Greg Fishel, WRAL says on his Facebook page
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
You know everybody reaches their breaking point and quite frankly I have reached mine with the folks who post all over the internet about the scientific fallacies of man induced climate change. All of them are guest bloggers or essayists. None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. But we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected. Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education when I could have waited for the age of twitter and Facebook and declared myself as an expert in the field of my choice. That’s sarcasm to illustrate asininity. But wait! Let’s say one of these guest essayers is a modern day Galileo, and has that critical piece to the puzzle that no other scientist has. Then they should submit their findings to one of the American Meteorological Society’s peer reviewed journals for publication. If they are rejected, and the author feels unfairly, then make public each and every one of the reviewers’ comments for the entire world to see. If there is bias and corruption in the peer review process, everyone needs to know about it so this flawed process can be halted and corrected. But ya know what? I doubt any of these folks has the guts to do this, and they’ll continue on with their pathetic excuse for science education. So prove me wrong bloggers and essayists. Submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you. Uncover that bias and corruption you’re so convinced is present. If you end up being correct, society will owe you a huge debt of gratitude. If you’re wrong, stop muddying the scientific waters with ideological trash.
Wow, I guess he doesn’t read beyond the AMS/BAMS much, because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of [dangerous] climate change.
Let’s help him out.
Update: Added from comments, via “Aphan”
No Tricks Zone has a list I like to use for recent papers published:
248 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2014
282 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2015
500 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2016
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.UY4U91NX.dpbs
The burden of proof is on the Warmists, not the skeptics. He needs to show us the proof to support his claims, not the other way around.
Since these people are not “real” scientists, they don’t understand that. It seems their entire “science” career was actually marketing practices and intimidation tactics falsely labeled “science”. It could explain his inability to forecast weather.
“The burden of proof is on the Warmists, not the skeptics. He needs to show us the proof to support his claims, not the other way around.”
Or what? You’ll take your ball and go home? The world’s scientific bodies have decided AGW is real, saying they need to prove it to your satisfaction is an empty threat.
Maybe, Chris. But who decided CAGW is real? Only those IPCC climate models that run super hot.
Look at the Russian model. However, that might have been hacked. Those pesky Russians, trying to do away with CAGW.
I know, let’s appoint a Special Prosecutor!
Chis, that same IPCC group,made a number of short term predictions/projections that have utterly failed.
Skeptics only have to point out the failures of the AGW conjecture,nothing more.
Surely you know this?
“The world’s scientific bodies have DECIDED AGE is real”
Perfectly outted them Chris. Not “discovered”, not “proven”, not “concluded by using the scientific method and eliminating every other natural component”….nope…DECIDED.
If the world’s scientific bodies decide that 97% of people named Chris are mutants with minimal IQ’s, you should accept it without question.
AGW…not AGE.
Dave Fair: skeptics seem to think that there is some tribunal that casts votes on AGW – “do we have consensus?” Research in this area has been going on for 40 years, the “consensus” is one that built up gradually over time, based on 1000s of research papers. It’s not just models.
sunsettommy: The Arctic is predicted to lose ice, that is happening. Same for Antarctica. Same for glaciers -not every single one, but the vast majority. Growing seasons in norther latitudes are predicted to start earlier. You say skeptics only need to point out the failures of AGW conjecture, nothing more. if you want to satisfy the readership of WUWT, then yes, that is true, that’s all you need to do. But if you want to change the opinion of the world’s scientific bodies, the Fortune 1000, the oil companies, etc, you need to publish papers. It’s up to you.
Aphan, I was trying to be brief, so I used the word decided. You could look up for yourself how the various scientific organizations reviewed the evidence, but it won’t matter. You’ll call them all corrupt, self serving, in it for the money, etc.
Chris-
“Aphan, I was trying to be brief, so I used the word decided.”
So are you saying that brevity causes you to speak inappropriately/use incorrect terms?
“You could look up for yourself how the various scientific organizations reviewed the evidence, but it won’t matter. You’ll call them all corrupt, self serving, in it for the money, etc.”
Logical fallacies all around.
1-the assumption that everyone in every “scientific organization” you are referring to has reviewed all the evidence on any particular topic
2-the assumption that if I look up how the “various scientific organizations” evidence, it won’t matter. To the contrary, it’s exactly how the “various scientific organizations” view “the evidence” that drove me to my current stance on things.
3-the assumption that you can read my mind, or know my opinion on anything without having a personal conversation with me about it. You just engaged in the same cognitive bias you were attempting to insinuate I surely have.
But let’s examine your skill, or lack thereof, with logic further:
“Dave Fair: skeptics seem to think that there is some tribunal that casts votes on AGW – “do we have consensus?”
Really? And what makes you state that skeptics “seem to think” that? Please provide the “evidence” that supports that claim here for us to “examine”.
“Research in this area has been going on for 40 years, the “consensus” is one that built up gradually over time, based on 1000s of research papers. It’s not just models.”
Right, So after 40 years of research, not ONE scientist, or paper, has been able to conclusively demonstrate that CO2, or man-made emissions, are causing the globe to warm or the climate to change outside of it’s demonstrated natural variability. In order to do that, using the scientific method, we would have to KNOW that we KNOW every single aspect and mechanism involved in our climate AND be able to quantify the effects of every single one of those possible mechanisms in order to rule out every single one of them EXCEPT CO2/human emission. And after 40 years of research that is STILL NOT POSSIBLE.
So if all of these “various organizations” have reached a definitive statement on AGW, while ignoring, abandoning, and mocking the very principles and methods upon which SCIENCE is supposed to be conducted, while at the same time admitting that “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”, the question is, why do YOU call them “scientific”, or believe everything they say about AGW???
The phrase is “or else”. And he did not issue it. However, SCIENCE says (no demands, just facts), that they have to prove it. Just because the whole world believes continents never move does not make it a fact. Just because the prevailing “consensus” is that continents do not move, does not make it reality.
Perhaps you just need to learn what science is. You do seem to have religion down pat.
Do you really need to submit an article about looking at a graph of temperatures to a scientific journal to get this guy to look at it? Most “skeptic” articles on climate are not about new theories, they are just showing data and calculating rise rates and fall rates using standard mathematical formulas.
All reasonable suggestions. So call me Galileo as I have just managed to falsify the greenhouse effect, and can perfectly explain why earth is a warm as it is, without greenhouse gases. The GHE theory is indeed nothing but a stupid mistake.
So I can send a draft to, for instance, Professor Christopher Keating and get an immediate, though badly unsubstantiated response. Like “Overall, your statement is fatally flawed with the assumption that the GHE science is incorrect. You put yourself in the position of saying nearly 200 years worth of scientific research (some to incredible detail) is invalid and you are, therefore, smarter than all of those tens of thousands of scientists..” So science is not about questioning. I hear venerable Jorge de Burgos talking. Ok, you would not expect anything else from a global warming apostle.
What I can not get however, it seems, is the slightest response from a single climate scepticist. Oh the irony! Let us face it. If there are greenhouse gases and you enrich them, then temperatures will go up. It is as simple as this. You accept the GHE theory, and then try to win an argument you could only lose, even if there was a rational discussion!
But listening to an unknown genius (sorry, my IQ accusses me to be one) who can make perfect sense of it all, who can derive from simple physics how water and clouds make earth as it is, is too radical? Too absurd? I do not get it!
PS. just click my name, and learn it all..
yes, my IQ is also hi, in fact it’s so hi that it equals 3 times my shoe size. Actually, your IQ is irrelevant, butt greg’s is relevant, as his intellect is compromised by his bias
Read the paper!
Gravity isn’t real either, it’s actually a downward slope of space itself.
Did you mean reflectivity and absorptivity add up to one?
And well, of course emissivity varies not just with temperature, but most of all with the surface type. Interestingly, and I did not even cover this one, we have one relevant surface type where emissivity is definitely lower than absorptivity, and that is sand! How do we know? Simply because sand gets extremely hot in the sun, just like metal sheets – despite constand “air cooling”. However we have one homogeneous surface type which covers 71% of Earth, and that figure even goes up to almost 75% for its role in climate, if we allow for the more peripheral location of continents. That one of course is water. For that reason, we need to know emissivity and absorptivity of this pivotal surface type. You can show me better ways to determine it, than the ones I used. But you will not talk away the significance of this one point.
You must be a genius. Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Litracy indeed seems to be a subject here. Maybe it facilitates thinking if I name absorptivity (A) and emissivity (E) of water, which happen to be 0.934 and 0.8395. Based on that we can calculate (0.934 / 0.8395)^0.25 * 279.2 = 286.7K(!)
Well, it is actually “Literacy” but perhaps the mods may correct your inadvertent spelling error.
0.934 = 1- albedo.
Assuming albedo of water = 0.066.
Which it does. But only if the solar elevation angle is greater than 33 degrees for direct radiation. (The albedo of diffuse radiation, never greater than roughly 2/3 that of direct radiation, is in fact, fairly constant at 0.066 across all solar elevation angles. )
Your “model” is only approximately correct for “perfect” assumed conditions of uniform gray water bodies radiated in perfect conditions; and STILL requires a flat earth assumption of a uniform radiation field hitting a perfect flat planet in a perfectly circular orbit with a perfectly uniform atmosphere.
Which does not happen in the real world, as Tycho Brahe and Kepler and Magellan’s men established many years ago.
Your “model” is valid ONLY for temperate latitudes when the sun shines above the horizon at 33 degrees on a perfectly clear day into calm seas.
@RACookPE1978
Well, it is actually “Literacy” but perhaps the mods may correct your inadvertent spelling error
Let us pray for it!
Not quite, these results are obtained if you use a Fresnel equation and weight it according to the geometry of a hemisphere. I am talking about hemispheric A and E! I could just as well ask what the hemispheric E of water is, but I am pretty sure no one here has a clue. And you will not find any information on that on the net, which is quite astounding. I mean next to this:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
So I did the calculation on my own, and here is the result…
And for the literates among us..
https://de.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid
The Fresnel approximation for water albedo is a poor choice: It is valid. For only for pure water, perfectly calm, for single phase light (right angle and perpendicular) under direct radiation measurements in the laboratory. It is good for a physics book approximation to make the physics book look “scientific”. But it is not accurate in the real world.
Far better is Pegau, Payne, and the others who have measured actual ocean albedoes under actual wind conditions and cloud conditions above the actual ocean in the field at various angles of incidence. However, they don’t don’t that “magic” appearance of seemingly being able to calculate the reflection of light from water from approximation of parts and pieces of assumed first principles. They had the audacity of going into the field and measuring it! Gasp!!!
Specific reference links later.
The energy exchanged (and lost to the environment) will depend on the shape factors of the two bodies, does it not? Are you not making the classic assumption of two black/gray/white uniform bodies in a perfect vacuum ?
One body will do, for the sake of simplicity. The second one would be “space”, if you will. As the refractive index of air will be n = 1, and the one of water n = 1.27, according to the results referenced above, we can determine the hemispheric E of water. If that is perfectly precise, should be less of an issue. If water heats earth to 286.7K, or 286.5, or 286, or 287 … WHO F****** CARES?!
The point is, that water heats the planet, not greenhouse gases!
RACookPE1978,
The word “albedo” is a poor choice for the description of Fresnel (specular) reflection. Albedo is classically used as the apparent brightness of celestial bodies when viewed from Earth. (It is commonly used inappropriately by born-again climatologists.) The Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) has both specular and diffuse components and can be measured and modeled. The integrated hemispherical BRDF reflectance gives the total reflectivity. Specular reflection varies with the index of refraction of the reflecting medium, which in turn, typically varies with the wavelength of the light. Temperature and Dissolved substances can also affect the index of refraction, including the imaginary component (extinction coefficient) of the complex index of refraction. One can calculate the specular reflectance for either a particular wavelength or the full spectrum of illumination. Specular reflectance also varies with the angle of incidence and approaches the spectrum of the source at glancing angles. The diffuse-reflectance component of BRDF varies with the roughness of the surface, orientation of any aligned features such as waves, and the size and spectral absorptivity of suspended particles (turbidity). The full Fresnel Equation also takes account of the polarization state of the diffuse skylight, but that is only of much concern for light emanating from a band (halo) approximately at right angles to the rays from the sun.
This may be more than you wanted to know, but I’m just doing my part to try to maintain the level of literacy here.
@Clyde Spender and what is the hemispheric emissivity of water now??
Erich,
Assuming that absorptivity and emissivity sum to unity, then we are left to conclude that emissivity varies over the surface of the globe, depending on the angle of illumination. Actually, we can be certain that emissivity varies with the surface materials. However, that would seem to contradict the idea that emissions vary only with temperature. So, appealing to the idea of a Black Body is too simplistic for a real Earth.
Did you mean reflectivity and absorptivity add up to one?
And well, of course emissivity varies not just with temperature, but most of all with the surface type. Interestingly, and I did not even cover this one, we have one relevant surface type where emissivity is definitely lower than absorptivity, and that is sand! How do we know? Simply because sand gets extremely hot in the sun, just like metal sheets – despite constand “air cooling”. However we have one homogeneous surface type which covers 71% of Earth, and that figure even goes up to almost 75% for its role in climate, if we allow for the more peripheral location of continents. That one of course is water. For that reason, we need to know emissivity and absorptivity of this pivotal surface type. You can show me better ways to determine it, than the ones I used. But you will not talk away the significance of this one point.
PS. took the wrong exit first time ;/
Uh, Erich, buddy; one of the scientific questions under debate has to do with the atmosphere’s sensitivity to additional CO2. You might want to read some of the studies indicating that such sensitivity is below or about the low end of the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C for each doubling of the CO2 atmospheric concentration.
Modeled CAGW is based on assumptions of aerosol, water vapor, and cloud responses to very low temperature increases associated only with doubling CO2. The assumptions have been conclusively proven incorrect.
Did you break into the liquor cabinet early this morning, Erich? That tends to lower genius IQs quite a bit. I know; I’ve experienced the effects.
I am sorry, but the whole “science” is based on an assumed greenhouse effect, which ironically does not even exist. And i happen to know that, as the radial properties of water already yield a temperature of about 286.7K, and clouds additionally heat the planet. So CO2, vapour, GHGs of what so ever kind have no role to play.
Erich, are you serious? Did you leave out a /sarc.
A little bit of math does not trump observations.
Your comments seem disjointed, all over the place. Same question about hitting the liquor cabinet in the morning.
It is a little bit of physics, and no, observations do not trump physics. As a seemingly experienced consumer of liquors you should know that by now.
Observations trump everything, Erich, old boy. Especially incomplete physics assumptions.
Do you possibly have an argument????
Erich, try reading your screed, to which I responded.
That means .. no? Ok, did not expect anything else.
Erich
“As the refractive index of air will be n = 1, and the one of water n = 1.27, according to the results referenced above, we can determine the hemispheric E of water. If that is perfectly precise, should be less of an issue. If water heats earth to 286.7K, or 286.5, or 286, or 287 … WHO F****** CARES?!
The point is, that water heats the planet, not greenhouse gases!”
One question…Um….what heats the water? 🙂
@Aphan the sun?!
Non sequitur.
Erich said-“The point is, that water heats the planet, not greenhouse gases!”
But, because water has no ability to generate heat on it’s own, it’s actually the Sun that heats the planet….not water. Correct?
No shit? I guess you are right! Why only did I never consider the sun ..
Erich,
Thank you for evidence that my instincts are correct. I merely pointed out that you said something, in your own words, in a rather heated fashion, that isn’t scientifically true. Water does not “heat” the planet. Screw your IQ….while you arrogantly posture about as if to portray yourself as consistently logical and accurate, your temper and ego reveal that you really are not.
For example, your article states that in 1980, “Dr. Roger Revelle states that because of CO2,
“temperature near the earth surface is about 30° Centigrade higher than it would be in the absence of carbon dioxide”.
I cannot find that quote attributed to Dr. Revelle anywhere, nor would he have stated such a thing, because he never published the notion that ALL of the warmth of this planet (all 30C) was caused by CO2. I think you either misquoted the man, or repeated something that isn’t true. I’ll be happy to see a link to something other than a youtube video.
Water’s ability to absorb and emit heat (energy) also counts when it’s water vapor, in our atmosphere. It’s properties don’t just disappear the moment it’s not in one solid body of water in the oceans. I don’t care what you, or NASA or anyone else opines, I believe that water vapor in the atmosphere can both warm, and cool. The water in clouds is just water that used to be in liquid form on the surface, and it does not HEAT the planet as much as it SLOWS DOWN the rate at which heat escapes to space.
Our atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse, nor does it work like a real greenhouse. But the gases-including water vapor-that are suspended in our atmosphere DO exhibit physical properties that delay the COOLING of this planet when the Sun is not shining on half of it. The affect of CO2 in our atmosphere is logarithmic and negligible.
Are you suggesting that video has been manufactured / manipulated?? I mean if not, you can hear his own words. That is just what he said. And no, you do not need to watch the whole video, as the link gives you just the right entry point. So I do not get your point..?
In the video he DOES indeed say that Earth is 30 “centigrade” warmer due to CO2, than it would be without it, but that makes no sense. First, Revelle published papers in which he did NOT attribute 30C of warming to CO2 alone. Second, the word “centigrade” was changed to Celsius in 1950, and third, even NASA states that only 20% of the warming caused by “greenhouse gases” can be attributed to CO2. If, as according to article 1 linked to below, the Earth is 33C warmer today due to “greenhouse gases” than it would be without them, 20% of that equals 6.6 C, not 30 C. (Fourth, the greenhouse theory/effect was around long before Dr Revelle…so he’s not even the grandfather of the idea).
Dr Revelle is clearly suffering from the effects of old age and ill health in the video. Who knows if he’s already been affected by the Alzheimer’s he was supposedly diagnosed with before his death? Using that particular quote as if it’s definitive “evidence” of the mantra/belief/exact definition held by all scientists who embrace the greenhouse idea is a shaky argument at best, so rebutting it isn’t exactly difficult.
But very few people believe that the Earth’s atmosphere works just like a “greenhouse” in the first place. It’s a really inaccurate analogy and it’s unfortunate that such a term ever took hold at all. So if you’re work is merely trying to rebut the concept or the terminology itself, great…but no one really believes that Earth does work like a greenhouse if you question them seriously, so it’s kind of a waste of time.
If you are trying to say that you have proven that Earth’s atmosphere plays no role at all in Earth’s climate, I’ll say that it would take more than just your paper to agree with you. If you’re saying that you’ve proven that Earth’s atmosphere does not “heat” the surface, then good for you, but it was never been proven that it DOES. Proving to Team Alarmist that you have proven that their unproven idea is false will be ignored, and proving to Team Skeptical that Team Alarmist’s idea is false is completely unnecessary, because they already pretty much know that. Not to mention that “proof” isn’t what science is about, and at this point in time, with so many unknown unknowns, nothing you say can be accepted with certainty either. (Article 2)
Article 1:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/
Article 2:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5337/fc85869fe68edeb2ee216f121392d5968f59.pdf
Erich – Excellent work, I can see you started from EXACTLY the right point i.e. No GHG. Not sure about all your conclusions yet, will read and study the paper later however we do all need to start, as you point out, from the existing understanding of GHGs and work out what went wrong. THEN move on to the new theories.
You are right, it’s VERY difficult to get many skeptics over the first hurdle. I am still not sure why. It looks like those who claim to be open minded scientists are as close minded as their adversaries. Fucking frustrating innit !!!!!!!
We see your frustration, don’t despair, there are others like you and a small growing band I am doing my best to nurture little by little.
Keep up the good work.
@Badger Thank you very much for these encouraging words! If you are just a follower, you will allways find friends. But if you formulate your own thoughts, you’ll be treated like a leper ;). I am afraid we are not quite as civilised as we should be, and certainly not as most of us think.
I should add, that I have spent less than 3 months on the whole thing. So I did not spent my life on it, and I can fairly well accept if I am wrong. What I can not accept however, is how these obviously pressing questions are neither discussed, nor even considered. The discussion must take place, and even if I was not completely right, I am very optimistic about not being all too wrong. Specifically with the part on clouds.
A theory can only attain quality by surviving attempts of falsification. The GHE has remained untackled as it seems to me. Probably that is the only reason why it still exists.
Those in power don’t need to discuss.
“Greg the Terrible” knows very well that there would be no “AGW” without “Adjustments and Homogenization” to the actual recorded temperatures.
— Changing history into fiction–.
I have a little question …
what climate change?
The persistent mildness we’ve been experiencing for the last century needs to be explained.
+++
I think the Alarmists are desperately afraid that nothing might happen.
shhhhhhhhh…. I shouldn’t point out that the US Government commissioned a study in 2002 in which that concluded that “Abrupt Climate Change” is the norm, and that the past 11,000 years or so have been the LEAST active and most calm period of time on this planet….maybe ever. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate. The evidence from ice and seabed cores and tree rings showed temperature changes of 10°C or more, often in LESS than a decade.
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Abrupt-Climate-Change-Inevitable-Surprises/10136
Jeffrey Masters,PhD wrote an article about the report on his weather underground site-https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp
“Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years–the 11,000 years of modern climate (the “Holocene” era). “Normal” climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps–like a light switch flicking on and off.”
It would be extremely uninformed and unscientific, to believe that the anomaly we are currently living in is NOT an anomaly.
That hat. I stopped at that hat and never got to the grin. Reminded me of this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G4hrlv-0fnY/U-P4Jvs5eJI/AAAAAAAADDo/g9CYepkr2UA/s1600/fat-lady-sings-2.jpg
Maybe the gravity-challenged lady IS singing, and that means the climate scam show is over.
I have exclusive footage showing that the hat is actually vital for weather forecasting.
I wonder…
Meteorologists have problems predicting weather forthnight ahead with acurracy. How is it then possible to predict climate several decades ahead? Both weather and climate are chaotic systems and thus more or less impossible to predict long periods of time ahead…
I still wonder…has the world gone mad..?
Going out a fortnight or so with a “weather” forecast is really no longer a weather forecast but a “climate” forecast. In my part of the country it is typical to see rain forecast out 10 days or so at 20% chance of rain, which is tantamount to saying “we don’t really know, but it rains about 20 percent of the time around here so that’s the ‘forecast.'” But that is a “climate” forecast, not a “weather” forecast. And it is probably very “accurate” for what it is.
Long range climate projections are, on one level, just projected “averages” of expected weather, aka climate. It doesn’t appear that the GCM’s are doing a very good job of this, so traditional 30 year weather “normals” are probably just as good a guess, if not better. We could probably improve on that with a little Bayesian reasoning, but not much, because we really do not understand long term climate change processes taking place on centennial and millennial scales to be able to parse that into smaller decadal or multi-decadal increments like the next 30 years. For forecasting climate change over the next few decades, we would be better served by focusing on learning as much as we can about decadal processes like the PDO and AMO, etc. Unfortunately, these are “natural” processes hard to turn into catastrophic scenarios, especially catastrophes driven by evil human beings.
I’m one who thinks that not enough attention is being paid to human activity like the UHI, changing land use patterns, etc., which I think are far more important than CO2. But I don’t see see the impact these human activities might have on increasing temperature to be evil or undesirable. On the contrary, the overall benefit is clearly positive, and some slight warming just adds to the benefit.
The next 5 years may give us some better notions of cyclic climate perturbations, especially in the oceans. We might be coming down off the high AMO.
“I still wonder…has the world gone mad..?”
No, just some people.
The leaders of some 200 countries…? Just a few leaders making policy for a vast majority of the people of the world……
Just because a bunch of people do the wrong thing does not make it right.
Poor fruit, best to not be the last alarmist, meteorologist in town-
“In 2016 29% of meteorologists who thought climate was largely or entirely man-made, but that fell to only 15% this year”
Off -piste but from the we can never win-
1989-
“WASHINGTON: Environmentalists
fear a global warming trend because it
might melt the polar ice caps and cause
massive flooding, so a report that the polar
ice is getting thicker is good news, right?
Wrong.
Scientists from the Goddard Space
Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland, said
yesterday that the ice sheet over Green-
land was getting thicker but concluded this
“may be a characteristic of warmer cli-
mates in the polar regions”.
So thicker ice results from higher tem-
peratures?
“It’s consistent with warmer tempera-
tures. It’s consistent with the idea that this
century is warmer than the last century,”
explained Dr Jay Zwally of Goddard’s
Oceans and Ice Branch, who led the God-
dard research team”
…and every day they inadvertently admit they don’t have a clue
It would help if he defines his terms. What is it, exactly, that he is challenging people to disprove?
Absent that, we can’t even get started.
Hencalled it ‘human-induced climate change’
Funny. When I ask people how the physics of climate change works, immediately they point to a real greenhouse, or better yet, to a car in the sun with windows closed. So maybe we should ask people to explain the science. Exactly how does CO2 work in heating the atmosphere? Does the earth cool primarily by radiation? Kind of a trick question, because the answer is yes and no, so the real question is, does the heat get to the top of the atmosphere primarily by radiation? Does CO2 block convective heat transfer?
That’ll give them fits. They’ll always have to refer back to what the climate models say, because they don’t really understand.
I do the same asking. The best explanation to “prove” it was the guy who pointed to the sun lamp and plastic bottles “experiment” shown to school children and claimed it was all the proof needed of CO2 GHG.
LMFAO
The first problem is that his parents paid for his education.
Take the fight to him.
Hold his feet to the fire and get him to explain, in his own words, his ‘elevator speech’ and without passing the buck via appeals to authority & consensus – How Does The Green House Gas Effect Actually Work?
We constantly let these sorts of folks off the hook, not least as we ourselves don’t have a consistent story.
No. You don’t get ‘trapped heat’, wtf is ‘offset radiation’ and the atmosphere Does Not work like a microwave oven does.
Agreed! Have him explain why he thinks CAGW exists without using an appeal to authority as ‘evidence’.
Except for the still rapidly cooling El Nino blip, no warming this century unless by Karlization. Yet this century comprises 35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Sea level rise not accelerating. Planet greening. Polar bears thriving because they do not depend on late summer sea ice.
Tougher and tougher to be a warmunist when Mother Nature does not cooperate. This clown is a good reason to avoid Facebook.
Good points, but with regard to “Polar bears thriving because they do not depend on late summer sea ice.” – – – I’ll add:
Well, that is true but the sea ice has not even approached 1 Wadhams, or ice free as now defined.
[Susan Crockford explains the threat to seals and bears is the very thick and widespread spring ice. LINK]
The second problem is that he has t explain to his acolytes what sarcasm is.
The Third problem is they threw Galileo in jail for bucking the consensus.
No they didn’t.
Well, “House Arrest” for the rest of his life and a banning of all of his publications.
I know, I know, potato, potatoe.
The Roman Inquisition sentenced him to prison, but the sentence was commuted to house arrest.
He was convicted of heresy for writing that, contrary to the Church-approved consensus, the earth goes around the sun and rotates on its axis. In the late 20th century, the Church finally apologized for having wronged GG.
Here’s an English translation of the court’s verdict:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence
It reads, in part:
By the grace of God, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and especially commissioned by the Holy Apostolic See as Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity in all of Christendom.
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were denounced to this Holy Office in 1615 for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth moves even with diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for being in correspondence with some German mathematicians about it; for having published some letters entitled “On Sunspots”, in which you explained the same doctrine as true; for interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning in response to objections based on Scripture which were sometimes made to you; and whereas later we received a copy of an essay in the form of a letter, which was said to have been written by you to a former disciple of yours and which in accordance with Copernicus’s position contains various propositions against the authority and true meaning of Holy Scripture;
And whereas this Holy Tribunal wanted remedy the disorder and the harm which derived from it and which was growing to the detriment of the Holy Faith, by order of His Holiness and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals of this Supreme and Universal Inquisition, the Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun’s stability and the earth’s motions as follows:
That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;
That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith.
Whereas however we wanted to treat you with benignity at that time, it was decided at the Holy Congregation held in the presence of His Holiness on 25 Feb 1616 that the Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine would order you to abandon this false opinion completely; that if you refused to do this, the Commissary of the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned. To execute this decision, the following day at the palace of and in the presence of the above-mentioned Most Eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, after being informed and warned in a friendly way by the same Lord Cardinal, you were given an injunction by the then Father Commissary of the Holy Office in the presence of a notary and witnesses to the effect that you must completely abandon the said false opinion, and that in the future you could neither hold, nor defend, nor teach it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; having promised to obey, you were dismissed.
Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books treating of such a doctrine and declared it false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture.
And whereas a book has appeared here lately, printed in Florence last year, whose inscription showed that you were the author, the title being “Dialogue by Galileo Galilei on the two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was informed that with the printing of this book the false opinion of the earth’s motion and the sun’s stability was being disseminated and taking hold more and more every day, the said book was diligently examined and found to violate explicitly the above-mentioned injunction given to you; for in the same book you have defended the said opinion already condemned and so declared to your face, although in the said book you try by means of various subterfuges to give the impression of leaving it undecided and labeled as probable; this is still a very serious error since there is no way an opinion declared and defined contrary to divine Scripture may be probable.
He wasn’t convicted of challenging the consensus, He was convicted of heresy for claiming that the Bible proved that the sun was the center of the universe, when it didn’t. With a side charge of insulting the pope.
Note: not peer reviewed!
Ek het jou hier op die radio gehoor.
Hier is die resultate van my ondersoek oor die reen in Potchefstroom:
ek dink jy mag dit dalk interessant vind.
There is no man made climate change but there is some natural climate change, but it is not much. I give you my general take on it, from investigations done by myself:
“Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function. But here in South Africa it was not warming up at all. I figured there is no warming, or, at least it is not ‘global’
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is useless. You cannot have an “election” about science.
You only need one man to get it right”.
Ek hoop die resultate van my ondersoeke kan jou bietjie help.
Lekker naweek.
Henry
Henry, It is clear that with the figures you choose to illustrate your point, that the quadratic is certain to appear to fit very closely to the k per hour data. Of much more interest to me would be the complete set of data (54 stations, presumably). Only then could I hope to make a sensible numerical comment on the parabola, which at present seems to describe the overall data perfectly, but whose general validity I have to question.
Could you publish the fulldata, please? Thanks. Robin.
Hello Henry,
I see you’re still quoting the rainfall from Bushy Bend Farm, near Potch.
I can’t quite make out from your graph which is your last year of data, but here are the last few annual totals
2014 518.5 mm
2015 424.6 mm
2016 647.8 mm
The 2015 drought has been well and truly broken, as I’m sure you know, with the Vaal Dam overflowing
The rainfall for February 2017 was 225.4 mm, which made it the wettest Feb in the record (since 1922) – previous wettest was 1996 with 214.2 mm. This was partly the result of cyclone Dineo pushing its way unexpectedly far inland.
Regards
Richard
The Final problem is, when presented with bias and corruption, he make a conscious effort to ignore it.
[Moderator], just a minor gripe, “because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of climate change.” This should be changed to Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming or similar. Don’t want to give anyone some ammunition.
I watch Greg Fishel quite often.
I believe the saying ‘it is impossible to get someone to believe something when he is paid not to believe it’ is very apt in this situation. His employers, Capital Broadcasting, is very much leftist. (Big surprise, huh. The real surprise is when a media company is center or right or only slightly left.) I’ve watched him for years. It was about 2 years ago he changed. Drastically. He started promoting global warming very much, whereas before his statements implied doubt. It was almost as if he had marching orders: believe or be fired.
The thing is, he talks about weather history. He quite often mentions when it was hottest or worse or so on. That makes it all the more puzzling as to why you would believe when you study and see clearly nothing is unusual. It was the drastic change that made me believe Greg Fishel was given an ultimatum.
Why would global warming, Present or not, come up in a weather report report?
Because hot weather is used to reinforce global warming while people must be reminded that cold weather is just weather. That is the job of the weatherman—to reinforce these “truths”.
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/greg-fishel-was-once-a-limbaugh-loving-climate-skeptic-now-hes-fighting-global-warming/Content?oid=4830678
Sounds like he’s gullible. From the article:
“There’s a guy named Kerry Emanuel at MIT, a world-renowned scientist, and I love the way he framed this. He was in a debate in Huntsville, Alabama, with one of the few remaining science skeptics. And he turned to the moderator in the middle of the debate, and he said, “Is there a chance that John’s right and I’m wrong? Yes, there is. But I look at this as risk assessment, just like you would with insurance. If there’s a 20 percent chance that your 2-year-old daughter will get run over if you don’t walk with her across the street, would you let her do it?” Let’s suppose that a bunch of stuff comes along to cancel all [the climate-related dangers] out. What are we left with? A cleaner atmosphere, cheaper energy. What are the downsides to that?”
Cheaper, ICISIL?
Stroke his ego with “You’re so brave”—there’s NOTHING brave about running with the crowd. Sheep do that, so do lemmings. He’s not brave—he’d jump off a cliff if everyone else did. He’s a spineless joiner.
My question always is “If a model said your child had a ‘high probability’ that she had blood cancer, and 97% of doctors using models said so too, would you have your child go through chemo and radiation?” With NO physical reality involved, just models, it sounds much different. When the stakes are very high, it sound much different. It’s not clean air and clean energy, it’s the complete destruction of capitalism, income redistribution and returning to the 1880’s way of life. No matter how much warmists deny this, it all comes down to this solution in the end. Punitive government control with the rich exempted.
“Let’s suppose that a bunch of stuff comes along to cancel all [the climate-related dangers] out. What are we left with? A cleaner atmosphere, cheaper energy. What are the downsides to that?””
We are left with the same level of cleanliness as we started with since CO2 does not “dirty” the air.
Cheaper energy? That’s a joke, right? You don’t really believe that do you?
The big downside to all this is the waste of Trillions of dollars in an effort that will not change a thing with the Earth’s climate.
“Cheaper, ICISIL?”
Not hardly. That’s the downside he’s ignorant about. Sounds like a superior intellect got to him and he caved. Like alexwade said, something got to him in 2015. I read a Washpo article about him and they were trying to use him as a poster boy.
If renewables were actually cheaper, you wouldn’t need government mandates to force power companies to use the stuff. They would be falling all over themselves to install as much as they could, because it was cheaper.
See the movie “Network”
https://youtu.be/gQUBbpvXk2A
Howard Beale’s rant from Network
https://youtu.be/AS4aiA17YsM
“It was about 2 years ago he changed. Drastically. He started promoting global warming very much, whereas before his statements implied doubt. It was almost as if he had marching orders: believe or be fired.”
I wonder if he got any pushback from his viewers.
Happily, none of the meteorologists I watch ever mention anything about AGW or CAGW. It is strictly the weather with them. If one of them suddenly started pushing CAGW, I would have to write a letter of complaint. Leave that speculation out of my weather report!
Here is my comment on Mr. Fishel’s Facebook page:
In the original post and in over 400 comments and counting, no one has defined the issue! Are ‘skeptics’ arguing that mankind is having zero influence on climate? Absolutely not! No one is denying that climate changes and almost no one is denying that increasing CO2 has a warming impact, all else being equal. That is the scientific consensus that everyone talks about, and the so-called skeptics hold that opinion as well. Yet, the skeptics are always attacked as if they held the position that there was no human impact on climate. That is simply not true! The debate has always been over the amount of warming we can expect and is the warming a crisis that needs to be addressed. On these issues, the hard science greatly supports the so-called skeptics. The science and the current trends do not support the alleged climate crisis, which calls for a warming of 3 degrees C or more, from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, the science never supported such a conclusion. The paleo climate record, the current trends and the hard science all point to about 1 degree of warming or less, and that is simply not a crisis, although it would likely bring huge benefits!
Mr. Fishel does a great disservice to his viewers and followers by failing to define the issue, while throwing out derogatory accusations at men and women he knows nothing about. This is all too common in the climate change debate, largely because skeptics win in almost every ‘real’ science debate that has been held anywhere. Those supporting a climate crisis have been reduced to (empty) appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. Crisis supporters are no longer willing to engage in a scientific discussions, or acknowledge the hundreds of ‘skeptical’ papers that are published in the peer reviewed literature every year, or even define the issues being discussed. They lose on all fronts. Consequently, those who challenge the climate crisis meme are not answered with science. They are labeled ‘denier’, and ridiculed as being stupid, much like Mr. Fishel has done here. This post and the following comments have the tenor of a witch hunt, not a defense of science.
It seems ironic that those who are loudly proclaiming their support for ‘science’ want almost nothing to do with it when it comes to climate change.
So your hero is Don Quixote?
Keep tilting my friend. 🙂
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/18/anatomy-of-a-collapsing-climate-paradigm/
According to Cook et al., 2013, 78 peer-reviewed papers either minimized and/or rejected “man induced climate change:; while only 64 peer-reviewed papers explicitly stated that humans were the primary drivers of recent climate change.
So, Greg Fischel can frack off.
jclarke says
No one is denying that climate changes and almost no one is denying that increasing CO2 has a warming impact, all else being equal.
Henry says
you have to come up with prove that more CO2 causes warming. As I said, I could not find it?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/23/tv-weatherman-goes-off-on-climate-skeptics-put-up-or-shut-up/comment-page-1/#comment-2509475
So what is your proof that more CO2 causes warming?
what about the movement of the elephant in the room {come down 1 km into a gold mine here and meet the elephant in the room}
[??? Ground-heat from below? .mod ]
yes. according to the measurements of the magnetic north pole, this elephant has been moving north-east……
no wonder the arctic is melting a bit….
The magnetic pole is moving, the core isn’t.
henryp asked, “So what is your proof that more CO2 causes warming?”
A: see the thread beginning here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/20/sequestering-blue-carbon/comment-page-1/#comment-2512742
henryp also asked, “what about the movement of the elephant in the room {come down 1 km into a gold mine here and meet the elephant in the room}”
Geothermal heat flow to the surface is negligible compared to solar and GHG influences, except in some isolated microclimates. It’s not an elephant in the room, it’s a flea.
Does this clown go in front of the camera wearing that foolish hat?
PMK
He did once.