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:
- Anthropogenic global warming is causing GAST to rise.
- This will have catastrophic consequences, including islands disappearing, millions of climate refugees, a 6th major extinction, and worse.
- Therefore, we must repent in energy ashes with a Green New Deal.
The Warmunist (my two recent previous ruminative posts) basic problems are:
- They cannot prove GAST is rising above natural variation rates.
- There are no catastrophic consequences yet, despite ‘yet’ being now since 1988, so over four decades of abject prediction failures.
- 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What is climate change?
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-51129250
More BBC propaganda! Who pays for this stuff? And where is the media brave enough to publish the videos opposing such rubbish?
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.
The Working Principle of a Thermopile Pyranometer | OTT HydroMet
https://
“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.
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 …
w.
TFK_bams09
“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.
Nick:
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?
Willis:
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.
Sadly true, Ed.
w.