WEATHER WARS: Live climate debate turns nasty – video

Fireworks during live broadcast between climate change advocate David Appell and meteorologist Chuck Wiese

My friend, Lars Larson, who runs a nationally syndicated radio program called the Lars Larson Show decided to stage a debate between two people who are regulars here at WUWT. One uses his real name to comment here, the other also used his real name in the past, got banned for bad behavior, and then started using fake names and fake email addresses (by his own admission) to get his points across here. I’ll let you guess which is which.

From the show’s website:


Weather Wars: A Climate Change Debate From The Bloodworks Live Studio

Today, we feature a one hour debate live from 1 pm – 2 pm PT between two of the most vocal advocates for and against the argument that human beings have caused “global warming” or “climate change” and that humans must cure it by changing our behavior. We will hear from:

David Appell Ph.D.
David is a science writer who makes his home here in the northwest and writes frequently about today’s subject. He has a Ph.D. in physics and math and has worked as a systems engineer and a software developer. Mr. Appell has written to me often and challenged some of the things I say on the radio so I invited him to come here and debate today’s subject.

Chuck Wiese
Chuck is a meteorologist trained at Oregon State University, he’s a retired airline pilot and he’s a fervent critic of anthropogenic global warming and more recently what’s come to be called “climate change”.  Chuck and Lars have been friends a long time and Lars watched him on television as a kid, when, Chuck, as a teenager was one of the youngest weather forecasters on television here in the Northwest.

Watch the debate below (Live video starts at the 8 minute mark):

Things got heated between Chuck and David during a commercial break:

And it didn’t stop when the debate ended:

And even when the gentlemen were on there way out: (WUWT is mentioned)

 

UPDATE 6/30/2018:

The last three videos showing David Appell in heated arguments with Chuck Weise were taken between segments and after the show ended. Apparently, there was supposed to be some legal waiver offered by the radio show producer and signed by Appell, [which didn’t happen according to Appell] so Mr. Appell requested that the videos be removed from YouTube by the Lars Larson show.

As readers who saw the videos know, the videos did not reflect well on Mr. Appell due to the behavior he exhibited, so I can certainly understand why he wanted them removed. But the Internet never forgets, and copies exist, so perhaps that will get sorted out in the future.

Anthony

UPDATE: 7/1/18 10:45 PM PST

In the comment thread, I made this prediction after putting David Appell on moderation because he started posting on his blog that I’m a “liar” for having an opinion about those removed videos.

Prediction: your ego won’t let you walk away, so you’ll write something else nasty about me, and then as you’ve done before by your own admission, you’ll try to comment here using fake name, fake emails, and spoofed IP addresses.

And I was right about the first sentence so far. He’s posted another “boo-hoo Watts is mean to me” missive on his blog, saying he left me a voice message asking that I remove the comment about his asking the Lars Larson show to remove those videos. Then when I didn’t return his phone call in a time period of his choosing (he left it on my office phone Saturday at 11AM) he writes this missive where he claims I “didn’t return his call”. Well, David, that’s wrong, I couldn’t.

Two reasons:

  1. I wasn’t in the office this weekend, I was out of town. I have a life. I don’t sit in front of the computer all weekend like you apparently have. The only reason I got the message on a Sunday night was because I came in to check on the A/C system Since we hit a high of 106F here today. Otherwise I would have  got the message Monday morning.
  2. The message itself was so badly spoken, that even the closed caption voice to text live Interpreter (Caption Call Phone) I use do to my hearing loss couldn’t even make it out. So not even sure what the message was in entirety, I got bits and pieces of it.

I recall once when I called David, he made a post about it complaining that I left him a voice message. He was outraged.

The rules of the interaction change by the minute when dealing with Appell, and interaction with him never ends well as Chuck Weise, Lars Larson, and thousands of readers have discovered in this thread. The whole episode reflects very badly on Mr. Appell, and  I’m reminded of sage advice from a computer that learned how to deal with impossible scenarios:

Winning move: Don’t engage David Appell

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Felix

Listen to Lars whenever on the road in the PM.

Too bad I wasn’t today.

Glad his guests agreed to participate.

Too bad about the rancor.

Typo Nazi notes “their” for “there”.

Joel Snider

Frankly, I’d like five minutes alone with Appell.

Felix

IMO he makes a good representative for the Warmunista position. Even on air, it’s hard for him to keep his anger under control.

It’s even annoying listening to him babble incoherently spouting lies to support other lies than it was to read his tiresome comments.

Joel, are you threatening violence? Why am I not surprised?

Tom Abbott

He may just want to exchange ideas with you, David.

I doubt it; that sounded like a threat. Clearly any exchange of ideas would take more than 5 minutes….

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” — Isaac Asimov

(I think you are overreacting) MOD

Felix

“Violence is the first act of the victor.”

Genghis Khan

Sharpshooter

“The key to victory is being fastest with the mostest” Napoleon Bonaparte

Hivemind

That sounds more like General Robert E. Lee, than Napoleon Bonaparte

Felix

Actually, it was Nathan Bedford Forrest, whom Lee said was the greatest general of the war, without ever having met him.

Get theyuh with the fustest with the mostest.

arthur4563

A misquote – Lee would NEVER have selected one of his generals as the best. The reason he didn’t write his memoirs
(and the out of work Lee was offered tons of money to do so)
was that he didn’t want to have to describe errors and blunders made by his Generals.. As for Bedford Forrest, he was overheard by a student outside his office when he remarked to one of his visiting Generals that Bedford Forrest’s military capabilities had progressed to a greater extent than any other Confederate General. Lee also said he never learned of Forrest’s
capabilities until very late – the Confederate commander who ranked Forrest never told the Confederate central command (Lee) about Forrest’s actions.

billhunter

Actually it was General William Tecumseh Sherman who lavished praise on Forrest saying he was the most remarkable man the civil war produced on either side.

Felix

So did Lee.

Felix

Lee called him the “greatest Confederate officer”. Sherman called him the most remarkable man produced by either side.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/what-general-lee-said.139947/

DonM

the namesake of Forrest Gump …

My (large) family had a variation of that quote: “He who eats the fastest, eats the mostest.”

Felix

Five minutes is about right to show that CACA is a crock.

Felix – when did I ever use the word “catastrophic?”

Felix

David,

If “climate change” isn’t catastrophic or, as Obama said, dangerous, then what’s the problem?

So far the effect of CO2 had been totally beneficial and salubrious. More will be even more so.

Dr. Strangelove

Nobody’s threatening violence. You’re just paranoid

comment image

MarkW

If it’s not catastrophic, then there is no need to worry about it.

MarkW

Considering you haven’t had an original idea in decades, 5 minutes sounds about right.

Latitude

That’s what I thought…David has had decades to hone his game…and that was it???………lame

Lat: so prove me wrong. Come on, I can take it. I even welcome it….

Trevor

Sorry David !
Chuck ALREADY DID SHOW YOU you ARE WRONG !
You CAN’T BE SO THICK THAT YOU DIDN’T NOTICE IT !
or can you ??????

Latitude

David…I stopped doing circlejerks with you years ago……..

bit chilly

david, you are full of shit. apologies to anthony for lack of reasoned argument. i would argue reading david’s crap on here for a while is enough to justify this response.

Latitude

“Victim playing (also known as playing the victim or self-victimization) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons such as to justify abuse of others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy or attention seeking.”

john harmsworth

It is also the dominant methodology of over half the population nowadays. It’s so much easier than doing something positive and meaningful.

I would suggest he was simply pointing out how quickly he could thoroughly illustrate your buffoonery. Thousands of scientists denounce CAGW, including many of Gaia’s best earth scientists while a few dozen activists drive the narrative from GISS, UEA and a few other polluted science departments.

Followed by your inability to explain warmer periods 80, 1000 and most of the last 10,000 and 500 million years. Thanks to Javier for his marvelous Holocene work.

Then the absurdity of your position that CO2 rising from 300 to 400ppm is catastrophic when on geologic scales CO2 has ranged from ~200 to more than 7000ppm and plants evolved during 1000% higher CO2 levels and begin to die around 180ppm.

He wouldn’t forget your evil warmth nonsense is contradicted by much higher damage to humanity from cold and in fact your position would exacerbate the peril of 3 billion humans who cook and heat with dung or struggle without clean water.

And of course he would hammer home that your charlatan buddies driving the greatest fraud in history have been caught red-handed creating 390x HS algorithms, splicing, inverting, deleting and nonsensically adjusting historical contrary data (while lying about it) and subverting FOIA and the peer review process in climate science.

Finally, he would identify the falsified models that ignore planetary, solar, cloud and oceanic influences while claiming a slight rise in CO2 from near catastrophic levels is dangerous.

Clearly, within five minutes even the most ignorant observer would easily identify you as a pompous charlatan.

What do you mean by “catastropic?” Catstrophic to whom? In what way? Where? When?

Where have I ever used the word “catastrophic?”

Slacko

No, he said “a slight rise in CO2 FROM near catastrophic levels.” i.e. from nearer to 180 ppmv.

hunter

David,This line of argument, that”climate change” is not really catastrophic, has neen trotted out before when defenders of the climate faith are losing.
It did not work for them, and it is not working for you.
Think for a second why it did not work.

Gerald Machnee

It would take me only a couple of minutes to ask 2 questions neither Appell or others have been able to answer here.

Gerald: Go for it.

Alley

If a scientist wrote that on this message board, she would be kicked off. But since Joel is standing with non-science, you are “overreacting” at the threats.

Alley: Scientists don’t write on message boards. They’re too busy doing science. THey don’t read them either.

hunter

You are a silly man. Please continue.

MarkW

“Scientists don’t write on message boards.”

So you have finally admitted that you aren’t a scientist.

Michael Jankowski

They don’t read them when…starting today? Plenty of climate scientists have message board reading and writing experience.

There’s also places like Real Climate, where Gavin Schmidt is reading and writing comments during work hours when he’s supposed to be practicing climate science on our dime. Michael Mann is one of many alleged climate scientists who spends lots of time on social media like twitter, so he’s apparently not “too busy doing science.”

Are you really this naive?

Mary Brown

I’m a climatilogist and I read message boards quite frequently. This thread is worthless but many have very interesting back and forth in the comments. Like most, my true expertise is rather narrow. For 95% of the issues, i rely on others with more expertise. Some articles read well until you see comments from very knowledgeable people who see it differently. The comments are an excellent form of modern, real time, peer review

My favorite place to read the blog and comment posts is at Climate etc. There you get more science, less bias, and less trash talk than other sites

Felix

Mary,

Dr. Curry’s site is indeed good, and some contributors here also, or primarily publish there first, such as Javier.

However, if you want more people to read what you have to say, WUWT gets a lot more eyeballs. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Climate, etc has more science and less invective perhaps precisely because its traffic is lower.

DonM

Say that again as you are standing in front of the mirror.

Mickey Reno

Appell wrote: “They don’t read them either.”

You just can’t help but making crap up, can you? I remember when Jean S. found the major problem in methodology in the first Gergis, Karoly “Southern Hemisphere Hockey Sticks” paper, and he posted about it on Climate Audit very late one night in the US. Within a few hours, the paper was being retracted, and this only a few days after it had been pimped at RealClimate. And then, Joelle Gergis shamefully, claimed she and her co-authors had found the problem independently. Even though one of her co-authors had e-mailed her in the middle of her night (in Australia) about the error, within minutes of the Jean S post.

David, the real problem here is that CAGW will not impress very many people when the people claiming it to be objective truth are a bunch of tendentious, self-serving, lying weasels. And, I’m sorry, but when you ape the words of lying weasels, you become an apologist for lying weasel-dom.

Felix

Many distinguished professional scientists comment on this blog.

Consensus “climate scientists” gin up all kinds of prospective catastrophes. Otherwise, why worry about more plant food in the air?

Hansen is concerned about boiling oceans, because we’re on the “Venus Express”. Others are less biblical and worry about rising sea levels, or the effects of warmer air on crops.

Why do you worry about AGW if it would be only beneficial, as Arrhenius and Callendar believed?

Felix

And of course the list of supposed catastrophes includes both flood and drought, more storms and fewer storms, plus extreme WX and “WX weirding, which can mean anything.

None of which is in evidence, or even likely, based upon the physics and chemistry of air and sea.

gnomish

i knew that! i’ve been to gavin’s site where they hang out.

And suddenly…. Moderation.

It’s the same every time — how dare someone dispute the poster or commenter here……

Sunsettommy

I approved it three minutes after it fell into the Mod bin, relax!

Sun: Great, thanks.

David Guy-Johnson

Paranoia setting in again David?

MarkW

“And suddenly…. Moderation.”

So now you believe that even the computers are out to get you.

Joel Snider

Just so you understand the difference, a ‘threat’ is when a person says they are GOING to do something.
Histrionic much?

Joel Snider

Just so you understand the difference, a ‘threat’ is when someone says they are GOING to do something.
Histrionic much?

Alan Tomalty

Mr. Appell I would debate you anytime anywhere. Chuck Wiese let you off easy. He didnt mention that if the US did ,what you want them to do ,that would lower the temperature of the earth by 5/100 of a C by the year 2100. Meanwhile China is putting 4% more CO2 into the air every year. Also Chuck did not have time to point out that the Upper troposphere hot spot has never been found despite every climate model predicting it based on the physics. Chuck Wiese is wrong though about one thing. You dont lie about everything. At least you told one truthful statement; that CO2 does absorb infrared radiation. I also noted that you kept baiting him to publish in a journal. WE both know that all the major journals refuse to publish anything that contradicts the global warming meme. The “climate scientists” have stacked the deck in more ways than one.

Alan: The hot spot has been shown by Sherwood and Nishant ERL 2015.

Also by a Po-Chedly et al paper I need to look up. Back in a jif.

Sharpshooter

Okay…now address the rest of his post. Or just weasel out, like always.

Shrp: Whose post? What am I supposed to respond to?

Sharp, it’s very clear I don’t “weasel out” of any responses or challenges here.

David,

“Sharp, it’s very clear I don’t “weasel out” of any responses or challenges here.”

Are you even paying attention?

Please stop weaseling out of answering the question I asked about the origin of the power required to replace the emissions consequential to the 0.8C increase claimed to arise from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing.

Hivemind

I thought ERL 2015 was shown to be wrong.

Hive: By whom? Citation?

Here’s the Stephen Po-Chedley article I was thinking of:

Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: Understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies
Authors
Stephen Po-Chedley, Tyler J Thorsen, Qiang Fu
Publication date
2015/3
Journal of Climate
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
2274-2290

Hoser

Atm CO2 levels are largely driven by biological responses to temperature changes and insolation, i.e. whether photosynthesis occurs (plants in the light) or only glycolysis (plants and animals in the dark). Diurnal cycle “contamination” removal simply obscures the CO2 level driver, biology. That conclusion is almost inescapable from the OCO2 measurements of atm CO2 over a year, and yet NASA find a way to weasel around it.
Judge for yourself.

Alan Tomalty

Since that was a computer model simulation. So therefore useless.

Alan Tomalty

Oh cmon, you are the charlatan of charlatans. The study you quote used models and wind speeds as proxies for temperatures. Instead of actual thermometers the models used wind speeds as an approximation of temperatures. If that is an example of how inept and incompetent climate science will stoop to, it isnt even worth debating with climate scientists because they are living in a fantasy world.

TimTheToolMan

From Sherwood

The data did not exactly fit model predictions, however: tropospheric warming fell short of predictions in a narrow band between an altitude of 14 and 15 km in the tropics and subtropics. Sherwood believes there may be a mechanism mitigating the warming that has not yet been accounted for. “The main candidates for this would be associated with various kinds of air pollution, and would probably not continue to mitigate warming for much longer,” he said.

No it wasn’t David.

From Po-Chedely

We revisit this issue using atmospheric GCMs with prescribed historical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and coupled atmosphere–ocean GCMs that participated in the latest model intercomparison project, CMIP5.

Again no they don’t. They prescribe SST ie force the model to have surface temperature that the model couldn’t achieve on its own to get the answer.

Neither show the hotpot in the models. Both confirm the deficiencies of the models. And that you understood neither comes as no surprise.

bit chilly

more b/s david, you are on a roll. a bog roll. uk readers will get that.

By the way, Alan, the tropical midtropshperic “hot spot” appears for ANY kind of warming, not just manmade GHG warming.

Sunsettommy

Now that is NOT true David, because the IPCC modeling scenarios showed that the only time the hot spot showed up was when the GHG’s were attributed to it.

You have been shown this before, still you promote the lie.

Sun wrote:
“Now that is NOT true David, because the IPCC modeling scenarios showed that the only time the hot spot showed up was when the GHG’s were attributed to it.”

Wrong. Go learn the science.

Sunsettommy

No you are IGNORING what the IPCC published about this

Starting at page 674 that shows the revealing chart that make clear that they model CO2 as the dominant cause of the “hot spot”

“Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

The IPCC says you are wrong.

Sun: Your comment is interesting and I’m not done thinking about it, but for now see Figure 1 in Sherwood and Nishant, here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007

Richard S Courtney

David Appell,

You don’t need to think about it because I spelled it out on WUWT only a couple of days ago.

My explanation is at June 27, 2018 10:46 pm in the thread at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/27/survey-tries-to-assess-the-usefulness-of-climate-models/

I copy it to here to remove need for people to locate it, and in the (probably forlorn) hope that you will read it and learn instead of metaphorically putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “Lah! Lah! lah!”

“Leo Smith:

You rightly say of climate modelers,
“… they ‘invented’ a mysterious ‘positive feedback’ whose fiddle factors is lambda ( λ )”

YES! And the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says – as you say, that this disproves anthropogenic (i.e. human made) global warming (AGW) as emulated by the climate models because the models predict the feedback must create the ‘tropospheric hot spot’.

The absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ demonstrates that the models are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality. Their only “success” is in generation of computer games that promote a political ideology.

The ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is warming at altitude that is between two-times and three-times the warming at the surface in the tropics. It is clearly explained by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Chapter 9 of IPCC WG1 AR4 and specifically Figure 9.1.

The IPCC Chapter can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
and its Figure 9.1 is on page 675.

Importantly, the text says,
“The major features shown in Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models.”

The Figure caption says;
“Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) well mixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”

The tropospheric ‘hot spot’ is the big, red blob that is only seen in Panels (c) and (f) of Figure 9.1.

In other words, the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of “well mixed greenhouse gases” predicted by the PCM models the IPCC approves. And that effect is so great that the models predict it has overwhelmed all the other significant forcings.

But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).

The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models provide a representation of model climate change as it exists in the real world. And the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.

In other words,
IF ONE BELIEVES THE IPCC THEN THE ABSENCE OF THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS A DIRECT REFUTATION OF THE AGW HYPOTHESIS AS EMULATED BY THE CLIMATE MODELS.

However, the reason for the ‘hot spot’ is not unique to anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) warming or “well mixed greenhouse gases” and is as follows.
1.
Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.
2.
CO2 is also a greenhouse gas so increased CO2 in the air increases radiative forcing to increase temperature.
3.
The models assume increased temperature induced by increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of water held in the atmosphere (because of point 1).
4.
But water vapour is the main greenhouse gas so radiative forcing is increased a lot by the increased amount of water the models assume is held in the atmosphere as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.
5.
The large increase to radiative forcing from the increased amount of water held in the atmosphere increases the temperature a lot.

Points 1 to 5 are known as the Water Vapour Feedback (WVF).
The direct effect on global temperature from a doubling of CO2 in the air would be about 1 deg.C. And (according to e.g. the IPCC) the effect of the WVF is to increase this warming to between 3 and 4.5 deg.C.

Clearly, there are large assumptions in calculation of the WVF: this is undeniable because the range of its calculated effect is so large (i.e. to increase warming of ~1 deg.C to a warming in the range 3 to 4.5 deg.C).

One of the assumptions is how much water vapour is held in the atmosphere and where it is distributed. Large effects of the WVF are induced by assumption of large increase to water vapour at altitude.

The major radiative forcing effect is at altitude in the tropics because
(a) long wave radiation is from the Earth’s surface,
(b) emission of the radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature,
(c) the surface temperature is hottest in the tropics, and
(d) cold air holds little water vapour.

Temperature decreases with altitude and, therefore, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour decreases with altitude. So, small increase to temperature with altitude permits the air at altitude to hold more water. And, therefore, enables WVF at altitude.

The increase to WVF with altitude causes largest increase to radiative forcing (so largest increase to temperature) at altitude. And the radiative forcing effect is strongest in the tropics so the largest increase to temperature at altitude is in the tropics.

This ‘largest increase to temperature at altitude in the tropics’ is the ‘hot spot’. But the ‘hot spot’ is missing.

This could be because
(i) the assumption of WVF is wrong,
or
(ii) the calculated increase to radiative forcing of CO2 and/or water vapour is wrong,
or
(iii) the calculated ability of air to hold water vapour is wrong,
or
(iv) something else as yet unknown.

Whichever of these is true, it is certain that the absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is conclusive evidence that
Climate models fail to represent observed climate changes.
Or
There has been no global warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
Or
There has been no global warming from any cause including “well mixed greenhouse gases”.

In other words, climate models predicting global warming are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality, and their only “success” is in generation of computer games that are used to promote a political ideology.

Richard”

Richard

Richard Courtney, up until recently there were too many uncertainties in the data to identify the “hot spot.” But in 2015 it revealed itself:

“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article

Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/

Richard S Courtney

David Appell;

I correctly wrote,
“But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).

The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models provide a representation of model climate change as it exists in the real world. And the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.”

And you have replied,
“Richard Courtney, up until recently there were too many uncertainties in the data to identify the “hot spot.” But in 2015 it revealed itself:

“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article

Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/

SAY WHAT!
Please don’t try to pretend you believe the nonsense you have posted in your reply to me.

I cited radiosonde data that is direct measurements of temperature obtained by using calibrated air temperature sensors mounted on weather balloons, and it is confirmed by similar temperature indications provided by the completely independent remote measurements of temperature provided by microwave sounding units mounted on satelites,

The paper you cite claims that windspeed around the weather balloons provides a better indication of the temperature than the direct measurements of temperature from the calibrated temperature sensors. That is risible: only ‘climate science’ pal review could get such nonsense published.

Be honest, you posted your reply to me as a laugh, didn’t you ?

Richard

Sunsettommy

When he brought up this silly paper, I knew it was going to be a waste of time with this dude:

“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.”

I recall Jo Nova destroying this nonsense a while back:

Desperation — who needs thermometers? Sherwood finds missing hot spot with homogenized “wind” data

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/

Sunsettommy

By the way David, I posted this THREE years ago showing that the “hot spot” doesn’t exist:

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/#comment-1711194

Bill Illis writes,

“Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.”

More hard reality in the link.

Tom Abbott

“I cited radiosonde data that is direct measurements of temperature obtained by using calibrated air temperature sensors mounted on weather balloons, and it is confirmed by similar temperature indications provided by the completely independent remote measurements of temperature provided by microwave sounding units mounted on satelites,”

The balloon temperature data confirms the satellite temperature data.

Think about that for a while.

I guess this means the balloon data does *not* confirm the Hockey Stick chart temperature data.

Richard S Courtney

Tom Abbott,

You say,
“I guess this means the balloon data does *not* confirm the Hockey Stick chart temperature data.”

Of course it doesn’t. Let me know in the unlikely event that somebody finds something that does.

Richard

Alan Tomalty

No. Appell was serious. He actually wants to take us back to 1637 before thermometers were invented with a scale.

Alan Tomalty

Quit using wind speeds as proxies for temperatures. Thermometers are used for temperatures. Robert Fludd invented the thermometer in 1638. It was the first thermoscope to have a scale. We havent had to measure temperatures by proxies since then and even though alarmists like you want to take us back to the 1600’s by getting rid of fossil fuels. I refuse to take the time machine with you back to that era.

Alan says ” Robert Fludd invented the thermometer in 1638″ … You are wrong Alan. In 1612, the Italian inventor Santorio Santorio became the first inventor to put a numerical scale on his thermoscope

Alan Tomalty

Ok I was just quoting Wikipedia .Serves me right for trusting them.

old construction worker

Thank you for the clean, clear outline of the “hypotheses”.

Richard wrote:
“Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.”

Models don’t “assume” that — it’s an outcome from solving the underlying PDEs that describe the climate system under human emissions of CO2.

Richard S Courtney

David Appell.

I correctly wrote:
“Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.”

And you have replied,
“Models don’t “assume” that — it’s an outcome from solving the underlying PDEs that describe the climate system under human emissions of CO2.”

No. You are plain wrong. Clearly, you don’t know how the models are constructed and operate, so I am providing this post to enlighten you.

None of the climate models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect
(such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.

This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcing resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.

In 1999 I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.

The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.

And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).

More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).

Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.

Kiehl says in his paper:
“One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.

The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007)
Iently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity. “

Importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
“These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity. “

And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.

Kiehl’s Figure 2 is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models and shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^2 to -0.60 W/m^2.

In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.

So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.

The climate models are merely glorified curve fitting exercises, and for them to work they require that basic data such as WVF be ‘built in’.

Richard

Tom Abbott

Exceptional posts, Richard. Thanks for the effort.

Richard S Courtney

Tom Abbott,

The “effort” is my pleasure (although to be sure I am thinking sufficiently clearly I need to reduce my pain relief ).

The pleasure outweighs my pain because “the enemy of my friend is my enemy”, and in the above videos and in this thread the exceptionally obnoxious David Appell is attempting to demean Chuck Weise.

Chuck is a gentleman I have learned to respect and to like despite his and my political beliefs being poles apart.

Richard

Mike the Morlock

Hi Richard
Thank you for commenting, I always gain some insight from your statements.
Please, comment when you can. It is nice to see you expose someone like David Appell for the incompetent that he is.
Now, per his Asimov quote, when can we expect him to become violent?

michael

bit chilly

richard, the key to meaningful enlightening debate has always been mutual respect between participants. this is the main reason climate science has stalled in advancement. debating in an echo chamber due to lack of respect for those of different opinion leads to closed minds.

the fall from grace when it comes will be long and painful for those that have derided alternative opinion from people that genuinely seek the truth. keep up the good work,i wish you well and pain free in the future.

Alan Tomalty

“each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2”

If the models were any good they should be forced to calculate this from the underlying physics. Because they don’t do that, that proves that the models don’t have the underlying “forcing” physics programmed into them. Without the underlying physics they are just a guess machine that is tuned for every new version. They cannot model clouds under 1.5km . To be able to model correctly they would need to have spatial resolution of a raindrop, which is impossible. In fact the modellers actually cheat on future scenarios because they have to shortcut the time taken to model the future because we dont want to have to wait a 100 years running the simulation just to get an answer a 100 years from now. Think about that. Any projection into the future has to shortcut the equations used just so you get an answer in a reasonable amount of time. Any shortcut introduces physics errors of such magnitude as to make any projection useless. To top it all off, the models used to simulate out of control until they purposely flattened the simulations so as to not end up in a completely chaotic simulation that was essentially useless.

paul courtney

Richard Courtney, I am very grateful for your contribution, enduring pain to make sure Mr. Appell’s fiction is exposed. I notice he ran, so you can get back on your pain med, and please send some to Mr. Appell, he’s gonna want to put some ice on that.

philo

Nobody has “solved” the PDEs that describe the climate system. What they have done is use inadequate computer algorithms that cannot refine the accuracy of the calculations enough to actually produce results that would match “solutions”. This is a computational problem, not a climate theory problem. The inaccuracy in the calculations guarantee that after a few model iterations the results will blow up to cover the whole solution space.

David,
You need to look at the models before you can proclaim that they don’t assume things. For example, consider the file RADIATION.F in the GISS ModelE that is the primary source for the IPCC’s inane conclusions. This file contains the guts of the radiative transfer model they use and has thousands of baked in floating point constants, most of which have little or no documentation, moreover; the spaghetti Fortran code is hard to follow and in my experience, this style of coding attracts errors like shit attracts flies.

Alan Tomalty

So then after 20 years of measuring water vapour in the troposphere. after not being able to prove any increase James Hansen shut the project down. NASA does not measure water vapour any more because they know it doesnt increase. AGW needs an increase in water vapour in order for forcing of temperature to work. Another nail in the AGW coffin.

bit chilly

i hope you enjoy the utter humiliation of your arguments by richard s courtney david, i certainly do.

Alan Tomalty

Quit using Sherwood and Nishant. They used wind speeds as proxies for temperature. That isnt science that is Alice in Wonderland stuff

hunter

Perhaps the IPCC shoukd learn your science.

Hivemind

Last time I checked, that only happened in computer models. In the real world, that “hot spot” would immediately disappear due to convection. It only appears in computer models because they aren’t programmed to do convection. Only “radiative forcing”.

HotScot

David Appell

“By the way, Alan, the tropical midtropshperic “hot spot” appears for ANY kind of warming, not just manmade GHG warming.”

How do we tell the difference?

Alan Tomalty

You don’t because there never has been a hot spot in the past , there isnt now a hot spot in the present and there never will be a hot spot in the future. THE HOT SPOT only exists in computer climate models and David Appell’s brain.

Alan Tomalty

The 2nd study does not find real world data evidence that there is a hot spot. I will quote just one sentence in the paper.
” In general, it is impossible to conclude which dataset is most accurate when comparing two potentially biased measurements (Mears et al. 2012).”

So until a hotspot is actually found that is at least 2 or 3 times hotter than anywhere else in troposphere, the Null hypothesis that there is no hot spot cannot be disproven.

Craig from Oz

“If violence isn’t your last resort, you have failed to resort to enough of it” – 🙂

Sharpshooter

“Always be polite. Always look people in the eye. And always have a plan to kill everyone you meet” — Gen. David Mattis, USMC

David, we are still waiting for you to show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.

I’ve addressed your complaint dozens of times, Karlock (=jim). You have not ever responded to even one of them.

If that were true, i would expect you to merely show that evidence here and settle all question about CAGW.

Fact is all you ever posted is drivel & I pointed out your errors in every case that I saw. Your best one was a cite to the IPCC report where they showed graphs with and without man’s CO2. In essence they were saying that their models, that have failed miserably, do not match reality unless they add man’s CO2 Even if the models worked, that amounts to: “We know the warming, that statistically stopped in 1995, and slightly reversed since 2005, was caused by man’s CO2 because we cannot figure out anything else!”

David, here is a chance for you to learn something from THE national leader in the battle against CO2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzCXwF39enc

BTW, Davie, please refresh my memory: How many aliases have you used on the various blogs?

Karlock, I long ago saw that you never engage in discussion or response.

David Appell–“Karlock, I long ago saw that you never engage in discussion or response.”
Wrong – I have debunked your false claims time after time.

Alan Tomalty

I would like any evidence to show that CO2 causes any warming.

jorgekafkazar

Thank you for participating, Dr. Appell.

Felix

I second that emotion.

And hope that our gracious host might dispense indulgences for any past indiscretions.

David Guy-Johnson

Not with you it wouldn’t as you wouldn’t listen to any other viewpoint😂

David,
1) Your insistence on sending work to a journal is silly considering that the known physics found in any introductory physics textbook is not a proper topic fit for any journal.
2) You clearly don’t understand black bodies and that yes, the Earth is not an ideal black body, but a non ideal black body is called a gray body whose behavior is absolutely quantifiable, moreover; the T^4 dependency is first principles immutable physics and no amount of feedback or anything else can change this.
3) You aren’t even aware of what the controversy is all about and drone on and on about touchy feely BS in order to support what your fake science can not. The only thing controversial is the claimed magnitude of the ECS and tenuous anomalies tortured from dubiously adjusted data does not constitute an absurdly high ECS as settled science.
4) If you are the physicist you claim to be, then explain the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 of input power to the surface required in order to ‘amplify’ 1 W/m^2 of forcing into enough to offset the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions that would arise from the predicted 0.8C rise.

Alan Tomalty

“If you are the physicist you claim to be, then explain the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 of input power to the surface required in order to ‘amplify’ 1 W/m^2 of forcing into enough to offset the 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions that would arise from the predicted 0.8C rise.”

That last sentence would tend to prove that DWIR is a fiction.

I don’t understand what you mean. And the Charney sensitivity is 1.2 C.

“That last sentence would tend to prove that DWIR is a fiction.”

Not necessarily, as each W/m^2 of forcing results in 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions, thus there are about 0.6 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing that must be accounted for. Being less than 1 W/m^2, this represents absolute stability and it can be readily explained.

The atmosphere absorbs about 72% of the photons emitted by the surface, or about 280 W/m^2 of the 380 W/m^2 of emissions. In the steady state, geometrical constraints require that half of the 280 W/m^2 absorbed is returned to the surface, while the remaining half escapes into space.

Half of 280 W/m^2 is 140 W/m^2 which when added to the 240 W/m^2 of post albedo solar forcing is exactly enough to offset the emissions by the surface. Similarly, if 280 W/m^2 of 380 W/m^2 is absorbed, 100 W/m^2 escapes, which when added to the 140 W/m^2 originating from the atmosphere offsets the 240 W/m^2 of incident solar energy. Everything is in balance just as it should be.

Can you prove even 1/4th of your claims….? Because I can’t tell what you mean, you need to express yourself better.

I’ve expressed myself quite clearly. Perhaps the elegance of how trivial arithmetic connects COE, the SB Law and the energy balance to the sensitivity. Either you reject Occam’s Razor as the destructor of excess complexity, reject the T^4 dependence of W/m^2 on temperature, reject COE or you reject the conclusion because it defies what you want to believe.

Now, you answer my question about the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 in excess of the W/m^2 of forcing that’s required to offset the increase in emissions consequential to an 0.8C rise in temperature.

Trevor

(SNIPPED)

(Your entire comment was about insulting David, in various ways) MOD

Richard Patton

Trevor: I am not David’s fan but this is bordering on an ad hominem attack.

Trevor

Correct !

Alan Tomalty

Where do you get the 72% figure from and it may help if you provide an energy budget diagram . Ive seen about 20 of these and as to which one is right?

The 72% number can be derived based on the fractions of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere weighted by average cloud coverage. It can also be derived from other more easily measured factors as there are more equations than variables.

Alan Tomalty

There seems to be something missing in your energy balance . If 343 W/m^2 comes in to atmosphere from the sun and 30% gets reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. That leaves 240 which gets to surface. However part of that 30% gets absorbed. The rest of your energy balance works except that the part of the 30% that was absorbed by atmosphere is an extra number that unbalances your energy budget.

Alan Tomalty

Also the figures you show of DWIR are assuming that the atmosphere is then emitting 100 % of what it absorbed or 280. However it only absorbed 73% of the 380 that was emitted by surface. So you are saying that the atmosphere behaves like a grey body when absorbing but a blackbody when emitting.

Alan,
Since we are considering only the long term steady state, we can consider solar energy absorbed and emitted by the water in clouds as a proxy for solar energy absorbed and emitted by the oceans since the averages whose change we are concerned with are over periods of time that dwarf the water cycle.

Modeling the atmosphere as a gray body is an EQUIVALENT model which is the simplest model that can accurately replicate the behavoir of the system at its inputs and outputs. For the atmosphere, the inputs and outputs are the radiant flux at the boundaries between the atmosphere and space and the atmosphere and the surface. This follows the best practices for modeling unknown, black box systems, where the only visibility into the system is at its boundaries.

This model predicts ONLY the behavior at these boundaries and is independent of the specific behavior of the atmosphere. All that matters is that the system honors the REQUIRED behavior at these boundaries as dictated by first principles physics. How the atmosphere manifests this REQUIRED behavior is irrelevant to either the radiative balance or the sensitivity.

Obsessing about the low level complexity is the analytical flaw applied by both sides of climate science and is why converging to a solution has been so problematic. Simulating the details is an NP complete problem thus requiring numerous assumptions and simplifications in order to arrive at any solution while simulating the REQUIRED behavior at the boundaries of the atmosphere is absolutely deterministic.

Alan,

The data that goes in to the calculation includes data from from HITRAN which is the fraction of surface emissions absorbed by GHG’s in the clear sky, As=0.54, and the fraction absorbed between cloud tops and space, Ac=.38 (much less water vapor). From the ISCCP data is the average fraction of the surface covered by clouds, p=.66 and the average emissivity of clouds given the specified fraction of coverage, Ec = 0.71. The calculation is as follows:

surface emissions absorbed by the clear sky + surface emissions absorbed by clouds + surface emissions passing through clouds and absorbed between cloud tops and space.

(1-p)*As + p*Ec + p*(1-Ec)*Ac = (1-.66)*.54 + .66*.71 + .66*(1-.71)*.38 =
.18 + .47 + .07 = 0.72

If you don’t like my HITRAN numbers or any of the other values, plug in whatever you want and see what happens. For example, if As=.8 and Ac=.5, the fraction absorbed becomes,

.27 + .47 + .10 = 0.84

For a surface emitting on average 390 W/m^2, 84% is 327 W/m^2 leaving only 63 W/m^2 to pass through (this would more closely match Trenberth’s assumptions). In this case, 177 W/m^2 must originate from the atmosphere in order to offset the 240 W/m^2 that’s arriving, leaving 150 W/m^2 to be returned to the surface, which when added to the 240 W/m^2 of total forcing is equal to the 390 W/m^2 being emitted. However; in this case, the fraction of absorbed surface emissions returned to the surface is only 150/327 = 0.46, which is less than the 0.5 dictated by the geometry while the alarmists will try and contend that even more than half of what the atmosphere absorbs will be returned to the surface which of course doesn’t leave enough to escape out into space in order to offset the incident energy.

As you can see, if you accept the constraints of geometry, there’s not enough wiggle room for the atmosphere to be absorbing as much as Trenberth claims and returning as much to the surface, while at the same time emitting enough into space to offset the incident energy, moreover; the geometric constraints tell us everything we need to know about how emissions are distributed, thus his assumptions aren’t even required. It’s astounding to me that this blatant contradiction in the consensus logic has survived for as long as it has.

Alan Tomalty

Until you include the evaporation/ condensation cycle with it’s addition and subtraction of latent heat; your analysis cannot be complete. The reason is that evaporation draws heat out of both the oceans and the atmosphere and converts it into latent heat hidden inside of the water molecule. That leaves an open question as to how much IR can a water molecule absorb in the atmosphere since it already has latent heat inside it. Condensation then puts some of that latent heat ( now converted to sensible heat) back into the atmosphere and probably most of it to outer space. The word “some” is important in the above sentence because when it rains not all of the latent heat gets converted back into sensible heat because the water molecule needs some latent heat in case it freezes. Because when water freezes of course there is some latent heat lost again to the atmosphere as sensible heat. Not much but a little. The whole cycle of ice to water to H2O vapour adds latent heat in each of the 2 steps and the process from H2O vapour to water to ice loses latent heat in both steps. Then you also have to consider the process of H2O vapour immediately to ice crystals and the reverse process of ice to H2O vapour with the water stage bypassed in both.

Alan,
The evaporation/condensation cycle has little, if anything to do with the sensitivity or what the energy balance must be and is only an energy transport mechanism utilized by the system to achieve the required balance.

This brings up an analytical error that’s common among both skeptics and alarmists which is an obsession with the internal processes of the atmosphere when all that really matters is the behavior at its boundaries with the surface and with space. It’s an exercise in futility to try and out psych all the complexities of what’s within and hope that the proper macroscopic behavior emerges at the boundaries when that proper macroscopic behavior is trivially dictated by first principles physics. BTW, no GCM, except perhaps the Russian one, closes the loop by comparing the emergent behavior with the required behavior as dictated by first principles physics.

Trenberth screwed the pooch by conflating radiant and non radiant energy in the radiant energy balance. If you examine his balance carefully and subtract out the return of latent heat and thermals from his bogus ‘back radiation’ term, all that’s left are the W/m^2 offsetting the BB emissions of the surface. In other words, non radiant energy entering the atmosphere from the surface has a zero sum influence on the balance.

The highly obfuscated falsifying test this brings up is what effect does latent heat and thermals plus their return to the surface have on the surface temperature, its BB emissions, the resulting radiant balance and sensitivity other then the effect they have already manifested in the average surface temperature and its corresponding BB emissions?

As far as water in the atmosphere, yes, it removes latent heat from the water drop that it evaporates from, but that latent heat is returned to another water droplet when the water vapor molecule condenses upon it. Eventually, that latent heat is returned to the surface as liquid water that’s warmer than it would be otherwise. The only possible way any of this latent can be transferred to air molecules is when those air molecules collide with water droplets. Since we are talking about change as it effects the long term steady state, by definition, atmospheric water must be in equilibrium and absorbing the same amount of energy that it’s emitting. Otherwise, it would continue to heat or cool without bound, therefore, any net transfer of latent heat to the atmosphere is zero and it all returns to the surface as rain.

BTW, latent heat doesn’t affect the absorption of IR by water vapor, as latent heat is a property of all molecules of water vapor.

Alan Tomalty

CO2isnotevil said
“As far as water in the atmosphere, yes, it removes latent heat from the water drop that it evaporates from, but that latent heat is returned to another water droplet when the water vapor molecule condenses upon it. Eventually, that latent heat is returned to the surface as liquid water that’s warmer than it would be otherwise. The only possible way any of this latent can be transferred to air molecules is when those air molecules collide with water droplets. Since we are talking about change as it effects the long term steady state, by definition, atmospheric water must be in equilibrium and absorbing the same amount of energy that it’s emitting. Otherwise, it would continue to heat or cool without bound, therefore, any net transfer of latent heat to the atmosphere is zero and it all returns to the surface as rain.”

H2O vapour in the atmosphere gets there, all by evaporation . Mostly from the oceans. That process creates latent heat within the water vapour molecule. Some of that latent heat comes from the ocean water and some from the atmosphere itself. When the water vapour molecule finally condenses most of that latent heat is lost to the atmosphere.

What you describe would result in the oceans boiling over because the only way they would be able to release heat (in your scenario) would be IR radiating from a thin watery surface. That amount of IR from water must be an order of magnitude lower than that radiated from land. The amount of heat from the oceans transferred to latent heat in the process of evaporation must be the largest transfer of heat/IR in the whole energy balance. Oceans are 70% of surface. I contend that latent heat is the key to the energy balance. The only argument is where does that latent heat (that is released as sensible heat upon condensation) go? If 70%(earth surface % of oceans) of 50%( half to space upwards and half downwards) which is 35%, all went back to oceans, the oceans would again boil over. Therefore by convection, that latent heat must get lost to space.

The sole remaining question is whether the back radiation from the CO2 and H2O vapour (that resulted from the IR from oceans and land ) is large enough to cause a temperature increase? I say NO because any amount of back radiation would result in runaway global warming.

Let us say that you have a dam with the dam’s walls that will never increase in height and have a constant source of water flowing to it and an outlet bypass pipe that takes the water downstream that bypasses the dam so that the dam never overflows as long as the river flow is constant (analagous to solar output). Then you divert some of that water through a special pipe that reduces the amount that flows through the bypass pipe. This special pipe then gets poured on to the water on top of the dam itself. Dont forget that the original bypass pipe is now reduced( TOA IR escaping). The water from this new pipe that is being poured on to the top of the dam will either cause the dam to overflow or will increase the amount through the original bypass back to what it was. The whole AGW conjecture is based on us believing that the dam just keeps increasing the amount of water it contains. Something doesn’t add up.

Alan,

“most of that latent heat is lost to the atmosphere. ”

No. Energy is never ‘lost’, nor is latent heat directly converted into the kinetic energy of O2 and N2 molecules in motion which is the primary manifestation of the kinetic temperature of the atmosphere.

Water evaporating from the surface mostly evaporates from other water in which case, the latent heat comes from the body of water that is evaporating and cools it. Conversely, when water condenses in the atmosphere, the latent heat is returned to the water condensed upon. There is no physical connection to air molecules during this process and the ONLY place that latent heat can end up is in the heat of the droplet of water. When atmospheric water evaporates, the droplet it evaporates from cools.

The CAGW idea that the temperature increases without bound is a consequence of the implicit power supply in the model that isn’t part of the system being modeled which enables an absurdly high ECS. Nonetheless, there’s definitely LWIR being returned to the surface by both GHG molecules and clouds, except that this is not new energy as it would be in a linear Bode feedback amplifier, but is energy emitted by the surface in the past and that was absorbed, delayed and ultimately redirected back to the surface.

GHG molecules return wavelengths of energy in their absorption bands while even the tiniest droplets of water are black bodies that emit a broad band spectrum of of photons. The amount of LWIR ultimately returned to the surface is 600 milliwatts per W/m^2 of forcing, thus 240 W/m^2 of forcing results in surface emissions of 1.6*240 = 390 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature of 288K. Only a return of energy greater than 1 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of solar forcing will cause a runaway condition and this is a result of Bode’s stability criteria, although the phase of the feedback is generally more important to stability.

The radiant return of surface emissions absorbed by the atmosphere is the only possible way that the surface can be warmer than 255K. The molecules of air in the atmosphere can not heat the surface, as they are being heated by the surface themselves.

Alan: Where exactly did I quote the number “72%?”

Alan Tomalty

No I was asking C2isnotevil

Robert W. Turner

Ocean current oscillations.

“Ocean current oscillations.”

Where’s the data on that?

D. J. Hawkins

Why, he’s just following the fine example of Ben Santer, who issued similar threats, er, I mean sentiments, once upon a time.

What “threat” did I issue?

What “threat” did Ben Santer issue?

From: Ben Santer To: P.Jones Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700 I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
1255100876.txt

D. J. Hawkins

Jim, thanks for the back up.

Well Davey-boy, does that answer your question?

“I played the game and I’m still the same
And I never changed just to get a deal”

Trevor

Appell : Cor ! as in Apple Core !?? ( Not Cor as in Courage that’s for sure !)
No ! Not a threat ! He was just concerned that you would suffer
a heart attack and somehow THAT would be blamed on EXCESS CO2 !!
So ..it was really just compassion.
Regards and commiserations on your atrocious performance
and behaviour Mr Appell !
Trevor .

Jeff Alberts

Trevor hasn’t found a caps lock button yet that he doesn’t like. Dial back the emotion.

Joel Snider

No. However, I’m not one of these people that pretend to a pretentious, phony moral high-ground. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge when some contentious, stuck-up blowhard DESERVES a nice boot in the ass. The human urge to pop some @#$#$ who really needs it is as natural as eating or sex – it’s silly to deny it – but it’s really acting on those impulses that make the difference – which is pretty much illustrated by the near constant riots and intimidation by the progressive marching brooms incited by you and your ilk – all while you pretend to separate yourself from what you instigate.
But no, like pretty much anybody, you’re safe until you actually take a swing at me – probably safe there anyway – after all, you pretty much remind me of the guy that runs the comic store on the Simpsons.
Sorry if I frightened you.

Alley

Why? For violence or attraction?

Joel Snider

Well, he is such a good-lookin’ guy.

Trevor

Joel :
No you wouldn’t…….he doesn’t strike me as an appealing person !
and THAT would NOT be a wise use of your time !
Taking out your anger on someone else is NOT the best way to handle it !
{Quote : Anger is taking out somebody else’s faults on yourself ! }
………and even though I sympathise with you and I probably hold the same
views and attitudes……….I live a long way from you…….and VISITING HOURS
probably wouldn’t be convenient for either of us!!
RELAX ! Chuck Weise WAS MUCH MORE CREDIBLE and behaved like a proper
gentleman ( and he looks like he has the physique to really take Appell apart ,
IF he chose to , but wisely , he didn’t become physical , he just did it verbally ! ).
MUCH BETTER and REALLY SATISFYING on camera and off !

Joel Snider

Point taken.

Frederick Michael

“Frankly, I’d like five minutes alone with Appell.”

This is a perfect example of a comment that, at best, wastes the reader’s time.

I would recommend two separate threads; one for a scientific discussion and another for people who want to vent their emotions.

Joel Snider

Sorry you wasted those couple of seconds.

Frederick Michael

“at best.” Actually, I’d give people who say things like that a time out. The hardball tactics used by the warmistas is a testimony to their lack of legitimacy. In emulating their behavior, we cede the higher ground.

bit chilly

what’s good for the goose etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

R. Shearer

This comment is not name calling, it’s just an observation. A lot of people are as ugly on the outside as they are on the inside, or so I’ve noticed.

goldminor

Facts are facts, and Appell appears to be no more than an alarmist, when in person. His science arguments were very weak to non-existent. One would never know that he has science skills after listening to his presentation.

Yes, I *am* an alarmist. Because we should be alarmed at the rapid warming we’re causing.

Sunsettommy

There is no “alarming” warming trend which is obvious if you stop the baloney long enough.

Sun, I just don’t find your comments to be scientifically useful. Sorry.

Peter Wilson

As it happens, whether or not you find something “scientifically useful” is of no interest to the rest of us, only any evidence you may have, which is cleanly sorely lacking

Peter, I can’t respond to all of you. So I choose to respond to those people who make themselves clear.

Sunsettommy

But somehow you with that fat PHD in your back pocket failed to back up your absurd claim:

“Yes, I *am* an alarmist. Because we should be alarmed at the rapid warming we’re causing.”

You are running on empty as usual.

How am I “running on empty?” I’m running on 30-year trends, which are large.

Sunsettommy

Gee why is it so hard for you to just put up the numbers to defend your disputed statement?

I have no problem putting up numbers. I just didn’t think anyone here disagreed with 30-year trends of +0.15-0.2 C/dec. I assume anyone here can download and calculate the linear trend by least squares just as well as I can……

Appell—” I’m running on 30-year trends, which are large.”
NOT compared to history.
CET shows 4 periods of warming. All three earlier ones were faster than now.
1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.068 /yr
1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.056 /yr
1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.073 /yr
1963 to 2014 was from 8.52 to 10.95 for 2.43 degree in 51 years, or 0.048 /yr

hunter

Tornados, flat
Floods, flat
Heat waves, flat
Sea Level Rise, flat
Droughts, flat
Deaths from weather disasters, down
Famine, down
Crop productivity, up
Biomass, up

Alarmist credibility, down

bit chilly

the only point i disagree with is alarmist credibility. it is zero.

MarkW

They aren’t large, and they aren’t caused by CO2. Most 30 year trends are 100% natural.

MarkW

Translation: David can’t refute Sun’s comment, so he’s just going to pretend he’s too good for us and try to skate over the controversy.

Felix

Except for the 2016 super El Nino, there has been no warming at all for about 20 years.

And for the past two years, Earth has been rapidly cooling off from that El Nino, as it did after the 1998 El Nino.

Shorter Felix: Except for the warming, there has been no warming.

Felix

David,

Here’s the history of warming since the end of the LIA, c. 1850:

A warming cycle until the 1880s.

A cooling cycle until the 1910s.

A warming cycle until the 1940s.

A cooling cycle until 1977, when the PDO flipped.

A warming cycle until 1998, when a super El Nino happened.

Flat temperatures until 2016, when another super El Nino happened.

The dramatic cooling from the 1940s until 1977 occurred under rising CO2. The slight warming from 1977 to 1998 happened under rising CO2. The flat temperatures from 1998 until 2016 occurred under rising CO2. The pronounced cooling from 2016 until the present happened under rising CO2.

Where is the warming signal from CO2 in all these ups and downs?

Thanks!

Felix: Why do you discount El Ninos, but not La Ninas?

Alan Robertson

David Appell,
Perhaps you could clear up any doubt about your response to Felix’ simple question, by at least, pointing to data showing a clear CO2 signal in the temperature record.

MarkW

There hasn’t been a big La Nina in years, so no need to discount what hasn’t happened.

Charles Nelson

Is it true that the heat capacity of the ocean is 1200 times greater than that of the atmosphere?

TeaPartyGeezer

Yikes! Did Appell just call the El Nino anthropogenic?

TPG: No. Pay closer attention.

MarkW

Once again, David shows for all to see that either he can’t read or he’s utterly dishonest.
Your shorter verson of Felix’s comment bears no relationship to what he actually said.

hunter

But you never claimed “climate change” is
“catastrophic”.

Tom Abbott

Are you predicting a catastrophe is coming?

MarkW

1) The warming isn’t rapid. It’s gone up faster and higher many times in the past.
2) There is no evidence that we are causing more than a tiny fraction of the barely measurable warming that has occurred over the last 150 years.
3) Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?

Alan Tomalty

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I ‘m so scared. Mr. Appell says global warming is going to get me. To get all of us. Hmmmmmmm Maybe we can provide space flights to Mars for all the alarmists. Free flights paid for by all the carbon taxes they are raining down on us. We also will provide the infrastructure necessary on Mars to live there. Of course you will need a spacesuit to go outside when you are there, but at least you wont get drowned from all the earth’s melting ice sheets. We will make a world wide list of everyone that wants to go. It will only be a one way trip though. If the alarmists are truly saying that it is too late to save the earth then why wouldnt they go? And if it is not too late to save the earth Mr. Appell PLEASE GIVE US A DATE when the tipping point happens, so that we can plan to have the rockets ready to go 6 months ahead of time with rockets leaving every hour on the hour. Of course tipping point or not , I won’t be getting on one of those rocket flights.

Jeffrey Mitchell

“Beauty is only skin deep, but ugliness (metaphorical) goes all the way to the bone.”

ATheoK

It’s the CO₂ they didn’t exhale… Bad stuff.

/S

Respiration is carbon neutral. :=)

Trevor

David: RE RESPIRATION and CO2 LEVELS
CO2 is 0.041% in air INHALED and
4% to 5% in air EXHALED …..by humans.
If we are talking about CO2 in the air …how is that NEUTRAL ?
If you are claiming that the body is now LOWER by the same
amount of Carbon then you may have a point
BUT as regards the AIR you are WRONG !
The contention is that CO2 increase in air causes warming.
In a ” greenhouse” ( or more correctly , a hothouse ) there
is a sealed and confined space INTO WHICH additional
CO2 is introduced , along with heating , to stimulate plant
growth.
The Earth’s Atmosphere is an OPEN SYSTEM with convection
and it doesn’t function as a greenhouse ,
so even the TERM is WRONG.
Your HOT-SPOT doesn’t exist and the
SATELLITE INFORMATION shows that the Earth is
currently COOLING despite the CO2 level rising !
DO ALL THESE INCONSISTENCIES NOT CAUSE YOU WONDER
IF YOU MIGHT HAVE THE WRONG END OF THE NETTLE ?

tom0mason

And as the human population increases and all it’s needs have risen, why do alarmist insist that there should be an ‘Energy Balance’?
We are taking sunlight converting it to food, crops and livestock, and growing the population — all of this takes INCREASING (solar) energy, so there should NOT be a balance.
We are sequestering away solar energy, converting solar energy into chemical bonds, just the same as all terrestrial life does. The increasing human mass is testament to this occurring.
The only way there could be balance is if (approximately) the total mass of all terrestrial life using solar energy on the planet was constant — maybe that is what they are trying to promote?

By your definition, burning fossil fuels is also carbon neutral as most of the carbon in fossil fuels has a biological origin.

Rich Davis

Oversimplifying again, doctor.

Respiration would be carbon neutral for a person who has a stable body mass. Carbon in the pie hole equals carbon out the various exits.

Some people are massive carbon sinks. Recently I have been suffering from this myself. Gotta get more exercise.

Appears that your dietary science may be as flawed as your climate science.

Windsong

My wife listens to Lars’ regional show on the radio most days, so I caught the start of the on-air part of this and listened to most of it. Said to my wife, “I don’t understand why Lars has David Appell on with Chuck. David is a nut.” Actually pulled up WUWT during the debate and did a search under his name. Some interesting returns, but nothing much recently. But, gotta give him credit for showing up and doing the show.

Felix

Cuz of all the aliases.

Frederick Michael

I mostly disagree with David, but I am somewhere between furious and depressed over the way people have been addressing him here.

Please everyone, stick to scientific arguments. If you aren’t capable of that, allow this discussion to be less cluttered.

paul courtney

Mr. Michael: Above Richard Courtney (no relation) took the “just science” approach and utterly deconstructed Mr. Appell, who ran away. Mr. Appell richly deserves mockery, and we will continue. If you really think you can engage him and get anywhere with your “just science” approach, please try him at andthenthere’sphysics, and get back to us. There’ll be very little of what you call “clutter” there. And very little traffic. And it may even look kinda sciencey, to a point. To the point where you start winning, then get deleted. Enjoy!

Frederick Michael

Hooray for Richard Courtney! Oh, if only that’s what everyone did.

It’s how we win.

Latitude

good grief…..I didn’t know Appell was still around
…he hasn’t aged well

R. Shearer

Carrying around that much extra mass is not healthy.

Latitude

Did you notice that Appell tried to use the same debate tactics as Mann

ATheoK

Appell’s made it quite clear that he worships Mannaical and his faux charts and manniacal’s repetitious ten years+ recycled presentations.

Devotee, groupie, fanatic fan, etc.

What of Mann’s tactics did I adopt? Cause I’ve never listened to him debate…

Speaking of Mann:
PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, PHD:
On February 25th 2009, Professor Hopper testified before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee—:

“The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “Medieval Warm Period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “Little Ice Age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick… The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today.”

PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, PHD is considered to be the greatest living physicist, His bio included: Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Reformatted from the Amazon on line preview of “A Disgrace to The Profession”
————————————
“The blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques.”

Here is what PROFESSOR DAVID R LEGATES, PHD wrote about the hockey stick:

“Recently, my colleagues and I closely examined the “blade” of Mann’s latest temperature reconstruction (Geophysical Reseai’ch Letters, February 2004). According to the IPCC (2001) and many other published sources, the earth warmed only 0.6°C (1°F) during the 20th century. However, that contrasts sharply with the most recent reconstruction by Mann and Jones, which shows warming over the last century of 0.95°C (1.5°F) – a temperature rise more than 50 percent larger than tire IPCC claims. Mann’s warming estimate has grown substantially over the last couple of years, apparently to accommodate his continuing claim that the 1990s were the wannest decade of the last two millennia, but we found that tire blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques. Since reproducibility is a hallmark of scientific inquiry and the blade does not represent the observed climate record, it is unreliable…”

PROFESSOR DAVID R LEGATES, PHD:
Professor of Geography and former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. Former Delaware State Climatologist, Coordinator of the Delaware Geographic Alliance and Associate Director of the Delaware Space Grant Consortium. Author of peer-reviewed papers published in The International Journal of Climatology, The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and other journals.

Reformatted from the Amazon on line preview of “A Disgrace to The Profession”

Happer is wrong about his most basic claims about climate. His expertise has not at all translated from atomic physics…. And I dismissed Legates when we talked for my article “Hot Words” for Scientific American in… 2004, I think(?) Him, Soon, Baliunas…. their paper was real junk. Read my Sci Am article from back them to understand why.

David Smith

So you’re saying Mann was right to disappear the MWP and LIA?

billhunter

David this is where your creds die. Happer is not just an atomic physicist. He is also a leading expert in optics and spectroscopy. His discovery of the guide star technology via the shining of a laser into the mesosphere demonstrates a knowledge of the atmosphere at an extremely high level. Optics and spectroscopy are actually dead center at the physics of the greenhouse effect. You make a practice of cherry picking facts that fits your biases and this is just another example of it.

Yirgach

The following is an example of that which affects all of us at some point in our lives. However, Mr. Appell seems to be making a career of it.

bit chilly

what’s the betting david doesn’t reply to this comment ?

Jeff Alberts

That’s called a Carbon Dunlop.

goldminor

It is unfortunate that they don’t have this entire debate to listen to absent the adverts. You can see the conversation still in progress while the ads take over which cuts off the debate, such as it was. Appell is a complete idiot, even worse in person than in comments online.

Why specifically am I an “idiot?”

Frederick Michael

David, on behalf of all the scientifically educated people who think the benefits of more CO2 outweigh the negatives, I apologize for the name calling.

I suppose I’ve been guilty of it too at times. We’re all human.

Alan Tomalty

What negatives? The atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less.

laura

Who is paying for Appell’s time?

This guy literally lives in comment threads, posting probably close to 100 times A DAY. The effort requires proper funding… and a deranged mind.

Could it be the Russian money to the greenies to shut down our energy production so they can sell us their oil & gas. http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html

Richard Patton

Thanks, Anthony for posting this. I finally got to see what the person who inspired me to become a meteorologist looks like. When he (and I) were teenagers in `69 he beat the NWS to the punch by several days by forecasting a very rare blizzard for the PDX area. His forecast was carried by KBPS, the Portland Public Schools radio station that students at Benson polytech High school could learn all the various aspects of radio broadcasting.

sycomputing

A Calvinist says to an Arminian, “I’m staring to feel like it’s meant for me to deck you!”

Armenian replies, “Oh yeah? Well whatever you choose to do buddy!”

Steven Fraser

While funny, this is not what a Calvinist and an Arminian would say to each other.

sycomputing

Depends on whether they’re Appell and Wiese…

Schitzree

What if they both lived in Brooklyn?

<¿<

Yet even a Calvinist tries to dodge when someone takes a swing at him.

I’m very happy with the way it went though the time went too quickly. For Chuck and Lars:

“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”

— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

goldminor

Well, look who showed up at the site which doesn’t let anyone who knows what they are talking about in regards to climate to add to the conversation. Those were your own words over at Dr Spencer’s site not too long ago. Note that WUWT is gracious enough to let you comment on a post in which you are featured in the debate.

I have been censored from this site many times. Anthony knows that.

MarkW

Cutting abusive comments is not censoring.
Though it does appear that abuse is the only way you know to debate.

No, not abusive comments. Just declared “persona non grata.” Anthony knows that too.

Sunsettommy

This ring any bells David?

It appears you forget your numerous past transgressions.

Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes again: time to fess up and apologize

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/28/paging-david-appell-and-nick-stokes-again-time-to-fess-up-and-apologize/

Sun – people like you routinely censor anyone who knows anything, whose challenges you can’t refute.

I am happy to be in the same company as Nick Stokes.

Sunsettommy

This is why you get into trouble David, you have a bad habit of twisting and lying about things.

It was clear that you were very wrong about the “death threats” which never existed, the chancellor himself stated it didn’t exist outside of journalistic fantasies.

Here is the May 3, 2012 post by Anthony exposing your wayward behavior,

Paging David Appell – ‘death threats against climate scientists’ story even deader than yesterday

a quote:

“Will science writer David Appell now retract his vicious personal smears here, here, and here, plus his follow up smear yesterday when faced with fresh evidence and offer an apology and retraction of his claims? I doubt he will, as I believe he does not have the personal integrity within himself to do so. I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong though.

UPDATE: Well that didn’t take long, Appell has now published my email to him (which was part of an unsolicited email thread started by Appell) along with the email addresses of people on the cc list. I view this as completely unprofessional and completely within character for him. On the plus side, when myself and the other email addresses he published start getting hate mail, we now have a claim against Mr. Appell.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/fwd-dumb-and-dumber.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/03/paging-david-appell-death-threats-against-climate-scientists-story-even-deader-than-yesterday/

Grow up David!

Sun – you refused to accept my comments. You know that as well as I do.

(I have NEVER censored a single comment of yours here) MOD

Oh Sun…. you have, and you know you have. You and I both know it.

MarkW

Once again David has to lie in order to claim the title of martyr.

Remember that Australian who “welcomed” the German scientist, Han Schellenhuber, to Australia while showing him a noose?

Yes, I claim that was a death threat. And you’re a chump for censoring me for thinking that.

Clearly you will not accept any opinion but your own. Agree with you or be censored.

(For the last time, I have NOT censored you. The Death threats postings was 6 years ago, I became moderator about a year ago) MOD

(As far as I can see ZERO comments you posted so far today has been moderated) MOD

Yes you did censor me, Sun. That’s why I gave up trying to comment at your site.

Sunsettommy

What website are you referring to?

bit chilly

hypocrisy, a trait david knows well.

MarkW

Once again, lying and dodging is the best that David can do.
He knows very well why he was punished, but he’s got to pretend that he’s totally innocent.

Sunsettommy

He is LYING since I have never been moderator in any forums other than WUWT that he has posted in.

Notice that he doesn’t specify the forum he claims I censor him in?

Victim-playing.

Glacierman

Because you ruin every thread you get involved with. Every thread at DrRoys site runs about 40 – 50 comments by DA and are pretty much unreadable. But that is probably your goal.

Glacierman

40% – 50%

MarkW

Using sock puppets in order to find someone to agree with you is a violation of site policy.
That’s why you were punished, not for anything you said.

Something which you know perfectly well.

Yirgach

He was probably picked on and bullied while growing up.
We’re just experiencing the adult version of that problem…

Alan Tomalty

Would you trust anything that was said by a person who is known to have used a sock puppet?

Felix

I believe you’d be welcomed here but for behavior, not opinions.

I welcome well-behaved consensus purveyors. Without them, what really is the point? Otherwise, it’s an echo chamber, although skeptics are capable of bitter controversies among themselves.

What is my bad behavior – vigorously challenging people like you?

goldminor

@ D A …I would suggest that you lose the emotive reactive behavior then, and stick to your science points, such as Nick Stokes does. If one occasionally lets go with directed strong remarks at another that can be overlooked, if in the main one sticks to debating the subject at hand. Even Nick has his sharp edged moments at times, but in the main he is steady as a rock in making his points.

Gold: I give back what I get. Just view all the insults and invective directed towards me on these comments.

HotScot

David Appell

Wouldn’t it be better to rise above any insults and be the better person instead of stooping to their level.

And did you really publish people’s emails?

Appell–” Just view all the insults and invective directed towards me ”
Merely in response to your long history of abuse and name calling.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” Unknown author

I call people names when (1) they call me names, like CWiese, and (2) they are so obviously uninformed and scientifically illiterate that the only appropriate label is “dumb” or “ignorant.” If you can’t handle that, don’t call me names and don’t be ignorant.

Richard S Courtney

David Appell.

In several posts above I quote words you have written here and explained why those words demonstrate you are both “dumb” and you are “ignorant” of several aspects of climate science on which you pontificate.

Perhaps you would benefit from personal reflection instead of spouting arrogant twaddle ?

Richard

PS I shall now lie here amused at the thought of you struggling to resist the temptation to demand I copy from above the examples I have mentioned and, thus, to draw attention to them.

goldminor

@ DA ..all well deserved from what I can see. Which is why I made that recommendation to you.

Dave

Guess the .18 per century warming in SH land implies, by your argument, that there is also no global warming now.

SH land for the lower troposphere? Because UAH v6.0 shows that increasing by +0.15 C/decade.

Source:
v6.0
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Dave

http://euanmearns.com/the-hunt-for-global-warming-southern-hemisphere-summary/. Between 1880 and 2011, using 174 non-urban SH stations available from NASA GISS.

John Mason

Interesting link as that’s a minority conclusion in the literature. The consensus (oops, there’s that word) that I’ve seen for years is that while there have been many ups and downs in world wide temps since the end of the last glaciation, our current peak is not as high as the others. In fact, if you line up the peaks you get a descending line to now indicating our overall trend is still heading towards a return of glaciation.

I suppose if one focuses on the outlier study that feeds one’s confirmation bias one can become deluded.

I’d recommend searching the breadth of paleo-reconstructions crossed with knowledge of world history as once you see there is nothing odd going on now, the whole scaffolding holding up your belief system can be replaced with a firm structure of multiple points of reinforcement being much more likely to represent reality.

It doesn’t matter if it was warmer before. It certainly was. The only question is, why is climate warming now, and why so fast?

Felix

David,

It’s not warming faster now than at any other time during the Holocene.

Not even close.

Nothing out of the ordinary is happening now, hence the Null Hypothesis can’t be rejected. Hence, no worries. Be happy that Earth is greening thanks to more plant food in the air.

Felix: When was it warming faster?

(And why didn’t you provide evidence when you made your claim? Did you really think no one would ask?)

Felix

I was hoping you’d ask.

Because anyone who has studied the history of climate on Earth can off the top of his head come up with many instances of much more rapid warming than during the late 20th century cycle.

For starers, the late 20th century warming was no different from the mild early 20th century warming. But for recent really powerful warming, look no farther than the early 18th century warming, coming out of the Maunder Minimum cold period. Its duration and amplitude were both greater than the puny late 20th century warming.

Felix, let’s see the data — trends and warming.

We’ve now been warming strongly since 1975 – 43 years. When was the last warming period of such duration?

And why would it matter if there was such a prior warming period. If you think climate change now is due to natural factors, show us the data on those natural factors.

Climate changes, but not always for the same reason.

Felix

David,

The CACA hypothesis was born falsified. CO2 increased for 32 years after WWII, yet Earth cooled dramatcially.

Then, after the PDO flip of 1977, it warmed slightly for about 20 years, purely by accident. Then, it stayed flat for another 20 years, except for the recent El Nino, again despite rising CO2.

Hence, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Rising CO2 is associated with falling, rising and flat T.

As for the speed and amplitude of previous multidecadal warmings, please see the early 18th century in the CET, coming out of the LIA depths during the Maunder Minimum.

Felix, I asked for data. You provided none.

What is “CACA?”

Felix wrote: “Hence, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.”

That’s because the correlation is between T and ln(CO2).

Do you understand why?

Rich Davis

What an absurd comment among so many. Whether you look at a factor or the logarithm of a factor, that doesn’t change anything about the lack of correlation when the factor is rising steadily and the independent variable is alternating between rising and falling. How do you propose that ln(CO2) correlates with T any more than CO2 concentration itself? Of course we know that temperature relates to CO2 concentration by a logarithmic relationship. So why doesn’t temperature agree with that predicted relationship?

David Appell—“Felix, let’s see the data — trends and warming. ”
How many times do I have to show you the data?
Why do you repeat such easily debunked lies?
Phil Jones, head of CRU: “ the warming rates for all 4 periods [1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998] are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
CET shows 4 periods of warming. All three earlier ones were faster than now.
1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.068 /yr
1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.056 /yr
1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.073 /yr
1963 to 2014 was from 8.52 to 10.95 for 2.43 degree in 51 years, or 0.048 /yr

j, you are cherry picking your data. You also seem to not understand how to properly calculate trends. Ever hear of least-squares regression?

Also, do you know what cherry picking is? It’s choosing your start and end points not based on any scientific criteria, but to get the result you want. You are doing that in spades.

David Appell–” It’s choosing your start and end points not based on any scientific criteria, but to get the result you want. You are doing that in spades.”
BULL SHIT – — those number are from peak to peak. Unlike the typical numbers coming from the Trillion dollar climate alarm industry which usually starts their data in cool years.

hunter

“warming strongly”,
yet the data is doctored to maintain the claim.

Sunsettommy

It has been given to you many times, David.

Here it is AGAIN from none other than Dr. Jones in his BBC interview:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

“A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Appell—“It doesn’t matter if it was warmer before”
It matters a great deal– If it was warmer than now (as you admitted) without man’s CO2, then why do we need to introduce a new cause, CO2, instead of accepting the fact that whatever caused those earlier, warmer, warm periods is causing another one. Especially since they are all about 1000 years apart. Logically, THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN WITH MAN”S CO2?

Climate obviously changes, but not always for the same reason.

Today the reason is human emissions of CO2. And there is no end in sight for it.

David Smith

” And there is no end in sight for it.”
I’m saving that one. For shits and giggles in the future.

MarkW

You are assuming that the current warming must be caused by CO2, but you have no evidence to back up that assertion.

Alan Tomalty

See my reply above on available rocket ships to Mars. We can schedule a special flight for you.

David Appell — “Today the reason is human emissions of CO2”
We are still waiting for you proof of this. It has been over 5 years, maybe even 10 years and you still cannot come up with proof.

David Smith

So you’re saying Mann’s hockey stick, without the MWP on it, is wrong?

hunter

It is not so fast, it is not so much, warming is not the sole metric of climate, and you seem to have a need to deceive.

MarkW

Once again David demonstrates that he is not a scientist.
1) If you can’t explain why it warmed before, you can’t claim that the current warming isn’t being caused by the same thing.
2) It’s not fast compared to the historical record.

Chuck Wiese

It appears that you cannot be honest about much of anything, Appell. And as far as your incorrect statements about CO2, and how radiation is calculated, over that narrow of wavelength, the radiation is computed by the Planck function, and it is totally inappropriate for you to say the gas in this narrow range around 15 microns isn’t black for all practical purposes. The absorption coefficient is that strong.

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

Please reference 7.6 off of this page and notice the Planck function used in ALL computer climate codes is black body emission as a function of temperature at the specific wavenumber chosen. THIS is the function that is integrated into the Schwarzchild equation of radiative transfer and used in ALL computer climate codes when calculating emission at the given temperature and pressure at the SPECIFIC wavenumber the gas absorbs at. Notice it is PLAINLY labeled black body emission. The only difference between this and the Stefan Boltzman equation is that it was integrated over all wavelengths for a solid surface that emits and absorbs over all wavelengths or numbers and appropriate emissivity applies.

You’re also wrong again, Appell on the Medieval warm period. It was global in scope. It’s not good for someone with a PhD like you to be so wrong about most everything you speak about in climate with such a degree in physics. There was plenty of literature published about this on Anthony Watt’s site, but like you have told me so many times in past conversations, sites like this are for “deniers” and scientific illiterates that have no prowess to be accepted at the “gold standard” publications that you think are superior. WE all know the history of “pal review” quite well over here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/12/more-evidence-that-the-medieval-warming-period-was-global-not-regional/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/evidence-for-a-global-medieval-warm-period/

Simon

Always makes me laugh that skeptics champion the medieval warm period. The very team that denies the accuracy/reliability of modern day thermometers, are happy to say with certainty that they “know” things were warmer back then. How can they be? No thermometers around only proxies to work with. Just shows how desperate they are for any argument to work for them.
All the stuff I’ve read say it is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer…. but truth is we can’t be certain…. unless you are a skeptic.

This whole mess started by misinterpreting the ice core proxies, which go back a million years, as opposed to the same, and other proxies going back to the much more recent MWP. BTW, the signature of the MWP is present in the ice core data whose sample resolution is on the order of 1-2 decades going back many thousands of years where the signatures of other recent warming periods are also evident. The only point being made is that whatever change occurred then, or is occurring now, has little, if anything to do with CO2.

Michael Jankowski

No, you’ve completely missed the issue. Nobody says MWP proxies are more accurate than thermometers. Of course, it has also been shown that important proxies often don’t correlate well with thermometers, either…but their use by Mann et al. “just shows how desperate they are for any argument to work for them.”

Anyhow, the MWP was removed out of inconvenience. That’s been the longstanding issue.

The thermometer record has been adjusted as well and just so happens to become more convenient with every adjustment, which is another issue.

Why don’t you ask Mann about how he “knows things were” cooler “with certainty?” He’s the one who has made claims about “warmest decades” across hundreds and even over about 2,000 yrs. Warmistas were all over that bandwagon.

Simon

We are not talking about Mann. He wan’t on this video pronouncing with certainly that things were warmer back in the MWP. My point is no one can be certain about it, so why lose credibility trying. Just show desperation and a lack of honesty.

Nigel in Santa Barbara

“the MWP. My point is no one can be certain about it”

What did Mann say when you told him this?

Michael Jankowski wrote:
“Of course, it has also been shown that important proxies often don’t correlate well with thermometers, either”

Where, when, by whom?

davidmhoffer

Michael Jankowski wrote:
“Of course, it has also been shown that important proxies often don’t correlate well with thermometers, either”

David Appell
Where, when, by whom?

Of all the B******t in this thread, I think this exchange surprised me the most. The “divergence” problem has been known, documented, and well recognized for a very long time. Major proxies stopped correlating with the temperature record around 1950 to 1960 (depending on the proxy). Given that the instrumental record is only about 140 years long, to have major proxies not correlate with the instrumental record for over 50 years is significant.

The divergence problem is in fact so well known that Man and Jones tried to distract attention from it by appending thermometer records to proxy records in such a manner as to give the impression that the entire graph was from proxies. This was the now infamous “trick” that Michael Mann applied in a publication in Nature, and which Jones then replicated and referred to in the ClimateGate emails (which he admitted were his) as “Mike’s Nature trick”.

For Mr. Appell to question proxies divergence from the temperature record by challenging the commenter to produce evidence is either completely disingenuous, or a sign that Mr. Appell is simply not familiar with the science.

I’d debate Mr. Appell on many other points he has raised, but I simply don’t have the time. But I will say this to Mr. Appell. Facts are facts, data is data. If you want to argue them, by all means. When you retreat to the worn out argument that if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal it isn’t science, you’ve simply discredited yourself. Jones said he would keep skeptical papers out even if he had to change the definition of peer review. Von Storch got fired for allowing skeptic papers in, and Wolfgang Schwartz was forced to resign due to allowing a paper by Spencer, even though Swhartz said he could find no fault with it. The state of peer review is that of an old boys club where only consensus papers are permitted. The vast majority of science, by the way, is never published in science journals, it is published as patents and shows up as new products, medicines, and many other things in our every day lives.

But thanks for dropping in.

I’m very aware of the divergence problem. It’s behind the lie of the purposeful misinterpretation of “hide the decline.”

I assumed the OP meant there was some problem in the past….. but it appears not.

davidmhoffer

I’m very aware of the divergence problem.

Yet when it was referenced, you demanded to know where when and by whom as if you didn’t.

I assumed the OP meant there was some problem in the past…..

If 1/3 of the instrumental record diverges from the proxies, then h*ll yes there is a problem with the past. We have no way of knowing when they diverged and when they didn’t prior to the instrumental record. Further, the major proxies frequently don’t even agree with each other which is why reconstructions often use multiple proxies smooshed together in the naive belief that many wrong answers stuck in a blender must somehow yield a more accurate answer. Only one of them can be right, and all of them could be wrong.

It’s behind the lie of the purposeful misinterpretation of “hide the decline.”

Ah. So not only are you well aware of the divergence problem, you’ve got a ready made excuse for Mike’s Nature Trick and hide the decline. It was purposeful misinterpretation. I read all sides of that story in detail. Bottom line was that the proxies declined while the temps rose and so a very clever graph was constructed to hid the proxy decline so as not to discredit the rest of the proxy data. To defend this as a “misinterpretation” is ridiculous. It was a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. It had no reason to exist OTHER than to mislead the casual viewer.

TimTheToolMan

David writes

Bottom line was that the proxies declined while the temps rose and so a very clever graph was constructed to hid the proxy decline so as not to discredit the rest of the proxy data.

Assuming you know what was actually done, thank you. You have definitively excluded yourself from having scientific principles.

TimTheToolMan

David Appell writes

It’s behind the lie of the purposeful misinterpretation of “hide the decline.”

Many of us have looked very carefully at the background to “hide the decline” and from my point of view there is no question that Jones was being deceitful and that Mann’s trick is an unscientific and deceitful “trick”.

If you think otherwise, can you please put in your own words a brief summary of the background as you see it so we can see why you dont think it was a deceitful graph?

hunter

lol
“Hide the decline” ring a bell?

Tsk Tsk

As opposed to the true believers who know that Earth is warmer than it has been in thousands of years because… reasons?

And that’s quite the reference list you have there with “all the stuff [you’ve] read.” So difficult to argue with that.

And the only way we can be certain in science is if we take a vote. That’s how this works, right?

Tsk: while yes, it is warmer than anytime time for 10s of thousands of years, but it doesn’t matter — what is causing the present modern day warming trend, which is large — +0.15-0.2 C/decade for the surface.

When was the last such period when climate changed this fast?

Felix

During the early 20th century warming cycle, T changed just as fast as during the now past late 20th century warming cycle.

During the early 18th century warming cycle, it warmed even faster than either. Because during the LIA, it was colder, so easier to warm rapidly.

Nothing is happening how the least bit out of the ordinary. Hence, the null hypothesis can’t be rejected.

The scientific method tells us not to worry. More CO2 is good.

F: When did T change this fast, for this long (almost 50 years now)?

When was this 18th C warming trend? Show me the data.

Appell—“When was the last such period when climate changed this fast?”
CET shows 4 periods of warming. All three earlier ones were faster than now.
1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.68 /decade
1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.56 /decade
1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.73/decade

Are these least-squares regression trends, or cherry picked pseudo-trends from looking for deep bottoms and the highest tops?

MarkW

From the guy who wants to include the recent El Nino as proof that CO2 is causing warming, your complaint about cherry picked pseudo-trends is quite humorous.

They are warming between two dates that show your claim was wrong. Any two dates are sufficient to disprove your claim.

Charles Nelson

Where is the proof that it is warmer today than at anytime for 10s of thousands of years?

This is just you repeating an article of faith. It has no scientific basis given that proxies can never match modern satellite measurements.
Thank heavens President Trump is considering de-funding NOAA…when there’s no money left the hoax will wither and die!

Alan Robertson

David Appell said:
“Tsk: while yes, it is warmer than anytime time for 10s of thousands of years, but it doesn’t matter — what is causing the present modern day warming trend, which is large — +0.15-0.2 C/decade for the surface.”

It is interesting how those in the camp of Caesar will so very often cut the legs out from under themselves. With this statement, David Appell gutted some number of his colleagues, as well.

Alan Tomalty

The UAH dataset which is the only one that both sides trust says +0.18 above mean for 40 years. Okay we will round it up to please you. So 0.2 * 2 because it is compared to an average so that we get 0.4 for 40 years which is 1C per century. 1C per century is no different than other warming periods in the past. If you are going to worry about 1C per century I suggest that you take that rocket flight to Mars that I offered in an above posting.

lee

“All the stuff I’ve read ”
You don’t read much? Noddy and Bigears don’t count

lee – do you have a specific criticism?

HotScot

Simon

My understanding is that evidence of the MWP, and other warm and cold periods, is not confined to proxies, it’s demonstrated in art and literature of the time.

Oh please. And they show the MWP was global???

HotScot

David Appell

Where did I suggest the MWP was global?

MarkW

The art and literature doesn’t, but the many proxies taken together do.

Steven Mosher

“My understanding is that evidence of the MWP, and other warm and cold periods, is not confined to proxies, it’s demonstrated in art and literature of the time.”

1. Art does not depict a quantified temperature.
2. You assume that all art is representative.
3. The art is not global.
4. the art if not a time series with monthly averages.
5. The same goes for documents

At best art and literature, IF you assume it is representative ( realistic depiction) then it might act as confirmation of what you estimate numerically for proxies.

In any case when it comes to the evidence of the MWP it is less direct than thermometers, less spatially complete, less temporaly resolved and more uncertain than the thermometers which you dont trust.

HotScot

Steven Mosher

So what you’re saying is that a tree ring, or a rock, can be dated to within a year or two of it’s time, whilst a painting, poem or book, dated by the originator, is a figment of their imagination merely because they are allowed artistic licence?

Are you suggesting Jacob van Ruisdael, Thomas Cole, Claude Lorrain, John Constable and, of course Turner, “…….one of the greatest landscape artists of all time and perhaps the most renowned British artist ever. During his time, landscape painting was considered low art. Turner, with his application of poetic and imaginative approach to landscape art, elevated the genre to rival history painting.” https://learnodo-newtonic.com/famous-landscape-artists.

Every Architect I know reveres Turner for his historic contributions to their science. Almost to a man, they study, and learn from his historic recording. In his lifetime, April 23, 1775 – December 19, 1851, there are few better records of our environment, certainly not meteorological or climatological.

Whilst I admire science immensely, I am also aware it retains a historic context. Much of science is derived from delving into the past and examining concepts presented by art and literature. Occasionally, it’s found that art and literature are something much more than you suggest and provide the answers rather than ask the questions.

Humanity doesn’t evolve from a desktop calculator mate, humanity invented the damn thing. Try getting your priorities right and consider the value of your own origins.

Your science confirms art and literature, not the other way around.

HotScot

Steven Mosher

FFS

The more I read your insulting post, the more I resent it.

1. Art does not depict a quantified temperature.
Judging by alarmist science, nor do you.

2. You assume that all art is representative.
Where did I suggest that?

3. The art is not global.
Where did I suggest art is, or was global. Meanwhile, you suggest climate change is global by misleading everyone that there is such a thing as an average global temperature. I can’t conceive of a more preposterous contention.

4. the art if not a time series with monthly averages.
There is no such thing as a monthly average in a proxy record. Are you mad?

5. The same goes for documents
Which condemns any documents alarmists care to produce from history, to the Mosher bin of unworthy. Double standards doesn’t begin to describe this comment.

Just complete and utter balderdash, and you present yourself as an informed commentator?

Thankfully, I’m a layman. I’m not encumbered by the straitjacket of science and can appreciate the innumerable influences on our world that you dutifully ignore.

HotScot

Steven Mosher

“In any case when it comes to the evidence of the MWP it is less direct than thermometers, less spatially complete, less temporaly resolved and more uncertain than the thermometers which you dont trust.”

This is just an effing cracker.

What global network of land thermometers did they have during the MWP?

What global network of SST thermometers did they have during the MWP?

How many thermometers were there in the Arctic and the Antarctic during the MWP?

And relative to all that, just when, precisely, did we discover we had a global network of reliably functioning ground, sea surface, and atmospheric temperature measuring devices that weren’t influenced by politicians fiddling the numbers for their own benefit.

To the former, I would suggest, we haven’t yet.

And to the latter, I would suggest, never.

Please Stephen, get your head out your arse and understand that life isn’t about your narrow concept of science.

Richard S Courtney

Simon,

You mistakenly assert,
“Always makes me laugh that skeptics champion the medieval warm period. The very team that denies the accuracy/reliability of modern day thermometers, are happy to say with certainty that they “know” things were warmer back then. How can they be? No thermometers around only proxies to work with. Just shows how desperate they are for any argument to work for them.
All the stuff I’ve read say it is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer…. but truth is we can’t be certain…. unless you are a skeptic.”

Rubbish!
For example, we know that in the Medieval Warm Periods (MWP) it was warmer in places where crops were then grown but are too cold for those crops to be grown today. This includes vineyards in Northern England recorded in the Doomsday Book, agriculture in Greenland where the ground is now permanent permafrost, etc., etc. etc.

Data showing it was warmer than now in the MWP exists from around the globe and have been collated by the Medieval Warm Period Project of CO2 Science (see http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

The project has collated evidence of warmer temperatures than now existing during the MWP in Africa,· Antarctica, · Asia, · Australia/New Zealand, · Europe and North America. Only politically motivated alarmists could claim this mass of evidence fails to refute your assertion that the MWP “is unlikely to have been global and even more unlikely to have been warmer”.

Richard

Nick Stokes

“vineyards in Northern England recorded in the Doomsday Book”
Not in N England.:
“Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire.”

But we have Scottish wine now.

“agriculture in Greenland where the ground is now permanent permafrost”
There is agriculture in Greenland now, This is Igaliku, courtesy WUWT

comment image

Richard S Courtney

Stokes,

Scottish wine uses modern vines especially developed for cold climates. They did not exist in Medieval times.

Perhaps you would consider continuing your ‘red=herring’ by explaining why the vineyards ceased in England until recently?

Richard

David Smith

So it’s got warm enough to begin farming there again. What’s not to love? It seems to me warming is a good thing.

Ken

The Scottish winery that Nick Stokes links to – doesnt actually produce grape based wine –

https://www.cairnomohr.com/winery

There was a guy trying to make grape based wine –

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11736496/Scotlands-first-wine-branded-undrinkable-by-critics.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-sours-grape-expectations-for-chateau-largo-winemaker-5m0cr5g8fl9

But he gave up.

Leaving just Chateau Hebrides

https://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/chateau-hebrides-vineyard-yields-record-vintage-1-3564337

Grown in polytunnels – not really a wine making operation.

Nick Stokes is shown to be incorrect about Scottish wine.

There is a real vineyard in Yorkshire
https://www.ryedalevineyards.co.uk/product-page/wolds-view

In the original link to Domesday wines, there is an unconfirmed report of an English winery in Leeds, Yorkshire in the medieval period.

Richard S Courtney

Ken.

Thanks for your good post.

I write to make one comment.
You say, “In the original link to Domesday wines, there is an unconfirmed report”.
The data in the Doomesday Book were recorded for taxation purposes so would have been right.

Richard

Nick Stokes

“But he gave up.”
Well, he had trouble making a business of it. But in medieval times, competition was less. He could obviously grow grapes.

Richard S Courtney

Nick Stokes,

You are being silly.

I wrote,
“For example, we know that in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) it was warmer in places where crops were then grown but are too cold for those crops to be grown today. This includes vineyards in Northern England recorded in the Doomsday Book, agriculture in Greenland where the ground is now permanent permafrost, etc., etc. etc.”

You are attempting to obfuscate those facts by arguing about someone in Scotland now trying to make a living from growing a variety of grapes that
(a) did not exist in Medieval times
and
(b) is not useful for making wine.

Richard

Ken

@Nick Stokes
Nonsense. Even with modern technology (anti-fungals and varietals) the guy in Fife basically could not make wine in any consistent fashion. Growing grapes is not the same as having a viable vineyard. Give it up.

@Richard S Courtney
The Domesday records do not provide evidence of vineyards in the north of England. The most northerly vineyards in the Domesday book are still in the south. The furthest north in the Domesday book is at Ely. (Cambridgeshire)

https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/10/1066-and-all-that-a-fateful-taste-for-ale/
http://www.domesdaybook.net/domesday-book/data-terminology/manors/vineyard

@richard S Courtney
No, the link that Nick Stokes provided to real climate notes that there are single reports in the literature (not the Domesday book itself) that suggest a vineyard in Leeds.

Richard S Courtney

ken,

Thanks for the clarifications.

It is useful detail to avoid nit-picking such as Stokes has provided but does not alter my point. Again, thankyou.

Incidentally, I live in Cornwall where wild palm trees and tree ferns grow. We have some vineyards but all are recent and I wonder if you have any information as to the possible existence of Cornish vineyards in the LIA?

Richard

David Smith

” No thermometers around only proxies to work with”
Well, if proxies are that unreliable it makes Mann’s hockey stick rather useless, doesn’t it?

hunter

Well physical evidence and written records of frosts and feeezes, prior to the age of climate hype, were considered pretty good.

MarkW

Like most of his fellow alarmists, the only way Simon can make himself relevant is by lying about what others have been saying.

We don’t trust the current record not because there are problems with the instruments but because of the way the data has been cooked in order to show what the alarmists want to see.

That the MWP was warmer than today is easy to see just by examining the record.

Chuck Wiese claims atmospheric CO2 is a blackbody. Even after I asked him the definition of a blackbody — and he answered correctly, that it’s an object that absorbs all radiation incident on it — he still tried to claim atmospheric CO2 is a blackbody, because it absorbs at “15 microns” or something. Which is very much a wrong answer, by his own definition. I’m sure many here can appreciate that.

As I just wrote on my blog, Wiese applied blackbody equations to atmospheric CO2, when atmo CO2 is not a blackbody. Yet he thinks he knows something about simple physics that all the expert scientists in the world have missed for 125 years.

In actuality, Wiese’s physics is just wrong. Bad even. I challenged Wiese to submit his claims to a peer reviewed scientific journal, but he won’t.

Chuck Wiese

You are lying, Appell. I never said “CO2 is a blackbody”. I said it acts just like one, implying at the specific wavelengths that it absorbs and emits radiation from”.

What’s the difference Chuck? CO2 doesn’t “act just like a blackbody” because it ISN’T a blackbody. So you can’t apply blackbody equations to it, like you did in your presentation here:

The atmosphere is a non ideal BB, which is also called a gray body and both GHG’s and clouds contribute to its ‘grayness’. GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters of photons while the water in clouds is a broad band absorber and emitter of photons. The O2 and N2 in the atmosphere are for the most part bystanders to the relevant physics. The spectral characteristics of the radiation are irrelevant to the SB Law which only relates W/m^2 to degrees K. This is not W/m^2 per Hz or per waelength or anything else, its just W/m^2 to degrees K.

Atmospheric CO2 is neither a blackbody or a gray body.

You seem to have a comprehension issue.

MarkW

Is it still a comprehension issue, when it is deliberate?

You don’t understand what a gray body is.

Chuck Wiese

Here is another reason why you are dishonest, Appell. You were screaming at me in this video to “publish” the results of my counter article to the Jennifer Francis/Vavrus paper that was seriously flawed and wrong in most every respect to atmospheric science that was written to blame CO2 and arctic warming on a claimed slowing jet stream that was supposed to cause severe weather and temperature extremes. You claim if it can’t get published in a “gold standard” journal like Francis/Vavrus had their paper published, well then it is just crap and unworthy of consideration.

Well here are your comments about Francis/Vavrus AFTER they got published in your revered science journals that you claim are the “gold standard” in climate science:

David Appell March 15, 2016 at 2:47 AM

“I recently talked to someone who was recently a postdoc at Rutgers. We didn’t get into many details, but he told me that it’s pretty well accepted now that Jennifer Francis’s ideas aren’t correct.”

You made these comments on “Hot Whopper”. The link here:

https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/assaulting-reason-climate-inquisition.html

So today, you screamed at me to “publish” my paper countering Francis/Vavrus on your revered sites before you would accept it and yet you admit here as other academics at Rutgers do where Francis resides that her paper was crap.

Why did she get published in a “gold standard journal”, Appell, if these publications have their facts straight?

Then when I tried to tell you that an accomplished physicist, Will Happer, from Princeton was turned down at the “gold standard” journals and for no good reason, you claim he isn’t a “climate scientist” and he is, instead, an idiot, paid by the oil industry to lie and that he is an atomic physicist. But Happer’s paper addressed his concern exactly as an atomic physicist would be expected to understanding radiation and atoms that absorb and emit it.

Happer’s paper, which I have a copy of, demonstrated that the absorption spectra techniques employed in current climate model codes are in serious error at the wing lines of the molecule that are used to calculate the radiative forcings as applied in the models to get the spurious warming that they get. Crickets and refusal to publish.

This “science” is screwed up beyond recognition by academia protecting their grant money with a complicit media and people like you that appear not bright enough to even understand the issues.

My “paper” was published here on WUWT and also over at Dr. Ed Berry’s site and Ed has a PhD in atmospheric physics who reviewed my work. Today there is far more to be gained by getting someone like Anthony and Ed Berry to “publish” your work than at these journals you call the “gold standard”. That has become the joke of the last 30 years because of those like Michael Mann

https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/meteorology/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/13/a-warming-arctic-would-not-cause-increased-severe-weather-or-temperature-extremes/

Chuck, scientists publish in the scientific literature, and they don’t read blogs like this one or (to be sure ) EdBerry.com.

Don’t you want to win a Nobel Prize? Prove millions of scientists wrong? Be famous for eternity, forever known as the person who proved millions of scientists wrong?? Save the world all the trouble of creating noncarbon societies…. Then you’ll have to take a risk…. and submit your claims in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Not blogs, which are not anything close to being peer reviewed. The journals where science is presented, read, reviewed and considered.

If you’re so sure of yourself, why not??

Retired_Engineer_Jim

Dr Appel,

There is a long and sad history of papers published in the scientific “gold standard” journals for their filed that can’t be reproduced – the replication crisis is wide-spread and, in the field of pharmaceuticals, pretty scary. There is also evidence from the ClimateGate E-Mails that there have been attempts to capture the peer-review process within the “climate science” journal community. There is evidence that people who have written papers have had them rejected by the peer review process for unstated and possibly arbitrary reasons. It has been pretty much impossible to get a paper published that questions of contradicts “the settled science” It is disingenuous of youy to claims that someone’s ideas are no good because they are published in the “gold standard” journals when such journals have an obvious double standard for acceptance.

There are references for these assertions, but I don’t have them at my fingertips. I’m going on travel tomorrow for a while and won’t have access to this illuminating discussion, and won’t be able to dig out the references. Others may wish to provide them

Jim: I think you’re confused. A paper published in a peer reviewed journal doesn’t mean it’s right. It means it’s not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards.

CWiese won’t even do that, instead making the absurd claim that publishing on blogs is equivalent. That’s just hilarious. Only someone who has never actually published in the scientific literature could claim such a thing.

Chuck Wiese

This is a lie, Appell. The physics of Rossby waves were well established before Francis/Vavrus was published and the reviewers should have immediately recognized this paper was wrong. Why didn’t they Appell? Are they incompetent like you, or just dishonest and willing to float bogus “science” for political purposes or both?

Yadda yadda CW. Publish a paper in a real journal. No one who matters will care in the least until you do.

MarkW

It really is fascinating how David assumes that the fact that his fellow gate keepers are successful in keeping out of the literature any paper that disagrees with them, constitutes proof that both he and the gate keepers are right and everyone else is wrong.

Chuck, if you think Francis & Vavrus was wrong, then WRITE A PAPER AND SUBMIT IT TO THE JOURNAL.

That’s how science happens, Chuck. It doesn’t happen by you writing “papers” on blogs (ha!) where no one will challenge you and only daring to speak on friendly forums like LL. You need to take some risks and get out of your safe comfort zone…. like the world’s scientists do all the time. Like I did today.

hunter

David,
The scientific method does not require publishing in journals.
And your not addressing the documented failures of journals, and the control of journals by climate consensus to silence skeptics. seems part of a pattern of bad faith by you in this discussion.

Richard S Courtney

hujnter,

Yes, as you say, the scientific method does NOT require publishing in journals. Indeed,, almost all the most valuable science is not published for public consumption anywhere because it is subject to commercial, iinancial, military or political secrecy.

Science is a method for seeking the closest possible approximation to empirical ‘truth’, and ‘truth’ is true whether or not it is published anywhere.

But nobody has ever accused David Appell of knowing about or caring about truth.

Richard

What “control” of journals? By whom? When? Which journals?

Richard S Courtney

David Appell,

It is not only journals that have been usurped, technical associations also have. I commend this analysis of that by Richard Lindzen which is a shocking read and names names
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/LindzenClimatescience2008.pdf

And my experience of the self-named Team’s behaviour to prevent publication of ‘inconvenient’ papers is spelled-out in this submission to the UK Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

Richardd

Alan Tomalty

Chuck where can we get a copy of Happer’s paper that was turned down by the journals?

Chuck Wiese

I could ask Happer if he is willing to let Anthony publish it. I don’t know the answer right now but I will ask. It is very technical and employs graduate level spectroscopy. But it is a very interesting read for any that can follow it.

Ever think that Happer’s paper was junk and that’s why it wasn’t published? Happer’s post here

https://edberry.com/blog/climate-authors/william-happer/would-einstein-be-a-global-warming-skeptic-if-alive-today/

contains three major mistakes (“The Earth stubbornly refuses to warm as quickly as establishment models predict. Extreme weather is not becoming more frequent. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate as they did in the 1800′s.”

The third, especially is laughably false. That’s an indication of why Happer can’t get published — any peer review would laugh at such a claim and read no further.

Richard S Courtney

David Appell,

Your lies are now becoming ludicrous.

Those three facts you attribute to Happer are all true and none are as you assert “mistakes”.

Richard

HotScot

David Appell

“Chuck, scientists publish in the scientific literature, and they don’t read blogs like this one……..”

My belief is that you are, right now, reading, and participating in this blog. I also understand you have been at pains to read, and participate in this blog by fraudulent means with fake email addresses and names.

I’m not a scientist, but I trust scientists to act on my (and all other laymen’s) behalf with integrity and honesty. If my beliefs about you are true then it seems you can’t be trusted to do so.

I also note that Nick Stokes reads, and participates in this blog. I may disagree with what he promotes but I respect his approach and integrity. I’m not sure if he’s a scientist, if not, he’s extraordinarily well informed, but you have condemned him also with your statement.

Hot – blogs aren’t science. Not my blog, not this blog, not any blog. They don’t publish science. Unless you yourself have published science, you probably won’t know or appreciate the huge difference. The difference is standards is … immense.

HotScot

David Appell

Where did I suggest blogs were scientific?

I pointed out that whilst you say one thing, you do the opposite whilst simultaneously insulting academic supporters and opponents alike.

This is the second comment of mine you have responded to. Neither of your responses dealt with the subject matter, in fact you raised matters not even mentioned in my posts.

I deliberately didn’t watch the video posted above so I could approach this discussion with an open mind.

You have an extraordinarily high opinion of yourself, yet display none of the qualities that engender respect.

You appeal to the authority of your qualifications but fail to understand they are a licence to learn, not to preach. You are rude, arrogant, evasive and bombastic.

You have been revealed as a liar and a cheat and seem to be proud that you are also a bully, one of the most reprehensible characteristics anyone can develop.

And for your information, I have practised criminal Law which demands standards at least as high as science because we deal with lives, not imagined consequence of global warming.

I congratulate Anthony for having previously banned you from this site, you are a disgrace, from whatever perspective one cares to observe you.

And whilst I have the courtesy of addressing you by your full name, you assume to address me as an abbreviation. Your ignorance is profound.

J Mac