By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: Why has the vast investment over 30 years produced little action in the campaign for policy action to fight climate change? Listen to climate scientists to learn one reason for this failure. Here is one day on Twitter, typical conversations in the decayed wreckage of a once great but still vital science. It’s a sad story, with no signs of getting better. But it’s not over yet.
“First, science places the burden of proof on the claimant. Second, the proof for a claim must in some sense be commensurate with the character of the claim. Thus, an extraordinary claim requires ‘extraordinary’ (meaning stronger than usual) proof.”
— Marcello Truzzi in Zetetic Scholar, August 1987 (text here).
Example #1 of climate science in action.
“Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?“
An op-ed in the WSJ by Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue.
“James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.”
This op-ed attracted a lot of attention from scientists. Such as this tweet.
We all know that Pat Michaels is beyond shame, but you'd think @RyanMaue might still be capable of being embarrassed by this WSJ editorial pic.twitter.com/v1sFG5uDjr
— Kevin Anchukaitis (@thirstygecko) June 23, 2018
An eminent climate scientists replied, as so many have replied to such unprofessional attacks.
Please debate the subject, not demean one of our colleagues. @CatoMichaels I have know Pat for decades and always respect his views, even on those occasions where I disagree. He adds significant robust substance to the climate issue.
— Roger A. Pielke Sr (@RogerAPielkeSr) June 23, 2018
Anchukaitis jumped into the discussion at a later point.
Shorter climate deniers: if you scientists would just be pushovers when we write motivated nonsense in the national press intended to mislead the public, we wouldn’t have to do our best to also prevent reasonable measures to avoid dangerous climate change. Ok 🙄 https://t.co/XLOUgcYGoY
— Kevin Anchukaitis (@thirstygecko) June 26, 2018
Anchukaitis deploys the universal defense of modern climate science against criticism: “deniers!” This is odd. I am a dogmatic supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies. But after 30 years of massive effort with almost no policy action, I believe a change of tactics is needed. To Anchukaitis, that is “denial.” In a nutshell, that’s why 30 years of massive effort has failed to produce action.
Bio: Kevin Anchukaitis is an associate professor at the University of Arizona (see his University profile page).
A reminder from the past
“In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’”
– Testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report). Jones has not publicly denied it, so far as I see.
Example #2 of climate science in action
Another tweet about that WSJ op-ed.
That seemed an odd claim. It does not agree with the NOAA data, and short-term climate changes are almost impossible to attribute to human action. So I sent a Tweet showing NOAA’s global surface temperature.
NOAA disagrees with you. Trend of 2000 – 2014 was 0.12C/decade, statistically insignificant. The El Nino spike is fading fast, with global surface temp now back to the 2015 level. https://t.co/BHuN62Mj5D pic.twitter.com/uPoc1jDVg1
— Fabius Maximus (Ed.) (@FabiusMaximus01) June 23, 2018
Cowern blocked me – for showing NOAA data that contradicted his tweet. See the offensive graph below from NOAA’s excellent Climate At A Glance website. Note they calculate the 2000-2014 trend as 0.12°C per decade (probably statistically insignificant, and within the instrument network’s margin of error). The graph shows the El Nino spike – and its fall, perhaps returning to the 2000-2014 trendline.
Bio: Nick Cowern is a professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Newcastle University. See LinkedIn.
Another reminder from the past
“The time for debate has ended”
— Marcia McNutt (then editor-in-Chief of Science, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.
Declaring that the debate is over: it is a favorite tactic of climate advocates (see more about this pitiful article). After thirty years, it had not worked. But they keep trying.
Example #3 of climate science in action
Anthony Purcell was acrimoniously attacking Roger Pielke Sr. about the role of CO2 in climate dynamics. Here are three of his salvos.
There is not much to be said about that tweet. It’s beyond rational rebuttal. Another one is more substantial.
That is an odd tweet. That a CO2 increase was detected in the 1930s does not mean that it had a significant effect on the climate (the IPCC’s reports make no such claim). The melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets in the 1850s was a retreat from their expansion during the Little Ice Age (whose causes are still debated, but it wasn’t CO2). This other tweet is also material, asking an important question.
Pielke Sr. is too modest to give an adequate reply. Hence my two tweets answering Purcell’s question.
2/ See Roger Pielke Sr's bio at CIRES. Lifetime of work in many areas of climate science, holding distinguished posts, many awards.https://t.co/48InG3yKqY
— Fabius Maximus (Ed.) (@FabiusMaximus01) June 24, 2018
In one sentence, Purcell’s reply shows the essence of the climate science policy debate – and why most the US public still ranks climate change as a low priority vs. our other problems.
Now I’m not sure what your background is or what your technical qualifications might be – but if you are nothing more than @RogerAPielkeSr’s lick-spittle You’re not bringing a lot to the conversation
— Anthony Purcell (@Tony_Purc) June 24, 2018
Citing a climate scientist’s publications and professional record – in response to Purcell’s question – gets a schoolyard insult. And, in the fashion of climate sciences, he blocked me.
Andrew Dessler jumped into the discussion with this tweet …
A nice articulation of the “Iron Law of @RogerPielkeJr”: it’s always the climate scientists’ fault. Sounds legit. https://t.co/CxWRfk6f4z
— Andrew Dessler (@AndrewDessler) June 26, 2018
This is odd. First, Pielke’s Iron Law says “While people are often willing to pay some price for achieving environmental objectives, that willingness has its limits.” Explained in his book The Climate Fix (see below). Dessler is not even close. Second, he appears to believe that is a universal defense of climate scientists against any criticism. But he did reply.
My apologies. I thought you were making a useful contribution to discussion of this important subject.
— Fabius Maximus (Ed.) (@FabiusMaximus01) June 27, 2018
Bio: Purcell is a research fellow at the School of Earth Science at Australian National University. Bio here.
Bio: Andrew Dessler is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A and M (his page at the university website).
The last word on these sad stories
“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.”
— Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge(1963).
(Update) I could post more and even worse tweets from climate scientists in these threads, but pouring more water on a rock does not make it wetter.
This is the public face of climate science today: tribal, defensive, discussion by invective, dismissive of contrary data. More like a priesthood than a community of scientists. Having corresponded or worked with many climate scientists during the past decade, I found that most are diligent, responsive to inquiries, and open about their work. But a large fraction – including many of the field’s leaders – are not. Their responses to inquiries and responses is the opposite of what the public expects in public policy debates about the fate of the world, especially when proposing solutions requiring vast resources and perhaps restructuring of the world economy.
For thirty years this has been the nature of the climate science advocacy. Naturally, they have little to show for it. Mike Bastasch (reporter for the Daily Caller) gave the last word on this sad story.
Well, it’s hard to learn when you don’t listen
— Mike Bastasch (@MikeBastasch) June 23, 2018
In the past decade I have written 400+ posts about the climate wars, as a stalwart (or dogmatic) supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies. So I do not agree with this statement by Brandon Shollenberger. But events have forced me to see that his is a rational response to climate scientists’ behavior during the past 30 years.
“My view regarding global warming has always been very simple: the people who claim it is a serious threat act in such a bizarre way, I don’t believe them.” {Shollenberger has written a series of books about the climate wars; the most recent is A Disgrace to Skepticism
.
.Mistakes at the start often put a project on the wrong path. But it is not too late to restart the policy debate.
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
Why?
What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
What is the overlap?
What does it mean?
MSimon,
See; http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm
The main influence of CO2 is in the 15 μm band where water vapor is not completely blocking the outgoing radiation.
What it means is that the absorption by CO2 and water are mostly independent of each other and the overall absorption acts as a sum of both absorptions.
The above is a very interesting website from Jack Barrett and David J. Bellamy about theory and reality of global warming…
FE
No 33 C warmer + No GHG energy loop = No RGHE & No CAGW.
Put or …..
That’s “Put up or…
Defend – or retreat.
No RGHE and no QED handwavium.
Nick Schroeder, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. What does “No 33 C warmer” mean? What does “GHG energy loop” mean? What does “RGHE” mean?
MSimon, here’s the Earth’s emission spectrum, measured from a satellite, looking down, over the western tropical Pacific:
http://sealevel.info/slide16_excerpt2_FTIR_data_from_a_satellite_tropical_western_pacific_annot5.png
The big green tooth-shaped notch is the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, absorbing outgoing radiation. Additional (anthropogenic) CO2 broadens that notch slightly.
There is a lot of overlap with H2O, but mostly on the long-wavelength side.
That big green notch is the proof that CO2 causes warming: it represents energy emitted from the surface of the Earth which did not escape the atmosphere, because it was absorbed by the CO2 “dye” in the atmosphere (albeit, a dye which colors the atmosphere in the LWIR, rather than the visible).
Now, the “man-made” part is slightly trickier, because most of that 13-17 µm section of the spectrum is already pretty thoroughly saturated. Adding CO2 raises the effective emission height, but from about 14-16 µm the emission height is in or near the tropopause, already, so raising the emission height has little effect on radiative balance.
But at the fringes of the absorption band (especially on the shorter side, where water vapor has little effect, from 13-14 µm), additional CO2 does have an effect, broadening the absorption band, and raising the emission height. That certainly should have a warming effect.
But how much? The usual estimate is a little over 1°C of warming per doubling of CO2, at equilibrium, from the direct effect of the CO2, absent any feedbacks (other than Planck feedback).
However, in 2014 Prof. Will Happer did a Physics Colloquium at UNC, in which he took a deep dive into this question. He explained why the warming effect of additional CO2 is logarithmically diminishing, and he reported finding evidence that the far tails of the fine line spectra of CO2 are commonly inaccurately modeled, with the result that the calculated direct warming effect (before feedbacks) of additional CO2 is commonly overestimated by about 40%.
Unfortunately, no video recording was made of that colloquium, but I made an audio recording with my phone, while sitting in the front row, and he graciously sent me his powerpoint slides. I combined the two to make a usable video. The sound quality is mediocre, but understandable:
https://tinyurl.com/happer2014unc
I know what Nick is talking about. Why don’t you Dave? RGHE.. Runaway Greenhouse Effect.. 33 C is the difference in the blackbody model of 255 K and the surface of the earth being 288 K. GHG refers to Greenhouse gas.. the energy loop is the positive feedback, it just keeps getting warmer and warmer. The co2 keeps retaining the heat as you’ve just shown Dave. Obviously, that isn’t happening.
What’s the satellite data saying, 0.18 C. ??? So, then, if it’s true what you said Dave, where’s the heat hiding ?
Looks to me like AGW is CTB by explaining it was off by 40 %. It’s off by a 1/3 from TSI. ( Cover their Bottoms….. Total Solar Iridescence) Watts square meter at the surface calculated from Top of Atmosphere at 1370 w/m^2 when it was more like 1360 – 1362. Is this 40 % in addition to the 1/3 that has been overestimated from the TSI? Still in the dark Dave? Either you are a shrill or you don’t have the slightest idea. Maybe both. You said you didn’t know what he was talking about.
“rishrac” or “Nick Schroeder” (I presume that you are the same person, because your writing seems too alike & too unique for there to be two of you), thank you for decoding “RGHE” and “GHG energy loop” — synonyms, apparently.
I agree that the notion of a “runaway greenhouse loop” is nonsense. However, it is a common enough point of confusion that I spent a few paragraphs explaining it, on my web page about climate feedbacks, here:
https://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html
Excerpt:
What did “Nick” meant by “No 33 C warmer”? Is “he” just quibbling about the number (which could be reasonable), or is he claiming that it is zero (crackpottery)?
I also don’t know what you mean by, “The co2 keeps retaining the heat as you’ve just shown Dave. Obviously, that isn’t happening.”
CO2 doesn’t “retain heat,” and I certainly haven’t shown that it does. Rather, it absorbs LWIR radiation, and when it does so the absorbed energy is immediately (in a few nanoseconds) transferred (by collision) to other air molecules, raising the temperature of the atmosphere.
I also don’t know what it is that you think “obviously isn’t happening.”
I also don’t know what you mean by, “What’s the satellite data saying, 0.18 C.?” What is it that you think is “0.18 C?”
I also don’t know what “AGW is CTB” means. What is “CTB?”
I also don’t know what “explaining it was off by 40 %” and “it’s off by a 1/3 from TSI” mean, nor what “this 40 %” and “the 1/3 that has been overestimated from the TSI” refer to. What is the mysterious “it” and “this” that you think is off by either 1/3 or 40%?
I also don’t know what you think is significant about the slight variations in estimates of TSI at TOA (1360 to 1370 w/m²). Estimates vary a bit, so what?
You wrote, “Either you are a shrill or you don’t have the slightest idea.”
I’ve never heard the word “shrill” used as a noun, so I don’t know whether I am one. But it is true that I don’t have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.
Please, if you bother to reply, try to write more clearly. When referring to something I’ve written, please quote it, exactly. And please don’t use pronouns without mentioning what they refer to. And please don’t use uncommon acronyms without defining them.
A feedback of less than 100% is a negative feedback.
That is not true. It depends more on the phase of the signal and less on the magnitude. For example given the same amplitude, a signal 180 degrees out of phase is negative feedback, but a signal 0 degrees in phase is positive.
Didn’t know this was happening.
No I am not rishrac. Sometimes I appear as NickReality65 from an old WordPress account back when WP censored me. It’s 100% up front who I am. Want more – see LinkedIn.
288 K is presented as the average temperature for the surface of the earth. IPCC & WMO define surface as 1.5 m above the ground. So, is this just official weather stations? As Heller points out 80% of the land doesn’t have decent instrumentation. How does this “average” include sea surface temperatures? Polar temperatures? The K-T diagram uses 16 C / 289 K. Record high/record low averages about -10 C. Is this “average” the mean, median or mode? In my opinion “one number to rule them all” is just a wild ass approximate consensus best guesstimate.
255 K is presented as the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere, but somehow the current 30% albedo. See ACS climate change tool kit. Some weasels say without GHGs, but it amounts to the same thing. No atmosphere/no GHGs means no clouds, no vegetation, no oceans, no snow or ice – a barren rock like the moon with an albedo more on the order of 0.15 and 390 K hot side and 150 K dark. See Nikolov and Kramm lunar papers.
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
The 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR is the ideal S-B BB power flux for any 289 K surface with 1.0 emissivity. It is NOT possible for the surface of the earth to radiate as BB. Earth radiates as 0.16 = 63/396 grey body. Conduction/convection/latent do the heavy lifting, radiation handles what’s left.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW
Next link is modest experiment that demonstrates how contiguous participating media, aka atmospheric molecules, prevent BB radiation from earth surface. A surface radiates as a BB only into a vacuum.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
The model of the earth as a ball evenly heated suspended in a bucket of warm solar poo is nonsense. The whole 1,368 / 4 = 342 is simplistic nonsense. This next link is how the earth really heats and cools and the atmosphere moves heat from surface to ToA.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6369927560008212481
Bottom line: No 33 C + No loop = No RGHE and No CAGW
You know how to find me.
I am not Nick. I have been on this board for years as Rishrac. WUWT knows the IP address from where I’m writing. I was writing from New Jersey 6 years ago. WUWT knows that too. I have never addressed anything on here as other than Rishrac. I am honestly afraid of AGW people. I have to give all due respect to the critics of AGW that puts their names out there.
You don’t know about these subjects Dave, they are not new. And yes it does matter in the calculations from 1370 w/m^2 to 1360 w/m^2, it lowers the rise in temperature from 1.2 C as of 2012 to 0.8 C which is a 1/3. All of the math is from the IPCC. I do know that the TSI matters because I’ve done the math. Further, slight declines in TSI that enhance the albedo, can cause huge changes in temperature. I’m not guessing, I know. You haven’t done the math. From your statement:
” I also don’t know what you think is significant about the slight variations in estimates of TSI at TOA (1360 to 1370 w/m²). Estimates vary a bit, so what?”
Do you want to see how that works? Change the albedo from 30% to 32%. With TSI at 1360 and albedo from 30 to 32% the result is 8 w/m^2 less. You can substitute any number in there. Call it 1370 and a change of 1% in albedo. It’s still a drop of 3 w/m^2. When Mt. Pinatubo went, it lowered world wide temperatures and the resultant was calculated at a 2 w/m^2 less. You still think that is a ” so what” ?
None of the acronyms are uncommon. I recognized them right away. Did you just get out of Climate 101? You’ve never heard of the ” tipping point” in reference to co2 levels as a runaway greenhouse gas?
I did define CTB. You also must not be able read either.
Additionally, 0.18 C is the current temperature above baseline. I don’t know what so hard about that. Not the 1.2 C that was touted in 2012 from co2. There is additional math on the doubling of co2 that gives a number, 303 K. You surely must be familiar with it since you are up in alarm about co2 levels. The rest is easy to graph of where the co2 levels were and where they are now in relation to what the temperature should be with x amount of co2 in the atmosphere. . The world is no where near those levels. World temperatures are down 0.67 C from 2016.
I don’t think you are qualified to make statements when you can’t follow the conversation at level that shows you don’t know what you are talking about.
AGW is dead anyway. It’s just a matter of time before AGW is swept into the dustbin of history. It will be shown for what it is, a naked power grab.
CO2 follows temperature… in the real world. And I do know that for certain.
I’ve been at this since 1989.
Plus the elliptical orbit takes the solar non-constant from 1,415 W/m^2 at perihelion to 1,323 W/m^2 at aphelion, an annual swing of 92 W/m^2!!!
And the 23.5 degree tilt sends any particular ToA location through a 700 W/m^2 swing summer to winter. That’s using the accurate reality based model.
These values are physical constants, geometry and algebra.
See my LinkedIn model discussion link above.
@ Nick, ( some of this is for the people that don’t know what GHG stands for)
I actually do know that the earth swings from perihelion to aphelion. And the numbers you gave, are correct.
The co2 monthly anomaly follows it. AGW made a big hoopla about co2 atmospheric concentration at 410 ppm/v in April. Starting in May the total atmospheric concentration starts to drop. Last year from May to Sept, atmospheric concentration dropped by 7 ppm/v. AGW likes to claim it’s the uptake by plants and reduced production in the NH ( for those that don’t know what NH stands for, Northern Hemisphere). AGW also uses incorrectly, the tilt of the earth as reason.
What the 7 ppm/v represents is * , by weight, each 1 ppm/v = 6 Billion Metric Tons. That is 42 Billion Metric Tons ( I didn’t use BMT, it might confuse some) The 42 BMT is 6 BMT MORE (shouting) than all the co2 produced in a year. Further because co2 levels do drop, any production of co2 during those months vanishes. If only .. IF.. 12 BMT is produced from May to Sept, then that has totally disappeared. Which ups the total sinking in those months to 54 BMT. The NH is at aphelion during that time.
* I would further note since the AGW believer will want to say say that the land and ocean absorbs that, that it is really not that much. It is that much and probably more since on a world wide basis it takes a production of 12 BMT to add 1 ppm/v of co2 which has already been calculated in that the land and ocean are sinking 50% of the 38 +/- BMT .
Let me think, the SH ( Southern Hemisphere) doesn’t do anything? It’s all spring and summer in the NH that sinks that much co2? In fact co2 levels increase when the SH is in perihelion, meaning the earth is getting an extra 92 w/m^2 at TOA.
No, the length and duration of the lose of co2 matches the sine wave of the earth around the sun.
I think that because of this, with temperature, the temperature calculated from perihelion to aphelion it may be possible to predicted what the co2 levels will be and at what temperature co2 levels start to go negative ( lose or gain of albedo will also play a part) …. provided NOAA doesn’t alter the data..
Altering the data adds big concerns about whether the information is biased or not, so that AGW knows what I’m looking for and I say that, only to have them say “oh, it wasn’t this it was that” or just change it from the start so there is no indication that it is doing that. Nobody knows. I want to know what it’s doing and not have confirmation bias.
There is no way AGW is valid.
THIS MAY BE OF INTEREST :
https://www.livescience.com/56219-earth-atmospheric-oxygen-levels-declining.html
WHICH CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
“However, previous research has found that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have not, on average, changed over the past 800,000 years,…”
& I agree with rishrac that AGW is invalid
& further , that it is a POLITICAL INVENTION
with an ULTERIOR MOTIVE .
Here’s my snippet on CO2/carbon balance.
“Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 Gt (+/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred Gt/y (+/- ??) fluxes flowing among those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross atmospheric contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net atmospheric contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%!!!!! (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1)”
“Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know? BTW fossil fuel between 1750 and 2011 represented 0.34% of the total biospheric carbon cycle.”
Nick,
Notice nobody argues with the numbers? If there is a response, it is like the one on here by Dave Burton ” Nick Schroeder, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. What does “No 33 C warmer” mean? What does “GHG energy loop” mean? What does “RGHE” mean?”
” BTW fossil fuel between 1750 and 2011 represented 0.34% of the total biospheric carbon cycle.”
And no negative numbers in the IPCC’s narrative. I think they fixed the numbers on co2 to show there was no or little change in temperature. That’s how AGW did away with the MWP and LIA. …. ( AGW used their own model to prove neither existed)…. And just in the orbit around the sun, last year there was a 7 ppm/v swing. MSimon said it best, ” My point was that even on their own terms it doesn’t work. ” .
As if the sinks couldn’t handle 0.34% spread out over 260 years? Yet somehow the sinks take in today, just by NOAA’s estimate of 19 BMT in one year, which is 1 and half times greater than all of co2 produced in 1965.
Thanks for the additional info on earth’s carbon. I’m not sure we’ve had any affect on co2 levels.
MarkW wrote, “A feedback of less than 100% is a negative feedback.”
No, a feedback less than zero is negative feedback.
Betty Pfeiffer wrote, “That is not true.”
Since reply levels 4 & higher are all indented identically, it is impossible to tell what “that” you’re talking about, or who you’re talking to.
Betty continued, “It depends more on the phase of the signal and less on the magnitude. For example given the same amplitude, a signal 180 degrees out of phase is negative feedback, but a signal 0 degrees in phase is positive.”
You’re talking about systems with AC signals, and in which there’s a delay in the feedback path. If, for example, imagine a theoretical apparently-negative temperature feedback mechanism, with a 12 hour or 36 hour delay. It would amplify, rather than attenuate, day-night temperature swings, even though a similar system with a a 0 hour or 24 hour delay would attenuate day-night temperature swings.
There are, of course, relevant short-duration cyclical patterns, such as daily and seasonal temperature swings, but “climate change” refers to much longer periods than that. Most climate signals are largely DC. There’s no “phase” to a DC signal.
Nick and rishrac both denied being each other. Very well, but will both of you please try harder to write more clearly, please? I’m not a mind reader!
For instance, Nick, you just wrote, “The K-T diagram uses 16 C / 289 K. Record high/record low averages about -10 C.”
1. There are many sorts of K-T diagrams in the literature. The most common usage is Kitagawa-Takahashi diagrams, which are used in engineering.
You’re presumably talking about Trenberth’s pretty picture of climate energy flows (there are many versions, like this one in AR5), but you didn’t say so, and this blog has many thousands of readers, some of whom will be unable to decypher such abbreviations. So please don’t do that!
2. “Uses 16 C / 289 K” — what does that even mean? My best guess is that you suppose that Trenberth’s diagram is just for an “average” temperature of 16C, but if so you’re wrong.
3. “Record high/record low averages about -10 C” — what does that even mean? If the “/” indicates division, then ratio would be unitless. If you meant to type a minus sign instead of a “/” the difference (record high temperature minus record low temperature) should be positive, not negative, and much larger than 10°C. Additionally, the word “averages” in a sentence about “record” level temperatures makes no sense. I can’t tell what you think is “about 10 C.”
Nick continued, “Is this “average” the mean, median or mode? In my opinion “one number to rule them all” is just a wild ass approximate consensus best guesstimate.”
It’s not a median, it’s some sort of average or weighted average (or wild-ass guestimate) surface or near-surface temperature. The exact definition doesn’t really matter much, as long as you’re consistent, if all you really care about is the difference between one year and another.
Nick continued, “255 K is presented as the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere, but somehow the current 30% albedo.”
It’s a theoretical figure. If there were no “greenhouse”[sic] warming from the radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, the Earth would have a LOT more ice on it, so albedo would be a lot higher.
Nick continued, “No atmosphere/no GHGs means no clouds, no vegetation, no oceans, no snow or ice – a barren rock like the moon.
Wrong. It means a LOT of ice, including oceans which are mostly ice-covered.
NIck continued, “Earth radiates as 0.16 = 63/396 grey body.”
Wrong. If you mean “as seen from orbit,” the emission spectra from the Earth does not look at all like a black or grey body, and the emissivity is MUCH higher than 0.16 — somewhere between 0.8 and 1.0.
Nick continued, “Conduction/convection/latent do the heavy lifting, radiation handles what’s left.”
Agreed.
I asked, “What did “Nick” meant[sic] by “No 33 C warmer”? Is he just quibbling about the number (which could be reasonable), or is he claiming that it is zero (crackpottery)?”
Nick ignored that question, and wrote, “Bottom line: No 33 C + No loop = No RGHE and No CAGW”
That’s gibberish.
1. 33°C is a reasonable, though necessarily very approximate, estimate for the amount of “greenhouse”[sic] warming which the Earth enjoys.
2. There are lots of feedback looks in the Earth’s climate system; I’ve listed over two dozen of them, here:
https://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html
3. RGHE (“runaway greenhouse effect”) is nonsense, and so is CAGW (“catastrophic global warming”), but the fact that RGHE is nonsense is not the reason that CAGW is also nonsense.
rishrac wrote, “And yes it does matter in the calculations from 1370 w/m^2 to 1360 w/m^2, it lowers the rise in temperature from 1.2 C as of 2012 to 0.8 C which is a 1/3.”
No, it doesn’t. A 0.735% difference in in estimated total solar irradiance at top of atmosphere has negligible impact on the estimates of the warming effect of a rise in temperature from… {from what?}… from any forcing.
rishrac continued, “All of the math is from the IPCC.”
“All the math” — what on earth are you talking about? You showed no math at all. You just waved your hands.
And if you’re going to claim that something is “from the IPCC” (or from any source), you need to cite it precisely enough for someone to find it.
rishrac continued, “I do know that the TSI matters because I’ve done the math.”
Yeah, shure you have. I’ll bet you’ve found a remarkable proof of this fact, but there was not enough space on the napkin to write it down.
rishrac continued, “Do you want to see how that works? Change the albedo from 30% to 32%. With TSI at 1360 and albedo from 30 to 32% the result is 8 w/m^2 less. You can substitute any number in there. Call it 1370 and a change of 1% in albedo. It’s still a drop of 3 w/m^2. When Mt. Pinatubo went, it lowered world wide temperatures and the resultant was calculated at a 2 w/m^2 less. You still think that is a ” so what”?””
Yes, of course it’s absolutely a “so what.”
When Mt. Pinatubo erupted, it increased albedo without affecting TSI, and it still had only a barely detectale effect on temperatures for a couple of years. If you tweak your TSI estimate up or down by 1%, and tweak your albedo estimate enough to offset that difference, it has no net effect. An eruption like Mt. Pinatubo, or a doubling of CO2, or any other forcing, will have almost the same effect.
I wrote, “I also don’t know what ‘AGW is CTB’ means. What is ‘CTB?'”
rishrac continued, “None of the acronyms are uncommon… I did define CTB. You also must not be able read either.”
I can not only read, I can even ctrl-F search a web page, and you definitely did not define “CTB.”
rishrac continued, “0.18 C is the current temperature above baseline. I don’t know what so hard about that.”
“Baseline?” What does THAT mean?
It annoys me a lot when climate alarmists uses phrases like “1.5°C of warming,” which in plain English would mean “compared to current temperatures,” but which actuall really means “compared to the Little Ice Age” in their deliberately obfuscatory parlance. But at least they do define it, albeit in the fine print.
A “baseline” could be anything at all.
rishrac continued, “There is additional math on the doubling of co2 that gives a number, 303 K.”
“Gives a number,” eh? You know, that’s like the punch line of a joke: “42.” But what’s the joke?
rishrac continued, “You surely must be familiar with it since you are up in alarm about co2 levels.”
What on earth are you smoking, dude?
rishrac wrote, “Last year from May to Sept, atmospheric concentration dropped by 7 ppm/v. AGW likes to claim it’s the uptake by plants and reduced production in the NH…”
Do not mistake Mauna Loa for the entire planet. In the southern hemisphere (SH) there’s much less seasonal fluctuation in CO2 level (because the SH has at lot less terrestrial vegetation and a lot more ocean).
rishrac continued, “What the 7 ppm/v represents is * , by weight, each 1 ppm/v = 6 Billion Metric Tons. That is 42 Billion Metric Tons”
Actually, atmospheric CO2 weighs 8.053 Gt/ppmv.
Additionally, you’re mistakenly assuming that the approximately 7 ppmv seasonal CO2 fluctuation applies to the whole planet. It doesn’t.
rishrac continued, “The 42 BMT is 6 BMT MORE (shouting) than all the co2 produced in a year.”
Wrong. It’s about the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted in a year. Natural CO2 fluxes are much, much larger.
rishrac continued, “There is no way AGW is valid.”
There’s no question that adding GHGs to the atmosphere warms the Earth. Nobody who knows anything about it doubts that. The questions are:
● How much does it warm the Earth? And,
● Is it harmful or helpful? And,
● How harmful or helpful is it? And,
● Even if it is harmful, does it do enough harm to offset the proven benefits of higher CO2 levels for agriculture and natural ecosystems? (I.e., is the so-called “social cost of carbon” positive or negative?)
● And by how much? (What is the social cost or benefit of carbon?
Nick wrote, “Mankind’s gross atmospheric contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1)”
There is no “Fig. 6.1” in AR5, so I assume you mean Fig. 6-1. I don’t know where that number is from, but it’s not in Fig 6-1:
rishrac wrote, “As if the sinks couldn’t handle 0.34% spread out over 260 years? Yet somehow the sinks take in today, just by NOAA’s estimate of 19 BMT in one year, which is 1 and half times greater than all of co2 produced in 1965.”
What you call “BMT” is conventionally abbreviated Gt (gigatonnes) or, less commonly, Pg (petagrams).
When you say “all of co2 produced in 1965” you really mean all the anthropogenic CO2 produced.
According to this data, total anthropogenic CO2 production in 1965 was 3.667 × 3130 / 1000 = 11.5 Gt, so 19 Gt would be 1.65× that.
rishrac continued, “I’m not sure we’ve had any affect on co2 levels.”
You should be.
Mankind is releasing the equivalent of about 5 ppmv of CO2 per year, into the atmosphere. The fact that CO2 levels are only rising at half that rate simply means that the negative feedbacks, such as greening, and absorption in to the oceans, are removing it half as fast as we’re adding it.
@ Dave,
In 1965 the co2 atmospheric level was 318 ppm/v. Based on the doubling of co2 that was 13% above the historical amount of 280 ppm/v. Given the formula for temperature black body radiation and the green house effect, that should have raised the temperature by 1965 to 1 C since the increase in co2 was constant. And the continuous output of co2 took 115 years to raise it by 38 ppm/v, which the world temperature should have stood above the baseline of 15 C by at least 1 C. Since 1965, which is 53 years ago now, the temperature should be at least 2 C and certainly more than 1 C …. sorry you can’t understand that in May the world temperature stood 0.18 C above base line of 15 C…
And now with co2 levels at 411 ppm/v the world temperature should be rising dramatically not declining. Temperatures have in fact dropped 0.67 C since 2016. CO2 levels are nearly at almost half doubling from 280 ppm/v, at 46%. The temperature should be on a world wide basis 7 C above 15 C. or at least half way there.
You obviously don’t understand the the sinks shouldn’t be as large as the are. Of course the sinks are 1.65 ( exact numbers can’t be used with estimates, min and max or I use about) times larger than in 1965… oceans were suppose to be cooler and the rain forests were definitely larger. You remember the term ” lungs of the earth “? Anyway, there should have been more capacity for uptake then than there is now when co2 production was lower.
you said,
” The fact that CO2 levels are only rising at half that rate simply means that the negative feedbacks, such as greening, and absorption in to the oceans, are removing it half as fast as we’re adding it.”
No, there is still missing co2 beyond what is accounted for in absorption and plant growth. Nearly all the increased production from 1998 till now is not accounted for. The sinks have always been removing at 1/2. What’s missing is the difference between the 1/2 absorption and what ends up in the atmosphere. What’s missing is from anywhere 16% to 30% of the total. And that amount never comes back.
I don’t know that for a fact that we are having an impact on co2 levels. While it seems logical, it may not be the case. Temperature definitely seems to out weigh production.
you said,
“Wrong. It’s about the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted in a year. Natural CO2 fluxes are much, much larger.”
I talking about the entire atmospheric co2 declining by 7 ppm/v ( it’s in the NOAA monthly co2 amounts) in a few months. That amounts to about 42 BMT ( ‘BMT’ which NOAA is now using) And that doesn’t include the production during those months. I stated that. And it does apply to the whole planet. There is no separate SH and NH record on co2. The argument from the IPCC is that co2 is evenly distributed across the earth.
My statement on June 28,2018 5:48 “Looks to me like AGW is CTB by explaining it was off by 40 %. It’s off by a 1/3 from TSI. ( Cover their Bottoms….. Total Solar Iridescence) ”
Further, 303 K is what is predicted by doubling of co2.
W/m^2 at the surface was defined as (( 1370) x (1-a)) /4 =239.7
with ” a” , the albedo at 30%.
((1360) x (1-a))/4 =238 w/m^2
While TSI does not materially affect the numbers. It does when you consider than Pinatubo reduced worldwide w/m^2 at the surface by 2. Do you see a 1.7 w/m^2 difference?
Given that or if TSI was still 1370, the result in a 2% change in albedo.
((1370 x ( 1-a ))/4 =233 w/m^2
When considering S-B… for doubling, the formula is
(239.7+239.7)/ (5.67 x 10 -^8) to the 4th root =303 K
slightly less at 238… that wasn’t as you called it, a joke.
The baseline was calculated using half of that (239.7)/(5.67 x 10-8) to the 4th root= 255 K, blackbody. And that’s because co2 at 280 ppm/v, an additional 33 K is added due to the greenhouse effect at 288 K. because the actual world temperature … baseline 59 F or 15 C….. Doubling the co2 is suppose to cause an additional 15 C warming…. As I stated earlier we are at 411 ppm/v, which is close to half of the doubling. I don’t see, at least, 2 C since 1965. I’m not cherry picking take a 5 year +/-. 1965 happens to be a year I have good numbers for. And at 5 or 7 C, I wouldn’t be arguing with you. Nobody would. And I’d be cautious at 2 C increase. Instead all there is, is a spike to 0.82 C. The world temperature should already be 17 C or 63 F… not someday… 50 years isn’t enough time? The current numbers on world temperature are actually within the error ranges. Temperatures are not moving in concert with co2, co2 however is moving with temperature.
At some point in the orbit around the sun the earth reaches a temperature toward aphelion where co2 stops increases and decreases as it continues on toward the furthest point away from the sun. The rate of decrease, after that point, slows till it goes positive again toward perihelion. The TSI may vary a small amount, by 0.13% but the orbit while nearly perfect by planetary standards, it is 3%. Nick gave numbers on that. Given the inverse power formula for distance, Kepler’s law .. which means the earth stays in aphelion longer than at perihelion, it has a significant effect on total energy received.
I sincerely doubt that even 10 years from now it will be 17 C. and even further away from 20 – 22 C. When do you predict it will be 17 C on a consistent basis?
30 years ago when the senate hearings were held on AGW, AGW should have been dead on arrival. They were predicting forward when the data should have told them it should have already been warmer.. much warmer.
I will reiterate, AGW is invalid.
rishrac wrote, “In 1965 the co2 atmospheric level was 318 ppm/v”
The average over the year 1965 was 320.04 ppmv at Mauna Loa.
rishrac continued, “Given the formula for temperature black body radiation and the green house effect, that should have raised the temperature by 1965 to 1 C since the increase in co2 was constant.”
Huh? What are you talking about?
rishrac continued, “…continuous output of co2 took 115 years to raise it by 38 ppm/v,”
Okay. CO2 from ice cores was around 285 ppmv in 1850, CO2 at Mauna Loa was 320 ppmv in 1965, so +35 ppmv in 115 years, close enough.
rishrac continued, “…which the world temperature should have stood above the baseline of 15 C by at least 1 C.”
Huh? What do you mean by “baseline?” Do you mean average temperatures circa 1850? And why do you suppose temperature “should have” risen so much?
From 1850 to 1965 HADCRUT3 rose about 0.3 °C, and HADCRUT4 rose about 0.4 °C.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1965.99/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1965.99
I wouldn’t be surprised if 1/3 of that was due to rising CO2 level.
rishrac continued, “…sorry you can’t understand that in May the world temperature stood 0.18 C above base line of 15 C”
That’s gibberish. There’s no “world temperature” and no “base line of 15 C.” There are various sorts of averages that you could compute, and 15°C is a reasonable number that you might find, but if you suppose that the Earth’s average temperature has only increased 0.18°C since the mid-1800s, you’re just wrong.
rishrac continued, “Temperatures have in fact dropped 0.67 C since 2016.”
The El Nino ended. So what?
rishrac continued, “CO2 levels are nearly at almost half doubling from 280 ppm/v, at 46%. The temperature should be on a world wide basis 7 C above 15 C. or at least half way there.”
You think TCR “should be” 15°C? Really??
I don’t. My guess is about 1°C.
I’m out of time, and, frankly, I’ve lost interest. Here are some resources for learning more about climate change, if you’re interested:
http://sealevel.info/learnmore.html
I’m not a AGWer. I’m pointing out that increases in CO2 should have resulted in increased temperature a long time ago. Much warmer than it is now. And that is derived from the math that is indicating that co2 will cause a RGHE ( Runaway Green House Effect). The math indicates at 1120 ppm/v the earth’s temperature should be 89 C, nearly boiling.
That is wrong. CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the temperature never went that high.
You think the world temperature should be 34 F?? 15 C is 59 F which if it wasn’t, we’d be in an ice age. None of the numbers I made up. If you have a problem with them consult NOAA.gov or ATM s211: Fall Quarter 2002 Climate and Climate Change.
If you don’t believe there is something wrong with the sink levels, do the math. 2009, 32 BMT of co2 were produced. 16 BMT went into the sink. The atmospheric rise in co2 for 2009 was 1.89 ppm/v. That’s 6 BMT short.
All of the years are short… from a low of 3.79 BMT to 7.49 BMT.
The implication being that if we weren’t producing co2, co2 levels would be going negative.
rishrac wrote, “I’m pointing out that increases in CO2 should have resulted in increased temperature a long time ago. Much warmer than it is now.”
There’s no good reason to think that.
rishrac continued, “that is derived from the math that is indicating that co2 will cause a RGHE ( Runaway Green House Effect).”
There is no such math.
rishrac continued, “The math indicates at 1120 ppm/v the earth’s temperature should be 89 C, nearly boiling.”
I don’t know where you’re getting this stuff, but there is no such math.
rishrac continued, “None of the numbers I made up. If you have a problem with them consult NOAA.gov or ATM s211: Fall Quarter 2002 Climate and Climate Change.”
Do you know how to post links? How about giving it a try.
Some of the material on NOAA’s web site is solid, and some is garbage, but I’m pretty confident that they never say TCR = 15 °C.
“ATM s211: Fall Quarter 2002 Climate and Climate Change” appears to be referring to some 15yo U. Washington course notes for “an introductory course for nonscience majors on climate and climate change”:
https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/index.html
Did you take that course?
There’s a lot of material there. I gave it a cursory look, and found nothing resembling your claims. But if you think I missed it, please post a link.
rishrac continued, “If you don’t believe there is something wrong with the sink levels, do the math.”
I don’t even know what you mean by “sink levels.” but there is no “math” that supports either a runaway greenhouse effect or TCR = 15 °C.
rishrac continued, “2009, 32 BMT of co2 were produced.”
Translating: rishrac uses “BMT” as an abbreviation for Gt (gigatonnes).
That’s about right, for anthropogenic CO2.
rishrac continued, “16 BMT went into the sink.”
I guess by “into the sink” you mean “taken up by terrestrial greening and absorption in the oceans”?
rishrac continued, ” The atmospheric rise in co2 for 2009 was 1.89 ppm/v. That’s 6 BMT short.”
Oh, I think I see your problem. You think the fact that terrestrial greening + CO2 absorption in the oceans is removing about half of current emissions is some sort of rule, that half of emissions stay in the air and the other half are removed.
That’s wrong. The amount of CO2 removed by greening and absorption in the oceans is determined primarily by current CO2 level, and secondarily by other factors, like surface water temperature, and weather patterns which affect plant growth & decay, etc.. It is not determined by emissions.
The estimate that it’s “about half” is determined by subtracting the amount which remains in the atmosphere (calculated from the change on measured CO2 level) from the amount emitted (calculated by summing the sources, like coal, oil & natural gas).
So there’s no “shortage.” It’s just that things like ENSO affect CO2 uptake, so some years CO2 levels rise more than others.
rishrac continued, “The implication being that if we weren’t producing co2, co2 levels would be going negative.”
No, but if CO2 emissions were halved then CO2 levels would not be rising, and if CO2 emissions were cut by more than about half, CO2 levels would be falling (initially).
No math, everything is conjecture after that.
No Run Away Greenhouse Effect. No melting ice sheets, no melting glaciers, no 20 feet of water covering Canal St in NYC, most of Florida underwater…. nothing… AGW smoke and mirrors.
Without math, you can’t convince me….
Not only that, every prediction/projection that AGW has made has failed. Unless you’re in some delusional alternate reality, I’d be embarrassed to support AGW. That’s like claiming cold fusion really works long after it’s proven, it doesn’t. However there are some interesting things about cold fusion while nothing about AGW. Cutting co2 production in half and the co2 levels won’t go up? What was the reason that co2 went up by 1 ppm/v in 1965? Adequately explain to me why the sinks are at least 1.65 times larger today than all of the production in 1965. I also tried to show you that the sinks are expanding. In the 1965 the sinks were 50%. Today, the sinks are 67 to 80% of a much larger production. Of course that data is subject to change to fit the agenda.
Providing links is a specialty among AGWer’s. That’s about all they can do. Rational thought isn’t one of them.
The policy making arm for AGW should be recognized for what it really is, just a political organization with no substance. Without the math, increased co2 is much like saying increased water vapor. Doesn’t mean anything. It’s all conjecture.
The only solid evidence is in the co2 record. The yearly co2 anomaly follows the yearly temperature anomaly. Since we don’t have any math supporting anything either way, then anything is assumptions after that.
AGW is invalid. … For a host of reasons. You just proved it Dave. The information being provided to the public as being factual, is subject to change. This is how we got the results, wait.. no your arguments aren’t correct using the same math.
There is no doubt that using that math I was provided with, the ice at the poles would have melted. And that’s exactly what AGW was saying in 2001. The ice at the poles would melt by 2008 ( or 2013 or 2018 or 2100 or….. ) and drastic action was necessary. That was the forcing effect of co2. Perhaps nobody ever said that in this Orwellian world. ..I didn’t provide a link so it must not be true.
rishrac wrote, “AGW is invalid. … For a host of reasons. You just proved it Dave.”
“AGW is invalid” is a hopelessly ambiguous statement. If it is intended to mean that anthropogenic GHG emissions have no warming effect then it’s wrong. If it is intended to mean that anthropogenic GHG emissions are not a major problem then it’s right.
rishrac wrote, “Adequately explain to me why the sinks are at least 1.65 times larger today than all of the production in 1965.”
I already have. Read about CO2 Fertilization Feedback (“greening”), CO2 Absorption By Water Feedback, and CO2 Coccolithophore Feedback, here:
https://www.sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#greening
rishrac wrote, “Providing links is a specialty among AGWer’s.”
Making assertions WITHOUT providing any links or other documentation is a specialty among people who are so smart that they don’t need evidence to inform their beliefs.
rishrac wrote, “There is no doubt that using that math I was provided with, the ice at the poles would have melted.”
I don’t know who is “providing” you with that secret “math,” but you need to find a better source.
Sorry about the typos and the repeated figure in my big comment. I’d fix it, but we can’t edit comments which get flagged for moderation.
That graph does not indicate the IR overlap between H2O and CO2 very well at all, as it looks like CO2 has a massive impact when this is not the case at all.
from https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/climate-science-on-trial-co2-is-a-weak-ghg-it-has-no-dipole/
The atmosphere does not “warm” the earth.
The atmosphere creates the albedo which reflects away 30% of the irradiation cooling the earth. OK, reducing the heating. Potayto – potahto.
The atmospheric blanket is no different from the trapped air in the insulated walls of a house or the ceiling fan/winds and window draperies/clouds moving energy/heat from inside to outside per Q = U * A * dT i.e. (Surface – ToA).
All this molecular level QED, absorbing/emitting, this wavelength this, that wavelength that – nothing but bloviating, handwavium, quacking.
Explaining RGHE theory is much the same as explaining poltergeists and for the same reason – neither one exists.
Nick,
My point was that even on their own terms it doesn’t work.
Thank you, that recording should be preserved here and on other sites.
DB,
Your X-axis coordinates are wrong. How much do you really understand? Geoff.
Dave,
You stated that IR energy does not escape because of CO2 and you show emmission spectrum chart. I do not think your statement is true or accurate.
Of the IR energy blocked by CO2 some goes up and some is returned to the surface. The part returned is, of course, the back radiation from CO2. Once that IR is absorbed by the surface the engery is converted back to thermal heat. This is where most people stop, but that heat energy is now free to be re-emitted at a different wave length which can freely escape to space.
The odds that the surface emits IR acceptable to CO2 is low – perhaps 15% – so the odds are that the next emmission will not be stopped by CO2. While the back radiation does “trap” IR and return it to the surface, it quickly escapes via a different wave length. The total time the energy is trapped has to be very short (probably sub second). Due to this, I do not think any energy is trapped long enough to cause any warming.
Thoughts?
NP-Hard
The entire up/down/”back” radiation energy loop assumes the 289 K surface emits BB at 396 W/m^2.
This is a theoretical calculation and has zero physical reality.
Thanks for that link Ferdinand. David Bellamy is a legend and I hadn’t heard much from him for years. He would have been as well known as David Attenborough except he called catastrophic global warming for the scam it is and lost all his TV work.
Didn’t David Bellamy get blocked from appearing on the BBC because of his stance on climate change?
Indeed, it is a shame for the BBC and for science…
I think the real bear in the room is UHI….
…but they adjust 1/2 a degree for it…LOL
Dangerous, oppressive heat wave to scorch central, eastern US as ‘heat dome’ expands
this >”The vast expanse of concrete and pavement will give off heat at night and make sleeping difficult without air conditioning.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/06/28/heat-wave-dangerous-weather-central-eastern-us/741841002/
It’s summer in the Midwest. And no its not early. 4th of July is often during the hottest days of the year.
And it is predicted to be hot, but not that hot. The highest prediction for the next ten days is 94 F. And that is well within the normal highs for this time of year.
The media will do its best to spread hysteria. They always do.
Me, I need to buy more beer and more lemonade.
Such information was included in building passive solar. I guess we don’t believe in passive solar anymore?
Even scientific queries get these kind of replies. For example, I’ve asked many main stream climate scientists to explain the origin of the 3.3 W/m^2 in addition to the initial W/m^2 of forcing that’s required to offset the 4.3 W/m^2 of additional surface emissions consequential to an 0.8C increase in the average temperature of about 288K and that the IPCC claims arises from only 1 W/m^2 of forcing.
Crickets abound and the few replies are along the lines of ‘How dare you question …”.
+4.3 W/m² per 0.8°C sounds high. Where does that number come from? 3.2 to 3.7 W/m² per 1°C is what I recall seeing.
A black body initially at 288 K would increase its surface radiation rate by 4.3 watt per square meter if its temperature increased by 0.8 C.
Confirmed here:
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
Thank you for educating me.
At an average temperature of 288K, the surface emits 390.08 W/m^2. At 288.8K, the surface emissions become 394.43 W/m^2 for an increase of 4.35 W/m^2 per 0.8C. The emissions of an emitting body at some temperature, T, are given exactly by P = eoT^4, where o is the Stefan Boltzmann Constant (5.67E-8 W/m^2 per K^4), e is the emissivity (between 0 and 1) and T is the temperature in degrees K.
The emissivity of the surface temperature relative to emissions at the surface is close to 1 while the emissivity relative to the planets emissions (TOA or TOT) is about 0.62. The sensitivity factor is relative to the specific emissions of a dependent surface and given EXACTLY by 1/(4eoT^3), where e is the emissions as a fraction of emissions of T that pass through the dependent surface. Most important is the T^4 dependence which is a consequence of immutable first principles physics and no amount of feedback or anything else can change the 4 in the exponent.
For TOT (or TOA) as the emitting surface, set T==288K and e=0.62 to calculate the sensitivity factor which is about 0.3C per W/m^2, which when multiplied by 3.7 W/m^2 results in about 1.1C per CO2 doubling which is well below the lower limit of 1.5C below which the IPCC considered no action was warranted and consistent with the values suggested by skeptics.
The 3.7 W/m^2 you’re probably referring to is the amount of forcing equivalent to doubling CO2, which means that doubling CO2 keeping the solar input constant is equivalent to increasing the solar input by 3.7 W/m^2 while keeping CO2 concentrations constant. They hide this important distinction as well
The sensitivity factor has units of degrees per W/m^2 which they obfuscate by converting into degrees per doubling of CO2 and then further obfuscate by wrapping RCP scenarios around the result to account for the massive uncertainty. The sensitivity factor claimed by the IPCC is 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2 which when multiplied by 3.7 W/m^2 per CO2 doubling becomes 3C +/- 1.5C per CO2 doubling.
All the obfuscation is designed to distract and confuse, as the sensitivity from a physical point of view is best expressed as the W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of incremental W/m^2 of input, which unlike the relationship between W/m^2 and temperature, is quite linear. To further obfuscate reality, the IPCC calls forcing the incremental input, while in a strict sense, forcing is all of the 240 W/m^2 of post albedo power arriving from the Sun plus the solar power reflected by ice and clouds, whose reflection is part of the response to the total forcing. This reflected energy is also canceled out of the IPCC’s definition of forcing which doesn’t include the reflected energy as part of the response quantified by the sensitivity. Instead, they roll it in to the nebulously defined concept of temperature feedback and arm wave away the contradictions.
You assume that adding CO2 increases energy absorbed. But if water vapor already absorbs 99.99% of the energy, adding CO2 will not change much.
Just to add another contradiction to the mix.
“At an average temperature of 288K, the surface emits 390.08 W/m^2.”
This is a theoretical S-B BB calculation. IT’S NOT REAL!!!!!!
Just in case I wasn’t clear enough elsewhere:
THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH CANNOT RADIATE AS A BB!!!!!!!!!
The atmospheric molecules are contiguous participating media moving energy by conduction, convection, latent heat processes that account for over 80% of the energy moving from the surface up to the ToA – which is 32 km – where the molecules stop – and radiation takes over.
The surface radiates with a 0.16 emissivity – 63/396. It’s flat printed on the K-T diagram!!!!!! (289 K = 396 W/m^2 BB)
@ Nick,
I think the S-B is wrong. First, they’ve estimated the difference in black body temperature at 255 K. Then co2 at 280 ppm/v adds another 33 K due to the Green house effect. Now, AGW says that a doubling of co2 will result in a 15 C rise. For every 8.48 ppm/v molecules of co2 you get 1 C rise. In that formula. In the next it takes 18.66 ppm/v of molecules to raise temp by 1 C. So at 411 ppm/v the temp should be already be at 303 K or 30 C if you are using 8.48 ppm/v. Or if now with where the temps should be about 7 C at the formula below. The half way point is 420 ppm/v from 280 to 560. So the temp at that level should be 7.5 C higher than the current 15 C. I don’t think some people get that. If you’ve added co2 for the last 60 years and we know how much, you can graph where the co2 is with what the temp should be. A doubling of co2 should logically be 66 K. + 255 K = 321 K. or 47.85 C or 118 F… (stop breathing now) .. evidently the temperature isn’t close to either the 15 C ( where 18.66 ppm/v for 1 C) or this one. I think the math is outright fearmonerging. LOOK what will happen if we don’t curb co2!!!!
(239.7+239.7)/ (5.67 x10^-8) and the 4th root =303 K…. that’s the 15 K difference from 288 K for doubling co2. What’s wrong with that equation????
And you are right about 0.16 emissivity. The IPCC has it at 0.66. There are 2 other ways of deriving it.
You may already know this, but I’m sharing it since I have no way of knowing… and of course, do verify… If you go back, the increased co2 should have resulted, at the very least, in a 2 C rise 50 years ago.
Nick, I realized that some of the numbers are confusing if you aren’t used to what they mean. 15 C or 59 F is what is calculated with the co2 level at 280 ppm/v.
15 C is also the rise in temp from a doubling of co2. Which gives a total of 30 C or the predicted 303 K. By coincidence the co2 level of 411 ppm/v gives a 303 K or 30 C if using 8.48 molecules per 1 K rise.
In any case, the current temperature doesn’t relate to co2 at all.
It has degenerated to more of a belief system the a science.
It was always a religion – the “science” was the search for a (partial) rational basis to win converts. They have never acted differently than like religious zealots.
And look at who they choice to make St’s of this religion, people like Mann , thin skinned, massive ego’s and with poor scientific practice . They say a fish rots form the head , in this case they picked a rotten head in the first place.
Frankly, I prefer the real religious zealots. The ones I’ve run into most often are far more pleasant to deal with.
And just think – these people have educated a generation.
As that generation gain more insight as they get older they realized that their “teacher” may have misled them. I have great faith in the younger generation.
I talked to a political type this week in his late teens. I brought the subject of ‘ climate change’ up. He said, without any hesitation, that he doesn’t believe it. He was taught this for years in school, and the reason he doesn’t believe it is, ” they keep moving the dates further and further out “. So while AGW may be doing this, it may have the opposite intended effect. Some may be stupid, but not that many. He further informed me that nobody he knows believes it either. It’s our dear leaders at the local and state levels who need to be educated about what ‘climate change’ is really about.
Excellent Larry!
Just…… Excellent!!!
Larry,
You have an amazing ability to remain calm and polite.
David,
It’s not my nature to do so. I’ve learned to do so from wiser people. In the climate debates see the calm and reasoned responses of, for example, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Sr.
No amount of debate will convince me, if you have the data to make a debate with then do it.
But, no scientist on the alarmist side is willing to allow their beliefs to be questioned, much less, seriously challenged. It’s clear from the rhetoric that their delusion is very real to them no matter how wrong they are.
It’s clear from the rhetoric that their insecurity is very real to them no matter how wrong they are and they have nowhere to go professionally if they were to admit the truth of what the data says.
These people are fighting for their lives – literally.
If the truth were known, they would all lose their jobs, and their reputations.
They bet their shirts on a losing horse, and they have no option but to double down.
but why should I show you the data “you only want to find something wrong with it” care of P Jones one the AGW leaders and climate ‘scientists’
..Why has the vast investment over 30 years produced little action in the campaign for policy action to fight climate change? ….
Probably because the money has gone into the pockets of corr*upt and fr*udulent businessmen, politicians, activists and ‘scientists’….
“Little action?” Well, they’ve not managed to put much of a dent in GHG emissions, but they’ve certainly succeeded in diverting enormous resources to the quest.
Just here in the United States we now have about 50 million acres devoted to raising Roundup-ready monoculture corn, to make ethanol, to mix into motor fuel, to reduce fossil fuel use, to “fight climate change.” That’s more than the combined land area of the nine smallest States in the USA, and it has a very significant environmental impact.
I always thought was more a test of the political power of the first Presidential primary, than the influence of AGW.
Or the political power of the farm lobby. Adding ethanol to gasoline sure as hell doesn’t reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. First of all, it takes more diesel fuel just to plant and harvest the corn (ignore the energy requirements to ferment and distill it) than the energy equivalent of the ethanol produced. And even if you ignore all the carbon dioxide produced in MAKING ethanol, it STILL produces carbon dioxide when it is burned, maybe not as much as gasoline, but if CO2 is the problem, then ethanol most definitely is not emission-free. And when you consider ALL carbon dioxide produced, from planting the corn to driving the car with 10% ethanol fuel, adding ethanol to fuel absolutely increases total carbon dioxide emissions.
Is there anyone with a Psych background to explain why supposedly smart scientists are blocking Larry for presenting facts/data? Blocking people presenting facts/data seems to be an action quite opposite of the scientific method. What explains this action?
You don’t need a psych background to understand this
Just playground 101.
You are a professor of Climate science with a nice tenure in a middling university. You are now in your late 40’s and became a climate scientist because you were intrigued by global warming and saw a chance to make a career out of it. Climate science has been good to you. You cheerled the bandwagon in the 80s and 90s and wrote a couple of books and make a nice bit on the side doing lecture tours. What you didn’t do was look into the data as deeply as – say – Judith Curry, frown, and start asking awkward questions.
Now you are seriously worried. The data says that there is a very strong chance that your whole career – the last 25 years – has been founded not on science but in political and commercial propaganda. You have been used. You realise you were nothing more than a useful idiot.
Loyalty to science? To the Truth? Are you kidding? You have a wife with expensive tastes children to get educated…a mortgage.
Are you seriously going to stand up, raise your hand and say ‘I do apologise. I got a bit carried away. There is in fact no danger from CO2 whatsoever, and everything I wrote on the subject I never checked against the data, and it was all pure supposition and frankly wild imaginings as well. I have abused my position as a professor of climate science to further the cause of what I now realise were propagandists with an agenda that had nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’.
I mean, really?
At least if you maintain the pretence your idiocy is still useful.
If you Mann up and admit the truth, you are now a useless idiot, so THEY wont support you, and you have admitted to being a corrupt and incompetent scientist, so neither will the university and the scientific community.
In short you have no friends left.
This is the pathology of narcissism. It starts as a plausible extension of the truth – a position that plausibly COULD be true, and the more it becomes apparent that it is not, the more passion and emotion you must put into the defence of a lie that, if exposed, exposes you for what you really are. Weak, insecure, with an ego the size of a planet to compensate for the total lack of competence and substance inside.
Wiki is worth a quote…
I would add. personally another symptom in male narcissists.
Beards. Stupid little beards.
Some of these you will recognise, others are less well known.
I would have to agree with Shollenberger. I have said this before and I will say it again a thousand times.
If I truly believed in CAGW, and that we were running out of time and that the end was nigh, I would advocate for a solution immediately. There is only one way to immediately reduce CO2 production for all nations. A complete switch to Nuclear. Today. Plan for increased baseload from electrical and have everyone switch from IC cars to electrical cars. Nuclear is a known technology, it would cover the baseload, even for a complete switch over to electrical cars and would reduce CO. Perfect. Is there danger? Yes. But the end of the world could be avoided.
But…..they don’t do this. Why? I can only conclude they don’t really believe. They are just out to make a buck.
Andrew,
I think that is too strong, since reasonable people can disagree about the merits of nuclear power.
The unanswerable concern is that raised by so many people (eg, Brandon & me here): anyone with evidence that the planet is in peril has an obligation to present all data and methods, and openly respond to challenges. That’s not the history of the climate crusade.
In this post we see their response to challenges (the other tweets in those threads make it even clearer). They don’t appear to know that the system in the US and UK is discovery thru challenge. That’s how our civil and criminal courts work, how we conduct politics and sciences. We do not have a trust-based system, because our society is built on “low but solid ground.”
I ask you to consider this line of thought. If CO2 is going to end us in say 10 years, then the only potential solution is Nuclear. It’s the only power supply that can be deployed in significant quantity in that kind of time frame, admittedly we would have to fly through the permitting process. Solar and wind can not be produced in that quantity nearly as fast as Nuclear. Regardless of the issues with Nuclear, its the only option if the threat is that significant. We could then use nuclear for a few years and develop an alternative or if you trust solar / wind / battery build enough of them to retire Nuclear. Ultimately, I think that was the point of the original poster
Yes: potential issues 1000 years down the line are nothing compared with huge and real issues 10 years down the line.
Response to climate change is irrational.
Larry,
You think that “since reasonable people can disagree about the merits of nuclear power.”
No.
What matters is that “Knowledgeable people can disagree about the merits of nuclear power.”
If you are not knowledgeable in the subject, for the sake of advancement, please close the trap.
There are more knowledgeable people in favour of, than against nuclear.
Those against tend to have a less deep study of the matter. Geoff.
Larry, I pride myself on being a reasonable person. I understand that many people find nuclear power objectionable (for the life of me I can’t figure out why, I suspect it has to do with irrational fear from years of anti-nuclear propaganda) but what I was doing was pointing out the disconnect.
Every time I turn around these “professionals” are pointing out “tipping points”, doomsday scenarios, and are religiously convinced that we are all dead if we don’t do something now. This type of over the top, hyperbolic rhetoric can only have a few purposes. Why do they make such statements? Its a binary solution set. Option one would be that the person really believes what they are saying, the second would be that they don’t really believe but have ulterior motives
Now if I truly believed the pronouncements of doom, I would embrace ANY solution no matter how I feel about that solution. If someone is pointing a gun at my face, I will embrace any solution to change that, even it means accepting an otherwise unacceptable solution such as giving them my money. If we are to believe these people, we are staring down the barrel of a gun and yet they are unwilling to embrace the most logical solution. Yes, it is a solution they find unacceptable, but it is a solution.
That unwillingness to accept the solution can only mean that they don’t truly believe that a gun is pointed in their face. If they don’t, they must have ulterior motives, as that is the other side of the binary solution set.
Every adult in this conversation who does not live in a ivory tower is well aware that wind and solar will NOT meet the world’s energy needs. They are incapable of providing base load power, which everyone knows, which is why they discuss creating batteries to store power. Another option is tell all the people that they must do without, basically knocking us back into the dark ages. Somehow, the world is supposed to magically reduce CO2? Really? How?
Now, I may be making a mistake in assuming that those who are CAGW true believers are intelligent and rational, but I do. And if they are, then they have to know what is going on. And if they do, and yet still refuse to embrace the unacceptable solution which also happens to be the ONLY CURRENTLY VIABLE solution, then I can only assume that they DON”T TRULY BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING!!!
I know you are a lukewarmer Larry, but if we have a currently viable solution, and the danger is real, why aren’t we embracing it?
I can only assume ulterior motives.
(mike drop)
Nuclear means continuing the energy flux DENSITY per capita of the last 500 years. It is not the amount, rather the density. That means advanced relative potential population density. Add longevity to that and see the fear of the very few pushing what amounts to genocide. “Making a buck” is a cop-out – the enemy has something else in mind!
Fear of taking that on is what they bank on, literally.
I assume from your rather odd phraseology that what you are saying is nuclear power allows civilisation to continue at its current or increased populations density and that may not be what TPTB want.
Genocide is what they want?
Purcell responds in just about the same manner over at realclimatescience.com. In other words, he doesn’t refute Heller at all.
The main reason for the “failure” is actually that what they cite as the disasters to befall us and the amount of warming (even with egregious adjustments) have not materialized. At the same time, the most obvious changes from elevated CO2 are unequivocally positive. Harvests have doubled with higher CO2 a major factor in it. The earth has greened about 20% in 30yrs, most notably in arid regions, increasing habitat for diversity and improving cropping in marginal areas.
This phenomenon is exponential in character and endothermic (cooling). Moreover it is removing vast amounts of carbon into sequestration. And the same thing is happening in the oceans with carbon absorbing zooplankton, which make carbonate shells that accumulate when they die. Think of the White Cliffs of Dover made up of their skeletons!
“More like a priesthood than a community of scientists. ”
Well then Larry Kummer, for someone who obviously has a brain in his head it amazes me that you fall for the propaganda and the bogus charts that are produced by NOAA NASA … etc. We skeptics can point to hundreds of things wrong with the AGW meme whereas I have asked repeatedly to everyone I meet. Have you seen any evidence of global warming? Where is it? I have been looking for it for 30 years and havent found a single piece of evidence. What a farce!!!!
The classic unanswered question is ‘what would disprove AGW’ , and it goes unanswered because they have built a ‘settled science’ which is closer to ‘heads you lose , tails I win ‘ than any science as been before . So they have to answer it with the very unscientific approach of ‘nothing because everything is poof’ an answer which belongs in religion.
Falling global temperatures from here on forward. That will disprove AGW.
First it was the Coming Ice Age. We didn’t have an Ice Age. Then it became Catastrophic Global Warming. Whatever we’ve had, it wasn’t catastrophic. But “Climate Change” is unfalsifiable, because climate DOES change. So falling temperatures will disprove AGW, but they’ll reply “that’s not what we were talking about.” Hard to lose an argument with that kind of assertion.
Actually, even if climate remained exactly the same for 30 years straight, they would claim even that proves climate change. So I say there is absolutely nothing that can (or can’t) happen that the alarmists will accept as proof that climate change is bullspit.
I think that is what is going to happen starting now -moving forward. If it does not happen then it most likely is not going to happen for who knows when , and AGW theory is going to live on forever. The climate right now is at a crossroads and we are going to see if low solar and it’s primary /secondary effects modified by the geo magnetic field drive the climate cooler versus CO2 driving the climate warmer.
I say very low prolonged solar conditions will drive overall sea surface temperatures down while increasing the albedo slightly, the result colder conditions.
We are at warm levels now, not unique but warm and in order to have AGW religated to something not relavent the global temperatures are going to have to show a drop either in degree of magnitude change, or sustainability of the duration of the drop, or a combination of the two.
I say we need at a minimum a .5c to 1.0c drop in global temperatures and the quicker if it does occur, the better in order to put AGW on the back burner and allow climate science to move out from under the cloud of this theory, which I think has stymied climatic science.
Alan: I’ve been critical of Fabius before, but I really appreciate that he challenges these great CliSci Poobahs. And I really, really appreciate that he shows us these responses, which demonstrates the low nature of these folks. I’m going with congrats to this noble roman! BTW I agree, farce is the word.
Above, Mike had a point, but I wouldn’t limit it to nuclear. I’d say, they want to lower emissions? Promote nukes, but they stridently oppose. Well, promote hydro, but they stridently oppose. One proven way to reduce emissions is fracking, they should promote it but stridently oppose. Renewables require backup, at present they don’t reduce emissions. So they are left with only one proven emissions reduction program- a steep recession. Cannot understand why they’re not winning hearts and minds.
For a while I was able to grow Escallonias in East Anglia. Till a hard winter wiped them all out.
I’m not a scientist, but i’m pretty sure this is not how respectable scientists should behave. Insults, blocking, arguments from authority (as Matt Ridley put it: “If I want argument from authority, I will join the Catholic Church.”), and in general just childish behaviour. It doesn’t exactly instill a great deal of confidence. And then they wonder why people don’t take them seriously. It’s like they are living in some kind of a bubble. Even if they are right about climate change, their behaviour is still wrong.
A respectable scientist should also examine all sides of a controversial topic before deciding on a position. It’s clear that most on the alarmist side aren’t even aware of the many arguments made by skeptics and certainly don’t know enough to judge their veracity. Ignoring inconvenient truths is how politics works, for example, ignoring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, but science must be objective and can’t be allowed to work that way.
No respectable person should behave like this. Their conceited, contemptuous, attitude is one reason I stopped taking them seriously. The other was their general opposition to nuclear power. [I say ‘general’, because nuclear power supporting climate alarmist scientists are quite few.] The 3rd reason happened after I looked into climate science in depth.
Pretty much the same here. As a lay-person (Political Science BA/ Public Policy -Administration MA) I bought into AGW after seeing Gore’s movie. No real reason to doubt it. Also, oversaw a number of green energy programs at the municipal level and pushed integration of green energy in affordable housing and other projects. Over time started noticing the “Denier” moniker being bandied about which began to tickle my BS meter. I would love to watch shows on AGW on TV. And, then was watching a show on the retreat of the Vikings from Greenland attributable to the Little Ice Age after their colonization during the Medieval Warm Period. Hmmm whats this all about? Then bumped into the emails from Climategate. So really started digging into AGW. And, the more I dug the nastier it looked pushing my BS meter into the red. I may not understand the science, but after thirty years in government, politics and a couple $billion in economic development I do understand a public policy scam when I see it. The money to be made if on the right side of such a change as energy and the reallocation of global economic growth are massive. Not to mention the “$Vig$” for the UN in being the gatekeeper for trillions of dollars in climate justice mitigation payments. Seen this operation before in many areas of government and public policy. The old cons are the best cons.
When all you can make is BS then that is all you can sell , and when doing so has the cash flowing in you make dam sure you keep attacking others that mention it is BS.
Somehow the left got the idea..that acting like trash is endearing
Or it could be that it was patently obvious the entire issue was hijacked to prostitute progressive agenda items.
“The planet is fine…the people are f….d, uh, … not so fine”.
George Carlin (sort of)
It’s really easy to restart a policy debate, cut funding to the field. (I think Richard Lindzen suggested an 80% cut.) That will get the attention of climate science’s leadership.
Yes, my posting is repetitive, but so is 95% of this thirty year old debate. Plowed ground plowed^10. Beaten horse beaten^10. This is, though, 100 % my own work.
1) 33 C warmer is nonsense 2) BB surface LWIR of 396 W/m^2 and GHG energy loop is nonsense. 3) 1 & 2 = RGHE theory FAIL!! 4) RGHE theory FAIL!!! means CO2 and mankind play exactly ZERO role in the climate’s behavior.
The ENTIRE issue stands or falls on these four points – ALONE, all the rest is empty sound and fury.
Scores of postings – zero rebuttals. BTW I appear to have drawn a lifetime ban from Disqus.
Three decades of rancorous handwavium debate over evidence for and the physics behind the Radiative Greenhouse House Effect, Green House Gasses and man-caused climate change, aka CAGW.
What a waste – since none of it is real.
That the the earth might be 33 C warmer with an atmosphere is based on the difference between two completely unrelated and made up numbers: 288 K, a wild ass guess pulled straight out of the World Meteorological Organization’s butt and 255 K, a theoretical, ideal, benchmark calculation for the “average” 240 W/m^2 Long Wave Infrared Radiation supposedly leaving the top of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the lunar studies by Nikolov and Kramm clearly conclude that without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, a barren rock with the lit/hot side maybe 390 K, the dark/cold side maybe 150 K, but nothing like 33 C colder.
The LWIR up/down/”back” GHG energy “warming” loop is another theoretical, ideal, benchmark calculation for any surface radiating at 288 K and likewise – not real. A contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, preclude any BB emission from the surface.
No 33 C warmer + No GHG energy loop = No RGHE & No CAGW.
Am I wrong?
Always possible – as is the case for all of us.
’cause if I’m not wrong decades of research, “evidence,” publications and billions of green dollars goes straight in the dumper and the entire trillion dollar global climate change industry is suddenly unemployed.
Nick Schroeder –
“1) 33 C warmer is nonsense” … Thank you for that!
33 C is over 90 F
Consider the Geocentric hypothesis. Celestial spheres were introduced to explain planetary orbits under the Geocentric hypothesis. The Celestial Spheres were necessary, but could never be measured nor determined to exist. Changing to a Heliocentric hypothesis rendered the Celestial Spheres unnecessary.
Consider the 33 C warmer hypothesis. The Greenhouse Gas property has been introduced to explain atmospheric temperatures. Greenhouse gases are necessary under this hypothesis, but have not been measured nor determined to exist. Time to change the starting hypothesis?
Thomas Homer @June 28, 2018 1:36 pm
You say “33 C is over 90 F ”
No it isn’t. A rise(and rise is what is in question) of 33° C is a rise of 59.4° F.
And by the way, scientists should never work in anything but SI units.
acementhead –
[ “You say “33 C is over 90 F ”
No it isn’t. A rise(and rise is what is in question) of 33° C is a rise of 59.4° F. ” ]
You’re right, although the temperature reading of 33C is over 90F the delta temperature of 33C is around 60C.
It doesn’t matter much which units are being used, the idea that the Earth’s atmosphere is 60F warmer than it would be without “greenhouse” gases and yet this “greenhouse” gas property can’t be measured brings to question the scientific validity of the premise. Right?
I find the term “Dickhead” to be offensive and demeaning.
Whom do I contact at Twitter to have that account disabled?
Particularly when it is applied to a distinguished emeritus scholar like Roger Pielke Sr..
It may not be contrary to law, but it violates every precept of rhetoric and tenet of morality that I know.
It is type of move that simply causes anyone who is not a member of your tribe to shun you and disregard any argument you have made.
Why did the climate change campaign fail? Mr. Purcell’s tweet is the reason in a few brief words.
P.S. it is further proof, as if any more were needed, that Twitter is an open sewer that sane men should avoid.
It’s also the sort of thing people do on line when they’re safely out of arm’s reach.
“In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’”
I would answer, “Well, to be true to the scientific method and to have confidence that the hypothesis has been proven true, someone has to do it, and you (Phil Jones) have not.”
Describing a fictional character who was incompetent to answer a child’s question and unwilling to have this exposed, the great sportswriter Ring Lardner portrayed the character’s response as follows:
“‘Shut up,’ he explained.”
Sound familiar?
Why on Earth would we ever want to restart the policy debate?
The theory of CAGW came apart at the seams years ago. The only response has been to relabel everything as “climate change”. And *everything* is the new “Climate Change”.
So without CAGW, what kinds of policies would you like to debate?
How about policies regarding international fisheries?
Policies regarding the allocation of frequencies of the radio spectrum?
I Know, I Know:
Central Bank Monetary Policy of the EU!
The intolerance of so many of these actors tells the whole story. There is nothing anything like it in all the rest of all the scientific fields.
However the intolerance of climate alarmism is the same that we see in our politics today in the US.
This also tells you all you need to know.
When a random guy I met in hospital with no scientific qualifications at all started to get angry about ‘climate deniers’ I suddenly became speechless.
As speechless as the time, shortly after Blair became elected when a van pulled up next to me and my aged mother and said “you shouldn’t let your dog sh1t in that grass”
“Why not?”
“Children play in that grass”
“But its agricultural land. Dogs are legally allowed to sh1t in it”. There’s sheep and deer already sh1tting in it”
“but they are vegetarians”
“What about foxes then? They aren’t vegetarians. Anyway who are you – are you a park warden?”
“No, I am a plumber come to fix someone’s heating. I am just a concerned citizen that’s all.”
And there you have it. A concerned citizen. Like the violent row that erupted in a camp site when some drunken father suddenly got it into his head that the nice honeymoon couple who had been nice to his kids were in fact paedophiles, all these cases show a common cause: a subject the people concerned knew nothing about whatsoever had been popularised and given prominence in the press and media.
These voices aren’t in our heads. They are on the TV and the radio and writing in the newspapers and on the internet.
We just THINK they are in our heads…
I think I posted this some time ago, but it seems relevant again:
Remember the “Poly Water” debate of the 1970’s?
I was in graduate school taking chemistry, and one day I stood in the corridor along with most of the rest of the grad students and watched as two faculty members had a knock-down fist fight over their differing views of Poly Water.
Same religion, different God.
TonyL wrote, “There is nothing anything like it in all the rest of all the scientific fields.”
I wish that were so. Some fields are worse than others, but almost anyone in academia or “government science” who challenges leftist orthodoxy had better be ready to handle the consequences. I’ll bet you haven’t seen this movie (which I highly recommend, BTW):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g
Do you think climate realists are treated badly? Friends, we’re got it comparatively easy. To really get abused, try being a sociologist, studying and reporting the effects on children of LGBTQIA parenting.
Or, to trudge down that dangerous and dirty road just a little further, try mentioning organizations like NAMBLA, IFGLC/NAWGLA/Butterfly-Kisses, and Paedophile Information Exchange, or people like Frank Lombard & Kenneth Shipp (a local case here), Mark Newton & Peter Truong, George Harasz & Douglas Wirth, and Chad Sevearance. (Those cases got little press coverage, but you can google the names to learn about them, if you have a strong stomach.)
It is certainly true that “climate science,” these days, has a lot more to do with politics than geophysics. If it were about science, you could show a graph like this as evidence that sea-level rise hasn’t accelerated in response to rising CO2 levels, without being called a “science denier” by other scientists:
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu
But ours is not the only field so afflicted. We live in very unscientific times. In today’s academy you can talk about “intersectional feminist post-dialectical assemblage criticism of science as a racist colonialist social construct,” and your colleagues won’t bat an eye. But if you suggest that rising CO2 levels are good for both agriculture and natural ecosystems, or that nature shows the fingerprints of a Designer, or that non-heterosexual “orientations” are disordered, you’d better not be hoping for tenure.
That LGBTQIA acronym keeps growing. Next week it’s going to be LGBTQIAP (with “P” for pansexual / pedophile). Then maybe LGBTQIAPB, then maybe LGBTQIAPBN, then… ?
The fundamental reason why the “climate change” campaign failed is because the hypothesis it peddled wasn’t true. It was all pseudo-science, rooted in shoddy models, simplistic assumptions, and faulty reasoning. As various lefto- and enviro-fascists latched on the gravy train, the whole rort became manifestly transparent.
Today, 30 years later, we have better science and, importantly, better scientists in place who have delivered better scientific results, based on the actual observations and quality physics, and who demonstrated already the great importance of natural factors that the geezers of old just swept under the carpet “to hide the decline.”
The Climategate affair disclosed at the Copenhagen Conference forever tainted people involved, and thus everything they said and did.
Somehow it’s just hard to believe “we’re all going to die, but it will only take a few Trillion dollars per year to fix” just seems like science fiction.
For me, it did start all wrong. I was a teenager in the 70’s living in fear of Snowball Earth. Glad that didn’t last long. Then the powers that be came out with a “Greenhouse Theory” that to me, didn’t even make sense. Now if they had called it something closer to reality like A “Screenhouse Theory” or something similar, I might have paid more attention. Their antics since that time make me deny their theory even more. They remind me of diamonds in the rough. Not too bright and extremely dense.
1. Tweets are nearly useless for communicating ideas. For energizing pointless arguing they are invaluable.
2. Those intolerant of the viewpoints of others should be disqualified from all debate. If emotional insulting language invades your point-of-view your not worth listening to. You’re plainly too worked up to be rational. It’s a situation similar to Godwin’s Law.
“Shut up!” the climate scientist theorized.
has a Ring of familiarity…lol
I am not sure the Title is correct; for the campaign has been remarkably successful in planting the CO2 Meme right across the range of scientific, political and general public perceptions. The result being a series of disastrous policy decisions which will have a damaging affect on millions of people across the world.
It is only recently that I have observed the turning of the tide; but it will take many years and a great deal of acrimonious heat before the damage will be rectified.
What separates astronomy from astrology? They both use data and make predictions. They track the stars and astral bodies. But what is the real difference? The difference is falsifiability. Like science, pseudoscience bases ideas on observation, but, unlike science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. A real scientific theory asserts things that have a danger of being contradicted by as yet undiscovered facts. Indeed, science is entirely based on, and advanced by, the discovery of precisely such uncomfortable facts. Really good science clearly and completely spells out exactly what experiment or fact would disprove the theory.
A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of this embarrassment. Its propositions are designed to have the patina of science, but be immune to all contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them.
So if current climate science is to be considered “science” at all, what experiment can prove or disprove it? What data collected might not be explained away? What measurement can we take that doesn’t require smoothing and adjustment to fit the theory?
THAT is their real problem. Climate science is no more real than ghosts, aliens, the superego, astrology, or any other pseudoscience.
They are asking us to spend billions of $ on the results of a Ouija board. They want us to invent billions in Ghostbusters because they believe in ghosts. They want us to construct an alien defense base on the moon to fight the lizard people. I might be happy to kick them a few bucks, just to shut their pie holes. But they want it all, all the money, all the power.
Nope.
Feynman refutes Climate Change Methodology in 1 minute:
Agree. It’s a constant shifting of evidence. If it starts to cool, it’ll be … global warming. If it starts to warm, it’ll be global warming. If it stays the same, global warming. Anything that happens is due to global warming.
There are many similarities to the Medieval period’s assigning of weather patterns to weather-making witches.
Geo, we are in heated agreement.
I have been trying to find an epigraphic way of saying what you said. Here is my try:
Science is process of discovering true empirical facts about the world. It’s first axiom must be that: “Science is true, but scientists are wrong.”
It is the seeming contradiction between science and scientists that has powered the enterprise for the past 400 years.
As the Royal Society once said: “Nullius In Verba” Nothing by authority.
When sogenannten“climate scientists” assert that their statements are true, they are, to use an old Polish expression, pissing in the soup.
I would disagree ever so slightly.
Science is simply the process by which we eliminate bad ideas. We don’t discover true facts, we simply cataloguing things which we have, as yet, been unable to disprove.
The distinction is important because 1) science is not a thing, it is a process. 2) the process never ends. If you stop doing the process (“the science is settled”) then you are no longer doing science at all, not even a little bit. By definition the topic is no longer science at all.
Why after decades, do we have the theory of evolution, or the theory of gravity? Are these things not yet proven? Sorta. They represent our best guess as to the true nature of the world, but we dare not call them facts, lest we stop doing science. Contrast that to the statements on climate science – they are more sure about that then we are about evolution for Pete’s sake.
+100
But I would say that science is also the process of constructing ideas so that we can find out if they are good or bad.
Popper entitled his book not ‘refutations’, but ‘conjectures and refutations’.
So science includes the construction as well as the testing of hypotheses.
Er, no. I think you should read Karl Popper.
Science is not a process of discovering true empirical facts. Quite the opposite. It is a process of constructing hypotheses to take what are commonly held to be true empirical facts in order to produce a model that is a shorthand description of the generalised behaviour of the world.
And the only criterion of quality of the hypothesis is that it continues to predict approximately correct outcomes for the model when it is applied to future situations.
e.g. if we take and note down planetary positions relative to the stars, we find that a model based on putting the sun at the centre with the planets, of which earth is one, going round it in more ore less elliptical orbits allows us to make phenomenally accurate predictions about the alignment of the planets in future times. Predictions that come true.
Does this mean that the sun IS at the centre of the universe and that real planets are in fact orbiting it in elliptical orbits?
Nope. It just means the model produces results that match the observations., For all we know we are living in the Matrix and the whole appearance and sensation of living on this planet is nothing more than ‘appearance and sensation’. No absolute truth has been established. Only a mental picture that fits our experience has been constructed.
Second and third rate scientists only claim that science is about ‘discovering the truth’
First rate scientists understand that it is simply about constructing models that work.
Anyone who claims ‘scientific fact’ is just as bigoted as the most rabid climate alarmist.
Science is not about discovering facts. Science is about taking facts and using them to construct models.
That 97% of all lay scientists believe that their models are in fact, facts, does not make them so.
What exists is the sensation and appearance of apples falling. What we as ordinary humans do, is construct a physical world based on that appearance and sensation, in which ‘apples’ commonly ‘fall’.
What science does, is to take the now commonly accepted facts of ‘apples falling’ and construct a ‘theory of gravity’ to ‘explain’ it.
But this is not one, but two steps removed from ‘sensation and appearance’
Science makes models built of abstract notions like ‘gravity’ to explain the commonly understood ‘physical world’
But the ‘physical world’ itself is in fact a model that explains our experience of ‘sensation and appearance’.
‘facts’ are relative to the physical world model.
When a child laughs at an adult playing ‘peekaboo’ it is because it has grasped the absurdity of an object that is there, and then not there. It is a way to indoctrinate the physical world view that objects do not disappear really. In order to ‘save’ the theory that ‘material’ objects have persistence in time, the notion of location beyond immediate experience, has to be introduced. There are places, we learn, where things are, that we cannot see right now.
From then it’s not a huge jump to ‘places where things are, that we cannot see, ever’. Gravity is one of those ‘things’.
Our world is composed of models, all the way down. There may be something real at the bottom. We assume there is and it makes sense to do so, but even THAT is just another ‘model that works’.
Take heed however, that the key criterion is models that work
Non-science, or non-sense, is models that don’t work.
When we commonly misrepresent the case by talking about ‘scientific fact’ we really are talking about ‘models that work’
There is no right, but there is a wrong. What is wrong is models that do not work, even by the standards of the ‘facts’ on which they are based. In a world of pigs and bird, pigs do not fly. And theories about why birds fly that have the side effect of predicting that pigs will too, are patently wrong.
But theories that predict that birds will because they have magical feathers (drop a feather and see the magic work), and and pigs wont, because they lack even body hair, are not necessarily right. But they do work.
Beware of ascribing magical powers to science.
At best we can say that science is not as wrong as other things are. But that doesn’t make it right.
We can say that by and large AGW is wrong, because it makes no successful predictions.
It isn’t even useful metaphysically – i.,e, as a way of looking at things that enables new objects and facts to be created that are useful. It’s not useful. Not by its own standards of utility
i.e. if we compare it to say Christianity, which establishes a world view that includes a place and entities that are beyond direct experience, just like wot science does, and attempts to construct mechanisms to explain perhaps the emotional experience of existence in terms of these noumenous places and entities, which science does not attempt to do….at least Christianity succeeds on its own terms. Devout Christians by and large do end up feeling better about themselves and about the world.
AGW fails on its own terms. As a way of looking at things it denies the facts it purports to be based on, leads to predictions that manifestly are not accurate, and its adherents propose actions that demonstrably do not produce the results that they claim they are intended to.
Whatever the so called ‘climate science’ is about is therefore patently not about climate or about science.
I could construct a theory based on the evidence of what climate science does in fact do, and lead to…but then again. I could be wrong 🙂
Nice clarification. I will quote this.
Well said, sir.
Hey!
Don’t bring ghosts and aliens into this!
You really are going too far; Casper and the Aninaki are going to get really offended. Then you will be sorry. Do you know what an alien probe feels like?
Larry
Good summary–TKS
Bob Hoye
I keep telling you people that you are dealing with a cult. A literal cult, with cultists. You can’t persuade a cultist by presenting them logic or facts. Their brain reacts in a way that they instantly reject the non-conforming information and produces a defense against it, and that’s where the litany of logically fallacious responses come from.
Yup. Actually if this were the seventeenth century, we would call it ‘black magic’. The distortion of peoples minds for profit control power and gain, by the use of psychological techniques of what today we call ‘marketing’
AGW is a marketing campaign. Perhaps the most intensive and sophisticated marketing campaign the world has ever known, religions excepted.
And just as we used men in white lab coats to sell washing powder back in te 60s so today men in universities with pointy little beards are being used to sell windmills, higher taxes, world government, aid to poor countries and a host of other irrelevata.
The policy debate should be over! There is no warming that cannot be attributed to natural variation. There has been no warming for more than 18 years-an impossibility if the AGW theory is correct! The cure won’t work and it is worse than the disease-which doesn’t exist!
The entire scam has been created and maintained by low talent pseudo scientists, tricksters and eco-Socialists without regard for the millions to be hurt by it. Gore, Mann , Hansen, the Hockey team and many others have made careers while causing long lasting damage to the foundations of science!
Many of them should be in jail or required to pay back grant and research money obtained fraudulently.
“My view regarding global warming has always been very simple: the people who claim it is a serious threat act in such a bizarre way, I don’t believe them.”
And where did I learn to mistrust fanatics? Experience. Heuristics.
I got a headache trying to read this
disjointed, poorly formatted,
example of poor writing.
There’s no excuse for making
an article here so hard to read.
When I was a child and didn’t want to hear something I would stick my fingers in my ears and shout “La, la.la….” very loudly. I’ve grown up now and will engage in debate with anyone who can marshal an argument.
I still haven’t seen any evidence that convinces me that extra CO2 is making life on earth unlivable. From everything I HAVE seen, including the greening of Earth, the physical science of CO2 absorption bands and the robustness of the climate system to shocks, I’m inclined to believe that there is no problem at all.
And anyway, we’ll run out of fuels before we even see CO2 levels anything like the ancient past. It’s simply a non-issue. As long as we control NOx, SOx, large particulates and Hg emissions (tech we’ve already achieved), we’ll be quite alright.
I’m in my 40s now. When that fool Hansen stood up and gave his testimony, he and his ilk assured all us children that by now the climate would be unrecognizable, that it’d be too hot for this, that, and the other. Hurricanes, tornadoes and floods making America a wasteland. But sadly for him I have a fantastic memory, and the weather is the same now as it ever was, as is backed up by all the data since the 1980s. They’re dry-heaving in panic over a few tenths of a degree Celsius, barely within the detection limits of their own equipment.
It’s a sad and pathetic sight. And I’m no fool. It’s because they want money and power. Same as it ever was.
JFC! Purcell’s twitter feed explains a lot. He’s a pure ideologue. A foaming at the mouth reactionary posing as a lefty
The guy has no business being anywhere near climate science, he’s completely compromised
Ken Rice at “And Then There’s Physics” (ATTP) also took a stab at defending Hansen et al 1988, here:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/no-hansen-wasnt-wrong/
The defenders of that paper are trying to put lipstick on a pig. The truth is that Hansen and his seven co-authors got almost everything very wrong, from projections to even basic physics. CO2 emissions went up about 1/3 faster than in the fastest of his three scenarios, “Scenario A,” yet CO2 levels went up slower, and temperatures only went up about 1/4 as fast as he projected for that scenario (or at most 1/3, depending on whose temperature index you use).
Like the other defenders of Hansen 1988, Rice pretended that Hansen’s three “scenarios” were defined in terms of what CO2 levels would do, when they were actually emissions scenarios. So I tried posting comments, starting here:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/no-hansen-wasnt-wrong/#comment-125304
He let me post a few, but then started deleting them, beginning with this one:
http://sealevel.info/ATTP_deleted_comment_125320.html
(ATTP has a written “moderation policy,” but it seems to have little to do with how he actually moderates comments.)
That’s the most important reason that WUWT is vastly superior to ATTP (and almost all of the other alarmist blogs): the censorship. Anthony’s goal for WUWT is useful scientific discussion, so he welcomes reasonably-sane dissenting opinions, politely expressed. Most of the alarmists, however, view their mission as proselytizing for their point of view, and suppression of dissent through censorship is usually one of the first arrows they draw from their quivers.
i’ve seen the same behavior when some futures trader has that lotto look and is dead sure everybody else is wrong when the market moves against him
he does the HODL, doubles down per the gambler’s fallacy – then loses his butt and gets angry at everybody.
it’s never wise to take a short position on H sapiens.
This discussion reminds me of a plane flight I had about 10 years ago. I was in the back of the plane discussing biofuels and global warming with the person next to me. I said that CAGW was a farce and not supported by data. A person 8 rows in front of me stood up, turned around and started yelling at me that I was wrong. He appealed to authority (he said he knew what he was talking about because he had a Ph.D. in Physics). I said that I knew what I was saying as I had a Ph.D. in Chemistry. That just got him more upset. Boy it was fun to watch. And I am sure he won converts to his belief systems by his behavior too!
Things haven’t change much, have they.
Bob
In politics when the rebuttal goes directly to character assassination and omits any attempt to address the content of the opposing point of view, you can be 100% sure that the assassin has no explanation for their position. When science does the same it should be a criminal offense.
Here in Australia, the climate change campaign hasn’t failed, it has won on every front. In 20 years we’ve gone from having among the cheapest energy in the world to among the most expensive, and unreliable to boot. We’re not allowed to use normal light bulbs, we have to buy the ones that cost ten times more (that’s not an exaggeration). Our current federal government is supposedly from the “conservative” side of politics, but they plan to introduce more of this. They are now planning to ban the most popular car models in order to meet the Paris targets. They’ve been defending this step by saying that consumers will be better off by paying less for petrol. It’s nice to know that there’s some place in the world where the climate change campaign has failed, but it certainly hasn’t where I sit.
Sorry, Larry, but you missed the bus.
The global warming campaign failed becuse it is not supported by science. It’s all politics.
I’m happy to declare the debate over. The CAGW alarmists have lost. They can ask themselves why as they cry into their blankies.
Classic climate wars. Facts do not matter to the CAGW religion, a subset of globalism. Why rational debate with them is a waste ot time, esp. given biased MSM. The basic generally effective globalist response is the ballot box, as UK, US, and now Italy have discovered.
Mr Purcells comments dont do him or his institution any credit. A great , if sad, example of the point being made.
As a matter of some general interest, when did Al Gore first say that “the debate is over”and “the science is settled”?
The answer is at the time of the publication of his book “Earth in the Balance”( 1992).
He claimed then that the science of global warming will never be disproved.
This was in the face of several polls at the time recording the belief of scientists that then recent global warming was largely not human induced.
Gore claimed that scientists “almost unanimously” supported his claim of dangerous man made global warming.
Well, talking about CO2 increasing, which officially it is, recently has been giving me a few negative thoughts.
First of all, to my knowledge and someone correct me if I an wrong:- the only CO2 measuring laboratory is the one at Mauna Loa. The Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division run by NOAA It carries out “In Situ Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Measurements”.
Secondly, this single agency is sitting on top of a live volcano which is further surrounded by a number of other volcanos, one of which has been prominent in the news lately.
I also read that this neighboring volcano, known as Kilauia, has been erupting since the mid 50’s. Although it appears that much of this has not been apparent during this time, because the pauses between obvious activity has been when the mountain builds up its lava or magma chamber.
(That chamber, I read, is estimated to still contain some 100 times of the lava that has been pouring out over the last few weeks.)
Anyway, the point I am making is that volcanos produce gas, even when they are between eruptions, or so I understand, and some of that gas is CO2. I also am aware that to measure the 400 parts per billion, (this being such an infinitesimally small amount to detect, let alone measure), Mauna Loa, (who last erupted in 1984, may be producing CO2 of its own, not to mention its neighbors), and therefore seems a quite unwise place to carry out these difficult measurements.
Never known anyone to cast doubt on NOAA’s facility in any blog or literature, but perhaps we should cast a skeptical eye on it.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Larry has got the chain of causation all wrong. Its because he starts from the premiss that there is a problem, as diagnosed by IPCC and Climate Science. So he thinks the issue is that climate science has failed to communicate and this failure is due the antics of the activist scientists.
This is completely wrong.
We start with the fact that the activists, including some scientists, failed to convince policy makers. In the US and the UK, which are the two countries where the mania has taken root in academic and some political circles. But equally important, they have failed to convince policy makers or scientists in the developing world, particularly China, India etc.
This failure has been due to the fact that they have no case. But they cannot see this, and so, because of this failure, they have become weirder and weirder in their conduct, as a reaction to their failure to persuade.
Larry seems to think the problem is, they have a decent case, but their conduct has resulted in poor communication and lack of persuasion.
Wrong. They had no case. There is no failure of communication. There has been nothing to communicate. Their idiotic behavior is not the cause of their lack of persuasion, but the result of it.
It is like any other cult, when it fails to persuade it turns in on itself in paranoia and rage and blaming the skeptics.
A big part of their failure has been their refusal to advocate doing the things which their theory demands are essential. Like, to take two examples, closing the auto industry worldwide, and having China go from 10 billion tons a year to 1, in the next five or ten years.
Anyway, this is not a communication problem. Its a problem with the theory. There is no way to persuade rational people of it.
Carl Sagan’s undisputed claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” ADMITS THE Extraordinarily POLITICAL SIDE OF SCIENCE.
In a perfect world, any claim, regardless of its audacity requires only simple solid proof. That proof need not be extraordinary.
The ANU on its website describes itself thus: “ANU is a world-leading university in Australia’s capital. Excellence is embedded in our approach to research and education.” But presumably they aren’t bothered what their staff get up to on Twitter.
For someone who has been in the environmental and “science” battles, mostly not climate, for much of my career none of this surprises me. Since at least the mid-1980s such behavior by so called “scientists” has been common in many field with any science related to the environment. It got worse in the 1990s.
I was brought to my state capitol to fix problems within a science/ environmental division that had forgotten who they worked for. My assignments were (1) get the budget under control, (2) resolved long standing personnel issues, (3) improve public relations AND (4) ensure that the division was operating under the “rule of law” i.e., by our statutory mandates, which was to use the best science possible in advising management. Sounds reasonably, doesn’t it. Wrong! Both from within and outside the attacks were ferocious, name calling reached the lowest levels, at least as low as what you read above. Luckily social media was in its infancy. Every attempt was made to prevent us from dealing with just those three problems and there was more smaller issues we were attempting to resolve. Outside allies of certain groups of staff forced three investigations of me personally. The idea was to distract us from what we were trying to accomplish. I came out with flying colors but that is not the point here.
I am not sure when environmental sciences became a religion. I know it was before 1988 and Hansen’s pronouncements. However, AGW became the ultimate orthodoxy since it combined not only many environmental issues but also socioeconomic/ political issues. I predict it will get worse before it gets better.
Science does not care about credentials.
Science does not care how many initials are in front and behind your name.
Science does not care about the number of your publications and citations.
Science cares that the rules are followed.
Science does not waive those rules based on who you are, who you know or your noble cause.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with an atmosphere does not follow the rules.
396 W/m^2 LWIR upwelling from a BB surface powering a GHG energy loop does not follow the rules.
These two broken rules invalidate RGHE theory.
RGHE theory failure negates any role for CO2 and mankind in the behavior of the climate.
Begging the moderator’s indulgence I’m going to open a new but related thread to discuss an issue I believe is misunderstood by the entire community – how IR instruments work and what they measure. Hint: they do NOT measure W/m^2!
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW
This WB link includes a couple of Excel graphs illustrating the problems mentioned below with SURFRAD & USCRN.
“The Instruments & Measurements
But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured.
Well, no it’s not.
IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0.
The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface ε can be less than 1.0.
That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected ε of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.
This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.”
Or cools rapidly at 396 W/m^2 held in check only by the dubious 333 W/m^2 “back” radiation.
I ran this past Apogee, Eppley and Kipp-Zonen. They did not protest nor dispute.
The role of a contiguous participating media was demonstrated in my modest experiment. The only way a surface radiates as a BB is into a vacuum. S-B BB works on the moon and sun and ISS, not so much on earth.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552