter was circulated and ostensibly signed by 375 members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It is reported on the web page is arrogantly called “ResponsibleScientists.org. Use of the term in this context implies that those who do not belong are irresponsible scientists. Responsibility should go without saying.

I use the word “ostensibly” to describe the representation of the Open Letter. The initial impression is that it is a letter from the NAS. It is not! A separate sentence at the bottom of the letter explains.

The following signers of this letter do so as individual NAS members and not on behalf of the NAS itself or their Institutions.

Do we assume they obtained permission from all the members of the NAS? Were the contents approved by all members? Is this the behavior of “responsible” scientists?

The tactic of using a group is similar to the previous misuse of Academies of Science to promote the false narrative about global warming. Then it was orchestrated by Lord May (Brian May) when President of the Royal Society. At his instigation, all science societies were encouraged to take positions on behalf of their members. This missionary type of promotion and fervor is reflected in Lord May’s views on climate change identified in a 2009, pre-COP 15 (Copenhagen), and pre-Climategate revelations, article as follows,

“…religion may have helped protect human society from itself in the past and it may be needed again.

 

…the committed atheist (May) said he was worried the world was on a “calamitous trajectory” brought on by its failure to co-ordinate measures against global warming.

 

He said that no country was prepared to take the lead and a “punisher” was needed to make sure the rules of co-operation were not broken.

 

…in the past that was God and it might be time again for religion to fill the gap.

 

“Maybe religion is needed,” “A supernatural punisher maybe part of the solution.”

 

He (May) said in the past a belief in a god, or gods, that punish the unrighteous may have been part of the mechanism of evolution that maintains co-operation in a dog-eat-dog world.

 

Having a god as the ultimate punisher was possibly a logical step for a society to take, he added.

One of the few science societies to resist the idea was the Russian Academy of Science (RAS). The opposition was promoted by former (up to 2008) IPCC vice-chairman Yuri Israel, and Kirill Kondratieff, President of the RAS.

In all cases, the society members were not consulted on and the action taken by a few. Some individual members protested, like Emeritus Professor of Physics Harold Lewis, who resigned from the American Physical Society in October 2010. His letter said in part

“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

 

Despite the heroic action by Professor Lewis, the media picked up and pushed the collective action. As a result of May’s influence and the dictatorial actions of Society leaders the issue became a central ‘consensus’ argument against skeptics and later deniers. It was a dogmatic, almost religious argument, completely contrary to the basic requirements of science. Lord May the atheist, became Lord May the proselytizer for the new religion.

Compare Professor Lewis’s comment against the first paragraph of the Open Letter.

Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.

It is only a physical reality in the computers and Summary for Policymakers (SPM) Reports of the IPCC.

Four people, Benjamin Santer, Kerry Emmanuel, George Field, and Ray Weymann, are identified as “letter organizers.” Presumably, the word “organizer” means one of them wrote the letter and the other three peer-reviewed before circulation for general signature. 375 signatures appeals to the consensus argument that is a favorite of AGW promoters but wrong because science is not about consensus. As Albert Einstein said,

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

 

The Letter also uses Argumentum Ad Verecundiam, an appeal to authority, by citing 30 Nobel Laureates. It is likely that most of them, and likely many of the 375, never read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC). If they did and knew anything about climate science they would discover what German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls found.

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

If they checked further, they would discover that every climate forecast made by the IPCC since 1990 has been wrong.

The creation of a misleading list to represent a society, or different forms of argument to support the unsupportable is not surprising. Two of the Letter organizers, Santer, and Emmanuel have been involved with the IPCC for a very long time. Santer was a graduate of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in its glory days before Climategate and the leaked emails. It is also likely that a high percentage of those signing are recipients of the “corrupting dollar” Professor Lewis identifies.

The lead name and likely the key organizer is Benjamin Santer. He is familiar with creating self-praising titles as part of the group at CRU. Under the direction of Gavin Schmidt they set up a web site titled Realclimate, presumably as opposed to what they determined was Unrealclimate. Santer was also familiar with controversy early in his career at the IPCC in what became known as the “Chapter 8” fiasco. It was also early in his career because he, like Michael Man, were appointed to senior IPCC positions shortly after graduation.

As lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report, he took wording agreed to by fellow chapter authors and modified it considerably. For example, the group wrote,

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

Under Santer it became

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

As anticipated the media picked up on the phrase “discernible human influence on the global climate.” It became the focal point like the hockey stick did after the 2001 Report release. Avery and Singer noted in 2006 that,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process!

John Daly discussed the evidence for Santer’ discernible influence claim including the work of Michaels and Knappenberger.

There is no discernible human influence even today except in the deliberately limited, predetermined output, of the failed IPCC computer models. It is simple. If your predictions are wrong, your science is wrong. If you claim a consensus, it means the issue is purely political, like the words and actions used in the creation of this Open Letter.

I will not enlist the support of other scientists in a letter countering the Open Letter because that would be another consensus. Rather, I prefer people check the facts for themselves. I urge those people who signed as members of the NAS and who have not read the IPCC Reports to do like Klaus-Eckart Puls. For those members of the NAS who did not see or approve the letter, I urge action within the Society. It is not just climate science credibility in jeopardy, but science in general. The threat increases as the real climate picture are prepared by responsible scientists and the corruption exposed.

Advertisements

217 thoughts on “Old Tactics Revived as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deception Fails. An Open Letter to an Open Letter

  1. The creation of a misleading list to represent a society, or different forms of argument to support the unsupportable is not surprising
    I assume you will apply the same criteria to the Oregon Petition.

      • This one is:

        From studies of changes in temperature and sea level over the last million years, we know that the climate system has tipping points. Our proximity to these tipping points is uncertain.

        The changes in the paleo record have no sign of “tipping points” other than glaciation and deglaciation. We are already in a deglaciation. The next ‘tipping point’ will a downwards one.

        The basic science of how greenhouse gases trap heat is clear, and has been for over a century. Ultimately, the strength of that basic science brought the governments of the world to Paris in December 2015.

        The old “basic science” lie again. The radiative properties of gases is just one “forcing” factor and tells us nothing of how the remarkably stable climate remains remarkable stable.

        We do not have “basic science” mathematical descriptions of evaporation, convection, cloud formation and precipitation of the climate system that would allow us to accurately simulate or describe it. Having “basic science” for one little corner of the system is useless if you don’t have “basic science” for the processes which govern the big picture.

        Any responsible scientist would know that and say so , not misrepresent it.

        Presumably Santer tried to get as many members as possible to sign his open propaganda initiative, so that’s 375 out of how many ?

        http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/membership/

        The NAS membership totals approximately 2,250 members

        As an argument by consensus that does not work too well.

      • ‘Having “basic science” for one little corner of the system is useless if you don’t have “basic science” for the processes which govern the big picture. ‘

        Yes.

      • “There is one factor that made the Petition credible,that you overlooked” ……correct, it is credible because it was signed by one of the Spice Girls, Frank Burns, and other notable characters.

      • Camel,

        The few names were quickly taken off the list,which they explained on the website. Less than 20 names out of 31,000 were found to be spurious. Meanwhile many famous scientists signed it including Freeman Dyson,Edward Teller,Hal Lewis.

        Your absurd petty complaint is beneath you sir.

        You, like Seaice1 and Science abc123, missed the crucial difference. How come none of you can see the obvious difference?

      • How many of the fake names were not taken off? There’s still no way to verify ANY of the names on the petition.

      • Richard, are you that dense, there were only about TWENTY names out of 31,000 that were false.

        The website explains the petition process,if you ever bother to visit that website.

    • Brian May was guitarist with Queen, who then achieved a phd.

      Perhaps you mean sir Robert may who was president until 2005 or Paul nurse who was president until last year.

      Tonyb

      • LOL, I was wondering why I’d never heard of Brian May being made head of RS !!

        Another Balls up. Thanks for the correction.

    • The signatories of the Oregan Petition, so far as I am aware, were all independant scientists. They didn’t publish under the banner of a supposedly scientific organisation.
      And for me 31.000+ beats 375.
      And don’t even think either “consensus” or “97%”.

      • Assuming Santer’s petition was submitted to the entire NAS then 375 out of 2250 members is approximately 17%. That’s not a consensus, it’s a minority opinion.

      • “Independent scientists”?

        The list includes 2,000 doctors (as in medical). They are not scientists, unless they are part of the tiny % of doctors doing clinical research. Nor are people with degrees in IT. Nor, in fact, are most engineers, which makes up the vast majority of signatories. What does someone who designs computer chips, for example, know about atmospheric sciences?

      • Chris you expose yourself as completely uninformed – Let’s look at the relevance of various qualifications to global warming and its preferred solutions.

        1. Engineers
        a) electrical – This domain is where the feedback equations used in climate science were ripped off from, they also know solar power, and wind power, they deal with energy efficiency and conservation of energy every day most do more than a little dabbling in heating, humidification – thermodynamics – Engineering Science is an Applied Science, Capable of doing climate change math in their heads while in the bath – Domain relevant knowledge

        b Mechanical – Custodians of thermodynamics applications, know the relevant truth about rotating machines that produce almost 100% of the worlds power, heating, humidification and energy transfers. – Domain relevant knowledge

        2. Science
        Physicists – can do the climate change math in their sleep, understand gas energy interchanges at the quantum level – Domain Relevant knowledge

        Chemists – Can manage the chemical reactions and quantum/ bulk energy exchanges in gasses – Domain relevant knowledge

        Geologist – Paleoclimatology – Domain relevant knowledge

        Mathematics – Can validate the equations proposed by the climastrologists and validate the statistics used by them – Domain Relevant knowledge

        3.Applied Science

        a) Computer science, can evaluate the models used by the climastrologists – Domain relevant knowledge

        Really, Need I go on, this arrogant assumption that climate science can intrude on the expertise of other scientific domains AND remain immune to criticism by the domain experts (for example statisticians or mathematicians commenting on their statistics) is sheer arrogance.

      • Psychologist are as well prepared on using statistics as any other Ph.D. Further, the few that aren’t bleeding heart idiots, have pretty well tuned B.S. meters, and know the human element that is he basis for the Alarmist propaganda.

      • bobl, you are clearly out of your depth when talking about engineering. “EE’s deal with conservation of energy and energy efficiency every day.” No, they don’t. As a former control systems design engineer withi a BSEE and MSEE, that is most certainly not true. Very few EEs ever concern themselves with conservation of energy as it is not relevant to their job. Energy efficiency matters in low power applications (smart phones, satellites), but energy efficiency is not relevant to climatology, so that point is irrelevant.

        You ignored my point about doctors, even though they were 2,000 of the signatories, and the fair number in IT. As far as the others, for example mechanical, the amount of heat transfer knowledge learned in a undergraduate program does not give the skills needed to analyze complex equations used in climatology. And, more importantly, it’s highly, highly doubtful the signatories even looked at an atmospheric sciences paper. They received a card in the mail, they filled it out, and they returned it. That’s it. There is no proof whatsoever that they did anything more than offer their opinion.

      • Chris
        September 25, 2016 at 12:07 pm

        “Independent scientists”?

        The list includes 2,000 doctors (as in medical). They are not scientists, unless they are part of the tiny % of doctors doing clinical research

        Right Chris, MD’s like me are certainly not “mainstream” Climate Scientists! If we were:

        1] We would not need Clinical Trials for the Safety and Efficacy of any drug “The Science” says will work. We could simply say, “The Science says” and use the drug on you!

        2] As for our “Research”, we could likewise just plug the drug into our “The Drug Must Work” Medical Models and, Voila!, “prove” it does work. The “Experiments” our Models perform would back us up 100%. QED

        3] Obviously, there would be no need for training in Medical School and real life, because when it comes to what any chemical compound “should” do, “The Science is Settled!”

        Therefore, obeisance to, and some facility for employing or Believing-In our “mainstream” Drug Models to this end would represent our “expertise and qualifications” completely…and with no uncertainty even needed! In fact, we MD’s could jump right on board with the Administrators of the Scientific Societies who cry out to us, “Everyone knows that Lysenkoism is real and it’s happening! Get on board with Government Funded Science before it’s too late!”

        4] And our Peer Review Process would therefore include an expressed warranty that whatever “mainstream” MD’s review and are published in “mainstream” Publications “Delivers the given truth. Amen!”

        5] We “mainstream” MD’s would likewise “correctly” blame a drug’s unpopularity, failure to deliver benefits, and even its obvious and massive adverse effects on real people in the real world on the work of “Health D’Niers”, etc, where for example, “proof” of your, but not my, Psycho-Derangements described by “expert and qualified researchers” as above would no doubt eventually prove pivotal in getting all such certified defectives justly off to the Gulags!

        6] Naturally, The Science would allow for no possible net beneficial “nutritional” health effects from either CO2 as Plant Food and necessarily above ~180 ppm for nearly all life to continue, and necessarily at around 56,000 ppm in the normal Human Body for our lives to continue; or next for a net benefit from H2O-Vapor, which in some form is necessary to supply water to the Plants, since we already know from The Science of CO2-Climate Change the two will conspire to produce even “The Destruction of Creation!”

        7] We “mainstream” MD’s would feel no remorse or guilt from the merely Politically Propagandized failures of our drugs, and also because we could easily prove both our “value” to Humanity and our “Ethics” by our good intentions “To save the Planet!” Instead of saving you…or anyone else we happened to “treat”. Indeed, Medical Malpractice redress against the “mainstream” would become a thing of the past, because of our allegiance to The Science, the Given Truth, and our Research, which have freed us from the False Consciousness of Pre-Post Normal Science.

        And you, Chris, as surely by now one of our many loyal “mainstream” Medical acolytes and Believers – and apparently even “qualified” as above to say who a “real scientist” is – could prove your credibility and value the more, by voluntarily drinking The Science’s ipso facto “health promoting” Kool-Aids the sooner! The Victory Gin test is surely not much of a challenge to your good intentions and Beliefs.

        But if it appeared you would die from your fealty to The Science, we “mainstreamers” would have already vowed to honor your imminent sacrifice by having a Polar Bear walk by you and say, “Thank You, Chris”, before it wheeled around to devour you in your final ecstasy of helping its numbers to grow to sustainable, if not unprecedented levels!

        8] If MD’s like me were to become “mainstreamers”, no Death Panels would be necessary. And,

        9] The fact that The Science of CO2-Climate Change is scientifically falsified by its [100%] Prediction Failure in the real/empirical world would have already been found by The Science, its qualified Experts/Believers, and its Given Truth to be verboten!
        .

      • So the punishment to be meted out by the enforcer; excuse me, I meant the god, will consist of the sinner being held down on a stone while the agent of the enforcer cuts out his still beating heart and takes a bite out of it.
        Then it is off with his still screaming head to be bowled down the steps of the temple of CAGW to become a ball for the believers to play with.

        Sounds like a suitable punishment for someone who simply desires to see some replicatable results of observations, that haven’t been machinated to get them to conform to church dogma.

        Terror is the weapon of those without a sellable product.

        G

      • George, you exaggerate. A good bit of Stalinist repression should be enough.

        Simple firing squads, gulags, and abusive psychiatric internment. No need to go to extremes.

    • At the very least the Oregon Petition has individual signatures.
      Why not the open letter?
      What are they afraid of?

    • We could, but the Oregon petition doesn’t purport to reflect the members of any specific Society or organization. The OP is merely scientists arguing politics. The Open Letter substantially borrows, without their permission, the names, work and reputation of member scientists without asking first. At the very least it smacks of Mann’s “Nobel Prize.” At worst, it is outright identity theft.

    • More slime from slimer.
      No evidence.
      Presented opinion that is opposite reality.

      Your rock is calling for you sea1ice.

  2. This should be interesting to see just whom Santer et al got to sign on to the “I believe” letter. I would guess a small minority are actually climate researchers.

    • It would be more Interesting to know how Santer et al changed the 1995 IPCC report at the last minute before going to ‘Press’.

      • Bert Bolin, chaiman of the IPCC at the time, documents his version of events in “A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change” (Cambridge University Press, 2007). He reports that at the final meeting of authors Santer, a lead author of the key chapter, presented “new evidence that would justify a stronger statement” regarding a human influence. That new evidence was a submitted by unpublished paper by Santer, Wigley (the other convening lead author of the chapter) and three other authors of the chapter, plus about as many people who weren’t chapter authors. (You can draw your own conclusions about why they wrote a paper and submitted it at such a time.) Bolin says that he proposed that a certain sentence be re-worded to reflect this new paper but John Houghton, head of Working Group I, said that more of the chapter needed to be modified in order to be consistent. Of course Santer and Wigley were the leaders in rewriting that chapter.
        What happened to the new paper? it wasn’t published until about 18 months later and was dismissed by the wider climate science community almost immediately. No matter. It had done its job for the IPCC. Who cares if the IPCC report cited it and it cited the IPCC report!

    • So I’m thinkin’ that all that petition-deal, appeal-to-authority business, discussed in the above post, along with Lewandowsky’s attempt at a Mr. Smarty-Pants beat-down, discussed in the prior post, of that pesky (to the hive-masters and their hired-gun flunkies, that is) “B. S. detector”, with which the Good Lord has endowed us coolie-trash herdling-nobodies, as a defense against our grasping, trough-suckin’, brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie betters’ scams, cons, hustles, and scare-mongering rip-offs, has relevance to the current U. S. Presidential campaign.

      For example, the sell-out, thought-leader pundits in the utterly discredited main-stream press would like us riff-raff “deplorables” to believe that Hillary Clinton enjoys “good health”. But, for moi, at least, their flim-flam is no match for havin’ seen, with my own “lyin’ eyes”, a video of collapsing Hillary, at the 9/11 commemoration, bein’ pitched into a just-arrived van, its brake-pads still smokin’ from its near instantaneous deceleration–a change in velocity so abrupt, I might add, that suppressed, cell-phone captures of the driver’s facial features, at the moment of arrival, show them undergoing monstrous, plastic deformations, in textbook obedience to Newton’s First Law of Motion–like some sort of well-marbled, contraband slab of black-market, baleen-onomi swag, losing in the event, as well, a shoe, in an obvious attempt, thereby, to lay a necromantic, mind-control claim on the collective-consciouness of humanity through a focus-group tested, PR-stunt employment of the potent, Jungian, “Cinderella” archetype, only to be zipped off, then, in a get-away, at speeds faster than a lecture-circuit fast-buck, to her daughter’s safe-space apartment, which is, oh by the way, a remodeled medical facility, rather than to a hospital with a fully-equipped emergency medical treatment facility, prompts me to indulge in a conspiracy-theory “ideation” in which I doubt the risible assurances of “good health” offered on behalf of HIllary Clinton, or her replicant-double, or her identical-twin tulpa, or her doppelganger, or whatever that “thing” is that keeps goin’ down for the count, by the hive’s academic and fourth-estate agit-proppers.

      And, in that regard, I intend to keep my own counsel and, again, believe in my own “lyin’ eyes”, despite the worst the hive’s Gruber-clones and group-think bully-boys might aim my “irredeemable” way–and I don’t think I’m alone.

      • @ Smart Rock

        Yeah, SR, I kinda sorta know what your mean. And while I’m doin’ my Proust-wannabe best to provide WUWT’s readership with comments deserving of a lifetime’s study and transformative contemplation, on their part, I do appreciate and am acutely pained by the persistent brevity of my run-on sentences. Though in all fairness, my comments are most accessible and most most fully reveal their higher truths when they are read–no! not “read”, but “experienced”–shortly after ingesting a few premium-grade, “Don Juan” brand peyote-buttons. I mean, like, try it, SR, and you’ll see what I mean.

    • Apparently she gets a seat next to Mark Cuban. It may be as interesting off stage as it will on stage. If Hillary goes “lizard eyes”, throws a fit, collapses, or seems overly medicated, there is nothing that can salvage her. I suggest a read of Scott Adams blog on what he feels Trump is doing from a persuasion viewpoint. He makes a number of very interesting points.

      • HRC could go comatose and still win… These ain’t the old days of “muskie moments” and “dukakis tank rides”. Them dems have demographics on their side now a days. It’s the donald, rather, who has to worry about becoming “trumpty dumpty”…

      • Trumpty Dumpty sat on his wall,
        Trumpty Dumpty never did fall.
        And all the queen’s horses,
        And all the queen’s men,
        Couldn’t put Shillary together again.

      • T r u m p t y D u m p t y sat on his wall,
        T r u m p t y D u m p t y never did fall.
        But all the queen’s horses,
        And all the queen’s men,
        Couldn’t put S h i l l a r y together again.

  3. Meh. The letter is just a rehash of the same talking points the Watermelons have been using for years. Nothing new here.

  4. The people best qualified to determine what is a physical reality and what is not are those controlling mass media.

  5. They found 375 morons…..
    We don’t know how close we are to one….but we know it’s not confined to 4-8 years…and we know exactly what it will do
    So we know it can tip up…but can’t tip down
    It’s a one way tipping point!

    “From studies of changes in temperature and sea level over the last million years, we know that the climate system has tipping points. Our proximity to these tipping points is uncertain. We know, however, that rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return, possibly setting in motion large-scale ocean circulation changes, the loss of major ice sheets, and species extinctions. The climatic consequences of exceeding such thresholds are not confined to the next one or two electoral cycles. They have lifetimes of many thousands of years.”

  6. You quote Einstein; “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    Your website says “that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”. The greenhouse effect from CO2 has been directly measured, e.g. Feldman et al. (2015) doi: 10.1038/nature14240

    So you now accept that you’ve been proven wrong about the greenhouse effect?

      • Well MieScatter,
        1. That didn’t come from this site, even though Dr. Ball is a regular contributor to this site.
        2. Did you even read the article or did you just look at the headline? I’d be willing to bet you just looked at the headline. Trying going a little more in depth before you start making assumptions about what an article says based on the headline.

      • SMC,

        The article is clear. Another quote: “A senior climate skeptic…said it was foolish to say it was not a greenhouse gas…I disagreed, but had inadequate understanding of physics to openly challenge.”

        Tim Ball said he doesn’t think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it’s a measured fact that it is. I wonder if experiment changes his mind, or if he rejects measurements to maintain his belief.

      • jorgekafkazar, I said to Tim Ball “Your website says “that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”.” Is drtimball.com, featuring a picture of Tim Ball and whose “about us” page talks about Tim Ball’s thesis as “my doctoral thesis” not Tim Ball’s site?

        Anyway, Tim Ball says that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. But CO2’s greenhouse effect has been directly measured. He says that one experiment is enough to prove an idea wrong so I want to know if he accepts that experiments have proven him wrong.

      • Even the title of the article refutes your claim.
        Would you care to apologize, or are you just going to slink off in shame?

      • “…the greenhouse effect has never been measured”

        It has in the sense that the increasing contribution to the GHE caused by anthro CO2 increases in the atmosphere has been spectroscopically observed/measured.
        From there a W/m^2 forcing can be calculated.

        As MieScatter quotes above but with the full paper at a click.

        http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nature14240

      • Actually, it has been, for many gasses, in the lab, separately. What has not been measured is the planetary effect because of net feedbacks. Precision denies the enemy ammunition. Pleas be succinc and precise. It is a rhetorical art form. Regards.

      • has been spectroscopically observed/measured….

        Then why did you send me to a paper full of……modeled, predicted, estimated, algorithm, etc

        …because it’s been modeled…..not measured

      • Latitude,

        Try reading the paper. Here’s part of the fourth setence: “Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing”.

        They show that physics matches observations spectacularly well across lots of different frequencies. The greenhouse effect, and that of CO2 sending heat to Earth’s surface is a measured fact and atmospheric scientists know that we’ve been measuring this sort of thing for decades. I wonder if Tim Ball still denies this, or whether evidence has changed his mind.

      • MieScatter……..Try reading the paper.

        However, AERI spectral measurements and trends are sensitive to
        many different components of the atmospheric state. To interpret these
        measurements and attribute specific signals to rising CO2
        requires an accurate radiative-transfer model that reproduces these spectra on the basis of an
        independent assessment of the state of the atmosphere. The model must
        capture instantaneous signals and long-term trends in the spectra to determine the effects of CO2
        on diurnal to decadal timescales.

      • Latitude, et al:
        The paper, believers refer to are modeling, pretending to measure, a world without clouds, without aerosols.
        Plus it seems to have that belief, that all unaccounted for clear sky IR radiation must be from CO2.

        Nowhere in the paper nor in several of it’s referenced papers could I identify how they ascertain CO2 IR signatures are directional from the Earth. Sunlight, all frequencies, may cause some of the infrared backscatter and oblique radiation.

        Putting a lens out that literally collects all radiation from a 180° through 120° directions then channels that radiation into an infrared sensitive chip over collects IR frequencies.

        Exposing an infrared sensitive chip directly to space similarly over collects frequencies from 180° (flat surface). Not that infrared chips collect at 100% efficiency or maintain efficiency forever.

      • OK, I admit, I’m fuzzy on this ‘heat-trapping’ and energy radiating back to the Earth. Let us assume that it exists, it’s there, and it is real energy.

        Given that it does exist, is omnipresent, and operates 24/7/365, why doesn’t someone just build collectors to harness all this free energy from CO2, and use it to power our economy. It works when the wind does not blow, at night, on cloudy days, and for all practical purposes it’s there all of the time.

        Remember: E = h(nu) [h = Planck constant]

        All we need is the collector, and our energy problems (and AGW/CACC) are solved.

        Vlad

      • There are several articles on WUWT on the topic, but see for instance https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/a-simple-demonstration-of-chaos-and-unreliability-of-computer-models/

        Given that internal heating from the earth’s core is negligible at these scales, the only source of energy to heat the Earth comes from the Sun in the form of light, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum. Given that we’re floating in a vacuum, the only way to lose that energy is by emitting it into the 4 Kelvin background of space, again mostly as infrared (IR) radiation.

        The degree to which any body absorbs energy from incoming light and reradiates it again depends on its emissivity, a number that links the energy transferred to and from a body with its temperature. A body that is black will absorb a maximum amount of incoming energy and will also radiate a maximum amount of energy. A body that is white will absorb and radiate a minimum amount of energy. A body will be in thermal equilibrium when the energy absorbed balances against the energy released.

        When people talk about “blackbody” radiation they’re referring to a theoretically perfectly black object and it’s theoretical emission curve as described by Planck. One interesting thing that Planck discovered is that as a blackbody increases its temperature, the peak emission moves higher in frequency (shorter in wavelength). See, for instance, http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=planck+blackbody+spectrum&view=detailv2&&id=51B0F68C2FA6D97AF87FA14B8B3C3D45367AA5CE&selectedIndex=3&ccid=pMbbuJDN&simid=608016247561454872&thid=OIP.Ma4c6dbb890cdb96b55373778db263f6ao0

        Given that the input from the Sun is relatively constant, and that the space around us doesn’t change much, the only item that changes the thermal equilibrium is the radiated output, and the only thing which can change that is if the emissivity changes. If the emissivity goes up, the equilibrium temperature goes down, and vice versa.

        Note, by the way, that the Earth acquires energy from only one direction – from the Sun, but emits it in all directions. Now the interesting thing is that the surface which absorbs and emits the radiation from the Sun and into space is not particularly the surface but is primarily the atmosphere; exactly where depending upon what wavelengths you are looking at and what the weather conditions are. Things are made vastly more complicated by the fact that various layers emit and absorb in various parts of the spectrum and radiation from the ground may be absorbed, reflected, or blocked at different times and to different degrees depending on cloud cover, humidity, and dust conditions. Each layer of atmosphere and each component absorbs and reradiates, both up and down; throw turbulence and the effects of the oceans in and trying to model the resulting mess is…interesting. Besides the complicated emissivity, there are multiple layers of feedback effects that change the atmosphere’s composition in response to temperature.

        The end effect, though, is that the so-called “greenhouse gasses”, primarily water vapor but including CO2 and methane, are gasses that primarily block and absorb infrared light – where the bulk of the energy from the Sun and Earth’s surface resides. As an example, one effect – although not the only one – is that since the Sun is much hotter than the Earth, its emission peak is closer to the visible part of the spectrum and goes through “windows” in the atmosphere; the energy emitted by the Earth in return is further towards the infrared and is absorbed and reemitted, with much of,going back down to the Earth’s surface. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=planck+blackbody+spectrum&view=detailv2&&id=EB695DA75472A9907387559C8A2F4EC021A85558&selectedIndex=6&ccid=wPQeKWYt&simid=608022672838888389&thid=OIP.Mc0f41e29662d034426de0f37319628e6o0

        So, no, you cannot capture energy from CO2 in the way you described, it’s simply part of the whole mix. All it does is to change slightly where the windows are and the overall emissivity of the atmosphere.

      • Latitude, try reading the paper.

        “We used spectroscopic measurements from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) instrument”

        Observed downward heating exists both at day and night (many greenhouse effect deniers deny this too) and the spectral signature matches calculations from physics. Do you think all the spectral signatures are wrong? Why are we able to repeatedly calculate them to amazing precision all over the world?

        Or do you now agree that we’ve measured downward heating from CO2 molecules in the atmosphere as predicted?

      • Paul:

        Wait; it is energy, it is supposedly heating the Earth (or the atmosphere of the Earth). Energy, regardless of what it is, is capable of doing work. You say, ‘ … you cannot capture energy from CO2 the way you describe … ‘.

        Why?

        It is energy; it is doing some work, supposedly. A CCD captures photons and produces an image; solar collectors capture photons of energy from the Sun and do work. This energy, this “backradiation” from an increasing amount of CO2, causes an atmosphere/planet surface to heat up (supposedly), so it does work. If it does work, it can be harnessed, just as solar cells harness solar energy. Any form of energy does work, when harnessed/tasked to doing so. The windmills so prolific in my neck of the woods are harvesting energy. Why can’t we build a collector to collect “backradiation”, since there’s so much of it. It’s heating entire oceans (especially everything below 2,000 metres), it’s melting ice at rates never before seen in the history of the Earth; it’s causing record-breaking El Ninos and Super Katrina hurricanes in unprecedented numbers all over the globe. It’s causing unprecedented droughts at the same time it’s producing record flooding. All that energy is operating day, night, cloudy, windless … … … the stuff is there RIPE for the picking. We know the wavelength: 15 microns; thermal IR; its energy. Build the better “mousetrap” and the world will beat a path to your door: free, endless energy, that the eye cannot see.

        As Robert Kennedy said: “Some see things as they are, and ask, ‘why?’. I see things as they could be, and ask, ‘why not?’ ”

        Why not, Paul. If it’s there, you have but to snatch it from the sky; it’s pervasive, so I don’t want to hear that we cannot capture this energy.

        Vlad

      • Vlad the Impaler:
        “OK, I admit, I’m fuzzy on this ‘heat-trapping’ and energy radiating back to the Earth. Let us assume that it exists, it’s there, and it is real energy.”

        You don’t need to assume. It’s a measured fact that it exists.

        However, it’s difficult to extract energy from.

        Sorry for jargon but it’s hard to summarise quickly otherwise. Photons from CO2’s absorption band at 15 microns are at about 0.08 electron Volts (eV). Silicon, for example, has a band-gap near 1.1 eV so typical solar cells won’t absorb greenhouse gas emissions. Semiconductors with a low-enough band gap of 0.08 eV would absorb them, but you couldn’t extract useful work because the junction would completely break down at typical Earth temperatures because thermal excitation of electrons would break down the depletion zone at the junction. You would have no voltage to drive them.

        Of course, the photons do warm the object but since everything nearby is also being warmed by them it’s hard to set up a temperature gradient to extract work from. This has been known for a very long time and it’s the principle behind pyrgeometers.

        Wikipedia has some pages on the relevant physics if you don’t have textbooks. You could start with P-N junctions, the Fermi-Dirac distribution and pyrgeometers. I’m busy during the week but might have time to answer questions.

      • Mie:

        So the same energy which is heating the Earth, can’t do any work? Your reasoning is thinking inside the box. Here is this energy, which is supposedly doing something (heating the Earth); it’s doing “that” work, so a collector to make it do work to our benefit is just an invention away. Rather than try to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, work to harness this free energy. I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that if all the money spent on trying to kill fossil fuels had been spent on harnessing this free energy, the solution would have been found.

        You’re a Physicist? Think outside the box. There’s free, unlimited energy cascading down upon you. The smart move is to make it work for us; you’ll kill two birds with one stone: most fossil fuels plus CAGW, and create an ‘environmentally sustainable’ way to power human societies. What’s not to like about that?

        Vlad

      • Vlad the Impaler: “Here is this energy, which is supposedly doing something (heating the Earth); it’s doing “that” work, so a collector to make it do work to our benefit is just an invention away.”

        You seem very confident, but you also don’t seem to grasp the difference between “heat” and “work” which is basic thermodynamics. Could you explain to me how if you think there is any difference between heat & work, what it means, and what entropy changes you expect in a case of using back radiation to do work?

      • No, not really confused, except why you think we can’t extract something useful from something so pervasive. If a pyrgeometer can “measure” this ‘back radiation’, then it had to do some work to make the needle move, or cause the LCD display to show us that it is there. The challenge to the Physics community is to build that which would convert this ‘unused’ energy into useful energy. If it causes the average kinetic energy of the atmospheric molecules to change, why not make it do something more “useful”?

        If you had told 19th Century scientists that we would extract energy from sunlight, send living beings (including humans) and robot probes into space and other objects in our Solar System, or that something ‘heavier than air’ would stay aloft for long periods of time, you would have been dismissed as a crackpot. This is no different; you say there is this energy, this “force”, if you will, and it is causing something to happen in the atmosphere. The person who says ‘it can’t be done’ should stay out of the way of the person doing it. We may not have the correct type of “collector” for this energy, so INVENT it! I think I can safely guarantee that you’ll be set for life if you capture this ‘back radiation’ energy.

        Vlad

    • If you bother to read carefully, the argument here at WUWT has always been
      1) of course CO2 contributes to “global warming” (actually to changing the effective emissivity of the Earth’s atmosphere).
      2) However, water vapor is the greatest contributor to this effect by far and the effect due to human-generated CO2 is so small as to be negligible. It’s literally lost in the noise.
      3) It is also demonstrable that historically, CO2 levels lag temperatures by some 800 years. There is no evidence that increased CO2 levels effect overall temperature levels much at all.
      4) As is readily observable there is no steady-state climactic optimum and the climate changes constantly, due to (among other things) changes in the Sun’s output, long-term changes in the Earth’s orbit and axis of rotation, the Solar System’s path through the Galaxy, and continental drift.
      5)Any observed warming in recent times is due to these factors as well as the demonstrable fact that we are recovering from a period of extreme cold (the Maunder Minimum). It is almost certain that these and previous temperature deviations are due to long-term natural cycles of various lengths, as well as the fact that the Earth’s climate is a chaotic system.
      6) Don’t forget the fact that we are nearing the (projected) end of this interglacial period and heading for the next glaciation. Since we don’t know precisely what causes these glaciations and associated temperature swings, it is sheer hubris to believe that we can cause or negate them.
      7) as a side note, the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly close to the minimum required for healthy plant growth. We really don’t want to drop it much further if we like to eat.

      It has been warmer, and colder, the CO2 levels have been higher and lower. We haven’t gone into thermal runaway yet and all of the evidence shows that we will not.

      • “2) However, water vapor is the greatest contributor to this effect by far and the effect due to human-generated CO2 is so small as to be negligible. It’s literally lost in the noise.”

        It’s not negligible as a quantity of all GHG’s (N2 & O2 alone make up ~99% of air) – and H2O precipitates out. It’s absolute quantity in the atmosphere limited by temp.
        CO2 does not. Is not.

        “3) It is also demonstrable that historically, CO2 levels lag temperatures by some 800 years. There is no evidence that increased CO2 levels effect overall temperature levels much at all.”

        Not always but usually. Look up Milankovitch cycles.
        And there’s overwhelming evidence … err, but you wont find it on here my friend. Well not unless you follow links posted by the likes of me.
        If you accept that without GHG’s then the Earth’s temp would be an ave -18C, and that without the likes of CH4, O3, and CO2 then your “greatest contributor” GHG (WV) would never get off the frozen surface for long….. because it precipitates out. It is a condensing gas and at that temp a solid. CO2 is not.

        “4) As is readily observable there is no steady-state climactic optimum and the climate changes constantly, due to (among other things) changes in the Sun’s output, long-term changes in the Earth’s orbit and axis of rotation, the Solar System’s path through the Galaxy, and continental drift.”

        Ah, you got it! well part of it.
        And what does that have to do with the last ~150 years when we’ve raised atmos CO2 by 40%?

        “5)Any observed warming in recent times is due to these factors as well as the demonstrable fact that we are recovering from a period of extreme cold (the Maunder Minimum). It is almost certain that these and previous temperature deviations are due to long-term natural cycles of various lengths, as well as the fact that the Earth’s climate is a chaotic system.”

        Almost certain? WUWT is not climate science unless that fact has somehow eluded you.
        Oh, and solar TSI varies by around 0.1% and hs been falling for the last ~50 years.
        Ask Leif.

        “6) Don’t forget the fact that we are nearing the (projected) end of this interglacial period and heading for the next glaciation. Since we don’t know precisely what causes these glaciations and associated temperature swings, it is sheer hubris to believe that we can cause or negate them.”

        “7) as a side note, the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly close to the minimum required for healthy plant growth. We really don’t want to drop it much further if we like to eat.”

        As a side-note, that fact may or may not be true (and if true for some plants then only up to a certain temp level and a fertiliser is no good without water I think you’ll find) …. but it sure doesn’t make the GHE go away.

        “It has been warmer, and colder, the CO2 levels have been higher and lower. We haven’t gone into thermal runaway yet and all of the evidence shows that we will not.”

        Yes indeedy BUT that’s because the jolly old planet of ours has been/is wobbling on it’s orbit a tad, dont you know … no?
        I dont think us humans are capable of that yet.

      • PoA, while very empathetic, some minor precision corrections per just above comment to Latitude. 1. Yes. 2. Not necessarily negligible. Depends on water vapor and (water vapor induced) cloud feebacks. Observational evidence says these are overstated by 2x in models due to the resolution/parameterization/attribution problem previously guest posted. 3. True. But that is a Henry’s Law thermohaline circulation long term consequence, so irrelevant to the shorter term AGW argument. Because Gore got it wrong does not mean skptics should also. 4 and 5, yup mostly. 6 and 7, for sure. Highest regards.

      • And what does that have to do with the last ~150 years when we’ve raised atmos CO2 by 40%?

        That’s like saying you can have a cup and a half of water a day….instead of just one cup

      • Heh, just look at the coherence of Paul of A’s argument, with precision tuning per rud, and compare to ToneB’s incoherence. It is the alarmists who no longer make a sustainable argument.
        ============

      • I suspect this may some motivation for Lewandowsky’s latest; with anthropogenic CO2 there is no cause for alarm, and no evidence of harm. The bubble of belief in catastrophism can no longer withstand(or not much longer) the pressure of this crowd madness.
        =====================

      • toneb says:

        …what does that have to do with the last ~150 years when we’ve raised atmos CO2 by 40%?

        Good point. The global warming scare was predicated on the belief/assumption that a rise in CO2 would result in runaway global warming, causing a climate catastrophe.

        CO2 has increased by 40%+ over the past century. That provides for testability.

        So, where is the predicted runaway global warming? Where is any unusual or unprecedented global warming??

        Answer: There isn’t any. The predictions were wrong, all of them.

        Conclusion: the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis has been decisively falsified.

        And if the global warming effect of CO2 has been accurately measured, it should be very easy to predict exactly how much global warming will result from X increase in CO2. But what did we observe following a 40%+ rise? What did the real world tell us?

        Empirical observation: after a ≈40% rise in CO2, global warming… stopped for nearly two decades. The climate alarmists were flat wrong. Therefore…

        Hypothesis falsified.

        The CO2=CAGW predictions were wrong. All of them.

        But they keep arguing. Why?

        “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren’t worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It’s that simple.”

        ~ Dr. K. Mullis, 1993 Nobel Prize winner, Chemistry  

      • “Ask Leif”

        Even a lowering flame continues to warm the pot. (and the ocean’s a BIG pot) Observationally, 0.1% is enough to warm surface temps .1C from solar min to solar max, perhaps double that if one discounts el ninos which have occured at solar mins. Solar energy penetrates the oceans surface and thus more readily heats water than back radiation. This consistently produces more water vapor (at an increase of 0.5% per decade). And even small changes in water vapor dwarf dwarf those of CO2…

      • Toneb – Others have commented very capably on all the parts of your reply to Latitude. I would like to add one more observation relevant to point 3 (the 800-year lag, and CO2 not affecting temperature much at all):

        I have applied the climate models’ treatment of CO2 to the last ~450k years (the ‘Al Gore’ period, covering four ~100yr Milankovich cycles). The results show that CO2 has very little effect on climate. NB. The IPCC’s numbers are used as is.

        I find that “Even getting rid of the 800-year time-lag of CO2 behind temperature would make no difference“. In other words, the IPCC’s and climate models’ own numbers show how very little CO2 contributes to global temperature. All supporting logic is given. See
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-3/
        Figure 2 shows CO2’s relative effect.
        The other three articles in the series are
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/25/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-1/
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/27/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-2/
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/01/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-4/

      • dbstealey

        “The global warming scare was predicated on the belief/assumption that a rise in CO2 would result in runaway global warming, causing a climate catastrophe.”
        ___________________

        Have got a quote for that? The scientific claims have always been a lot more muted. For instance, Erik M. Conway of NASA is often quoted as having defined Global warming as “the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases”. The IPCC doesn’t seem to have a definition for ‘global warming’, but defines ‘climate change’ as “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.”

        Claims of “runaway global warming, causing a climate catastrophe” don’t appear to have a very sound scientific basis. So your statement that “The CO2=CAGW predictions were wrong. All of them” doesn’t really mean anything. Those forecasts/projections that actually *have* been produced by scientific sources appear to be performing reasonably well, including temperature model projections.

      • @ DWR54 who asks

        Have got a quote for that? The scientific claims have always been a lot more muted.

        in response to the claim that

        The global warming scare was predicated on the belief/assumption that a rise in CO2 would result in runaway global warming, causing a climate catastrophe.

        made by dbstealy.

        Quotes on the subject are numerous DWR and can be found by using the keywords “chaotic climate” in the Google Scholar search engine. So called “tipping points”, technically bifurcations, are the essential mechanism described by chaotic mechanics, a field developed by Edward Lorenz and popularized during the 1950’s.

    • MieScatter, you’re making the usual mistake of jumping directly from radiative transfer to observable heating.

      However, the terrestrial climate has many rapid response channels, including convection, cloud formation, and precipitation among others. Your presumption leaps over all the intervening steps of physical coupling required of a valid theoretical prediction.

      A couple of percent changes in tropical cloud cover alone is enough to negate any observable atmospheric heating from CO2 radiative transfer.

      The leap of faith from radiative transfer to atmospheric heating is also made by all climate modelers, accepted by those who support them, and undergirds the entire global warming claim. Recognition of this mistake is enough to vitiate the entire AGW position.

      Further, the paper looks only at clear sky radiation. But about 2/3 of the sky is cloud-covered. That obviates any global relevance to the observations.

      Finally, the values observed, 0.2(+/-0.065) W/m^2 is not significant at the 3-sigma level, and just barely significant at 2-sigma.

      It’s not a compelling result.

      • Pat, if you’re discussing the paper Scatter cited on the Alaska/Dakota experiment, I’ll mention I remained unconvinced the authors had taken steps to remove the effect of water vapor from the observations. They mention “clear sky” filtering, but that doesn’t remove water vapor as they seem to claim.

    • Probably says that because the effect is misnamed. It is not in any way like a true “green house effect,” a point firmly established experimentally before WWI. It is an insulation effect that slows the transference of energy away from the source. Unfortunately we are now stuck with semantic disputes about a misnamed empirical phenomenon.

      • Duster, Of course, but not a strong counter warmunist argument. Stoves heat kettles of cold water mainly by conduction. Greenhouses work mainly by inhibiting cooling convection. The GHE works by inhibiting cooling radiation. Anybody arguing otherwise at this low level of high school physics should not be on the playing field.

      • Duster, while I respect Rud’s opinions I have to disagree that observing the AGW hypothesis, which is based on a toy lab experiment that completely ignores convective heat transfer, is a mistake. The term “greenhouse”, as you’ve noted, is absurdly inappropriate in this use since, as Rud admits, the principal mechanism of a greenhouse is to block convective, not radiative, transfer. It may not be that big a deal to him but it’s incorrect and since this is science it’s well worth noting.

    • Perhaps you should read the heading in its entirety to understand it. Instead of just cherrypicking a part phrase.

    • Actually, to be pedantic CO2 is definitely not a greenhouse gas, because it has nothing to do with greenhouses. Greenhouses don’t work by trapping radiation. They work by trapping warm air.
      If CO2 is not a greenhouse gas it is definitely a green gas, because the increased CO2 is making the world greener.

      • Chris – You ARE a beginner aren’t you.

        Real glass greenhouses suppress convection, the movement of air. The suns rays go through the glass heating the surface which heats the air, the hottest air rises to the top of the greenhouse so that within the greenhouse there is a positive gradient, increasing from the surface to the roof. Because the molecules of air within the greenhouse cannot mix with the colder molecules outside, the hot air can not be replaced by colder air sinking through the atmosphere, the only way for the interior of the greenhouse to cool is via conduction and radiation *through the glass*. Greenhouses work even better with IR opaque double glass, (IE where IR Radiation and conduction are also minimised).

        What Roy Spencer is describing is the poorly named Radiation “Green house effect” where NET outgoing radiation could be affected by higher CO2. This is due to the effect where Radiative gasses can absorb energy, then re-radiate it at very narrow defined frequencies. In effect the radiative gasses can reduce (Suppress) Radiative cooling by scattering the outgoing IR at those frequencies in all directions. Engineers call this backscatter. But it only occurs at very narrow frequency bands over a small fraction (far less than 1% of the total emission band). It is extremely inefficient and ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere adds only about the equivalent of 3.7 Watts per square meter out of 1KW received at midday on the equator, or about 0.37% more energy. It is this IMBALANCE that is supposed to lead to heating, it is a small led indicator like a LED fairy light worth, 0.6W per square meter or 0.06% of the energy received at midday along the equator. Your body produces 300 times this amount of energy (around 200W) when you are idle (asleep) and up to 1500 times this energy (800W-900W peak) when you are very, very, active. The earth can seemingly dissipate your body heat with no problem but apparently can’t manage to get rid of heating of 300 – 1500 times LESS than that in backscatter from CO2.

        Remember though that the other cooling mechanisms particularly convection, evaporation, and radiation where CO2 is NOT impeding transmission, are NOT suppressed which means the atmosphere retains several very efficient other ways of getting that excess energy off out to space.

      • Remember though that the other cooling mechanisms particularly convection, evaporation, and radiation where CO2 is NOT impeding transmission, are NOT suppressed

        Oy. Given that Earth is sitting in a vacuum, Radiation is the only way for it to get rid of energy.

      • bobl, you really should do your homework before accusing others of being a beginner.

        Roy Spencer made another post specifically on the topic we are discussing here, and showed the analysis of how much heat is trapped by the glass preventing the movement of warm, trapped air compared to the blocking of upward IR radiation. “…notice that the convective heat loss by the greenhouse roof (200 W/m2, inferred as a residual) is only 8 W/m2 less than if the greenhouse was not there (208 W/m2). In contrast, the extra IR energy “input” (actually, reduced IR “loss”) is twelve times as large (100 W/m2) as the reduction in the convective loss (8 W/m2).

        8 compared to 100 is 8%, which is tiny. It’s the IR blocking the dominates.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/

    • So claimith: MieScatter – September 24, 2016 at 2:24 pm

      The greenhouse effect from CO2 has been directly measured, e.g. Feldman et al

      MieScatter, only in the wildest of your nightmarish dreams has the … “greenhouse effect from CO2 been directly measured”..

      In a dynamic “open system”, such as the earth’s atmosphere is, …… it is an impossibility for anyone to measure the “greenhouse effect of CO2”.

      • The AERI instrument has about 2,700 channels spanning 3300 to 400 wavenumbers. The measurements match, to spectacular accuracy, exactly what physics expects given the atmospheric state. This includes the precise spectral fingerprint of CO2 – so CO2’s downward heating (i.e. its “greenhouse effect”) has been directly measured.

        Does this change Tim Ball’s opinion?

      • And again claimith: MieScatter – September 25, 2016 at 5:47 pm

        The measurements match, to spectacular accuracy, exactly what physics expects given the atmospheric state. This includes the precise spectral fingerprint of CO2 – so CO2’s downward heating (i.e. its “greenhouse effect”) has been directly measured.

        HA, “directly measured”, my arse.

        The only thing being directly measured was the IR radiation that was being emitted in the direction of the IR sensors that were being used to do the detecting. “DUH”, I do not think that IR sensors can detect or “see” IR radiation that is NOT being radiated at or toward said sensor(s).

        And I also say, ….yada, yada, yada, …. because, to wit:

        If both atmospheric H20 vapor and CO2 are considered “greenhouse” gases and there is on average 104 times as much H2O vapor with 2.3 times as much Specific Heat Capacity as there is CO2 in the atmosphere then an increase of even 200 ppm of CO2 to a total of 600 ppm should not really be significant relative to any increase in global warming due to a “greenhouse gas effect” because the H2O vapor would still be 68.6 times greater and/or be 157.8 times more effective at “warming” the atmosphere than is the total amount CO2 in the atmosphere,

        And thus, the overwhelming amount of H20 vapor in the atmosphere as compared to the amount of CO2 that is intermixed with it will completely overshadow any warming effects of the CO2 by a factor of 239.2 and thus render it impossible for anyone to be blaming and/or attributing any of said “warming” on said CO2.

        Thus said, …. I do not believe it is possible for anyone to measure the heating/warming effect of the lesser quantity of gas (CO2) in a mixture of two different gases when the quantity of the greater volume of gas (H2O vapor) is constantly changing from hour to hour and day to day. Especially when said greater volume of gas has a potentially 239.2 greater “warming” potential for said mixture than does the lesser volume of said gas in said mixture.

        And molecular “collisions” of different atmospheric gases will result in thermal “heat” energy being CONDUCTED from the “warmer” molecules to the ”cooler” molecules, like N2 to CO2 or H2O to CO2 ….. and then the CO2 emitting IR ….. in ALL DIRECTIONS, ….. and not just in the direction of the satellite’s IR sensors.

    • MieScatter,

      You misquoted as follows:
      …“that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”.

      Your quote should have been:
      …“that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that ….”

      Same question for you as for Hillary and the meaning of ‘C’ in potentially sensitive classified of confidential information … Are you trying to intentionally mislead (a liar), or are you incompetent?

  7. I replied to them , responsiblescientists@gmail.com , with my own “open” letter starting :

    Posted at http://cosy.com/Science/warm.htm#Disqus and Tweeted .

    RE : http://responsiblescientists.org/
    “Open Letter Regarding Climate Change From Concerned Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences”

    Ask Stephan or any other of the signers to present the experimentally testable quantitative equations which enable the purported “trapping” of energy densities by a GHG spectral effect greater than than calculated in my Heartland video , http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/ , and continuing analysis on my http://CoSy.com site .

    I’m an APL programmer so all that counts with me is the next expression to add to the half dozen I present to calculate the equilibrium temperature of a ball of a given absorption=emission spectrum heated by a disk with a given power spectrum . This places the constraint of the Divergence Theorem on any explanation of an interior temperature higher ( in the case of Venus , 400 Kelvin higher ) than that calculated by these most basic spectral calculations .

    So far as I can see , the only macroscopic force which can satisfy the total energy balance required by the DT is gravity and that is outside the paradigm .

    The false demonization of the very source of carbon to carbon based life is the most damaging global statist retardation of science in any of our lifetimes , far eclipsing Stalin’s Lysenkoism . You should be ashamed for being either too intellectually lazy to understand the most basic relevant classical quantitative experimentally testable physics , or intellectually dishonest .

    Peace thru Freedom
    Honesty enforced by Transparency

    Bob Armstrong

    • Pepe the frog now has been turned into a fascist by the liberals who are scared of him at You Tube. I always thought he was all for being green like Kermit but then…maybe Kermit is the Emperor in Star Wars. :)

  8. Not a scientist myself but have studied enough of it’s history to know how unscientific efforts like this are. Academies of all types over all places and time risk being captured by current politics. Temple priests in Sumer would understand what is going on here perfectly.

    Al Gore has long tried to utilize his shallow roots in rural religious culture to press his even shallower understanding of climate science. Although raised in luxury hotels and educated in elite private schools he believes he understands regular folks. Hostile to actual religion the signers have no qualms about making use if it as a tool.

    I say please write more letters like this. We appreciate the ammunition.

  9. The letter was a desperate-sounding scream of protest ahead of the US election. They’re VERY worried Trump will win and will trigger a rather intimate climate examination. They don’t want anyone shining a light into their dark corners.

    • This NAS open letter won’t affect the US election. Even Clinton is not talking climate change because she knows (a) a loser [after she stupidly said she would put half a million workers out of work because of it] and (b) nobody cares compared to jobs, health care costs, national security (Russia, China, North Korea), and domestic Muslim terrorism.
      The first presidential debate Monday night surely will. In advance of it, the crescendo of MSM negativity this week here is just astounding. Nobody is even talking about Clinton. Trump has the liberal MSM (NYT, WaPo, HuffPo) evidently scared silly. Reminds me of Obama threatening to put UK at the back of the cue if Brexit was voted. We know how that threat turned out.

      • I agree it won’t impact the actual election, was thinking more along the lines these guys are using every opportunity and trick they can, while they can, to repeat their hysterical message. There’s been a definite upswing in this type of behaviour because they can sense a Trump win and know it could be very bad for the climate establishment. Their anxiety shows.

  10. A Santer drafted letter with 375 signatories most of whom have not read AR4 or AR5, do not know Santer single handed asserted (provably false) anthropogenic attrbution, and who probably do not know the TAR hockey stick was a fabrication made from bad proxies (strip bark bristlecones, a lonely Yamal larch), bad statistical methods, and a “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”.

    Desperate times for watermelons. Because it hasn’t warmed as predicted this century. Because their climate models are physicaly falsified by absence of the predicted tropical troposphere hotspot. Because SLR has not accelerated as predicted. Because Arctic ice has not disappeared as predicted. Because buffered oceans have biological pH swings up to 5x annually what CAGW predicted over the next century. Because every supposed tipping point has been examined and shown not true–Greenland, WAIS, EAIS (Totten), species extinctions, weather extremes…. Because observational ECS methods show sensitivity half of what the discredited models show. Because renewables are intermittent (never mind high subsidized costs) and that is a BIG problem–as UK and Germany are learning to their peril. Because China and India won’t commit societal suicide the way warmunists (like UNFCCC Figueres) wish the OECD to. Because there was no Merchants of Doubt big oil conspiracy, so the ‘jackboot’ AG investigations are being called to legal account under the Constitution and possibly 18USC241 and 42USC1983, respectively criminal and civil civil rights laws concerning the first amendment.

    The CAGW house of cards is starting to collapse. This pathetic NAS letter cannot prevent that. Mother Nature herself has apparently taken sides. And not the warmunist side.

  11. The AGW and CAGW scammers are more and more beclowning themselves as an increasing number of scientifically-literate laymen who understand basic physics and geology and history investigate their claims and see they have no real scientific basis or predictive power. Climate has always changed both hotter and cooler and CO2 has gone both up and down when Man could not possibly have had any effect on it whatsoever. It doesn’t take a PhD to understand this.

    Appeals to authority and supposed consensus opinion do not mean much nowadays when so many icons in so many fields have proven to be frauds and phonies. Add to that the manipulation of the temperature records such as they are and even the dullards among us can see that they are trying to play us.

    • Sir John Houghton, former chairman of the IPCC, is a fervently religious proselitiser on “Global Warming”:

      He wrote this in 2009 and this year is the crunch year…

      http://www.jri.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/JRI_18_Joseph.pdf
      “Four thousand years ago Joseph had seven years to prepare for his climate crisis. Today, action is required just as urgently. Global carbon emissions are still rising rapidly. Within about seven years, well before 2020, global emissions need to peak and begin rapidly to reduce – an extremely challenging goal. The means to achieve it are available and the cost affordable. But is the will there to do it?”

      His John Ray Institute is full of stuff like the above:
      http://www.jri.org.uk/introduction/people/

  12. This science will never become legitimate until the funding is directed to honest objective scientists only.

    Would Trump cut the funding by $18 billion, still leaving a good amount for objective science? These non-objective scientists think so. But they have wrong before. All of the time that is.

    Just think of the uproar that will happen when NAS climate change funding is cut. There will be so much righteous indignation that CNN will even give it theme music and a breaking news slogan name and your head will spin about the climate injustice.

    But it will be the best for mankind.

  13. This afternoon, I sent the “responsible scientists” the following email:

    “Accumulated climate model error is of order 150 W/m^2, yet you claim an ability to resolve a 0.035 W/m^2 annual perturbation.

    “CMIP5 average (+/-)4 W/m^2 long wave cloud forcing error, alone, propagates to a (+/-)14 C uncertainty in a centennial air temperature projection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA

    “Your position is impossible.

    “You people are incompetent, the lot of you, Nobel prizes notwithstanding.

    “Cordially yours,

    “Pat Frank”

    If anyone here would like to communicate their views on the letter, the relevant address is: responsiblescientists@gmail.com

  14. Dr. Tim Ball referates about ‘discernible’:

    2. “The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
    __________________________________

    BEDEUTUNGSÜBERSICHT ℹ
    [körperlich] wahrnehmbar, fühlbar, deutlich zu merken
    sich (in bestimmten Wirkungen) deutlich zeigend; deutlich, merklich
    SYNONYME ZU SPÜRBAR ℹ
    bemerkbar, deutlich, erkennbar, fühlbar, handgreiflich, merkbar, merklich, sichtbar, sichtlich, wahrnehmbar, zusehends’
    __________________________________

    saying ‘did you even ‘feel’ ‘discernible’ there’s such thing as ‘global warming’.
    __________________________________

    with ‘Yes’ you’re the winner of the

    after Obama whatever Nobel Peace award.
    __________________________________

    congrats.

  15. There’s a german word for thoughts like:

    He said that no country was prepared to take the lead and a “punisher” was needed to make sure the rules of co-operation were not broken.

    …in the past that was God and it might be time again for religion to fill the gap.

    “Maybe religion is needed,” “A supernatural punisher maybe part of the solution.”
    __________________________________

    The respecting german word spells ‘weibisch’.

    • Ausgezeichnet

      Weisst du worin der Spass des Lebens liegt?
      Sei luftig!-geht es nicht
      So sei vergnügt
      Goethe

    • Ja. Heisst es nicht wenn ich sage ‘oh Augenblick verweile doch Du bist so schön’ dann soll mich der Teufel holen.

      Goethes Faust .

    • Climatereason has it right, I think, it’s actually Robert May. His wiki entry includes a couple of the above quotes. So let’s not impugn Brian M just yet. (Dr.Ball – please check and amend!)

      • Oh, and by the way, I totally agree that Robert May’s comments were appalling and unscientific. And he was President of the RS for 5 years? Nuff said.

      • IF you follow the link to the 2009 article, only May’s title is used. You have to use a search engine to find out what his first name is. It is Robert May.

        The article makes some astonishing rational pretzelations. It starts with the title:

        “Maybe religion is the answer claims atheist scientist
        The world may have to turn to God to save itself from climate change, claims one of Britain’s most eminent scientists.”

        !!??! It only gets more bizarre from there.

        But the argument is that clever people need to use religious fear on the population in order to shape society into the proper order and direct it according to the superior caste’s tastes and wishes.

        If you look at it objectively, this is a very familiar historical view point. I have seen it so many many countless times in books about the ancients, and in reports about archaeological finds.

        Surprise, now the people who think religion is just a contrived tool for the superior caste to keep the common people in bonds are now saying they need to use religion in order to keep the common people in bonds.

        People who believe a text, like Christians believe the Scriptures, always always have trouble with experts who come in and wish to distort it and use it for their own ends. So that is why you must learn the word, practice it, and stay close to it. That is why Protestants introduced universal literacy.

  16. I can beat that ristvan I am a Deplorable and a Denier . I also like any global warming we get . If humans help in some tiny way well yippee . Unfortunately the scary global warming circus tent is collapsing under a stack of grossly exaggerated lies from con men trying to fleece the public .

      • It’s a good thing that at least some of the human race aren’t deplorable.
        And also selfish.
        There are places on this planet that are uniquely vulnerable to changes in climate even if it were a century from now.
        But our deplorable friend is cheering it on.
        Says it all really.

      • Pat,

        “John’s a deeply religious man, so he only promoted his lie for god, of course.”

        How do you know he’s even a Believer, Pat? You a heart-knower? Him writing this (from the page you linked to) tells me he’s highly questionable in that regard;

        “Can we pray for sunshine or rain?’ My answer to that has always been of course we can pray, because God wants us to ask him for things and He wants to know our needs.”

        The Book makes it perfectly clear that He doesn’t need us inform Him of our our needs, so I (of course) think he’s at least ignorant, and quite possibly a faker.

        You see, while you telling me you don’t consider Jesus your Lord is a pretty dependable statement, since he said he would deny those who deny him, the opposite is simply not the case . . If you believe everyone who says they are a follower of Christ, you’re just being gullible, in my eyes, sir.

  17. Looking up info on “Oregon Petition” I was shocked and saddened to find on Wikipedia a very pro-AGCC slant on climate change topic. AGCC skeptics/realists are called “deniers”. The practice of apply scientific skepticism is labeled as exercises in “conspiracy theory”. Not only is the 97%-98% consensus misrepresentation, a new high-watermark of deception is being promoted: 10883 / 10885 > 99.98%.

    If there are wiki-savvy folk reading this forum, perhaps trying to set things right for the world via Wikipedia edits/references would be a more impactful use of your time versus writing consoling messages to one another here. Of course, since I personally rely upon the consoling/rational messages on this forum to maintain my sanity, it would be great if you could please do both.

    • A known problem in Wikipedia, almost all politically contentious items have the same problem, in this case probably caused by the serial Wikipedia pest William Connolly, who took it upon himself to ensure that all WP articles have a pro CAGW slant. Because WC had editor privileges it was impossible for mere contributors to keep these articles accurate and apolitical. William’s personal beliefs are displayed all over Wikipedia. It’s the same for many other politically charged topics which makes wikipedia a very, very poor source of information on political topics. OTOH Wikipedia is a pretty good source on many uncontroversial topics.

  18. ‘It is reported on the web page is arrogantly called “ResponsibleScientists.org.’

    A fallacy of illegitimate presumption.

  19. Is this the same Ben Santer who wrote this piece:
    “Changes made to Chapter 8 after Oct. 9th were in response to comments that we received from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They were also made in response to plenary discussions that took place in Madrid. They were made for scientific reasons, not political reasons. The IPCC had nothing to do with these changes. They were under my full scientific control as Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8. They did not violate IPCC rules of procedure.”

    Ok – it must be all fine then – for crying out loud. :) :) D) D)

    Trust me I´m a climate scientist – I know what I´m doing. :=)

    • “Trust me I´m a climate scientist – I know what I´m doing.”

      No more than any other person they don’t.
      But when it comes to climate science they obviously know more than you.
      Just as you know more than them at whatever it is you do.
      Just common sense.
      And that idenizens on here imply otherwise is not (common sense).
      The internet is many things but you don’t get knowledge of a complicated science to beat PhD,s and field research by Googling….. Least of all on WUWT.

  20. I suspect “Lord May” is Robert McCredie May, Baron May of Oxford. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_May,_Baron_May_of_Oxford)

    As an amateur guitarist-musician I do respect Brian May for his works with Queen. However, returning after 30 and some years to an academic topic in a Ph.D. program to fulfill what he had abandoned, perhaps due to his advising (real) Ph.D. scientist’s criticisms, makes me think that UCL used Brian in a “Fund Raising” scheme and nothing more. And for THAT only, is why UCL awarded a Ph.D. in Astronomy to him.

    Part of me is glad for Brian, and part knows full well that this was a stunt to raise cash for the UCL.

    The AGW crowd looks to be a “black hole” collapsing on itself and about ready to “wink” out of existence.

  21. It is not just climate science credibility in jeopardy, but science in general. The threat increases as the real climate picture are prepared by responsible scientists and the corruption exposed.

    The credibility of science may already be shot. Any time money is involved, someone can find a scientist who will be willing to say anything that is required. Here’s an article on how Big Pharma has totally corrupted drug science.

    The latest scandal is the revelation that the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to lie about the relationship between sugar and heart disease.

    Ancel Keys bore an uncomfortable resemblance to James Hansen. He’s the reason we all had to drink skim milk. Yumm. The major justification was a study that he seems to have cooked.

    The gullibility of the media results in a constant flow of science scare stories. Because the media organizations are scientifically illiterate they cannot distinguish real science from junk science. link

  22. Interesting that only 16% of the National Academy of Scientists signed the letter. Perhaps the other 84% of members refused to sign because they don’t agree with their views of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The headline should read “84% of the NAS didn’t sign the letter on global warming!”.

  23. ‘Religion’ may have solved some problems (i.e. a pre disposition to an absolute idea-one can see how this kind of mindset might help in fighting a war, for example, or in enforcing a coherent morality on society), but it certainly created a few others. (intolerance, inability to critically analyse ideas, inability to accept change, over-reliance on authority, subjugation of minorities etc etc etc).

    If it was a drug, the side effects would probably not allow it to pass regulation.

    • thingodonta

      ..”but it [Religion] certainly created a few others. (intolerance, inability to critically analyse ideas, inability to accept change, over-reliance on authority, subjugation of minorities etc etc etc).

      Says who? Seriously, it looks to me like you’re just imagining people that “were” ever so tolerant and able to critically analyze ideas, able to accept change, didn’t rely (too much) on authority, and never subjected any minorities . . and then assuming that was once true of humans . .

      It looks (to me) like you believing without question whatever happens to pop into your mind . . which is to say (as I see things) self-worship, or authority worship if some you adopted as authoritative put those images in your mind at some point.

      Consider please; Do you treat all ideas as the same, because they are classifiable as ideas? All scientific theories as equally valid, if they are labelled scientific theories? All plants as equally healthful to eat, because they are identifiable as plants? Get my drift?

      • My thesis is that within what we often call ‘religion’, you have an evolutionary pre-disposition to a mindset that pre-dates modern human societies.

        ‘Absolutist’ style thinking, such as an ‘absolute god’, co-opted this evolved mindset which also pre-dated religion; this mindset primarily evolved to fight in war, and to subjugate those outside a group. It has certain characteristics which are recognizable: over confidence, lack of doubt, in-out group discrimination, and inability to question or reason. Note there is little that is ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ in this style of thinking, one shouldn’t even expect it, it’s simply an evolved mechanistic pre-disposition, much the same as our pre-disposition to sugar. It didn’t evolve to understand the subtleties of why one was fighting in the first place.

        It can also be dangerous to encourage this pre-disposition; its primary use was to fight a cause, such as in war, or to rigidly enforce morality on anarchic societies, but such a mindset has side effects and costs which are most obvious when it comes to ‘reason’ or ‘science’, which is also partly why historically, science and religion have so often been at odds.

        I view the mind much like a computer; ‘absolutist’ style religion is like a software program within the mind that has side effects, the most obvious of includes strong belief without evidence and inability to critically analyse. Such ‘inner-criticism’ doesn’t help much in winning a war. Such is the nature of our evolutionary heritage.

        If one thinks the mind is not like a computer, and that ‘religion’ doesn’t have evolutionary precursors, than one can pretty much reject this kind of idea.

  24. I need to look this guy up. How old is he, is he senile? Why would an atheist and scientist talk about god like a kindergardener?

  25. Surprised no one has made this comment, given the scientific interest of most readers! Brian May, ex-Queen, is a very capable and informed writer currently appearing in the pages of the excellent “Astronomy” magazine, which I highly commend to the attention of everyone on this site. His PhD is being used very well.

  26. Goethes ‘oh Augenblick. ..’

    – Schwarzeneggers ‘stay hungry’.

    he ever stood for?

    hungry, Schwarzenegger?

  27. Watching Rud Istvan defend his fake science is like watching a drunk trying to drive in reverse.

    There is a stream of infrared, from the sun, being interrupted and refracted by green house gases,
    that is 5 times larger than the one being emitted from earth.

    The green house gases’ presence, through refraction alone, reduce the surface energy density of the planet by some 20%.

    Placing refractory media between a warming fire, and a rock warmed by it, reduces energy to the rock.

    You can not cause more energy to leave the rock, by placing more refractory media between the rock, and the larger light source, the rock’s warmth, is derived from.

    If it were possible, people everywhere would be placing refractory media between fires and the objects they warm, to increase those objects’ temperatures.

    The incompetence of believing that’s possible is nothing short of ridiculous.

    You can’t warm an object,
    by placing more refractory material between the object and the light source it gets it’s heat from.

    Reducing the energy density of the planet surface by 20% is not warming it.

    Adding enough Green House Gases to reduce it 21% isn’t yet more warming.

    It’s surface energy density reduction. Cooling.

      • You are the very model of diplomacy. :-)

        I prefer the pedantic approach.

        Here’s a link to a wonderful graph. It shows the sun’s radiation at the top of the atmosphere (yellow) and when it hits the surface (red) in clear sky conditions. Using the eyeball integrator, the energy that gets to the surface is about half visible and half infrared. Note also that most of the sun’s energy makes it to the surface. Note also that the far infrared that radiates back to space is not on the graph. Its wavelength starts at about 4000 nm and goes up to 100000 nm (4 um to 100 um).

        Mark misses the fact that the incoming radiation and the outgoing radiation are at completely different wavelengths. Here’s a good graph showing how the planet’s atmosphere transmits energy at different wavelengths. Note that the far infrared energy is much more attenuated than is the incoming visible and near infrared.

        Here’s another graph showing the Earth’s energy budget. Note that only about 20% of the outgoing (top of atmosphere) radiation is directly from the surface. The rest is carried upward through the atmosphere and is radiated at a higher altitude.

        If all the incoming and outgoing radiation were at the same wavelength, Mark would have a chance of being right. As it stands, he mostly doesn’t understand what’s going on.

        In light of the above, Mark should knock off the personal insults. They make him look like he’s intellectually challenged.

    • The reflected energy is not coherent, it scatters in all directions. It is also a false analogy to compare GHGs to a refractory material, the mechanisms of inhibiting energy transfer are completely different. Please refer to previous discussions on how the term “greenhouse” gas is a misnomer.

  28. @ MieScatter
    September 24, 2016 at 2:24 pm: and any others who think spectral emittance T always means Sensible Heat, which is what the whole kerfuffle is about. First learn to get your units right, as my Physics lecturer insisted. Then, learn the true meaning of Energy,Heat, Specific and Latent. Learn to distinguish each of these and Radiation. All are different, one way or another.
    Then get an understanding of why Spectral emittance is not a vector, while flux is, and why flux cannot transfer energy against a greater source. That is, why GHE cannot exist outside its Glasshouse or similar. Huff all you like, it makes no nevermind.

    • ,,, Spectral emittance is not a vector, while flux is, and why flux cannot transfer energy against a greater source.

      The formula for radiative transfer between two objects is:

      Q = ε σ (A^4 – B^4)

      where:

      Q is the heat flux
      ε is the emissitivity
      σ is the Stefan-Bolzmann constant
      A^4 is the kelvin temperature of one object raised to the fourth power
      B^4 is the kelvin temperature of the other object raised to the fourth power

      link

      Do you see how this applies to the ‘greenhouse effect’?

    • Then get an understanding of why Spectral emittance is not a vector, while flux is, and why flux cannot transfer energy against a greater source. That is, why GHE cannot exist outside its Glasshouse or similar. Huff all you like, it makes no nevermind.”

      Oh, great, anther Dragon-slayer.
      You have the real answer their in the word “flux” my friend.
      That is what you are misconstruing by denying the GHE.
      Heat flux of course always goes from warm to cold.
      “Flux” is just another word for “NET” flow.
      The GHE is NOT a net flow. Not a flux.
      It is though an exchange of em energy. Of photons.
      Are you proposing that photons coming from a warmer object get rejected by the colder one?
      That’s the reality of the physics my friend.
      And it makes no never mind.

  29. re: responsible scientists, had someone tell me they were a “ethical vegetarian”. Asked them “what’s an unethical vegetarian?”

    • An ethical vegetarian avoids meatstuffs and rationalizes the whyfores (for the good of others and the world and the cows and the atmosphere …).

      An unethical vegetarian doesn’t care about the rest of us and selfishly eats that way ’cause its healthy.

  30. What is even being claimed by the warmunists at this point in time, Sept. 2016? Is it to limit “warming” by 2 degrees C by the end of the century, 2100? Half of which has already occurred? So, all this fuss to avoid WHAT… exactly? What’s the worst case scenario being projected if “we” do “nothing”? I ask people who “believe” in “climate change” about this and they don’t have the faintest idea. Just vague “man bad…pollution bad…nature good” clap trap. Could it be a FAQ? I would appreciate a precise answer; where could I find one? Keeping it vague by the proponents makes it easier to change the goal posts.

  31. Klaus-Eckart Puls:

    “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

    The sad thing is that “simply parroted” is common in what we call “science” today. Over and over and over again we have seen posts here and elsewhere which demonstrate that the so-called scientists of this generation have an agenda of politics first. To be as generous as I can, the best I can say is that average so-called scientist engages in group-think and is merely a “publish or perish” lab-rat.

    The death of science came when a political organization funded science either directly or indirectly. The government greatly effects what “scientists” see in their work. And climatology is not even the worst field.

    If an alien race came here and studied us, I am positive they would say, “how could you monkeys get it so wrong!?!

  32. I like the radiosonde balloon record that shows .15 of warming since 1958 when it went into widespread usage.

      • 850 — 300hPA is approximately the surface to 9km.
        If you are looking for the alleged modelled tropical ‘hot spot’ (confirming positive water vapour feedback to warming whatever the cause) it’s at the 300 – 200 hPA (9 – 12 km) level above the tropics (20N – 20) that the ‘hot spot’( 2 – 3 times the surface rate) would be found (if it existed):

      • That looks like a fake graph. It is too close to GISS. Why does it start in 1970?

        Come back when you’ve got one from a reputable source with real unadjusted temperatures (not anomalies).

      • “850 — 300hPA is approximately the surface to 9km.”

        No, it’s between 5,000 and 30,000 ft.
        And I’m not looking for the THS.
        I was only responding to the “I like the radiosonde balloon record that shows .15 of warming since 1958 when it went into widespread usage.” comment.
        And the hotspot cannot be determined at the present level of instrumentation. Radiosonde are operational met instruments and not designed to be instruments of research. In any case the RATPAC sondes do indicate an enhanced warming, that both UAH and RSS (even v4) are to cold against. Whilst that is the case the sat temp record most certainly is not the “gold standard” (Curry).

      • “… In any case the RATPAC sondes do indicate an enhanced warming …”.
        ============================
        Nonsense, you sound upset.
        Is it because you wish there was dangerous AGW taking place, or do you just want to be right?

  33. When the enormity of the CAGW Lie is fully exposed and the damage done to humanity tallied, the question will be “who was responsible”? Voila, they’ve conveniently started a list! So thanks, “scientists”. Any more of your brethren care to sign?

  34. *
    On September 20, 2016,
    375 members of the National Academy of Sciences,
    including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open
    letter to draw attention to the “serious risks” of climate
    change. The letter warns of the consequences
    of opting out of the Paris agreement. This is what I
    have to say to the signatories:

    ********************************************
    You guys signed your names to it unthinkingly.
    You were swindled into agreeing that anthropogenic
    climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a
    conspiracy, all of which it is. You will soon need to
    prove to thinking people that your brain was out of
    gear when you did it or else give up your seat in
    the Academy for misuse of your position. Arno Arrak

    **********************************************

  35. Let them first tell to the world:

    What is global warming and what is climate change?

    What is the global average temperature anomaly and what is global warming?

    What is the share of global warming in the global average temperature anomaly?

    What is the share of ecological changes in the global average temperature anomaly?

    What is the share of natural fluctuation component in the global average temperature anomaly?

    These must be specified in quantitative terms and not qualitative terms.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Allan MacRae September 25, 2016 at 4:50 pm

      Allan, you mean well but as regards the satellite temperature chart you show you clearly don’t know what you are looking at. First, forget using polynomials, they are meaningless. What we have on this UAH chart are several independent segments that must be separately understood. First, on the left is a no-warming segment of 18 years. It constitutes a hiatus like the one that starts with the twenty-first century. It is overlain by an ENSO segment of five el Ninos, with La Nina valleys separating them. Trouble is in current temperature curves from NOAA they have covered it all up with a fake warming. This is followed by the super El Nino of 1998. It is sui generis and is not a part of ENSO. On both sides of it are La Nina valleys. The 1999 La Nina on its right is immediately followed by a step warming that raises all twenty-first century temperatures up by a third of a degree Celsius. It cannot possibly be greenhouse warming because to start one you must add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and this did not happen. Since it is warm water causing this it is highly probable that it was carried across the ocean when the super El Nino arrived and then left behind when it departed. As a result, the new century now presents numerous “warmest ever” temperatures, all created by that extra third of a degree. Since this warmth cannot be replenished its future must show gradual cooling. Going over to the twenty-first century side, its original warming seemed almost horizontal and has been referred to as part of a hiatus. Monckton sees a hiatus of 19 years there but I would take three years off because he includes the super El Nino which should not be used. Hansen noticed quickly that nine out of ten warmest ever years were all part of the first decade of the twenty-first century. To him that proved the greenhouse effect which is plain nonsense because we know that no carbon dioxide was added in 1999. But if you look beyond the first decade you start to notice some cooling as I said to expect.There is a noticeable down-slope whose exact degree is hard to establish because the La Nina of 2009 and the El Nino of 2010 interfere. It looks like the down-slope starts somewhere after 2002 and ends about 2012. It ends there because after that the El Nino of 2016 starts to form. But if you extend this down-slope with an imaginary line beyond the 2016 El Nino it points to the level that existed around 1999, the starting point of this warming. That means no warming to come and possibly another hiatus like the eighties and nineties were. As to showing the trends, I recommend that first you use a magic marker and cover the temperatures with a transparent color band. If there are ENSO peaks present add some dots too that mark the halfway points between neighboring El Ninos and La Ninas. This is what I did in figure 15 in my book “What Warming.” It shows beautifully the hiatus present to the left of the super El Nino. The hiatus that NOAA stole.

  36. More nonsense from the people who publish PNAS (Proceedings – National Academy of Science).

    I tried to help these people with their warmist delusions years ago – really I did!

    Here is my correspondence to them from 2012:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-result-july-2012-not-a-record-breaker-according-to-the-new-noaancdc-national-climate-reference-network/#comment-1054285

    To:
    Heads of Departments,
    Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

    Dear PNAS Heads:

    UAH Global Temperature Update for July 2012: +0.28C,
    COOLER than June, 2012: +0.37 deg.

    If one wants to argue about GLOBAL warming, should one not look first at GLOBAL temperatures?

    Respectfully, Allan

    • Amazing that AGW theory survived the -0.09 C fall between the June and July 2012 lower troposphere temperature anomalies. What more evidence do these people need?

      • DWR54:

        NOAA in a 2012 press release stated as follows:
        “The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F. The warm July temperatures contributed to a record-warm first seven months of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895.”

        NOAA was trying to stir up fear of global warming by citing data from the Continental USA (CONUS) by stating (incorrectly, as it turned out) that July 2012 was the warmest July EVAH in the CONUS.

        The point in my 2012 post was that if NOAA is trying to scare people about global warming, at least use global temperature data, not regional data.

        Globally, July 2012 was slightly cooler than June 2012. Globally, July 2012 was NOT the warmest month EVAH.

        Regards, Allan

  37. Prior to publication, Ben Santer unilaterally removed each of the the following statements from the ‘expert reviewed and approved’ Chapter 8 of the 1996 IPCC Report. As the chapter’s lead author, Santer had the authority to alter the final language, which originally contained these statements:

    • “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
    [This statement was deleted by B. Santer.]

    • “While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data—an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
    [This statement was deleted by B. Santer.]

    • ”Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
    [This statement was deleted by B. Santer.]

    • ”While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
    [This statement was deleted by B. Santer.]

    • ”When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know’.
    [This statement was deleted by B. Santer.]

    Santer then replaced those deleted comments with this:

    “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
    [my emphasis]

    Now it’s 20 years later, and the IPCC still cannot produce Santer’s ‘fingerprint of man made global warming’. Measurements quantifying AGW are no more than guesstimates. But the damage was done when Santer misrepresented the conclusions of the experts who worked on Section 8.

    The IPCC presumes to be the worldwide ‘authority’ on the subject. But it is an authority without the necessary data to support its [Santer’s] conclusion.

    “A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.”
    ~ Albert Einstein

  38. Everytime I see you bark ignorant bullsh** like that I remind myself to remind everyone else here, that you’re the GHE believer who claimed to be a meteorologist, but can’t tell everyone the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric gas mixes.

    ==============

    ”Toneb
    September 25, 2016 at 3:01 pm
    And the hotspot cannot be determined at the present level of instrumentation. Radiosonde are operational met instruments and not designed to be instruments of research. ”

    • “Everytime I see you bark ignorant bullsh** like that I remind myself to remind everyone else here, that you’re the GHE believer who claimed to be a meteorologist, but can’t tell everyone the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric gas mixes.”

      Tell that to Anthony and to Roy Spencer.
      Who both “believe in the GHE… as so they should as it is empirical science and not up for arguement.
      They just disagree about whether it’s the major and/or significant factor.

      Also the GHE involves radiative physics my frined, and is independent of “gas mixes”.
      Go find a text book.
      ….. Oops, I forgot.
      You make up your own.

      • Toneb the calculations that prove your thermobilly pseudoscience to be fake, are those in every atmospheric chemistry book that exists. There is a hydrostatic equation that had better be found in your calculation for temperature of a gas, which accounts for mix density, or your mathematics are faked.

        That’s what everyone has found out about the pseudoscience you claim to believe. There’s no reference to any green house gas in solving the gas calculations that give the world regulated industrial activity related to gases, vacuums, and temperatures regarding them.

        I don’t care how many people followed the failed religious movement down the worm hole of having believed fake atmospheric mathematics and physics.

        Working scientists don’t have to care who anyone is: It’s their scientific argument we check and when we do check, there’s not going to be any taking over our sciences due to mania, being connected with important government employment, or anything.

        Science, is above politics, because political hacks grow old; senile; are caught so many times saying incompetent tripe, they become laughingstocks.

        Scientists are of all people, the moral judges of a civilization. When it’s government employees lose their morality and start chemistry scams, scientists from every field get together and discuss the transparent falsehood of the fraud.

        No matter how many newspapers are bought and ‘converted to believe’ the scam, we scientists are above that scam and many of us – I’m not one yet because I’m careful – quit jobs rather than bow to the stupid, who simply have no morality about how they conduct their forays into our realm(s).

        No matter how many networks laugh at us – we don’t care.

        No matter how many internet goons try to simply censor us – people know when a message is being shaved, and shaped, and manipulated so that important contributions are absent.

        People
        simply check
        at real scientific sites,
        run by real scientific professionals,
        whose explanations match classical, correctly processed, mathematics and physics.

        The gases are a phase of matter unto themselves because there are completely separate physical characteristics which * d e m a n d * a specific mathematical description.

        The one for gases is that the density of that gas volume, that atmospheric mix volume – must be known.

        * where that calculation is not in evidence, proper mathematical processing of a compressible, hence mass density variable phase of matter, has not happened.*

        Where people are seen claiming there is a 33 degree ‘ghe’ that calculation, will always be missing from their faulty computations.

        End of your bullsh*t.

        End of your religion’s hope to ever be considered anything but the delusional quackery of frauds and fakes who founded it as a meme to scam grants.

    • The claim instrumentation on radiosondes aren’t sensitive enough is utter bullsh**. Scientists still use them as primary meteorological records for space flight launches because they put sophisticated physical instruments in the very places the spacecraft will pass.

      Hansen et als’ claims the instruments are somehow sub par are evidence of his word vs the word of all the orbit oriented global climate models that still operate on the same laws of gas thermodynamics they always did.

      Hansen and everyone who ever claimed they believed in his bunk, have all been – debunked. Practically endless numbers of times, from predictions of sun spots to predictions of glacial retreat to predictions of temperatures rising to predictions of sea levels rising.

      None of Hansen’s claims have come true. His models and methods are considered the sewer of self professed scientific endeavor. People refer to his disciples, ‘climatology believers’ as the kooks right to their faces and they sit there and take that because they couldn’t predict their way out of a green house gas soaked paper bag.

      The SOLE reason for the lofting of those research instruments into the sky is research. The fake atmospheric professional known as Toneb can’t find enough ways to warble lies.

      Radiosonde data are in fact responsible for major parts of all atmospheric research in the mid to late 20th, and early 21st century; they’re still sent up in droves, because there’s simply no more accurate way to get high quality instrumental data,

      than putting high quality instruments in the sky right where the readings are needed.

Comments are closed.