I got to ruminating again; a third WUWT retrospective post

By Rud Istvan

My first recent ‘ruminative’ post was about basic climate science misconceptions. My second was about their resulting failed basic climate predictions over now 4 decades (e.g. Viner 2000–children will soon not know snow!).  This third ruminative post (celebrating roughly my 10th WUWT anniversary post here) introspects climate ‘science’ misconduct in the dubious service of posts 1&2.

Like my first here long ago, just more examples like that first, decade old provable NRC US crop canard.

The standard climate science religious cannon claims:

  1. Anthropogenic global warming is causing GAST to rise.
  2. This will have catastrophic consequences, including islands disappearing, millions of climate refugees, a 6th major extinction, and worse.
  3. Therefore, we must repent in energy ashes with a Green New Deal.

The Warmunist (my two recent previous ruminative posts) basic problems are:

  1. They cannot prove GAST is rising above natural variation rates.
  2. There are no catastrophic consequences yet, despite ‘yet’ being now since 1988, so over four decades of abject prediction failures.
  3. Their GND ‘solutions’ fail both technically and economically.

So, how can this awful Warmunist Climate Change PR situation continue to be?

The answer, I believe, lies in the Peter Ridd Great Barrier Reef lawsuit against Cook University in Australia, which he politely titles ‘Lack of quality control.’ I give it another more precise name, with many proofs to follow: academic misconduct in pursuit of government grant dollars. Simply, it is scientific financial corruption.

There are many ways to prove this thesis, all already in the general literature.  For this ruminative post we will extract the essence of just a few examples. All examples are from Steve McIntyre, myself, or (once) both. (I am, again lazily, not providing many links since the ruminative details are all easily accessible on the Internet or via WUWT or CE search functions—or via my cheap old book.)

1. MBH1999 Hockey Stick, the featured graph of AR3. There are at least 3 problems collectively bordering on scientific misconduct:

  • His paleoclimate data are in part spurious (Biffa’s single Yamal larch, the inverted Tilander sediment, the US strip bark bristle cone pines,… all comprising a Hockey Stick Blade.
  • His paleoclimate data also contradict the well-known Medieval Warming Period (–the faux Hockey Stick Handle, a worse data sin).
  • His novel Mann mathematical method is fatally flawed, always producing some hockey stick from any red noise. For those not climate/statistics literate, red noise in a time series is very different from white noise. Red noise has a ‘memory’, aka some degree of autocorrelation. So it is not purely random like white noise in classical statistics around a normal random distribution.

2. Marcott 2013 Hockey Stick.

He redid his thesis by grossly redating selected core tops to produce his infamous Science paper. I PROVED his ‘disavowed’ redating scientific misconduct IN DETAIL a few weeks after publication over at Judith Curry’s, then rewrote the visual proof (just by comparing his thesis to his Science paper for essay “A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.  Submitted the book draft with backup evidence to then Science editor Marcia McNutt in 2013; her admin acknowledged receipt, nothing else ever happened. Imagine my ‘disappointed surprise’.

3. Fabricious claimed in Nature Climate Change (1: 165-169) 2011 that ocean acidification was killing corals in Milne Bay. 

The scientific misconduct found in her SI was that her single location ‘killed’ coral transects also had a volcanic H2S of 163 ppm—lethal to sea creatures at below 50ppm no different than hydrogen cyanide to humans at Auschwitz.

4. NOAA PMEL claimed that the spawn failure at Whiskey Creek oyster Hatchery on Netarts Bay, Oregon, was an ‘ocean acidification’ smoking gun.

Wrong. A complete academic misstatement of Pacific Coast ocean upwellings and estuarine oyster biology.  Provable USG misinformation.

(Examples 3 and 4 are both explained with footnotes and illustrations in essay Shell Games in my ebook Blowing Smoke, foreword Judith Curry).

5. There have been many claims that the Antarctic ice sheet has collapsed before, and so may again giving rise to a very sudden catastrophic sea level rise.

One of the most recent ‘proofs’ was during the Eemian in Australia. Except this paper misrepresented the West Australian data found in its own SI, and provably deliberately misinterpreted the results of an ancient earthquake that its own data proved. Details with images, graphics, and footnotes in essay ‘By Land or by Sea’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Clear scientific misconduct.

And for those thinking this is just an old ebook advert, wrong. I spent almost three years on this ebook, and it now sells for about $7 on Amazon Kindle (still $9 on iBooks). I have not made, nor did not plan to make, anything. My publisher has made a little; my plan was in thanks to them for publishing it at all. Getting the climate truth out was the whole and only point. Still is. We just reiterate here some of the obvious scientific misconducts previously proven in writing but perhaps not well known to recent newcomers.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 9, 2020 6:43 am

“1. MBH1999 Hockey Stick, the featured graph of AR3. There are at least 3 problems collectively bordering on scientific misconduct:
His paleoclimate data are in part spurious (Biffa’s single Yamal larch, the inverted Tilander sediment, the US strip bark bristle cone pines,… all comprising a Hockey Stick Blade.”

So much wrong in just one sentence. Briffa’s Yamal larch came out in 2000, and was not in MBH99. Tiljander (not Tilander) data was published in 2003. And none of these comprise the Hockey Stick Blade, which is the recent rapid rise.

John Garrett
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 7:17 am

Mr. Stokes,

You are missing the forest for the trees.

The entire “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven, anthropogenic, global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE is a ginormous scam. If there is any justice, it will form the basis for a new addendum in future editions of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds.

The episode is instructive in that it has revealed the incredible corruption of “science” funded by Big Government.

How many billions of dollars of scarce funds could have more properly been devoted to much more productive endeavors? How many billions of dollars have been mis-allocated or flat-out wasted as the result of policy-making informed by what is (at best) pseudoscience or (at worst) junk science/superstition?

Reply to  John Garrett
December 9, 2020 8:22 am

Hiding the forest with the trees is Nick’s speciality. Trying to distract and obfuscate has become his life’s purpose.

Reply to  John Garrett
December 9, 2020 10:12 am

“…corruption of “science” funded by Big Government.”
That big, evil ol’e government! Like the one that put the first men on the moon, the first man in space, the first aquaducts, the first highways, the first Law…
And let us not forget: the entire warmustist scam comes from the private sector, for private profit, sponsored by your taxes extracted from governments blackmailed into virtue signalling. Not Trump or Putin, but Goldman and Rothscild.
…and unemployable gender-diasporic graduates of the underwater basketweaving kind.

Reply to  paranoid goy
December 9, 2020 10:55 am

Have you been getting your medications from China lately?

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  paranoid goy
December 9, 2020 11:04 am

The gummint that burned up astronauts?
Read the story of sloppiness that led to the fire in a space capsule on the launch pad.
Read the story of mismanagement of problem tracking by NASA and supplier evasion of facts that led to the Challenger space shuttle exploding.

Gummint is not infallible, space successes resulted from smart people doing their job. Read the story of leader Chris Kraft for example.

Reply to  paranoid goy
December 10, 2020 7:46 am

Putting men on the moon is a positive, although it is not a definitive proof of the positive utility of government (the only reason for such large lift platforms was the instantaneous immolation of millions of humans).
Arguing that government cannot be evil, by pointing at Republican Rome is a fascinating take (unless you are looking back to the Babylonians).
The first “highways” were little more than military projects; this comment points rather to the (evil) centralization of power at the expense of farmers and the ancient urban periphery.
Hammurabi distinguished legal penalties based on who (or rather, how rich) the aggrieved party was.

The AGW scam is rather the illegitimate spawn of the incestuous mating of government and academia (which is indeed a sort of private sector that has been bought by government), as Mr Garrett highlights.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 7:55 am

“recent rapid rise”???

Using the UAH which isn’t subject to whimsical record keeping, the “rapid rise” is about .5C over the last 10 years.. after 20 years of nothing and a total of about .8C over 40 years. The start of all this was a very cold period and there has been a very active Sun over a lot of the time since the start.

Now the Sun has quieted down and the oceans are cooling. A lot of the heat absorbed over the past decades has made it’s way into the northern Pacific where it will ultimately radiate into outer space. The large expanse of warm tropical water that created these warm pockets north of Hawaii is gone so it won’t be replaced. The warm waters of the North East US are being fed by volcanic vents, not warm air. The waters between Greenland and Northern Europe are now cold.

Notice a trend here? The Earth is cycling back down. Most of the anomalous global “heat” is in the polar regions and is due to more water vapor from the warmer oceans, not CO2. As the heat radiates out over the next years, we will all be wishing it comes back.

Richard M
Reply to  rbabcock
December 9, 2020 8:56 am

You hit the nail on the head. Most of the recent warmth has been due to persistent El Nino events (6 of the last 7 years have contained El Nino months). That is the .5 C you mentioned over the past decade. As the current La Nina unfolds I fully expect most of that warmth to radiate away by next summer.

That leaves us with the other .3 C which is most likely due to the loss of Arctic sea ice driven by the AMO. That will take longer to fade away as the AMO is still positive and will likely stay that way for a few more years.

What about other sources of warming? Is the driver of the LIA recovery still active? Do GHG emissions have a some effect? The answers to these questions need to be answered. That won’t happen until the “cycling back down” becomes obvious and it is accepted the recent warming was mostly natural.

Reply to  rbabcock
December 9, 2020 10:42 am

“Recent rapid rise”????????????? Didn’t Mann admit it was a big error but decided to keep it because it because it generated cash in his cash drawer?

And WHAT rapid rise, huh? WEATHER is not to be confused with climate, which seems to be the major habit of people who are looking for something that jest ain’t there. A 1953 heat wave in the Midwest is NOT climate change. It is WEATHER.

Reply to  Sara
December 9, 2020 4:17 pm

I don’t think that Mann ever admitted fault (of any kind).

Pat Frank
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 9:06 am

The hockey stick blade came strictly from the White Mountain bristlecone pines.

Mann’s technically incompetent short-centering method improperly elevated the bristlecone blade up into PC 1 in Mann’s Principal Component Analysis.

There’s no way Mann could not have known his method was wrong and would produce a blade artifact.

More than that, principal components (PCs) are numerical constructs. They have no definable physical meaning. Mann and others merely assign them to mean temperature based on subjective (tendentious, self-serving) judgments.

The physically meaningless PCs are then falsely represented as temperature trends, and published with wholly invented 0.5-0.1 C uncertainties.

It’s utter incompetence, at best. Outright fraud in some cases.

Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 11:07 am

And there was the ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ reference in documents leaked from the CRU, referring to a sleight of hand in presenting data. Devious people from taxpayer funded universities.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 11:41 am

I have a long history of experience in processing multispectral remote sensing imagery. For multispectral imagery such as Landsat, there is a very high correlation between the first Principal Component and the panchromatic band or the intensity component of a three-band intensity-hue-saturation transform. Alternate (even) PCs are orthogonal to the odd PCs. However, it is more difficult to assign any physical interpretation to PCs higher than the first. Typically, the highest PCs appear to be noise. Although, resource explorationists have commonly found that high number PCs often reveal anomalies associated with mineralization or hydrothermal alteration. I was once working with an archaeologist who was looking for evidence for an alternative landing site for Sir Francis Drake, other than in Drake’s Bay. I took a USGS false-color IR photo and performed a PC Transform on it. The 1st PC, unsurprisingly, looked like a B&W aerial photograph. However, the 2nd PC showed distinct, dark linear features with right angle bends in a modern-day strawberry patch. The linear features were unrecognizable in individual bands or a false-color composite. It was so distinctive and unexpected that we did some historical research. It turns out that the area had been a fish farm during the Gold Rush era, and the owners had built dikes to contain the nearby creek water to use to raise fish. While the dikes had been obliterated subsequently by plowing, there was still a subtle difference (probably in the IR band) that a PC Transform revealed.

I would say that, in my experience with imagery, the 1st PC tends to have noise removed, albeit with some small distortion in the meaning of the intensity levels. The higher level PCs might have some physical meaning, but it would probably be difficult to impossible to determine what they might be with a 2D PC Transform. It is only the pattern recognition of the human eye and brain that allows speculation in the case of 3D transforms.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2020 10:19 pm

Clyde, I understand your point. But PCs are numerical constructs. PCs are numerically orthogonal, not physically orthogonal.

Numerically orthogonal points extracted from a data set do not have any distinct physical meaning.

In relatively well-defined signals, perhaps numerical orthogonality will correlate well with physical orthogonality. But that does not mean the PC has inherent physical meaning. In your cases, it seems as though one can sometimes infer physical meaning in a PC by inspection of, and correlation with, the relatively well-defined physical system under analysis.

In the Drakes Bay data, for example, the 2nd PC achieved physical meaning only following investigation of the historical record and the ultimate corespondence with known dike-work.

Absent that empirical confirmation, the PC would have remained meaningless because there is no deductive physical theory from which to derive physical meaning.

That is, the physical meaning was found using methods and data outside the PCA itself. This is always the way unambiguous physical meaning is derived for PCs. From external data and physical theory.

So we’re talking here about tree rings. Tree rings are not well-defined physical systems. No one knows what specific physical causality goes into tree ring width or density. There is no guiding physical theory.

Workers in the field merely assign the first tree ring PC to temperature because someone has made a qualitative judgment of temperature-sensitive growth based on ecological markers. It’s nothing more than tendentious pseudo-inference.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 10, 2020 12:45 pm

I have no disagreement with your remarks. Fundamentally, what I was trying to say, is that even if a case could be made that PC1 were to be shown to correlate highly with temperature, there is every reason to believe that the temperature record would be distorted by an amount quantified by the square of the correlation coefficient. That is, r^2 would tell us something about the uncertainty. My suspicion is that using the tree-rings from different species of trees, and from different climates, the PCA will partition the data into subsequent higher PCs such that the different trees will be separated. I think that those using PCA are too cavalier about their assumptions regarding what PC1 represents and what its utility might be.

Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 12:04 pm

“The hockey stick blade came strictly from the White Mountain bristlecone pines.”
No. The blade is the period of recent warming. The bristlecones were important in the period many centuries ago – ie the shaft.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 2:09 pm

“recent warming”

Which according to Mickey Mann started in about 1910, WAY before any possible effect from CO2

And of course even the great Nick must know the total mathematical idiocy of splicing daily instrumental data onto much averaged long step proxy data.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 3:16 pm

Hi Nick, I’ve always had question about the MBH99 paper, that maybe you can answer –

if the ~1960 onwards proxies (the divergence problem) were judged to be so inaccurate / unreliable that they had to be switched out and replaced with temp instrument records (Mike’s Nature trick), who’s to say that the earlier centuries proxies they used for MBH99 were also equally inaccurate / unreliable where no instrument records were available to compare them with.

And so, it’s quite possible that the earlier proxies also erroneously portrayed prevailing conditions, ones that were in reality warmer conditions than were suggested by proxies?

Reply to  Mr.
December 9, 2020 4:25 pm

“1960 onwards proxies (the divergence problem) were judged to be so inaccurate / unreliable that they had to be switched out and replaced with temp instrument records (Mike’s Nature trick)”
No, they were not switched out and replaced, and that was not “Mike’s Nature trick”. People here, as I emphasised above, always had a shaky grasp of the actual facts, which is not improving with time. MBH99 did a recon to 1980, so the post 1960 period was not very significant, and nothing special was done. It was Briffa who drew attention to the divergence problem. “Mike’s Nature trick” consisted of smoothing the recon to 1980 on the basis that post-1980 instrumental temperatures could be used as padding. That is quite legitimate; if you want to smooth properly to the end of range, you need some estimate of what lies beyond. Some use extrapolated values, but if instrumental temperatures are available, that is better.

MBH used 1902-1980 as a calibration period, with 1854-1901 as the verification period. It is the latter that has more effect on setting the actual levels. As to whether earlier times were warmer relative to recent, that is primarily determined by the proxy behaviour.

Reply to  Mr.
December 9, 2020 6:47 pm

Thanks Nick.
The ‘hockeystick’ graph I’m looking at shows temp falling from ~ 1,000AD to ~1900AD, which is derived from proxies.
These proxies had no instrumental records to calibrate them to actuality, as I understand the situation.
Then around 1960, the proxies showed continuing cooling, but the instrumental records showed warming.
And so the proxies from ~ 1960 onwards were judged to be inaccurate / unreliable, and had to be replaced by actual instrumental measurements.
But I still don’t understand your answer to my question, that is –
what’s to say that the proxies used prior to ~ 1960 weren’t also inaccurate / unreliable, and could have showed cool-ish temps, whereas the reality was temps were actually warmer?

Please explain to me as if I were a 9 year-old, so I can pass the explanation to my grandson, and not look like a con-artist.

Thanks for your forbearance Nick.

Reply to  Mr.
December 9, 2020 7:04 pm

The proxies in the 1902-1980 period are used for calibration. That is, correlation is calculated to say how much &det;C change is associated with a mm change in ring thickness, or whatever the proxy is. It is then tested to see if it works in the verification period (1854-1901). That is the main defence – if it doesn’t work there, the proxy is discarded. That would happen if post-1960 behaviour was different, say. If it verifies, then earlier proxy values are converted.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 4:24 pm

The hockey sticks come from the prefiltering they perform two passes if you only look for hockey sticks you’ll only find hockey sticks. They’ve consistently done the same things and consistently come to the same conclusions. Each time claiming that this reinforces the original paper. I’d like to think they’re just stupid, but sadly I don’t think that’s the case. It’s deliberate and unfortunately fraudulent

Pat Frank
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 4:49 pm

Wrong, Nick, as though you didn’t know.

From 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick, Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance doi:10.1029/2004GL021750

However, under the MBH98 algorithm, the PC1 has a marked hockey stick shape, as shown in the top panel of Figure 3. The MBH98 method creates a PC1 which is dominated by bristlecone pines and closely related foxtail pines. … The most heavily weighted site in the MBH98 PC1, Sheep Mountain, is a bristlecone pine site with the most pronounced hockey stick shape (1.6 s) in the network; it receives over 390 times the weight of the least weighted site, … Without the data transformation, the distinctive contribution of the bristlecones only appears in the PC4, which accounts for less than 8% of the total explained variance.

See also the detailed description of the bristle cone PC trick at Steve McIntyre’s blog, here.

You’ll also probably remember this with pride, Nick.

Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 5:08 pm

All that says is that PC1 is dominated by bristlecones. So what? The issue is what happens when you add it all together, in the recon. The reason why the bristlecones dominate in a particular PC (PC1) is that they are the main contributors in the 1000-1400 AD period.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 6:28 pm

Ummm Nick — Pat quoted you an argument about the MBH98 algorithm. MBH98 claimed a reconstruction starting in 1400 AD, so your claim about bristlecones being the “main contributors in the 1000 – 1400 AD period” is absolutely irrelevant.

Even for MBH99, which did claim a reconstruction back to 1000 AD, your argument is horribly problematic. Let us count a few of the ways:

1. Any purported global claims dominated by a single localized data source must be viewed with extreme skepticism.

2. Graybill and Idso, who collected the bristlecone data, showed that the recent growth rate increase could NOT be explained by climatic factors — in particular, it was not even correlated with temperature levels.

3. Stripbark growth rates are nothing like those of relatively round trunks of “regular” trees.

4. We know the medieval period in that area was significantly warmer (from much higher tree line altitudes) and drier (from much lower lake levels). Yet the MBH98/99 algorithm interpreted this period as having low temperatures from narrow tree rings.

5. The huge overweighting of bristlecones has as much of an effect for recent periods as older periods — the reconstruction is ultimately a weighted linear average throughout, but it got the weights wrong.

6. Mann’s method computed the variance of the entire series about the mean of the subset of the series during the instrumental period. When he was challenged on this (he did not disclose it with the papers), he called it the “modern method”. His purported references for this claim did not actually support it. There’s a better term for his method – WRONG! It is akin to computing the variance of adult human height about the mean of adult male height – you will get a significantly exaggerated variance, which he then used as a weighting factor.

I could go on, but what’s the point?

Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 6:49 pm

“being the “main contributors in the 1000 – 1400 AD period” is absolutely irrelevant”
His quote was about the MBH98 method, which is also used in MBH99. My comment, following Rud Istvan was about the application in MBH99, where the data went back to 1000AD. So it is highly relevant.

But again, all the quote establishes is that bristlecones were the dominant contributor to PC1, not the reconstruction. In MBH PCA, the various components are formed, all but the top five discarded (noise), and the rest added back together. The fact that the effects of bristlecones are gathered into PC1 in this process is irrelevant. What matters is the effect on the combination, which is the reconstruction. And that is much less.

“the reconstruction is ultimately a weighted linear average throughout”
Yes, but the weighting reflects the amount of data. And bristlecones form a much lesser fraction in recent times.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 7:05 pm

Nick — So you are going to continue to argue that the bristlecones dominate in a 1400 – 2000 AD reconstruction because they were one of the main data sources before 1400?


Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 7:23 pm

It clearly says the hockey stick shape is dominated by bristle cone pine series, Nick.

Also from the 2005 paper, “We also focus on the North American tree ring network (‘‘NOAMER’’), because the first principal component (‘‘PC1’’) of this network has been identified as essential for controversial periods of the MBH98 temperature reconstruction.

Guess what the controversial periods are.

Figure 3 of that paper: “PC1 for AD1400 North American Tree Ring Network. Top: Result with MBH98 data transformation [elevated bristle cone hockey stock — PF]; Bottom: recalculated on the same data without MBH98 data transformation [no bristle cone hockey stick — PF].

Below Figure 3: “However, under the MBH98 algorithm, the PC1 has a marked hockey stick shape, as shown in the top panel of Figure 3. The MBH98 method creates a PC1 which is dominated by bristlecone pines and closely related foxtail pines.

But you know all that, Nick. Argue on, the denial.

Reply to  Pat Frank
December 9, 2020 9:48 pm

If you dump the FARCICAL and much ABUSED tree proxies…

… you get a much more REALISTIC curve.

comment image

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 9:52 am

The “Rapid Rise” of the blade is nothing more than an artifact created by splicing Ultra High Resolution Thermometer Data onto the end of low to Ultra Low Resolution Proxy Data
A created effect from comparing Apples to Oranges and proclaiming both to be Apples

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 10:13 pm

Are you somehow suggesting McIntyre and McKitrick got their critique wrong?
Or that the Hockey Stick is not a textbook case, teachable moment, scientific fraud?

December 9, 2020 6:45 am

It is remarkable, and depressing, how the Same Old Sh*t gets recycled, again & again. Complicit leftist media eats it up, because it fits their agenda: more govt spending, more POWER to leftist politicians. Science has nothing to do with it! I have NO IDEA how to break this evil circle.

Steve Case
Reply to  Peter D. Tillman
December 9, 2020 7:25 am

Peter D. Tillman December 9, 2020 at 6:45 am
It is remarkable, and depressing, how the Same Old Sh*t gets recycled, again & again. Complicit leftist media eats it up, because it fits their agenda: more govt spending, more POWER to leftist politicians. Science has nothing to do with it! I have NO IDEA how to break this evil circle.

I have NO IDEA how to break this evil circle.
It’s coming up on 33 years since Dr. Hansen testified before the U.S. Congress, and the Global Cooling bullshit ended in 1979 because the cooling since the 1940s by the late ’70s obviously had stopped and somewhere leading up to Hansen’s testimony Global Warming replaced Global Cooling. Although Nuclear Winter persisted into the early ’90s. So if that little time line of conflicting stories in the popular press didn’t set off alarm bells inside John Q. Public’s cranium coupled with the highly questionable “winning” the White House, I will never see the end of it.

California has running black-outs, and is banning residential natural gas we’re all wearing masks and sitting still for it so far because most of us have too much to lose to begin real action against the corruption. The sewage hasn’t overflowed out of our collected toilets yet.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
December 9, 2020 11:51 am

It is frustrating. Back about the time of the 30th anniversary of Hansen’s presentation to Congress I did an analysis here demonstrating just how bad his forecast was. Yet, at the same time, the MSM was commemorating how prescient Hansen had been. The problem is the MSM! Whether the MSM are ignorant or duplicitous, the General Electorate (GE) only sees what the MSM wants them to see. It is not unlike the suppression of the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents. The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2020 2:10 pm

It looks like Hunter Biden’s taxes are being investigated by the feds.

That ought to be interesting.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 9, 2020 4:14 pm

If Biden is sworn in and issues a preemptive pardon for Hunter, is the MSM likely to mention it?

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 10, 2020 11:59 am

Do you still have any faith in the Feds though ?
Seems they were behind the Russia hoax and have ignored the election fraud
I have grave concerns about the USA even managing to avoid a collapse into – well I can,t call it socialism – what to call it – corrupt crony capitalism controlled by disinformation from the main stream media and big tech .
How long will sites like this be allowed ?

patrick healy
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 10, 2020 6:00 am

‘the problem is the (lying) MSM’
Would that it was just that. Over here in the British marxist gulag, we have Boris Johnson in charge of the asylum. The party which he leads was elected by a huge majority of conservative voters.
Today at Breitbart.com/europe/2020/12/10/great-reset-bojo-wants-to-quadruple-your-heating-bill/ James Delingpole sets out the stupidity and downright evil of our leaders. He links to a piece in Spiked magazine.
It is impossible to countenance a future without an actual armed revolution to make things better, there simply is no future in trying to reason with mentally defective politicians. I weep for my grandchildren, one of whom is doing a Masters in Electrical Engineering at Uni and has been thoroughly brainwashed in the great global warming religion,

Pat Frank
Reply to  patrick healy
December 10, 2020 9:06 am

Send your grandkid the link to my paper, patrick:

It completely falsifies the entire IPCC claim about CO2 emissions. Challenge him to refute it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  patrick healy
December 10, 2020 12:59 pm

You remarked, “It is impossible to countenance a future without an actual armed revolution to make things better, …” Those same logic-challenged politicians in the UK that have disarmed you, probably felt that they were preventing a revolution. They have ignored the lesson of the bloody French Revolution where the unarmed population quickly acquired all the weapons of the army and police just through shear numbers. At least in this country, the Democrats are all too aware that there is a huge number of weapons held mostly by conservatives. If they don’t let their perceived power go to their heads, they will tread lightly, lest they lose their heads as the French aristocracy did. As Lord Acton observed, “Power corrupts, …” Brits and many other countries have created a situation where the politicians feel they are invincible because the governed are not as well armed as the military and police. They overlook the fact that the military and police have family and friends that they will be reluctant to fire upon if it should come to that. Brits have less to bargain with than their Yank cousins.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Peter D. Tillman
December 9, 2020 8:40 am

The media gobble up this pernicious garbage because the average journalist has no grasp of physics, mathematics or basic science – they are monumentally ignorant – willfully so.

Jgnorant – and proud of it ! But it does sell copy – so I suppose that’s all that matters.

(to paraphrase Prof C P Snow) “the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it (the great edifice of physics) as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.”

Your average journalist can’t count much past 10 without taking his socks off.

I agree its depressing.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Ken Irwin
December 9, 2020 11:51 am

Peter and Ken, sorry to hear about your resulting depression ’cause that’s not going to defeat the corruptions that you have noticed are positively exhilarating to their practitioners! The truth that is actually quite fortunately being revealed to us all once again (even to some degree successfully by you) is that this is the native human state that we need to make even a personally candid reckoning of, rather than substitute whitewashing optimisms for so as to temporarily avoid deep disappointment. For when you get the abiding assessment right you won’t be so shocked that it diminishes your own effectiveness as a truth bearing counter agent. This introduces us to the difference between a surpassing wisdom that must largely be revealed to us and our being spellbound by a world of ‘information’.

December 9, 2020 6:53 am

The standard climate science religious demands: Everyone Stop Flying, Go Vegan, Start Cycling, Embrace Renewables.

Interestingly, Vegans are 43% more likely to suffer bone fractures.


All in a good cause, though.

Reply to  fretslider
December 9, 2020 10:54 am

I wonder when this crop of Vegans become geriatric if they’ll enjoy their degree of age related muscle loss (sarcopenia). All dietary protein is not equal in allaying the loss of muscle.

For example: in the young casein, a milk source of protein, is optimum for muscles; yet in the elderly whey, also a milk source of protein, is optimum for muscles. Maybe sources like pea, soy & nut protein aren’t age discriminating for muscles – otherwise a slew of geriatric Vegans will move their mouths more than anything.

However, age related muscle loss afflicts fast twitch muscles more so than slow twitch muscles. And because of the way fast twitch muscles provide ATP (energy) better than slow twitch muscles the disproportionately changing muscle ratio in elderly means they can’t do what they used to.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  fretslider
December 9, 2020 1:24 pm

Vegetarianism is also associated with a high incidence of type II diabetes. Too many carbs in the diet.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
December 9, 2020 2:07 pm

I’m 50 years a virtual vegetarian with most protein coming from dairy, not a vegan. No trace of Type 2 diabetes ever seen despite massive carbohydrate consumption in my youth.

Kevin kilty
December 9, 2020 7:30 am

despite ‘yet’ being now since 1988, so over four decades of abject prediction failures.


Charles Higley
December 9, 2020 7:33 am

What is GAST? I cannot locate it or figure out its meaning.

John Garrett
Reply to  Charles Higley
December 9, 2020 7:38 am

My guess: Global Average Surface Temperature

Reply to  Charles Higley
December 9, 2020 7:47 am

GAST is…

Global Average Surface Temperature

Hans Erren
Reply to  fretslider
December 9, 2020 9:24 am

It is good practice to write out abbreviations the first time they appear in a paper.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Hans Erren
December 9, 2020 10:38 am

Or the reader can do the homework.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 11:54 am

It is still good practice to define acronyms the first time a writer uses it. If your goal is to communicate, then one should make it easy for the target audience.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 9, 2020 12:08 pm

My target audience is not the uniformed kibitzers.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 4:24 pm

How do you know that GAST doesn’t mean Germanium Arsenide Semiconductor Transferrence? Even for an educated audience, you need to define it. And it too often happens in the climate change fraud, that standard terms are redefined to mean something else.

paul courtney
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 6:44 pm

Mr. Schroeder: Sounds like I’m excluded just because I could not afford the uniform.

David Vickers
Reply to  Charles Higley
December 9, 2020 8:56 am

I believe it stands for Global Average Surface Temperature.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  David Vickers
December 9, 2020 10:36 am

Also GMST – Global Mean Surface Temperature.

Reply to  Charles Higley
December 9, 2020 9:25 am

Global Average Surface Temperature.

Reply to  Charles Higley
December 9, 2020 10:48 am

GAST: Global Average Surface Temperature

You can’t figure out it’s meaning because it has no meaning beyond the wet dreams of watermelons

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Charles Higley
December 9, 2020 1:36 pm

I just checked on Acronymfinder.
There, GAST does not appear as related to temperature.
First usage includes the word “Gonadotropin”.

I recall this, from way back:
“If a reader doesn’t understand what is written, it is the writer’s fault, not the readers.”

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  John F Hultquist
December 9, 2020 2:21 pm

I received Ganadotropin treatments as a teenager.
Why would be TMI.
At that time is was cadaver derived.
Put me at risk for Creutzfeldt-Jakob, aka mad cow.
When the blood bank found at that was it for donating.
Got CML instead.
Google it.
Me and Alcindor and a couple hundred thousand more.

Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 7:35 am

The entire RGHE premise sits on the claim that the surfaces radiates as a BB.
Refute that only and alone and the ENTIRE CAGW house of cards collapses.

1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth becomes much like the moon, a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree.

2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires “extra” energy which it gets from

3) the terrestrial surface radiating that “extra” energy as an ideal, .95 emissivity black body which

4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 0 RGHE + 0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW.

All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.


Joseph Campbell
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 8:40 am

My God, Nick, in your single post, there are six undefined letter groupings. Jeez – HELP !…

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Joseph Campbell
December 9, 2020 10:47 am

They would all be clear had you done the homework reading assignment.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 2:11 pm

It is a poor excuse for a scientist trying to present an argument to any audience to just throw in acronyms and expect people to know what he is talking about – let alone if you are trying to persuade sufficient numbers of people that the whole climate hysteria noise is just a lucrative cargo cult. Stop excusing your lack of effort to communicate with clarity.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 8:43 am

Nick Schroeder December 9, 2020 at 7:35 am

The entire RGHE premise sits on the claim that the surface radiates as a BB.

Say what? I know no one who believes that but apparently you … everyone else thinks that it radiates with an emissivity that depends on the surface.

Having said that, the emissivity of most natural substances is quite high, in the mid to high 90’s. So for “first-cut” calculations it’s not unusual to just use 1 for the emissivity, as it leads to only very small errors.


Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 9, 2020 10:44 am

Because of the non-radiative processes BB upwelling is not possible.
There has to be “extra” energy circulating in the RGHE theory which LoT prohibits.
The “consensus” has been way wrong in the not too distance past.
Why not explain how/why I’m wrong?
Without appeals to authority or changing the subject.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 2:05 pm

Lots of pedantic people here Nick.
Just remind them that the radiative heating power of CO2 is -80C. Ie. Makes the upwelling and downwelling is irrelevant as far as surface temps and CO2 connection.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 10, 2020 12:19 am

Nick Schroeder December 9, 2020 at 10:44 am Edit

Because of the non-radiative processes BB upwelling is not possible.
There has to be “extra” energy circulating in the RGHE theory which LoT prohibits.
The “consensus” has been way wrong in the not too distance past.
Why not explain how/why I’m wrong?
Without appeals to authority or changing the subject.

So let’s see. I can’t use any scientific studies, that would be an “appeal to authority” … so just what evidence would be acceptable to you?

My bible for many things climatish, including the emissivity (which is equal to the absorptivity) of common substances, is Geiger’s The Climate Near The Ground, first published sometime around the fifties when people still measured things instead of modeling them. He gives the following figures for IR emissivity at 9 to 12 microns:

Water, 0.96

Fresh snow, 0.99

Dry sand, 0.95

Wet sand, 0.96

Forest, deciduous, 0.95

Forest, conifer, 0.97

Leaves Corn, Beans, 0.94

and so on down to things like:

Mouse fur, 0.94

Glass, 0.94

You can see why the error from considering the earth as a blackbody in the IR is quite small.

I must admit, though, that I do greatly enjoy the idea of some boffin at midnight in his laboratory measuring the emissivity of common substances when he hears the snap of the mousetrap he set earlier, and he thinks, hmmm …

Here’s the thing, Nick. SCIENTISTS MEASURE THIS STUFF, as evidenced by the measurements above, measurements that you claim are “not possible”.


Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 2:47 pm

RGHE: Radiative GreenHouse Effect.
See Kiel-Trenberth atmospheric power flux balance, NOAA and assorted clones.
CAGW: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
WE’RE all going to die and it’s fossil fuel’s fault!!!!!
ISR: Incoming Solar Radiation. That’s gross at ToA, top of atmosphere. 1,368 W/m^2, Solar luminosity divided by spherical areas at distance from sun. Area=4*PI*r^2.
ASR: ISR*(1-albedo) or 0.7*1,368=957.6 W/m^2
These values are frequently divided by 4 to convert the discular area the sun sees half the time to an average spread 24/7 over the entire spherical ToA. 1,368/4=342. 957.6/4=239.4. A totally STUPID thing to do since that does not evenly remotely model how the earth actually heats and cools.
The earth is heated only on the lit side.
Atmospheric heat capacity moves it around and moderates day to night.
Energy leaves the earth in all directions 24/7 according to Q=1/R*A*(Tsuf-Ttoa) same as the heat transfer equation that makes your house warmer inside than out.
R is on those bundles of insulation at HD.
Q is Btu/Eng h or kJ/metric h
GHG: GreenHouse Gasses
ALL of them including water vapor.
UCLA: University of California Los Angeles
emissivity: The ratio between the energy leaving a system/surface by radiation and ALL of the energy.
Kirchoff observed that absorptivity equals emissivity. Simple energy balance. Can’t emit more than was absorbed.
A surface that emits ALL what was absorbed is a Black Body.
A surface can emit LESS than was absorbed and will have an emissivity less than 1.0.
Because of the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the contiguous atmospheric molecules carrying 60% of the energy leaving the surface LWIR emissivity is 40%, i.e. NOT BB.
396 W/m^2 (16 C or 289 K) BB upwelling “extra” energy from the surface does not exist.

BTW remove the atmosphere or just GHGs and the 30% albedo goes with it making the earth much like the moon and warmer which alone is sufficient to destroy RGHE.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 9, 2020 6:59 pm

Nick has an amazing talent for getting all of the most basic concepts of thermodynamics and heat transfer dead wrong.

I will point out just a couple of his whoppers here. (I have pointed these out to Nick before to no effect – I just want to make sure no one else is fooled by his blather.)

Nick claims that thermal energy is transported from the surface to the top of the atmosphere by conduction, using the conduction equation Q=1/R*A*(Tsurf-Ttoa).

If he ever actually bothered to use the equation using values for air, he would see that conduction could account for less than one millionth of the actual energy flow from the surface. This is why anyone who remotely understands the physics involved knows that you can ignore conduction mechanisms without loss of accuracy. But incredibly, Nick thinks it’s the dominant transfer mode.

Nick completely misunderstands Kirchhoff’s radiation law (“absorptivity equals emissivity”). Anyone with a basic understanding of radiative heat transfer knows that this relationship refers to radiative transfers ONLY.

Emissivity is the percentage of radiative output compared to the “ideal” (blackbody) thermal radiative output at that temperature. It does NOT change, as Nick believes, if there are other (conductive, convective, evaporative) transfer modes occurring simultaneously. This is a basic, basic concept, and Nick continues to get it completely wrong.

That is, a body at 288K (15C) and an emissivity of 0.95 will emit a radiative flux of:

Q = 0.95 * (5.67×10^-8) * 288^4 = 370 W/m^2

regardless of other heat transfer modes occurring at the same time.

Enough for now. Nick just keeps demonstrating he has no idea what is going on here.

Reply to  Ed Bo
December 10, 2020 12:21 am

Fact check on Ed Bo’s claims.

100% true. Nick has no clue about thermo.


Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2020 5:24 am

Had I no clue my 35 years of applying LoT in power gen would not have been possible.
As opposed to your hours on Wiki.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2020 11:32 am

Nick, if that is true, then you wasted 35 years.

As to my “hours on Wiki”, your mind-reading sucks.


Ed Bo
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2020 2:50 pm


I have found over the years working with many engineering thermal designers that those who are dealing with relatively small temperature differences often ignore radiative transfer altogether.

How do they get away with this? It took me some pondering to come up with an answer.

First of all, the radiative transfer tends to be relatively small in these systems compared to convective/conductive transfers. Second, the analytical solutions to convective transfer in particular are so uncertain that it is easy to bundle what is really radiative transfer into an overestimate of convective transfer.

(For example, when I recently looked for analyses of double- and triple-paned window on the web, all the ones I found ignored radiative transfer completely. This transfer is definitely non-zero, but there were a lot of heuristics in the outer layer convective transfer values.)

Even though these engineers can come up with successful designs, they often think they correctly understand radiative transfer when they really don’t. Nick is certainly not the only one who suffers from this.

By the way, when I worked for Hewlett-Packard in the 1980s (I don’t think I ever met your brother there…), I was tasked with the technical grilling of candidates for thermal design positions. I found that questions about radiative transfer really separated the men from the boys, because many cases are counterintuitive.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Ed Bo
December 10, 2020 3:25 pm

I do not ignore radiation.
It just can’t be BB.
In the case of K-T it’s about 40%.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2020 3:52 pm


You say: “I do not ignore radiation.”

Then why don’t I see any equations from you with the 4th power of temperature involved? You explicitly try to jam it into 1st-order conduction equations, just as I claim.

Why do you keep insisting on using your own personal (and therefore WRONG and useless) definition of emissivity? Upthread, Willis cited proper emissivity values from careful measurements showing that the vast majority of the earth’s surface has emissivities of 95% or more, so the blackbody approximation is only off by 4 or 5%.

You just continue to make yourself look ridiculous.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Ed Bo
December 10, 2020 4:42 pm

“… that the vast majority of the earth’s surface has emissivities of 95% or more,”
IR instruments measure temperatures and assume emissivity to calc W/m^2.
They are wrong because they assume emissivity is about 1.0.
Surfrad data is a perfect example. They show twice as much upwelling W/m^2 than actually arrived.
Applying 0.95 emissivity creates energy out of thin air.
Like phlogiston and luminiferous ether they are doing it wrong.
I demonstrated with another experiment how easy it is to tweak the IR instrument circuitry to display energy that does not exist.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2020 5:12 pm


You say: “IR instruments measure temperatures and assume emissivity to calc W/m^2. They are wrong because they assume emissivity is about 1.0.”

No, Nick, you’ve got it exactly backwards. These IR instruments make NO such assumption about the emissivity of what they are measuring. They are measuring W/m^2, which could be from a warm object with low emissivity or a cool object with high emissivity.

It is only an instrument that tries to derive temperature from the flux measurement that makes assumptions about emissivity. My inexpensive kitchen infrared thermometer assumes emissivity of about 0.95, which is fine for almost everything, matching other types of measurements very closely. However, it is way off when I point it at aluminum foil in my oven, because that has very low emissivity, and I am really measuring mostly the reflected room ambient radiation.

You just keep demonstrating that you don’t understand radiative heat transfer at the most basic conceptual level. Did you sleep through those lectures?

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Ed Bo
December 10, 2020 6:47 pm

You claim to measure energy that I have demonstrated does not exist and which if it did would violate conservation.
The extraordinary claim is in your court not mine.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2020 7:14 pm

No Nick, I am claiming a completely standard analysis as has been taught to engineers for a century now.

I am realizing that you are so confused you really don’t even understand the first LoT at all! You keep claiming that increasing one mode of transfer must decrease other modes, or it would be a violation of energy conservation, which is complete nonsense!

Let’s look at the basic equation for the 1st LoT:

DeltaE = sum(Qin) – sum(Qout)

For the cases we are discussing here, there is no work involved, so the W terms are zero.

In differential form, so the equation is in terms of power, not energy, we have:

dE/dt = sum(Q’in) – sum(Q’out)

There is NOTHING in the equation that constrains sum(Q’out) to be a constant value. If a new mode of heat transfer out is introduced, sum(Q’out) increases, and dE/dt decreases. That is all. It is NOT creating energy out of nothing, as you assert.

This is such a basic, basic concept, understood by the vast majority of students in the first couple of weeks of an introductory thermo course. The fact that you cannot get it after decades is simply appalling.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Ed Bo
December 10, 2020 5:16 am

Ed Bo
“…regardless of other heat transfer modes occurring at the same time.”
This effectively doubles the energy in the system out of thin air and I have demonstrated by experiment that it is fundamentally incorrect.

So, out of the weeds and back on track.

Remove the atmosphere or GHGs and the 30% albedo goes away, the earth becomes a barren hot rock much like the moon, 400 K hot^3 lit side, 100 K cold^3 dark, the exact opposite of what RGHE claims.
Strike one.

The up/down welling, trapped/back radiated GHG RGHE warming loop requires a source of “extra” energy which the LoT prohibit.
Strike two.

The “extra” energy appears out of thin air from a “what if” assumption that the surface radiates as a BB which I have demonstrated by experiment is not possible.
Strike three.

And O-U-T, RGHE is OUT!!!!!

Radiation & Emissivity
Energy entering a surface by radiation can be reflected, ρ, pass through, τ, and be absorbed, α. (τ+ρ+α)=1.0 and by textbook definition emissivity = ρ/(τ+ρ+α). Kirchoff ρ=α=BB= 1.0 ε.
Energy leaving a surface does so by sensible (aka cond, conv, advec) + latent + rad)=1.0 By the same definition emissivity=rad/(sens+lat+rad). This I also demonstrated by experiment.
Same same
Any company designing, fabricating and applying heat exchangers, e.g. HVAC condensers or power plant ACCs or lube oil cooers, can explain/demonstrate how this combination works as I did with my experiment.

Per K-T: sensible=17 + latent=80 + and, by diff, radiation=63 = 160. 160 in & 160 out and that’s ALL there is. The 333 upwelling appears out of nowhere so the 333 downwelling cannot exist.

To move fluid through a hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference.
To move current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.
To move energy/heat through a thermal resistance requires a temperature difference.
Physics be physics.

Q = 1/R * A * dT
The atmospheric thermal resistance, R, a combination of the five heat transfer processes, is responsible for the surface/ToA temperature difference.
Q is controlled by ISR, elliptical orbit, tilted axis and albedo.
R is controlled by by the thermal dynamics of the atmosphere.
RGHE & GHGs have zero role.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 10, 2020 1:05 pm


You present such a target rich environment! I seldom see such a high density of errors. I only have time to deal with a few of them.

To start with, if you open any introductory heat transfer textbook, the first thing you will learn is that radiative output is a function of the 4th power of absolute temperature and emissivity ALONE. You cannot simply roll it into the 1st-power conduction equation as you attempt to do.

The second thing you will learn is that the radiative heat transfer between two bodies occurs by the process of “radiative exchange”, with both bodies transferring power to each other, but with the higher termperature body transferring more to the lower temperature body than vice versa, so there is a NET transfer from hot to cold proportional to the difference in the 4th power of their absolute temperatures.

This concept of gross and net flows is not difficult, no harder than understanding making change on a purchase. Most students get it immediately. But somehow it is completely beyond you. So when you cite the NET upward radiative flux in K-T of 63 W/m^2 to claim that the 396 GROSS upward flux and 333 GROSS downward flux do not exist (even though these are repeatedly measured) is as silly as arguing that for a $5 purchase, the purchaser could not have given the cashier a $20 bill and received $15 in change.

Your analysis of radiative properties is bizarre and incoherent. You say: “Kirchoff ρ=α=BB= 1.0 ε”. In English, this is: “Reflectivity = absorptivity = blackbody [what attribute???] equals one times emissivity.” This is complete nonsense!

You then claim: “sensible + latent + rad = 1.0”. You never say what 1.0 is! Are you seriously claiming that if you, for example, increase sensible output, you automatically decrease radiative output? That would be news to any of the thermal designers who work for me. They have noticed that when they put bigger fans on a heat sink to increase conductive/convective losses, it actually leads to lower temperatures by increasing the total outputs.

And no definition of radiative emissivity I have ever seen has anything to do with your claim of:

emissivity = rad / (sens + lat + rad)

You are going to have to provide a reference for that claim, because every source I have ever consulted shows emissivity to be defined in terms of radiative properties ONLY. I won’t hold my breath…

December 9, 2020 7:40 am

Our dearly beloved Dr. Mann sued Dr. Ball because Ball said Mann belonged in state pen rather than Penn State.

Mann’s lawsuit was thrown out of court because of Mann’s inexcusable delays. In particular, Mann didn’t testify or present any evidence that he did not belong in state pen.

Adverse inference means that, if someone doesn’t present evidence under their control, we can infer that the evidence doesn’t support their case.

Based on adverse inference, Mann has admitted that he does belong in state pen. QED

Tom Abbott
Reply to  commieBob
December 9, 2020 2:26 pm

“Adverse inference means that, if someone doesn’t present evidence under their control, we can infer that the evidence doesn’t support their case.”

Yes, we can! And do!

We do that a lot around here because the alarmists *never* have any evidence to present. All they can do is make claims they can’t back up. So we have to infer that they are just blowing smoke, like usual.

Joel Snider
December 9, 2020 7:40 am

Honestly, it’s not the science – it’s the ideological backing behind the science that’s so destructive.

December 9, 2020 7:46 am

I had to look up ruminating first. I thought it had something to do with cows.
So now I’ve learned a new word, and will use it everyday so I don’t forget it.

This concise article is well done ruminating.

I’d like to get others to ruminate too, and comment on, two basic questions:
Since our planet is always warming, or cooling, shouldn’t we be happy that we are living in a mild warming trend during an interglacial, rather than living in a cooling trend ?

Are the people living in Alaska unhappy that their state has warmer winter nights than they had in 1975 ?

Here in Michigan USA we want a lot more warming.
The winter was cold when I moved here in 1977.
It’s still cold.
People here tend to vacation in warmer places.
Except a few ski bums.
Some people move “down south” for the winter.
I’d like to retire my snow shovels.
So where is all that warming we were promised ?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 9, 2020 8:51 am

I’d rather not ruminate. I’ve found that the grass rather sticks in my teeth, and doesn’t taste very good to boot. Instead, I prefer to ponder prodigiously. 😁

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 9, 2020 10:57 am

Hate to admit it but I think I have been buffaloed at least once.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 9, 2020 10:32 am

If you are Goy, you have no choice, rumination is your fate.
Ah, wait, I don’t think sheep ruminate, no, wait, they do. Now one has to wonder what the warmist sheep ruminate on, seeing as they actually eat the predigested regurgitations of the kakastocratic sciencers*

*Sciencer: someone who can conjure up any proof you can afford. For a fee, they can make any product or service walk on a cloud of scienciness.

michael hart
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 9, 2020 12:11 pm

Yes, Richard Greene. All the evidence points towards the global warming since~1850 as being strongly net beneficial. with no evidence that t won’t continue to be so. The IPCC themselves used to emphasise this a few years ago, with a (high) levelo of warming only becoming net negative sometime after the middle of this century.

But now they, and the media etc, now all appear to think that it is already bad and getting worse. Not only are these people not self-consistent, it also prompts questions like “So when did Economists actually start incorporating global temperatures into their models of economic growth, interest rates, inflation, debt, etc etc? And how?”
It really is quite ridiculous that ministers of ‘The Dismal Science’, who are famous for predicting 5 of the last 3 recessions, all of a sudden have found a credible link between economic growth and some imagined global average temperature. Any one who believes that should be locked up.

However, I can’t speak for the people of Alaska. I’ve only been there once, and found them somewhat exceptional. Many seemed like people who were actively trying to escape from the rest of the people in the contiguous 48 States.

Kevin kilty
December 9, 2020 7:59 am

I don’t have a lot to say about the Mann, but the idea of a “hockey stick” providing a unique fingerprint of global warming had such appeal that other researchers pondered how to support the notion through independent data. Among these attempts was that of using borehole temperature measurements to “reconstruct” past surface temperature.

It is difficult to count the many logical and technical problems with this method. Among the worst is that people used inverse methods to make the reconstruction, and at least one of the best known, Pollack and Shen I think although my memory could be faulty, was a so-called “Bayesian” methods using an iterative scheme where there was a penalty for deviating from the assumed “prior”. Thus, where ever the measured temperatures provided no information (as measured by an information density matrix) the posterior results stayed close to the prior. Thermal diffusion destroys information rapidly — couple of centuries in the subsurface at most.

They chose what they called a neutral prior, a flat temperature distribution — i.e. no deviation from the temperaure distribution of a fixed background heat flow, for example. But this choice is no more neutral than assuming any other temperature distribution. This is no way to do a Bayesian inverse. I could get no traction at either “Science” or “Nature” with my criticism of the method. The editors and who knows who else were not going to entertain doubts about such a welcome result; like looking the proverbial gift-horse in the mouth. But it is surely flawed and just produces what one first assumes. That is, a complicated sort of circular logic.

I was somewhat connected into the world of borehole geophysics at one time, and many people informed me privately that they thought these methods were pretty awful, but no one would say so in print. No “Peter Ridd” among them. I have learned that money, access, and status all work to produce suboptimal scientific work of this sort in places. Pathological science. It was the same back in the day of Lord Kelvin and age of the Earth.

Peter W
Reply to  Kevin kilty
December 9, 2020 8:31 am

This whole business is why I gave up subscribing to any “scientific” publications some years ago.

Erik Magnuson
December 9, 2020 8:13 am

Minor spelling nitpick. It’s religious canon, not cannon.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Erik Magnuson
December 9, 2020 9:10 am

Unless they shoot themselves in the foot with it.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 9, 2020 2:53 pm

If they shoot themselves in the foot with a “cannon”, would they still have a leg to stand on?

Peta of Newark
December 9, 2020 8:37 am

I just dawned as I was driving my Planet Wrecking Vee-Bubya Deezle
(I was going to get an outdoor junction box for my solar powered fake Christmas tree, compete with Lithium Battery and MPPT charger circuit – eat yer heart out Leemon Tusk)

It occurred that Climate Scientists are very effectively being rewarded for failure.

Their models are junk,because, none of them agree with each other.
Plus they cannot (UK wise) get the weather forecast correct any more that 48 hours ahead
They Fail constantly in their ‘task’

So what do they do…
– they demand ‘More Research’. And get it. More researchers, more fie;d trips, more Sputniks, more more more
– they demand, in tacit admission of failure, that they want, need, must have Ever Bigger and Ever More Super Super-Computers

And they get all these things
And none of them have *ever* worked

They are rewarded for failure and even worse, if they ever *do* succeed in sussing this thing out, they KNOW they will be made redundant.
Thus= a positive incentive to actually and continually fail

And They Know That

How *did* it get so hideous, expensive and crazy?

December 9, 2020 8:52 am

One of the most egregious things about the hockey stick looks like the refusal to disclose failing R squared results and the refusal of the NAS Panel to investigate it. McIntyre had a great comment about it on The Blackboard:

When I got a chance to comment, I sharply criticized the NAS panel for sitting there like bumps on a log and not resolving a simple question that could have been resolved (and which they had been asked to resolved.)

Afterwards, panelist Doug Nychka told me that they had noticed Mann’s answer and their silence didn’t mean that they hadn’t noticed it. However, they also failed to grasp the nettle in their report, completely neglecting the issue, even though it was one of the main questions in the original Barton letter. According to Cicerone in JUly 2006, the House Science COmmittte, which had commissioned the NAS panel (not the House Energy and Commerce Committee) refused to pay NAS for the project because they had failed to deal with the issues that they had asked about.


December 9, 2020 9:53 am

I had ruminated once, but I got a ruminatectomy and it was gone. No penicillin required.


John Garrett
December 9, 2020 10:15 am

Among other ruminations, the entire “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven, anthropogenic Global warming/climate change” episode has been a real eye-opener into the truth of what Josef Goebbels and Edward Bernays postulated with respect to the astonishing power of propaganda’s use of repetition of “The Big Lie.”

Mencken called America “A commonwealth of morons.” He wasn’t wrong. We’ve seen that a substantial portion of the population can be persuaded to accept and believe a conjecture which is sorely lacking evidence or proof.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  John Garrett
December 9, 2020 12:14 pm

Perhaps it will be a comfort to be reminded that the national population being described here is widely derived from people the world over.

Alasdair Fairbairn
December 9, 2020 10:28 am

What do you say to a grandchild suffering mental stress over all of this? “There There not to worry “ hardly cuts the mustard. How can grandad be wiser than everyone else?

Mike Dubrasich
December 9, 2020 10:46 am

You can call it “scientific financial corruption” if you like, but it’s more than a scramble for dollars. Don’t forget all the careers ruined, the backstabbing, the censorship, the corruption of journals, the attacks on those who disagree with the Agenda. Viciousness is not profit-motivated. It is moral/ethical bankruptcy.

Don’t forget people like John Swift Boat Kerry, who called real scientists “flat earthers”. John Mullah Cash is the up and coming Climate Tsar. He will be unleashed again to wreak havoc with the truth and truth tellers. He’s not doing it for grant money. Long John Ketchup’s stepson is Hunter Biden’s biz partner; they are in it for big dough, not chump change, but John Long Yawn is doing it for pure Evil.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
December 9, 2020 11:02 am

Redistributive and retributive change.

Don B
December 9, 2020 11:38 am

As I recall, Marcott’s research for his PhD at Oregon State University (OS) was quite good, but it was the manipulation of that data required to show a spike in modern temperatures for the Science paper which prompted criticism and comments about academic misconduct. Which prompted Marcott to write, on Easter Sunday (hoping nobody would notice?), that

“. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . .”

An alum of OS wrote to the president of the school informing him of the brouhaha, which resulted in an email to the alum which stated:

“…I have discussed this matter at some length with the leadership at OSU. In short, I can confirm unequivocally that there was NO misconduct here. In fact, the basic research as published in the article in Science is sound and well-founded. ….. The handling of the paper in the popular press (including the blogosphere) after its publication was unfortunate, however the technical merit and key findings of the paper remain robust.”

1) The “basic research” of the paper was not the issue.
2) People who investigate themselves are not unbiased.
3) As Rud might have said, universities like to keep the grant money rolling in.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Don B
December 9, 2020 3:01 pm

““. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . .”

Another admission that the Hockey Stick chart profile does not represent the true temperature profile of the globe in the Early Twentieth Century.

The true temperature profile of the Earth is represented in the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts which all show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

Here’s the US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) compared to a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.


As you can see, the Hansen 1999 chart on the left shows it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today, 1934 being 0.5C warmer than 1998, and 0.4C warmer than 2016.

The bogus Hockey Stick chart on the right uses computers to erase the warmth of the 1930’s in order to promote the Human-caused Climate change narrative.

But as we see from the quote above, the Hockey Stick 1930’s is “not statistically robust”. In other words, the bogus Hockey Stick chart distorts the global surface temperature profile into something it isn’t.

All the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts resemble the US surface temperature chart where the 1930’s shows to be as warm as today.

None of the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the temperature profile of the bogus Hockey Stick chart, which distorts the truth and shows that the temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter, for decade after decade, and that we are now at the warmest temperatures in human history. That’s the Human-caused Climate Change meme, but it’s all a Big Lie. The bogus Hockey Stick chart is the *only* “evidence” that alarmists can present that supports their “hottest year evah!” Lie.

We are spending Trillions of dollars trying to fix a Big Lie. Our leaders are extremenly stupid..

Izaak Walton
December 9, 2020 1:47 pm

The idea that this whole thing is some sort of global conspiracy as implied by
the claim that it is
” academic misconduct in pursuit of government grant dollars. Simply, it is scientific financial corruption.”
just doesn’t stack up. It would imply that every major scientific funding body in the world is involved as is every scientific body etc. etc. Furthermore it ignores the exceedingly cut-throat nature of academic funding — typically success rates for grants are less than 10% and so all academics are more likely to find faults with each others research grants than suggest they get funded.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 9, 2020 2:15 pm

” academic misconduct in pursuit of government grant dollars. Simply, it is scientific financial corruption.””

Most certainly DOES stack up.

See what happens to any academic that even remotely “rocks the boat” on the AGW scam….

Ostrichised and grant flow stops.

You are behaving like a willfully blind monkey as usual, izzy ! 🙈

DENIAL of what is in front of everyone’s eye, (except those with a leftist agenda to push.)

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 9, 2020 2:17 pm

If the science is settle why are anymore grants needed?

I mean look at all those models. We only needed one.

Reply to  Derg
December 10, 2020 5:21 am

> If the science is settle why are anymore grants needed?
Hey, genius, “science is settled” means there are things that are beyond doubt. These things you should avoid criticizing if you don’t want to look like a flat earther. “Science is settled” does not mean we know everything.

> I mean look at all those models. We only needed one.
No, and different models (implemented by different people) give us independent verification. The vast majority of published model data agree with each other (not to mention instrumental data) and this gives us a very solid confidence in climate science. You can regard this “multi-modelling” as a kinda falsification test if you wish some Popperismo here, he’s a libertarian patron saint isn’t he?

Reply to  nyolci
December 10, 2020 8:14 am

Lol, you really are a moron. Settled science indeed.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 9, 2020 2:19 pm

“Furthermore it ignores the exceedingly cut-throat nature of academic funding”

Yep, If you don’t cow-tow to the AGW agenda.. you don’t get funding.. simple as that.

I have experienced that first hand.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 9, 2020 2:34 pm

It’s not a global conspiracy? Because there are too many conspirators? Because academic funding is “cut-throat”?

I don’t follow your logic. CAGW is indeed a global conspiracy, a political one perped by globalists. It sure as heck isn’t about science!

My point is that academic greed is not a sufficient motivator for garbage fake science and throat cutting of naysayers. Academe is not a gladiator death match sport. More than greed is required for otherwise intelligent people to destroy careers of their colleagues, advocate for global economic ruin, and betray science and humanity. Avarice alone is not the cause of “climate ‘science’ misconduct” — something much darker and more insidious is at work.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 10, 2020 9:13 am

“The idea that this whole thing is some sort of global conspiracy as implied by
the claim that it is ” academic misconduct in pursuit of government grant dollars. Simply, it is scientific financial corruption.” just doesn’t stack up.”

It’s Groupthink, Izaak, and the human desire not to stick out in the crowd in an unfavorable way. Groupthink is the easiest way to go if you are unsure of yourself regarding some important matter. You can just assume the crowd is correct and leave it at that. This does not require much deep thought about the subject.

Groupthink has a positive feedback. Especially, when it is being actively promoted and thoughts against the Groupthink are actively slapped down.

We are in the Age of Mass Propaganda and are living in a False Reality created by the propaganda.

Meanwhile, our serious enemies are not living in our Dreamworld. They hope we continue to dream for a little while longer. That will help them get to their goal sooner.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
December 10, 2020 1:13 pm

There is no need for any kind of formal conspiracy. Blatant self-interest can explain the behavior of those writing grants. Indeed it is the “cut-throat” nature of the grant funding process that pressures applicants to use the currently fashionable ‘buzz words’ and memes in their applications. Whether is is true or not, if the majority of grant supplicants ‘feel’ that supporting an apparent paradigm will increase their chances of success, you can bloody well expect them to do it! If grant reviewers are not direct competitors with applicants then there is no motivation to “find fault.” And, there should NEVER be a situation where a grant applicant passes judgment on a competing applicant!

Ian Coleman
December 9, 2020 2:00 pm

Suppose you’re a climatologist. Until the great Climate Change story become a hit, very few people care about your life’s work. You’re like an anthropologist or an expert on the Middle Ages. You’ve acquired a rarefied body of knowledge that is of no great use to many people, and you’re politely ignored by just about everybody. And then somebody comes up with a doomsday story (always popular) which has all kinds of political implications, particularly for socialists, and the story resonates on a deep emotional level with millions of people. And the media, always on the lookout for exciting stories, extols you, not only as an expert, but a man whose expertise can be directed to saving Life on Earth. And they give you lots of money. And it is impossible to falsify anything you say for the next 30 years. Well. . . biscuit city.

Reply to  Ian Coleman
December 9, 2020 7:59 pm

An incisive summation of the whole agw industry Ian.

Climate believer
December 9, 2020 2:11 pm

I always associated rumination with something bad, I don’t think it’s a positive state of mind to be in really.

Having not spent any time shoulder to shoulder with the scientific community, I’d be hard pressed to say whether they covet the dollar like us mortals or not. But I’d have a wild guess, a stab in the dark if you will, that the temptation to put aside ones Feynman like thinking for a while in aide of the swimming pool fund and the condo at the beach, might get the better of more than one of them. I know of no institution, especially government ones, that corruption in some form or another has not been present.

The image of science and scientists being “holier than thou” is I believe, being deteriorated simply and overwhelmingly also by the amount of garbage that is being produced by the furnaces of climate change™.
Everything from the Acne to Zoonotic disease can, and has been blamed on this never ending gift.

I admire those that try to shine a light, but it often seems to be a David vs Goliath situation.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Climate believer
December 9, 2020 3:22 pm

But were today’s “Climate Scientist” ever taught the scientific method?
If so, can they afford to adhere to it? Do they even care?
Those being taught are taught to believe the “experts” are right. “The science is settled.”

December 9, 2020 6:59 pm

Well I stopped reading as soon as the author used an acronym without defining it.
GAST. ???

We are regular folks checking out a blog, not professionals. Teach us, don’t assume we already know everything. High school English class taught me long ago (late 1970s) to define an acronym the first time it is used. Becasue not everyone will know what it means!

I complained not too long ago about this problem. That author must have paid attention because in their next article they defined the acronyms they used.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Myron
December 10, 2020 11:15 am

Top result on entering GAST in the WUWT search box:

Found 723 results

Nature’s Climate Article Excels in Acronyms
is a S-GAST biased parameter….so the synchronicity of MOT and AAT/CO2 is consistent with GAST lagging … N-GAST = Northern Hemisphere temperature … S-GAST = Southern Hemisphere temperature.

The resources are there for everyone to use, Myron.

If GAST = Global Average Surface Temperature then … N-GAST = Northern Hemisphere temperature

Mike Dubrasich
December 9, 2020 7:37 pm


(Prickly nitpick from a regular person who doesn’t know diddly)

I knew what GAST meant, because I am a professional somethingorother, but for regular folks it was repeatedly elucidated in the comments. If only you had read that far…

Checking out a blog are we? But not for the first time, evidently. Anywho, welcome aboard, Myron, to the Numero Uno Science Blog in the Blogosphere. There’s a ton of stuff here. Explore the archives. Try out the search engine. Explore the Reference Pages. You could spend hours, days, weeks, months digging around WUWT. An education awaits you. Partake! And then someday you can be a professional somethingorother, too.

Roger Knights
December 10, 2020 10:21 am

“I have NO IDEA how to break this evil circle.”
—Peter D. Tillman December 9, 2020 at 6:45 am

My suggestion: Someone (hint) should give Harvard $1 million the next time it cmes begging, on condition that half of it (say) be spent on a week-long series of Oxford-Union-style debates on CAGW—and with the donor having a prominent role on the overseeing group.

December 10, 2020 4:43 pm

“The standard climate science religious cannon claims:”

Cannon? Boom trees?

Perhaps you intended to type ‘canon’?

December 12, 2020 4:55 am

What is climate change?


More BBC propaganda! Who pays for this stuff? And where is the media brave enough to publish the videos opposing such rubbish?

Nick Schroeder
December 12, 2020 7:49 am

From Apogee Instrument instruction manuals.
“A modified form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to calibrate sensors, and subsequently, calculate longwave irradiance from target:”
LWi = k1SD + k2σT4 (1)
LWi Incoming Longwave, in W m-2
k1 Calibration coefficient 1 (see cal. sheet) 1.024 unitless
k1 Calibration coefficient 2 (see cal. sheet) 9.033 W/m^2
SD Signal from detector, mV (Apprx. -23.5 to 23.5 mV)
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
TD Detector temperature, in K

The surface temperature of the calibration cone is measured and the surface power flux calculated ASSUMING the cone radiates as a BB with 1.0 emissivity. Incoming power flux does not appear to be actually measured!!!
I actually measured the source power flux and determined the surface was not BB because of the surrounding conduction and convection.
As I have explained and demonstrated because of the contiguous participating media, i.e. air molecules, cooling the surface by non-radiative processes the cone’s (and earth’s surface) BB assumption is incorrect.

“Although the ε of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”
That is to say that assuming the surface is a BB is erroneous. Emissivity is deleted from the calibration equation because Apogee assumes it is 1.0.

“Detector and target temperature are controlled independently.”
Is the power, W, into the source calibration cone measured to verify that the cone is radiating BB? Not from what I can see.

Wiki – pyrogeometer
“Since the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters, this device typically measures IR flux in the nearest 25 meter layer.”
AKA 82 feet which means it cannot see “back” radiation from clouds at 10,000 feet.

Nick Schroeder
December 12, 2020 8:17 am

The Working Principle of a Thermopile Pyranometer | OTT HydroMet
“Each pyranometer has a unique sensitivity, defined during the calibration process, which is used to convert the output signal in microvolts into global irradiance in W/m.”
T/C or thermopile warms up generating mv signal which is converted to T per tables/calibration.
That T is then inserted in S-B ASSUMING BB 1.0 emissivity to calculate W/m^2.

I am unaware of any instrument that DIRECTLY measures W/m^2.
In my experiment I measured W and heating element surface area separately and combined to calculate ingoing W/m^2.

396 upwelling ASSUMES BB and 333 downwelling ASSUMES upwelling.
Both are assumptions and neither in fact exist.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 12, 2020 9:59 am

Nick, there is NO assumption of blackbody by climate scientists except in first cut approximations, where the average emissivity (typically above 0.95) is assumed to be 1.

But climate models and any kind of detailed calculations simply use the average emissivity of whatever they are looking at.

Next, you keep claiming that pyranometers don’t work … sorry, that dog won’t hunt. They are calibrated at the factory, you can see the accuracy and precision online. Your claim is nonsense. Zoe says the same thing. It’s a joke.

Finally, contrary to your claim, if you have (as you say) an instrument to measure W and a measurement of m2, then you DO have an instrument that measures W/m2 directly …


Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 12, 2020 11:59 am

“Although we are primarily interested in the global mean energy budget in this paper, it is desirable to assess and account for rectification effects. For example, in KT97, we used a single column model constrained by observations, to represent the average fluxes in the atmosphere. We compared results at TOA with those from the NCAR CCM3 and found good agreement, so that the spatial structure was accounted for.

At the surface, the outgoing radiation was computed for blackbody emission at 15°C using the Stefan–Boltzmann law R = εσT4, (1) where the emissivity ε was set to 1.”

Trenberth & Fasullo & Kiehl are about as climate sciencey as they come.

Actually the K-T diagram (and NOAA and clones) clearly uses 16 C or 259 K inserted in S-B w/ 1.0 emissivity = 396 W/m^2 upwelling which is 333 W/m^2 of “extra” energy appearing out of a theoretical “what if” calculation and does not in fact exist.

The upwelling 396 W/m^2 ASSUMES BB and the downwelling 333 loop ASSUMES upwelling.
These two assumptions are invalid and neither wellings in fact exist.

Yeah, MY experimental procedure was correct.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
December 12, 2020 3:38 pm


You neglect to quote the subsequent paragraph where they say “The surface emissivity is not unity” and go on to compute the (small) difference in results.

I wonder why?

Ed Bo
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 12, 2020 3:22 pm


I’m afraid you underestimate the depth of Nick’s confusions. He keeps asserting that if an object is also outputting thermal energy by non-radiative means, the radiative output must simultaneously be reduced. His big objection to the “blackbody assumption” is that the object has other heat loss mechanisms, so it cannot radiate anywhere near as much as an ideal blackbody.

I have challenged him repeatedly to cite any kind of reference for this assertion, or his related assertion that emissivity is defined as the ratio radiative output to all possible outputs, radiative and non-radiative. Of course, I have never seen anything like this in my long engineering career, and of course, he never comes up with any such reference.

Then there are his very basic comprehension issues. On the apogee instrument, he quotes their equations with a “calibration constant” in the SB term where the emissivity term would be, then argues they are “ASSUMING the cone radiates as a BB with 1.0 emissivity.” WTF??? What does he think “calibration” is all about?

I could go on, but this is getting tedious now.

Reply to  Ed Bo
December 12, 2020 9:33 pm

Sadly true, Ed.


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights