Dr. Roy Spencer’s appearance on Fox News (and mine)

Dr. Roy Spencer was on the Tucker Carlson show yesterday, talking about climate change and the attempt to link it to hurricanes. When Tucker asked about “Bill Nye the Science Guy”, Dr. Spencer pointed out that Nye participated in a fraud video on CO2, and mentioned that I “cleverly showed the whole thing was faked”. Watch.

Meteorologist: Climate change not causing more hurricanes
Sep. 14, 2018 – 3:26 – Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that the number of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. has actually fallen since the 1930s.

For those that want to see how I took Al Gore and Bill Nye down, have a look at this post:

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

Years later, that video with the fraudulent experiment is still up on Al Gore’s “Climate Reality” website. Clearly for them, the end justifies the means.

Advertisements

177 thoughts on “Dr. Roy Spencer’s appearance on Fox News (and mine)

    • I just can’t get past the fact that Spencer thinks (SNIPPED)

      (Your off topic comment derailed the thread into religious discussions, which I have to stop, that means you are getting my attention since you are wasting my time having to clean up your mess) MOD

          • Here’s one article in which he states his doubts about evolution and interest in intelligent design.
            https://web.archive.org/web/20090908074623/http://www.tcsdaily.com:80/article.aspx?id=080805I
            Do you have some citation he believes in a young earth or are you just irresponsibly conflating terms?

            (I am amazed that you and many others followed Simons waaay of topic deflection comment into religious discussions, From the POLICY section: “Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, Electric Universe, mysticism, and other topics not directly related to the thread”) MOD

          • There are some people here that don’t understand the difference between belief, opinion, and fact.
            I believe in a God that is omnipotent, infinite, and eternal. Can I prove it? No. Can you disprove it? No. God doesn’t exist in the universe so it’s meaningless to discuss proofs.

            Some people think the climate is warming dangerously. Can they prove it with facts? No. The climate is warming slightly, with no other facts dangerous is an irrelevant opinion. The climate certainly exists in the universe so it should be treated that way, i.e. scientifically by hypothesis testing.

            I looked at the thermometer outside this morning. It read 28degC. That is a fact. What is means, if anything, has yet to be determined.

          • Um, I’d sure like to see someone demonstrate that the earth isn’t a few thousand years old. Would be quite entertaining.

          • Evolution IS intellligent design, in case you haven’t noticed. It’s certainly not random nor ineffective.

          • Simon, some people compartmentalise.
            Darwin’s captain on the Beagle , Fitzroy , is recognised as a brilliant navigator and surveyer , and one of the men who put the Met Office on a firm statistical basis of accurate measurements . However he could not accept the implications of Darwin’s writings for his Christian belief in the Genesis account.
            I once worked for a University Dept head who was a very creative chemist and material scientist but who , as an orthodox Jew , could also not accept evolutionary theory.
            Amongst the many distinguished Muslim and Arabic physicists I am sure that there are those who are strong believers in the Koran , but that does not affect , eg , their work in mathematics.

          • Simon: It is just as easy to believe the world is “only a few thousand years old” as to believe it is 4.5 billion years old, because neither one meets the scientific standard of repeated observation by a number of people, getting the same result. Using radioactive decay is a weak proxy, because, to be accurate, it is needed to know the original concentrations and ratios of elements and minerals in a sample, if there has been any adsorption or leaching of elements or minerals, if radioactive decay has been constant or variable, and so on. It has been shown with volcanos of known dates of eruption, rock dating’s normally don’t match. I learned in biology that biological systems are so complex and they all have to work together consistently or the result is zero, it can’t “just happen”. Evolution can’t overcome the problems. So, for the chicken or the egg question, the chicken came first, because the egg would not have hatched without incubation.

          • This why you are not a scientist. If you read Spencer’s work on this subject you will see why he has a much clearer understanding of both evolution and intelligent design, you may even learn something.

          • Simon,

            Dr. Spencer is a creationist, but I have never read or heard his opinion on the age of the earth. He might well be an Old Earth Creationist, ie accepting the age of the solar system as measured by U=Pb radiometric dating and other means, while also believing that species on Earth have been created rather than evolved.

            However, Dr. Spencer is an atmospheric scientist, not a biologist or paleontologist, so is unaware of the overwhelming evidence supporting the fact of evolution. All the evidence in the world favors evolution and there is none against it.

            Of course it’s possible to inject God into the history of life on Earth at any or all points, if you like. But evolution works just fine without invoking a Creator Deity. And that’s just how God wants it, at least at least in the theology of some Christian denominations. As Luther argued, for faith to have value, God must no longer make Himself evident, as He does in the stories of the Pentateuch. Catholic Scholastic philosophers also wrote of the Hidden God, while at the same time trying to adduce logical “proofs” of His existence.

            Brian,

            Dr. Spencer is mistaken to state that there are no transitional fossils. Today we can reconstruct the history of evolution from genomes and proteomes as well as from comparative anatomy, the paleontological record and other traditional means.

            He mentions the transitions from “amphibians” to “reptiles” and from reptiles to birds. Many fossil species from the early Carboniferous (Mississippian Epoch) are difficult to classify as amphibians (basal tetrapods) or amniotes, so mixed are their traits. Later in that period (Pennsylvanian Epoch), amniotes, ie tetrapods with shelled eggs and their descendants, evolved into both mammals and “reptiles”, including birds.

            The first amniotes, thanks to their skin and egg developments, could survive and reproduce in dry environments. They had “anapsid” skulls. Their synapsid descendants, with one hole in their heads behind each eye, evolved into mammals. Their diapsid descendants, with two such post-orbital “fenestrae”, evolved into reptiles. The phylogentic position of turtles has long been controversial, since their skull are anapsid. But genomic analysis has shown them to be ancestrally diapsid, thus secondarily anapsid. They appear more closely related to the croc and bird (Archosaur) side of Reptilia (Sauropsida) than to the (Lepidosaur) tuatara and squamate (lizard and snake) branch.

            The often large Carboniferous amphibian tetrapods also of course continued evolving into the generally small modern amphibians, ie frogs, salamanders and caecilians.

            Similarly, the fossil record of bird evolution has grown by leaps and bounds, taking flight, as it were, in recent decades. But the anatomical similarity of birds and theropod dinosaurs was already recognized by Huxley in the 19th century. Again, genomics and proteomics have also confirmed this conclusion in the 21st century.

            Even in the early 20th century, while the jury was still out on the maniraptoran ancestry of birds, they were known to be archosaurs, hence more closely related to crocodilians than to lizards or snakes.

            The term “reptile”, as commonly used, is thus “paraphyletic”, ie not a natural group including all descendants of its last common ancestor, as it excludes birds.

            “Intelligent Design” isn’t a tenable scientific hypothesis for various reasons, not least because so much “design” in nature is idiotic, not intelligent.

            Only an intensely stupid designer would put wings under the unopenable carapace of a flightless beetle, for instance. Nor would an intelligent designer cause mammalian gonads to originate in the embryonic chest, their position in fish, so that they have to descend through the abdomen and, in the males of most species, continue on outside that cavity, leaving behind holes susceptible to herniation.

            Only a cruel or incompetent designer would deprive certain primates, ie tarsiers, monkeys and apes (including humans), of the ability to make vitamin C, by breaking their ascorbic acid gene in the same place (prosimian lemurs and lorises retain a functioning gene). Then go on to break the same gene in different ways for South American rodents (guinea pigs and capybaras) and among some bat groups. Without dietary vitamin C, all these groups suffer the scourge of scurvy. There is no obvious offsetting benefit in not being able to synthesize our own vitamin C. But the primates, at least, (don’t know about the rodents and bats) have evolved more efficient metabolic use of vitamin C partially to compensate for the inability to make it.

            To mention but a few instances of dumb design.

          • LogicalChemist – September 15, 2018 at 1:49 pm

            ” … I believe in a God that is omnipotent, infinite, and eternal. Can I prove it? No. Can you disprove it? …”

            Why would the second person need to disprove an unproven claim by the first person? The first person has zip for chances of proving anything about such, to anyone. All the first person can do is sew confusion and lobby for rank belief in others.

            Plus onus is not on the second person to disprove a mere belief of the first–so why bring other people into it?.

            What you believe is not only irrelevant, and gratuitously stated, it’s also useless to everyone including yourself, as it’s unproven and unknowable. Whether you recognize and admit that is just a personal psychological matter, for you to sort out, for yourself.

            Q: So why display or demonstrate your unresolved belief issues to others?

            A: Too lobby for rank belief in others so you can form a consensus to feel better about believing in stuff with no basis.

            It has nothing to do with science and little if anything to do with logic (because you aren’t actually using logic) it has more to do with imaginative fantasy and self-selective personal preferences that you’ve adopted to sooth yourself psychologically about your place, purpose, meaning, mortality, destiny and relationship with alleged divinity, etc.

            Or as someone once put it, “Prayer is the publicly acceptable form of speaking to an imaginary friend”.

            You could just say, “I don’t actually know”, as that would at least be genuine, honest and true, and (allegedly) such a god much prefers genuine honesty and truth in mortal beings.

            Therefore I conclude, I may actually have a better relationship with your alleged god, than you do.

            And such a God may favor you much more than presently, if you didn’t just believe in stuff and lobby for belief in others, as it’s logically just a refined type of intellectual dishonesty–and would prefer if you rather, had the fortitude to admit you don’t actually know such things.

            So there. :-p

            Sunday school is over!

          • LogicalChemist – September 15, 2018 at 1:49 pm

            ” … I believe in a God that is omnipotent, infinite, and eternal. Can I prove it? No. Can you disprove it? …”

            Why would a second person need to disprove an unproven claim by a first person? The first person has no chance of proving anything about such to another. All the first person can do is sew confusion to lobby for such beliefs in others.

            Plus there is never an onus on the second person to disprove a belief in the first, so why bring other people into it at all? You are lobbying for a consensus.

            What you believe is not only irrelevant (and gratuitously stated) it’s also useless to everyone, including yourself, as it’s unproven and unknowable. Whether you recognize and admit that is a personal matter for you to sort out.

            Q: So why display or demonstrate unresolved belief issues to others?

            A: To lobby for rank belief in others, so you can form a consensus, to feel better about believing in stuff that has no basis.

            It’s got nothing to do with science, and little if anything to do with logic, because you aren’t actually using logic in this, or you would have discarded the belief already. It has more to do with imaginative fantasy, and self-selective personal preference that you’ve adopted to sooth yourself (psychologically) about your place, purpose, meaning, mortality, destiny and alleged relationship with Divinity, etc.

            As someone once put it, “Prayer is the publicly acceptable form of speaking to an imaginary friend”.

            You could have just said, “I don’t actually know”, as that would be genuine, honest and true, and such a God much prefers genuine honesty and truth in mortal beings (allegedly).

            Therefore I could (logically) assert that I may have a better relationship with your God than you hope to have and to be more pleasing to [his] (alleged) preferences in mortals.

            Such a God may favor you much more than he (allegedly) does presently if you didn’t just believe in stuff and lobby for belief in others, as that’s logically just a refined type of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe such a God would respect you or prefer you more if you had the fortitude to admit you don’t know those things you merely ‘believe’.

            In other words belief is another form of personal plus group dishonesty for which the alluded to God has already stated his alleged view of such dishonesty practices.

            After all, who wants to spend eternity swanning about heaven with a bunch of believers?

            As the hella sexy Shania Twain once said, “That don’t impress me much”.

            Sunday School concludes. :-p

          • After all, who wants to spend eternity swanning about heaven with a bunch of believers?

            Me. Because your alternative is much worse.

          • There is no obvious offsetting benefit in not being able to synthesize our own vitamin C.

            God and evolution move in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform. If they made things too obvious, even people like Brian B would understand it.

            As I understand it, not synthesizing one’s own vitamin C is an energy-saving innovation for creatures that get plenty of vitamin C in their diet. That could be a considerable advantage to creatures with big brains in the highly competitive environment of the Garden of Eden.

            Moving further into the realm of speculation, one can envisage the possibility that God never intended Man to leave the Garden, which was brimming with vitamin C-rich fruit year-round, but He didn’t take into consideration Woman’s susceptibility to be seduced by talking serpents.

          • Tim,

            IMO, God, being omniscient, must have known that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit. One needn’t be a Calvinist to accept this kind of predestination.

            The mutation in the GLO gene, the last step in vitamin C synthesis, doesn’t conserve much of the compounds from which it’s made. They’re used up in the production of other vital substances made in the previous steps. Humans have a high dietary requirement for vitamin C. Could we make it ourselves, the compound would be available to be broken down for other uses.

            Tarsiers are the only strictly carnivorous primate, eating mostly insects, but some other animal foods as well. Some insects are high in vitamin C, such as honey bees. But the diets of animals which have lost the GLO gene vary greatly, so deactivating mutations of this sequence appear to be neutral traits, despite the risk of scurvy. (Not just animals suffer vitamin C synthesis mutations.)

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/

            In some bat species, the once lost gene has been reactivated by subsequent mutations.

            Vitamin C-less primates retain the GLO gene as a pseudogene, so scientists can see where it’s broken in all our closest relatives. As the above link shows, we also now know how it’s broken in other groups unable to make vitamin C. Mutations in the coding for enzymes earlier in the synthesis process would be selected against, since other essential substances also rely upon those compounds.

            So, though the Lord works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform, it appears that vitamin C synthesis is a trait not selected for or against in those species which suffer this mutation. But its lack has occurred randomly. In species without access to dietary vitamin C, the mutation would be lethal.

            IMO however, despite its apparent selective neutrality, it’s better to be able to make your own vitamin C. Especially if you’re a species which takes long sea voyages without even knowing that such a thing as vitamin C exists.

          • John Minich September 15, 2018 at 2:51 pm

            It’s a common misconception that one needs to know the original concentration of uranium radiometrically to date a sample by the uranium to lead method.

            What matters is the ratio between the two elements. So all you need is a measurable sample. The only assumption involved is that U has decayed to Pb at the same rate since U first appeared in the universe.

            It’s also possible to date a sample using only the ratio of lead isotopes.

            Thus the religious belief that Earth is only some thousands of years old is not equivalent to the scientific measurement of its age, by various repeatable methods, not just radiometric, at ~4.5 billion years.

          • IF, say, a large oak tree were created ex nihilo in your front yard, and if, in annoyance, you were to immediately cut it down and find, surprise surprise, rings in the trunk which appear to give the tree an age of 987 years, would that give a clue as to what might possibly bridge the young/old universe conundrum?

          • Actually, the miracle of a large oak tree suddenly appearing in the front yard would indeed invoke faith “greater than that of a mustard seed” in all but the most dogmatic atheist of observers.
            I recommend you chose a more practical example.

          • Hi LogicalChemist, love your thoughts.

            I always find the Ontological Argument interesting and compelling.

            Stated in its most simple form:

            “Only that which is, can be thought to be.”

            Powerful stuff.

          • Brian B
            A point of fact. Intelligent design has nothing to do with “young earth”. They are two completely different things. Intelligent design is simply evolution under God’s design instead of random happenstance. The majority of the world believes that in some form or the other.
            I have friends who believe in young earth. I have friends and family who believe in AGW. All are lovely people. My young earth friends do amazing works of charity and community work, as well.
            I can’t understand denial of science and facts on either side nor how otherwise rational people can ignore facts and believe what they do. It is a mystery to me.

          • Until you know the entirety of the design, declaring one small part of the design to be stupid, is rather ignorant.

          • Mark,

            The point of ID is that living things are allegedly designed. It’s not about design in the universe at large.

            Idiotic “design” isn’t a small part of nature. It’s universal. Some features have evolved into great designs, but in general it’s all jerry-rigged, Rube Goldberg apparatuses.

            A sophomore civil engineering student could design a better foot for a bipedal, plantigrade animal than the human foot. But since evolution had to work with a grasping foot to start, it did the best it could with an inappropriate “design” to turn it into something that would function well enough for an obligate hind leg walker.

            In reality, there is no evidence of ID anywhere in life on Earth. Every supposed instance of “irreducible complexity” isn’t irreducible. Giving up on trying to find out how complex structures evolved (for religious or any other reasons) is antiscientific. The whole point of science is to try to explain observations of nature, without recourse to the supernatural.

          • Kc,

            “Intelligent design is simply evolution under God’s design instead of random happenstance.”

            That’s theistic evolution, not ID, which was cooked up to try to sneak creationism into public schools. This was demonstrated in the Dover, PA trial, when an ID text was shown to have been copied from a creationist document.

            It’s based on the bogus concept of “irreducible complexity”, ie biological structures that can’t be broken down into their biochemical components, so must have been created specially. It’s like the 19th century argument about the vertebrate eye, only on the molecular biological level, ie that structures such as bacterial flagella and molecular motors are too machine-like to have evolved, because they have to have all their moving parts to work. Which is not in fact the case at all.

            I told fundamentalist students at an originally Baptist college that they could inject God into the history of life on Earth at any or all points. That’s theistic evolution. But it’s a religious belief, not science, which seeks natural explanations, not supernatural.

          • We know for a fact that evolution exists because it has been observed, multiple times, in the evolution of new species of fruit flies, plants, and bacteria.

          • Kyle September 17, 2018 at 9:28 am

            Yes. Over the past 160 years, many instances of speciation and the evolution of new genera have been observed in the wild and created or recreated in the lab.

            I don’t know of any instance of the observation of evolution of new families or higher classifications, which must thus still be inferred. But the inference is inescapable, given the evidence. Given the rarity of such higher classifications arising, we shouldn’t really expect to have seen them in such a short time.

            But the overwhelming evidence from every possible source leads to the only possible conclusion that orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms and domains evolved as well from previous organisms by descent with modification, by various processes.

            The more we learn about life, the better supported becomes this conclusion, repeatedly confirmed by predictions shown correct.

          • John Minich September 15, 2018 at 2:51 pm

            The shelled egg came first, evolved by Paleozoic Era (Carboniferous Period) amniotes. Much later came the chicken, evolved in the Cenozoic Era from Mesozoic maniraptoran dinosaurs.

        • Well there’s an intelligent response.

          (YOU are the one who blatantly violated policy guidelines by deflecting people from the topic into religion discussions, that is TWO violations!) MOD

      • Ah, Grasshopper … you will notice that a rock always acts in accord with its Dao. In that regard, could a rock not be said to be more intelligent than you?

      • Sir Isaac Newton,argued to be to be the smartest person ever, was also an alchemist and a deeply devout Christian. We know him for gravity, but how about his discovering white light was composed of the spectrum of colors, his invention of the reflecting telescope, calculus, etc. He believed the beauty of a universe organised by celestial mechanics centered on gravity was itself proof of intelligent design. Gee, sounds a lot like ..er..Roy Spencer!

        • You should read some of Newton’s meanderings about metaphysics.
          Good thing he had his science side. But if he didn’t someone else would have eventually figured it out, anyway.
          Nice to be first though.

          • “Newton’s Tyranny” is also a great book. Great mind, but human and held bitter grudges against those who he thought wronged him and their friends!

          • Bob, I dont know how fast we would have discovered gravity if Newton hadn’t. He was working with the same instrument that thinkers have had since the beginning of time. Heck, we knew the world was round and how big it was 2300years ago. And then we forgot for almost a couple of millennia! People like Eratosthenes, Newton and Einstein number a very small handful in all of history in brain power. Each of them made a cluster of giant strides in unrelated major aspects of science. Note, the history of science really has few enough giants that a school boy can recite them all.

            The100s of thousands of Liliputian scientists tying us down today who are frittering away the stature that the few created is a travesty that costs us all dearly today. White labcoats (I’m sure Diversity Guerillas will soon notice this ‘Supremacy’ color) and horn-rimmed glasses are hard to keep in stock these days the way the minions are churned out.

            Please don’t be one of those guys that belittles Einstein and Newton, smirks that Shakespeare stole all the plays and sonnets from sombody else and insists it was a shot from the grassy knoll that killed the pres.

      • Get over your doubts.

        Evolution is just HIS way of going about intelligent design.

        Problem solved.

        Trouble is, that some people missed out on the “intelligent” part.

        Were you one of them, perchance?

        • “Simon,
          I thought it was only Mozzies that really despised Christians?
          Uh Oh, you must be a Mozzie.”
          Wherever did you get that idea? The Koran despises all religions except Islam and Muslims manage to fight over different sects still but Judaism most of all. However, throughout history, at various points, Christians have been despised. Examples? The Rome, the ME and Islamic states, the USSR and all Communist nations, Hitler, China today and the Western Left here and abroad. Christianity is diametrically opposed to tyranny, (yes, despite lapses through the centuries) because the focus is on the individual, not the State. As Xi is consolidating power, he has launched an intense purge of Christians. Christianity is the greatest threat to his dictatorship for life. He knows it. The Western Leftists know that Judaism and Christianity are their greatest threats, too. That is why they hate both so much.
          The USA and our Constitution didn’t just happen in a vacuum. It happened because this nation was founded on Judea-Christian religions.

      • What has one to do with the other?

        I wagered that the apparatus was built by someone who did not understand how the GHE works, and that replicating the experiment would show the opposite of the results claimed. I was right, as Anth_ny showed. Now I also believe that the tooth fairy my well be real. Which changes my being right about the experiment?

        Argue each topics on the merit of that topic. Trying to discredit one with the other just shows you’ve got no facts on your side in regard to the matter at hand so you try and change the subject.

        • David,

          Out of curiosity, why did you predict that the experiment would show the opposite results?

          I have my own hypothesis. The apparatus is faulty in that doesn’t take into account humidity of either bottle, which could mess up the results (perhaps that’s why Anthony’s replication didn’t work?). Pumping pure CO2 into one would decrease the humidity, messing up the design.

          This is a better example of the same principle, with a similar apparatus, but with water in the bottles, and without (dry) gas being pumped into the CO2 bottle:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
          I see no reason to doubt its legitimacy.

          Here is another experiment demonstrating the way CO2 absorbs heat
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

          Of course, the experiments oversimplify how the GHE works in reality, since there are other factors involved and atmospheric CO2 is not in an enclosed space, but at least one gets a hint of the thermodynamics of the system.

          • I have my own hypothesis. The apparatus is faulty in that doesn’t take into account humidity of either bottle

            Uhm no, Kristi, the fault was much more fundamental than that, and should be patently obvious to anyone who understands how the GHE works. That you and most alarmists don’t, leaves people like me with the task of explaining your side of the argument to you. Which is ridiculous.

            In brief (very brief) the apparatus had a Longewave (LW) source from OUTSIDE the “atmosphere” pointed at the artificial earth with a layer of CO2 in between. That is WRONG. The GHE works because Shortwave (SW) travels THROUGH the atmosphere relatively unimpeded, is ABSORBED by the earth which CONVERTS it to LW. The LW then attempts to leave the earth, but is impeded by the layer of CO2.

            The apparatus as designed in fact DID impede LW. But LW coming from OUTSIDE the system instead of LW coming from INSIDE the system, and so the ACTUAL results were the OPPOSITE of what Bill Nye and Al Gore expected. Proving that neither of them actually understood the physics involved (either that or they knew and just didn’t care).

            But your question Kristi, demonstrates that you ALSO have no clue as to how the GHE works, yet are often offended when your statements aren’t taken at face value because you think you do.

            See the problem Kristi?

          • Kristi writes

            This is a better example of the same principle, with a similar apparatus, but with water in the bottles, and without (dry) gas being pumped into the CO2 bottle:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
            I see no reason to doubt its legitimacy.

            Surely you jest Kristi.

            PV=nRT

            With increased pressure thanks to the stoppered bottle and alka seltzer comes increased temperature. There would have been humidity in those bottles to absorb any IR than made it through the plastic, unabsorbed and wasn’t directly absorbed into the water.

            That is a terrible “experiment”

            In the atmosphere, the GHE comes about thanks to the lapse rate, primarily. Any other “effect” showing warming is utterly misleading. May as well put on a jumper and say that’s like CO2 warming too. Or maybe turn on a bar radiator and say that’s like CO2 warming…

          • I’m sorry Kristie, but the second video you linked to is absolutely not showing the CO2 in the tube “absorbing” the heat of the candle. What it does illustrate (very well I may add) is CO2’s low thermal conductivity.

            IR opaque Argon has much of the same effect with much more dramatic videos

      • Hello Simon
        You begin, “I just can’t get past the fact” That is where you go wrong.
        Intelligent design is not creationism. It does not say the earth is several thousand years old.
        It recognizes the the earth is billions of years old. it accepts that the universe is even older.
        (Whats the current estimate? 13? 18? billion years old)
        The only real difference is that a supreme being is the catalyst for creation.
        And Simon before you go off the deep end and start defining what religions believe, I have come across the stated position in my own Bible. For the record I am Byzantine Catholic. And the church I belong to acknowledges the authority of the Pope.
        Now that should set you straight, there is no difference, other then one school believes in random chance; the other a great watch maker.

        michael

      • Maybe they are both just assessments of the same thing, a bit like the picture of the candlestick/two faces. After all if the Almighty is just that he can do waht he likes and leave it at that even if he sees the potential for confusion. As is written, he sat back and watched the free apples giveaway thing back in the beginning and its fallout so maybe that is a clue.

        For the record I am on the evolution side of things myself but have no idea who set off the big bang so it coulda been him. Got evidence it wasn’t? On that basis I will happily listen to Dr Spencer and ignore nutjobs like Lewandowsky, Gore, Cook, Mann etc.

      • I just can’t get past the fact you choose to attack someone for their religious beliefs instead of his beliefs in climate science?

        Why do people with losing arguments always attack the messenger instead of the message?

      • If you look into the ramifications of quantum mechanics you will find several possible explanations of the conscious observer paradox. Some involve a “cosmic consciousness” that existed before the universe and gave rise to the universe. Very interesting conjectures but that would qualify as “intelligent design” and / or god. It could also mean that all human religions are wrong.

        As long as it follows the scientific method it qualifies as science. The universe does appear to behave as QM predicts at least so far.

        • TRM,

          Among the reasons why “Intelligent Design”, aka “Creationist Wine in New Bottles” is not only unscientific but anti-scientific are these:

          1) ID doesn’t make testable predictions capable of being shown false.

          2) ID imagines something called “irreducible complexity”, which concept is inherently anti-scientific. Its acolytes, instead of trying to find out the natural explanations for observed phenomena such as bacterial flagella, simply throw up their arms and declare that these structures must have been designed by some Intelligent Designer. But in fact, real scientists have shown how flagella and other complex structures have evolved.

          ID is religion, not science.

          IMO religious belief is valuable, but trying to conflate science and religion is detrimental to both human endeavors.

      • Silly Simon:

        What you’ve obviously missed is that Dr. Roy Spence thinks.
        Unlike internet twits who spout nonsense and post links they’ve never personally red.

      • Standard left wing line.
        If you believe something that I don’t everything you believe must be wrong.
        That and it’s a rather pathetic attempt to change the subject.

    • Tom, unbelievably there are people who are still infatuated with that loser. Yup Al Gore’s the ultimate loser. He lost a presidential election. Can’t lose much bigger than that.

      I’ll never understand why people are drawn to losers.

      Cheers,
      Bob

      • He (algore) initiated the famous search for ‘hanging chads’ that could only be rivaled by today’s search for Russian colluders. All the chads had to be evaluated to be determined if it really wanted to be a ‘hanging chad’ where it was hanging or if maybe it wanted to be different because it was a confused chad.

        Anyway, gore will always be remembered by his extensive obsession with hanging chads. He gave new meaning to the term but he’s still a chad.

      • Love ya Bob- thanks for so much. But loser? A strip-mining/oil heir sells a “green” network comprised of safe space seeking fossil fuel fearmongers to a Middle Eastern Oil Cartel for a few hundred million while gravy-training Carbon credit schemes around the world…

        I think taxpayers and the 2B cooking/heating with dung around Gaia that are disproportionately effected by these frauds are the losers.

  1. Even before this, back when I first started reading WUWT, there was the infamous experiment described on the NOAA/NWS page trying essentially to prove CO2 heats up the atmosphere in a bottle. I had several of my physics labs try to repeat the experiment as outlined on the NWS page. To say it could not be replicated was an understatement. The results depended sensitively on a slew of experimental factors not related to CO2 at all. The only way one could get the expected result, a larger Delta T in the CO2 filled bottle, was through fakery; and, then, one would get such a large difference it was not credible. The results were summarized here at WUWT.

    Yet, there are still science teachers and environmental activists who swear by this demonstration. You can’t fix committed.

    • A young relative of a friend and her school colleagues had set up a science project similar to this, and the relative was explaining this to my friend and telling her that it didn’t work. I listened to the experimental design, which was quite good actually for a bunch of kids, and then offered to tell them reasons why it wasn’t working. The young girl told me “It’s OK, we already wrote our conclusions and handed them in – the thermometers weren’t working”.

      Pity Trenberth will have retired by the time they get old enough to do a Post-doc.

      • #philincalifornia
        “the thermometers weren’t working”

        I am really struggling with this one.
        Basically when reality does not match expectation, then reality is a fault.
        It’s a pure genius level excuse.
        It puts “I think therefore I am” in the shade and replaces it with “I think thereby I will”.

        • “It’s a pure genius level excuse”

          For 13-year olds, yes. I was somewhat impressed especially with their experimental design.

          Not such a good excuse though for “vaunted” climate scientists who go around giving each other awards for conclusion-based conclusion-drawing.

          • I always liked The Moody Blues take on that.
            “I think. I think I am. Therefore I am! (I think?)”

            PS I did a quick search to check the lyric’s punctuation and found this.
            “I think I am, therefore, I am… I think.”
            ― George Carlin

            (I don’t know who said (or sang) it first.)

          • Interesting that many people know Rene Descartes “I think,therefore I am” quote, but few know it is the second part of his statement. The complete quote is:
            “I doubt, therefore, I think. I think, therefore, I am”

        • Based on several years of judging high school science fairs, I would say their response was not unexpected. I never met a single high school instructor who understood the concept of a controlled experiment and very few who understood replication. No wonder science is in chaos.

        • Maybe someone among us could do a video in which the first step is to make sure that the thermometers ARE working, by testing them in both hot water and ice, before the CO2 in a bottle experiment.

          Of course, I could do that thing I did in junior high school to test how much ice it took to cool one gallon of water by 10 degrees from a starting temperature of 70F. But that would disappoint the Warmians and the Greenbeans and the Sphenodonts, so – well, let me know.

        • I used ‘stray wire capacitance’ to explain why my engineering physics experiments strayed from expected results. My Prof was not a fan …

      • It obvious these kids are budding climate “scientist” but they still have a lot to learn.
        The thermometers were working. The readings just needed to be adjusted.

  2. Has anyone seen the actual source for this quote:


    “This will likely be the storm of a lifetime for portions of the Carolina coast, and that’s saying a lot given the impacts we’ve seen from Hurricanes Diana, Hugo, Fran, Bonnie, Floyd, and Matthew,” warned a National Weather Service meteorologist in Wilmington, North Carolina, near where the storm is forecast to make landfall. “I can’t emphasize enough the potential for unbelievable damage from wind, storm surge, and inland flooding with this storm.”

    E.g. from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/hurricane-florence-and-the-fear-of-a-stalled-out-storm/569953/

    I looked in the link provided an it’s not there, though maybe the versions don’t go back far enough.

    I also looked at the discussion here and I don’t see any mention of “storm of a lifetime”.

    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2018/FLORENCE.shtml?

    • Not sure where that phrase originated, but I did see it writ large on my TV screen while watching the Weather Channel’s live coverage Thirsday and Friday. Does that mean it’s a once in 75 year event? Doesn’t sound as bad that way.

      • Not once in the lifetime of a 75 year old.
        Once in the lifetime of a millennial.
        (Or maybe a 75 year old who retired to North Carolina from, say, Minnesota.)

    • From Eric Holthaus of NOAA, probably been disappeared! They start by overestimating the windspeed from aircraft, which they are supposed to calculate down to about 20ft (?) above ground where most of the damage occurs. They began just reporting the much higher speeds at the top of the huricane with Harvey last year and gauges at the right height recorded a Cat#1 for it at landfall (in prone areas these gauges record preccise info. There was 3ven discussions about changing the Saffir Simpson scale to fit higher categories than ‘5’ into the same wind speeds, essentially to allow for their hyped,mythical, stronger storms from A Warming.

      • I was watching a report the hurricane in the far east where they had taken to quoting wind speeds in kph just to get it over the magic 100 figure.

    • How can a storm only kill 7 people and be considered a “Storm Of A Lifetime”? Even so, the loss of a single life … [ahem] We demand sensible storm control laws NOW!

    • I looked for the source for a long time, since so many news sources were using it. The best I could do was an unnamed “spokesperson” at a press conference, so it was an oral opinion of one person. I think he was NOAA in Wilmington, but I don’t recall for sure right now. But I have found a name to link to it.

  3. Awesome work by Dr. Spencer, very clear and concise, getting points in quickly to hold people’s interest. It was great that Tucker just let him talk for a few minutes. And a great nod to Anthony, again done in a clear and concise way that made the point immediately. Too bad Dr. Spencer didn’t throw a mention to WUWT in there so that people could have come over and checked out the site. I am glad Tucker had Dr. Spencer on, I hope this leads to more such appearances. Thanks for pointing it out, I had missed this segment.

    • I listened to it when it was on my satellite dish here (I record all Tucker’s shows) and I thought I heard Dr Spencer mention Anthony’s website specifically – but NOT WUWT by the initials.

    • Tucker *needs* an expert like Roy to explain things because Tucker doesn’t understand the subject very much, going by the way he has talked about it in the past.

      I get a feeling Tucker is not a regular reader of WUWT because he doesn’t understand the nuances of the CAGW fraud.

      • Tom,

        IMO he had him on because of his publishing a rebuttal to the WaPo article.

        Also, even if Tucker presented historical data on hurricane frequency and intensity, people would be reluctant to believe a cable TV personality. Dr. Spencer, being an important atmospheric scientist, carries more personal credibility when discussing the weather.

        • Here is Dr. Spencer’s USA Today piece, responding to misinformation from an NBC commentator:

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/14/hurricane-florence-climate-change-global-warming-weather-greenhouse-flood-column/1289272002/

          He argues convincingly that the tendency last year and this for hurricanes to linger longer over an area after landfall, dumping copious quantities of [rain] range instead of moving farther inland or in another direction, has nothing to do with “global warming”, but everything to do with the steering winds and the jet stream. IOW, WX.

          The late, great “Father of Hurricanology”, Dr. Bill Gray, also observed that hurricanes in recent decades have been less frequent and powerful than those in previous decades.

          [Yes, the increased “rain” may increase the “rage” and the range of that “rage” but a slower storm will reduce the “range” considerably … .mod]

  4. People who profit from climate alarmism, economically, politically, notoriety, academically, etc,

    Behold, the Climate Whores

  5. CNN is frantically searching for dead persons anywhere near the impact of hurricane Florence. Volunteers maybe? They don’t want to waste this opportunity to show how stupid President Trump is, or something like that.

    • They should hang out near the nursing homes – any death over the next 12 months can be considered hurricane related.

    • In a year’s time we will hear that the number of fatalities has miraculously increased from 5 or 6 to 3500. You read it here first.

    • Last I heard the death toll was 4. A mother and infant died when a tree fell on their house – the father is in the hospital with serious injuries. A lady died of a heart attack – the first responders could not reach her for an hour because of downed trees on the road. A man died of electrocution while trying to hook up his generator.

      Hopefully they will be the only fatalities, but the storm is moving slowly and dropping an ocean of rain. Flooding can be very deceptive.

      • ” A mother and infant died when a tree fell on their house – the father is in the hospital with serious injuries.”

        What are the odds of that happening? Too sad.

        • Couple were killed in Marietta GA (340+ miles/550 km inland) when a tree fell on their car while driving after a hurricane hit Pensacola FL in the 1990’s.

    • No need to frantically search, just wait for the lefty academics to do a “study” that models how many people died, it’ll be in the thousands.

      • LOL that’s always my first and biggest criticism of the experiments that supposedly “prove” something about CO2’s effect in THE ATMOSPHERE. The *closed container* simply is NOT an equivalent environment to the atmosphere – it is a closed container with a fixed size which is not subject to atmospheric processes like convection and precipitation, and is not open to the near vacuum of space. So such experiments really tell us NOTHING about any affect on temperature in the atmosphere.

      • Not showing the CO2 and Methane levels of the Greenhouse boxes after they pumped them up is the main one.

        Why would they omit such a crucial fact?

        Placement and spacing of the boxes is another problem. The two “hot boxes” were enclosed on both sides — the “control” boxes were not.

        • Reg,
          Muthbusters were trying to be entertaining not conduct a proper scientific enquiry. Hence they didn’t show the CO2 levels it is hardly going to keep the viewers entertained. As for the placement of the controls given the size of the room and the heat generated by the lights that would be a minor effect.

          • Not really seeing your point, Percy.

            What was the purpose of the experiment then? Seems to me to be propaganda.

            And why did they use that kid as a prop (a common practice by the Progressives — see Obama’s Sandy Hook speech)? I used to watch Mythbusters and have never seen them do that before.

          • Reg,
            They used a kid because it was a “young scientist special” and appeared on the science channel not as a prop but rather as an award for the kids.

      • Mistake?
        MB’s experiment had nothing to do with how CO2 ‘operates’ in the atmosphere.
        It was a misleading lefty propaganda exercise.
        They should be taken to task . . .

        • “MB’s experiment had nothing to do with how CO2 ‘operates’ in the atmosphere.”

          You don’t know that.

          The light’s projected against a background, and the heat that radiated back was stopped by the additional CO2 or methane that was added to the air in the boxes. Seems exactly what happens in the atmosphere.

          It’s not the best controlled experiment in the world, and it could be better, but a face value, it’s a convincing fun experiment.

          Someone should replicate it.

          • PS “Seems exactly what happens in the atmosphere.”
            Is that what everybody means when they talk about “a glass ceiling”?

          • Seems exactly what doesn’t happen in the atmosphere would be an accurate statement.

            You still think this is “simple physics”? It’s difficult to get down to that level of moronicity, so well done.

          • Did they add compressed air to the “control” container such that the PRESSURE in both was the same? If not, they simply measured denser vs. less dense gas subject to the same amount of heat, so the experiment is invalid.

            I doubt they even monitored the pressure in both containers.

        • John,
          None of that analysis seems to be particularly relevant. CO2islife starts by claiming
          it knows what Mythbusters is trying to prove and then shows that they didn’t prove
          it. However I would strongly disagree with the inital claim about what Mythbusters
          is trying to prove. All Mythbusters claim and what they show is that an enclosed container
          containing a greenhouse gas reaches a higher temperature than one that doesn’t. What you can take away from that is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

          At the end of the day Mythbusters is popular entertainment. It is not claiming to be a
          science show or to be constructing rigorous experiments. It is entertainment.

          • Percy, you can take away that CO2 is a greenhouse gas by reading Arrhenius (1896) if you want to.

            (If you do, I would suggest that the use of “carbonic acid” is an issue with translation).

      • Their mistake? Naively assuming that you can simulate the unbelievably complex system that is Earth’s atmosphere (with all its negative feedbacks) in a lab. It’s laughably bad science made for the gullible. Does that answer your question?

  6. Nye’s degree is in Engineering. He was working for Boeing in Seattle when he had a notion to try his hand at standup. At a local open mike event, he met a guy with a cable access channel show who invited him to join in. “Bill Nye the Science Guy” began life as a running gag comedy bit on a cable access show. Near as I can tell it has never drifted far from its roots.

  7. Well said, Dr. Spencer. The real facts, that is what it is going to be about.

    I suppose ‘the public’ knows intuitively which news can be trusted or not. When people have had ten times a warning of ‘the biggest storm ever’ that would come and didn’t came, the eleventh time they will not pay any attention to such a warning.

    The same with ‘climate change’. After hearing a thousand times about ‘climate change’ people will react in the same way as we did half a century ago when our mother said: “weather is always changing, you never know”. Meaning: nothing to worry about, this is ‘business as usual’. ‘We can handle it.’

    People will get tired to hear about ‘climate change’ without real results of a real climate change. For that it is great when people like Dr. Spencer – an authority in the field of weather and climate – explain clearly on television that it is bad with such a hurricane, but also just is ‘business as usual’. Nothing new.

    Thank you, Dr. Spencer!

  8. Skeptical Sheldon’s perplexing perspective on global warming.
    ==========
    (You can read more of Sheldon’s nonsense at https://agree-to-disagree.com)

    Alarmists have a very boring view of global warming. They are content to have a single warming rate, for the date range 1970 to 2018. Something like +1.80 degrees Celsius per century.

    That is like driving everywhere in your car, at 10 km/h.

    Sheldon’s first rule of global warming is,
    Rule 1 – You can never have too many warming rates.

    All right, this is a slight exaggeration. 343,207 warming rates is too many.

    But 343,206 warming rates, is perfect.
    ==========
    Rule 2 – The phrase “temperature anomalies” has too many letters. I am just going to call them temperatures. If you don’t like me doing this, then cut and paste my entire comment into a word processor, and replace all “temperatures” with “temperature anomalies”.
    ==========
    There is an easy way to calculate how many warming rates that there are in a temperature series.

    If you have X temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is,
    (X) * (X – 1) / 2

    If you have Y temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is,
    (Y) * (Y – 1) / 2

    If you have Z temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is,
    (Z) * (Z – 1) / 2

    If the number of temperatures in a temperature series is NOT X, Y, or Z, then you are out of luck, there is no way to calculate the number of warming rates.
    ==========
    So, if you have 10 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (10) * (10 – 1) / 2 = 45
    If you have 100 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (100) * (100 – 1) / 2 = 4,950
    If you have 1000 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (1000) * (1000 – 1) / 2 = 499,500 [see Rule 1 – this is too many warming rates]

    Once, I tried to calculate all of the warming rates for the date range from 1880 to 2018, using monthly data.
    This is 138 years = 138 * 12 = 1656 months, plus 1 for good luck = 1657 temperatures.
    Why plus 1 for good luck? Because I am going from January 1880 to January 2018
    So, if you have 1657 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (1657) * (1657 – 1) / 2 = 1,371,996

    This is too many warming rates. My computer blew up, so I can’t tell you what the warming rate was. But I know that it starts with a 7
    ==========
    I frequently calculate all of the warming rates for the date range 1970 to 2018, using monthly data. I have to calculate them frequently, because I keep forgetting what they are.

    From 1970 to 2018 is 48 years = 48 * 12 = 576 months, plus 1 for good luck = 577 temperatures
    So, if you have 577 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (577) * (577 – 1) / 2 = 166,176
    166,176 warming rates is an acceptable number of warming rates. More would be better, but it is important not to be greedy.

    There are only a finite number of warming rates in the universe, and if people are greedy, then there won’t be enough for everybody to have some.
    ==========
    Remember how there are too many warming rates from 1880 to 2018, using monthly data (please pay attention, there are 1,371,996 warming rates. I told you earlier).

    I have worked out a way of “cheating”, so that I can get the warming rates for 1880 to 2018. On average, there are approximately 30.5 days in a month. While the computer is not looking, I edit the BIOS, and change the average number of days in a month to be 61.0
    Then I run my program, and the computer doesn’t realise that there are too many warming rates for the date range 1880 to 2018.

    Alright, I admit that I didn’t quite tell you the truth. What I do, is combine pairs of months, by averaging the 2 months together, to get 1 temperature for every 2 months. This gives me 6 temperatures per year, instead of 12 temperatures per year.
    From 1880 to 2018 is 138 years = 138 * 6 = 828 pairs of months, plus 1 for good luck = 829 temperatures
    So, if you have 829 temperatures in a temperature series, then the number of warming rates is (829) * (829 – 1) / 2 = 343,206

    I told you near the start of this comment, that 343,206 warming rates is the perfect number of warming rates.

    Now you know why.
    ==========
    In my next comment, I will tell you how to associate a colour with each warming rate, so that you can make pretty pictures, which have nothing to do with global warming. Nudge nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

  9. I liked the dig at Neil Degrasse Tyson, another pseudo science “personality” whose ignorant comments should just be ignored, but cannot because of other reasons…

  10. It would be revealing to know if the self-proclaimed ‘Science Guy’ actually expected the jar with the added CO2 to display increased temperature and disappointed with the result decided to fake it, or set out to fake it from the start.

    • As I remember the situation, Nye was kinda sorta trying to reproduce Svante Arrhenius experiments — which actually did show CO2 to be a greenhouse gas and have been replicated by others in various ways. My guess is that Nye mistakenly thought that the plastic bottles he was using instead of Arrhenius carved salt crystals (transparent bottles carved from a single salt crystal likely aren’t all that easy to come by nowadays). Turns out that they weren’t — something Nye would have known had he had the good sense to make a dry run of his experiment. When the experiment failed, someone apparently decided to fake the results.

      Unlike Nye, the Mythbusters experiment doesn’t seem to have been deliberately deceptive. It could, of course, be flawed. IIRC, Anthony linked to it and a BBC experiment in his report on the Nye fiasco as experiments that might actually demonstrate greenhousing.

      The issue isn’t, I think, whether the greenhouse effect exists. It’s whether Nye participated in a faked demonstration without revealing that the results were “simulated” rather than real.

  11. It would be revealing to know if the self-proclaimed “science guy” actually expected the jar with the added CO2 to display increased temperature and disappointed with the result decided to fake it, or set out to fake it from the start.

  12. We should distinguish between pure sensationalist reporting and the view of climate scientists. To do that it is often useful to take a look at the publications from the UN climate panel (IPCC).
    The last scientific assessment report AR5 says on page 216:

    AR4 concluded that it was likely that an increasing trend had occurred in intense tropical cyclone activity since 1970 in some regions but that there was no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. Subsequent assessments, including SREX and more recent literature indicate that it is difficult to draw firm conclusions with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends prior to the satellite era and in ocean basins outside of the North Atlantic.

    Furthermore on page 217:

    More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.

    I.e. the official view of the climate panel is that the number of hurricanes have not increased, but there has been an increase in the number of the strongest (category 4 and 5) hurricanes.
    /Jan

    • Jan Kjetil Andersen: “I.e. the official view of the climate panel is that the number of hurricanes have not increased, but there has been an increase in the number of the strongest (category 4 and 5) hurricanes.”

      IPCC: “Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.” [North Atlantic Basin]

      The adding of the words “in that region” makes a lot of difference. There are always regions that show ‘something stronger’. And other regions where there is ‘something weaker’. The IPCC is trying to prove that ‘man influences climate’. A political goal: the UN/IPCC needs a common danger ‘to get all noses [of all states] into the same direction’. We should stay aware of the IPCC’s subtle suggestion and not automatically generalize something that is just a sub-conclusion, drawn for only a part of the oceans.

        • OK Jan. The North Atlantic is probably also most prone to multidecadal oscillations which may influence the typical North Atlantic results. And make them diverge from the global pattern.

          I am just reading this one from Syun-Ichi Akasofu: Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age, (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation
          http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

          In case you don’t know this paper: a very interesting view which seems very logic to me. I suppose you will like it.

        • If global warming has to live up to its name then there would have to be an increase in intensity of type4 and type 5 hurricanes/cyclones all over the world in total,not just in 1 area . The data do not support that.

    • If that were true, why has total cyclonic energy been falling.

      The fact that because of satellites we are able to to detect storms at sea that briefly spin up to a higher speed is proof of nothing.

  13. Here’s to memory lane.
    WUWT old story quoted here by Anthony has my name at 29 Sept 2011 at 4.06 am, claiming fake thermometer reports plus how to tell the images were fakes.
    Shame, in those days I might have been tall, smart and handsome. Geoff

  14. Those trying to drag this discussion into one about literal biblical creationism in a vindictive way, should take a look at themselves. The CAGW creed goes way beyond asserting a 6000 year old earth. The core narrative of CAGW assumes the earth was created in 1850. (Why it’s called “1850” is beside the point!) The narrative is simply

    1. earth has warmed since 1850

    2. CO2 from humans has increased since 1850

    3. 1 is caused by 2.

    The Arrhenius based narrative is simply the assumption of CO2 warming from CO2 absorptive behaviour with IR radiation. Any historical perspective in the core narrative is completely absent.

    (CAGW palaeo-apologetics has only recently been bolted on to the CAGW narrative. It mostly consists of trying to discredit and even destroy the palaeoclimate record. No “creationist” ever went that far.)

    Those adopting the CAGW narrative were content to utterly ignore climate history. They showed zero curiosity in two important historical questions:

    – did history of atmospheric CO2 and temperature support a controlling and forcing role of CO2 (such as ice cores unanimously showing CO2 changes lagging temperature changes by 500-1000 years)

    – did previous historical climate changes have causes other than CO2 – such as all the dozens of glacial-interglacial cycles in the current Quarternary period.

    Karl Popper who argued logically that science needs to be deductive (can we disprove a hypothesis?) rather than inductive (serially building assumption upon assumption), said that a true scientist is one who would be the most energetic in trying to test his/her own hypothesis to failure by proving it wrong. By this metric, CAGW advocates fail. They ignore history and palaeoclimate entirely. Mike Mann stated recently that no palaeoclimate data can be trusted earlier than 4000 years ago. That’s less than the 6000 odd years since Adam and Eve.

    • The CAGW’s are actively trying to destroy the paleoclimatic record because they are doing computer modelling of the past with a new study on that coming out every week. Michael Mann who is leading this scam along with Gavin Schmidt has given orders to attack the past. The individual climate scientists readily comply because they get funding to do it.

    • Well summarized. They ignore, attack or attempt to subversively “erase” any and all inconvenient history, because NOTHING except their favored PORTIONS, carefully selected and “massaged,” even APPEARS to support the CAGW bullshit.

  15. If only, ONLY, folks had listened to how the man himself, Stefan Boltzmann, described what he’d discovered and worked out.
    He talked about the temperature radiation being like a ‘pressure’ – like the pressure in a water-pipe or as voltage. The voltage analogy is nice as that is what electromagnetic radiation actually is.

    Things at different temps are like batteries with different voltages and, out there in the real world, are connected together in parallel.
    Obviously thus, connecting a 3 volt battery across a 1 volt battery does not create a 4 volt battery NOR does any energy flow from the 1 volt battery into the 3 volt battery.
    And so it is with objects possessing temperature – no energy flows from cold ones to warmer ones.

    Where confusion becomes endemic is when folks start imagining photons and then say that radiation setting out from the cool object cannot ‘know’ where it is going and also that there are perfectly absorbing objects – i.e. Energy coming from a cool object MUST be absorbed by the warmer object, not least as energy cannot be destroyed.

    No no no. It can do what it likes and decides when it gets there.
    Exactly as happens with electromagnetic waves moving along transmission lines (pairs of wires) or through a transmission medium. ‘Medium’ meaning anything from total vacuum to block of lead to lump of polystyrene.
    The wires analogy is easy to grasp. Consider a short single pulse of voltage,
    Your signal pulse will move along the wires until it gets to the end.
    There it may encounter a short circuit or an open circuit. There may be a resistor of value equal to the characteristic impedance (Z) of the wire line or a resistor of any value.

    In open & short circuits, the pulse is perfectly reflected.
    No energy is absorbed nor is any destroyed – it just goes back to where it came from.
    With resistor equal to Z, the pulse is perfectly absorbed.
    For resistor values different from Z, some energy is absorbed, some is reflected.
    The mirror in your bathroom is a perfect example. The shiny metallic surface is an electrical short-circuit – that is exactly how mirrors work.

    On to earth, atmosphere and (outer) space.
    Three places with different temperatures.
    Earth being the warmest (average= 15 degC), space is the coldest at 4 Kelvin and atmosphere is middling at average= minus 15 degC
    (Earth being the actual earth =soil, dirt, concrete, water, asphalt etc and NOT where thermometers are placed nor = trees, plants, houses & building etc)

    As Boltzmann himself described his theory, there can be NO energy flow from atmosphere to earth nor any from space to atmosphere or earth, using the average temperatures mentioned above.
    That should be the end of it.

    OK. You say that CO2 and ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb energy coming from earth. The atmosphere is warmer than before.
    Fine. That’s OK. That is how the universe works, warm things raise temperatures of cool things.
    Thus and quite legitimately you assert that energy flow from earth to atmosphere will decrease because of that. Earth will be warmer as a consequence. As Boltzmann put it, there is less voltage difference and hence less current (power) flow.

    BUT but but, you have warmed the atmosphere= thus increased its voltage (pressure) differential compared with space. Thus energy flow from atmosphere to space will increase and atmosphere will cool right down. You are on a hiding-to-nothing.

    This is even before you take into account the Gas Laws – if atmosphere does absorb extra energy, it will simply expand and only increase its temperature by a small amount so as to stay within the confines of the Gas Laws. And its got plenty ‘space’ to expand into and a perfect vacuum inviting it into that ‘space’
    Also that the atmosphere, being wrapped around a sphere, has a larger area to lose energy at the top than to acquire energy at the bottom. Again. You’re on a losing track.

    There is the absolute craziness of this thing. Everyone thinks they understand Stefan’s Law and that it predicts the GHGE.
    If they had actually read and understood what he did say about his own theory, they would realise he predicted exactly No Such Thing. His explanation entirely ruled out the possibility.
    Stefan Boltzmann himself effectively said that the GHGE is a *complete* non -starter.

    Back to the drawing board as they say…

    • “BUT but but, you have warmed the atmosphere= thus increased its voltage (pressure) differential compared with space. Thus energy flow from atmosphere to space will increase and atmosphere will cool right down. You are on a hiding-to-nothing.”

      But the atmosphere is not a capacitor – it’s an impedance.
      “You” have warmed the atmosphere. BUT the point at which it effectively emits to space remains at 255K – the Earth’s radiating temp for its solar SW absorbed – it’s just that as the Earth warms that height rises and there is a longer path-length for upwelling LWIR from the surface to encounter GHG molecules before getting there (greater ‘impedance’) and the temperature has to rise commensurate with SB law (sigma T^4) for that energy to get through that 255K “valve” thus increasing the surface temp.

      https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png

      • “But the atmosphere is not a capacitor – it’s an impedance.”

        IR flows are not electric current. With electric current there is always an electromagnetic field involved. IR flows are continuous from the surface to the atmosphere all over the earth. If there was electric current and magnetic fields created by IR flowing; there would be no need for thunderstorms that occur 2000 times at any one time around the earth. We know that clouds act like a an IR trapper because it is warm in a desert with clouds at night and cool without the clouds. So CO2 theoretically can do the same thing except that it emits at -80C in its optimum spectral range of 13 to 18 microns. No matter how the alarmists like you try to twist the theory of GHG, if CO2 can force more water vapour ;then water vapour can force more water vapour. Since temperatures are a local phenomenon, there would have been runaway global warming in the tropics just on water vapour alone.

        • “But the atmosphere is not a capacitor – it’s an impedance.”

          It’s an analogy – not literal my friend… so the stuff about EM is redundant.

          “We know that clouds act like a an IR trapper because it is warm in a desert with clouds at night and cool without the clouds.”
          I know that by dint of observing/forecasting weather during 32 years with the UKMO.
          But thanks for the info anyway.

          “But the atmosphere is not a capacitor – it’s an impedance.”
          it’s an analogy – not literal my friend.

          “We know that clouds act like a an IR trapper because it is warm in a desert with clouds at night and cool without the clouds.”
          I know that by dint of observing weather during 32 years with the UKMO.
          But thanks for the info anyway.

          “except that it emits at -80C in its optimum spectral range of 13 to 18 microns.”

          No it emits in a wider range than that with highest intensity around 15 microns, this corresponding to a temp of 255K – curiously the temp at which the Earth is seen to radiate from space (effective emission height).
          Hint: that is the temp required due it’s absorbed solar energy.

          https://www.researchgate.net/profile/F_Prodi/publication/282393775/figure/fig10/AS:312287953997824@1451466658790/a-Black-body-emission-curves-of-the-Sun-and-the-Earth-b-absorption-spectra-of-the.png

          “No matter how the alarmists like you try to twist the theory of GHG, if CO2 can force more water vapour ;then water vapour can force more water vapour. ”

          First thing: I am not an “alarmist” just one who was educated and had a career in science and accepts that climate scientists back to Arrhenius are neither incompetent nor scammers.
          The WV thin: A fail I’m afraid – you omit the obvious fact that WV rains out of the atmosphere.
          IOW the atmosphere can only contain a specific amount that it’s temp allows…. then it rains/snows.
          WV cannot drive WV. Temp does.
          CO2 is non-condensing. and as such it CAN build up in the atmosphere, where it by virtue of being a GHG causes reduced cooling to space, as explained above.

          “there would have been runaway global warming in the tropics just on water vapour alone.”
          Indeed there would have friend – but there cant be because of the above.
          And it’s not a surprise.

          • “CO2 is non-condensing. and as such it CAN build up in the atmosphere, where it by virtue of being a GHG causes reduced cooling to space, as explained above.”

            Of course, paleoclimate history shows us that no “runaway greenhouse effect” has ever resulted, even from levels far above (by 17.5 times) the supposed “tipping point” of 400ppm of today. And since you’ve just admitted that no “positive feedback loop” exists for water vapor, that cancels the alleged “climate catastrophe.”

    • Well said. A fine illustration of why nobody can actually demonstrate that the GHE (and more particularly, the “enhanced” GHE) exists. It’s all hypothetical.

  16. There was another more important fake experiment that was done by the MYTH BUSTERS not with the old guys but the new MYTHBUSTERS team.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

    At 1:36 of the video you will see 7.351% CO2 was put into the CO2 control container. Obviously the amount of CO2 that was put in; was 180 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which at 407ppm is a little over 0.04% . Even though the CO2 comes from a liquid under pressure from a CO2 tank and then goes to a gas in the container; it temporarily cools while doing so. However, there was so much CO2 put in; that it is no wonder the temperature went up because of increased pressure alone. Even the methane part of the experiment was bogus. At 1:38 of the video the computer showed CH4 at 8.118ppm NOT ppb.

    • That was always the part of the CO2 “experiments” that troubled me, in particular since I was never able to locate a complete description of the exact methods used in such “experiments.” When you “add CO2” to one container and not the other, not only do you need to monitor the concentration before and after the “addition,” but you need to add compressed AIR (i.e., which would contain the same atmospheric concentration as the air in that container) to the other container such that the PRESSURE in each container is held equal.

      Otherwise, you’ll just be measuring the result of higher pressure container vs. one at atmospheric pressure, and your “experiment” is invalid.

  17. Great interview, lucid, succinct, accurate. Anti-advocacy is not advocacy if it corrects mistakes.
    This may have been posted, but is worth repeating. Sigma Xi, well bought in now to our sin, posted it during the storm. It was on Live Science.

    https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf

    The paper compares a modeled versus a standard forecast.
    “The human influence on Hurricane Florence, Kevin A. Reed, Stony Brook University,Alyssa M. Stansfield, Stony Brook University, Michael F. Wehner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
    Colin M. Zarzycki, National Center for Atmospheric Research”

    Stony Brook and Lawrence Berkeley used to be the standards for expert science. I think that was before we had a National Center for Atmospheric Research.
    Not any more–
    “We further find that the storm will remain at a high category on the Saffir-Simpson scale for a longer duration and that the storm is approximately 80 km in diameter larger at landfall because of the human interference in the climate system.”

    They once tried cannons to make it rain. Attracts sharks.

  18. Tucker says, at the end of the video, “It’s nice to have someone who actually knows what he’s talking about on the show.” I think Tucker has too many politicians and gov’t officials on his show. 🙂

  19. As this letter section seems to be about faitghs, a exaample from my time in Burma in 11946. We were the Royal Corp. of Signals and had to set up a tent HQ. Poles were provided and we sharpened them, drove into the ground and set up the tents an d moved in. Many months later we had the ussual Moonseen. The poles are spromted with branches and leaves. So was this nature or a belief in the Old Testmon t ?

    MJE

  20. Rearding the lack of a gene for the m aking of vitiman C, what wwould happen if v ia genetic engerning a primate was to be so changed by re-activating this gene ?

    MJE

    • Michael,

      We probably have the technology now to repair or replace the broken GLO gene. The issue is, should we? Since we now know how to cure the dietary deficiency disease scurvy, the need isn’t pressing.

      But for all I know, someone may have tried to do so with a macaque.

      • Phil,

        I also didn’t find anything on genetic engineering toward reactivating the broken gene.

        But searching Pub Med, as per your suggestion, dredged up this 1979 paper, from the era in which Linus Pauling was advocating megadoses of vitamin C (with me among his Stanford undergrad guinea pigs in 1970). It advocates giving humans dosages per body mass comparable to those produced by mammals (such as goats) with intact GLO genes, in order to create “a new and more robust, longer-living, tough human sub-species, Homo sapiens ascorbicus, by the biochemical reversal of a primate mutation occurring some 60 million years ago.”

        Homo sapiens ascorbicus, a biochemically corrected robust human mutant.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/491997

        A recent paper estimated the date of the disabling mutation for primates at ~61 Ma and for guinea pigs at ~14 Ma.

        We might not benefit as much from stressed goat-sized vitamin C consumption as the author imagined, since we make more efficient use of that which we obtain from food than do those animals which can produce ascorbate from blood sugar.

  21. I didn’t have time to read all of the other comments, but the Dr. Spencer might be careful regarding the temperature change of CO2 vs air in a bottle (Whether or not this experiment has anything to do with climate change). The temperature change in the bottle can be considered a free convection energy transfer over a flat plat (for simplicity) problem. Given q=h.A.dT and we can estimate h from the Nusselt number for free convection. Nu=0.52*Ra^0.2 (Rayleigh Number). Then, for the same energy transfer rate, a little math will show that dT_CO2=[(R_air/R_CO2)*(k_air/k_CO2)]^(1/1.2) dT_air; k=conductivity, R=(beta/(nu*alpha)), beta=thermal expansion, nu=kinematic viscosity, alpha=thermal diffusivity. At 1bar, and 300K, this simplifies to dT_CO2 = 1.42 * dT_air. Conclusion, initially (unfortunately) the Science Guy’s experiment should show a higher temperature increase compared to air if an infinite sized bottle was used. However, since the bottle isn’t infinite and is actually small and sealed. the problem becomes a heat capacity problem. The experiment would have to be conducted with heat lamps exactly aligned, and the heat absorbed and reflected off of the surfaces within the bottles exactly matching (pattern on the globes, colours, the thermometer would actually influence the results, the bottom of the jar, the top of the jar, etc.) My conclusion, the experiment is likely not reproducible, nor does it have any meaning with respect to climate science.

Comments are closed.