Does Ove Hoegh-Guldberg know something about Paris that hasn’t been announced?
Last week his office sent out an email to all pollies, inviting them to a propaganda event for the climate machine (all paid for by the taxpayer, as usual). Not only were we told that Greg Hunt apparently supports this event (whatever that means), we are also told that
“leading Australian climate scientists will discuss the impact of Australia’s decision to sign the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the upcoming COP21.”
That sentence is ambiguous, but potentially loaded. We definitely have decided to endorse the UN goals for 2030 (whatever that means, and who knows?). Julie Bishop did it last week. But have we also decided to sign the Paris agreement? That would be news. Either Ove is forward projecting his fantasies, or he’s just let slip something that Hunt told him privately.
Who knows what is on offer at Paris anyway? I think the real scandal is that Australians have no idea what either the UN goals or the Paris document means. The nation ought to get to look at the fine print before anything is signed. How much sovereign power will Bishop and Turnbull give away to unelected UN bureaucrats?
As far as the UN Goals go, do the Australian voters get to see what we signed? The 17 UN goals are glorious motherhood statements like Goal 1: No poverty, and Goal 2: Zero hunger, and all supposedly achieved by 2030. Perhaps endorsing them is equivalent to giving the UN a “like” on facebook, or maybe it will cost us billions.
As far as Paris goes, we are taking an obscenely high commitment already. For a mining-industrial country with the highest population growth in the West, no capacity for more hydro, no willingness to do nuclear, and huge transport costs domestically and internationally, we shouldn’t be in “the middle of the pack”. John Howard was a tough negotiator for Australia getting our (pointless) Kyoto commitment to be an 8% increase when most of the other nations were cajoled into tougher targets (generally a 5% decrease). As negotiators in the international arena, it appears Bishop and Turnbull are pushovers.
As usual, buckets of money go to those who push the narrative. The “Leading Climate Scientists” attending include Chris-stuck-in-the-ice-Turney, David Karoly, John Church, Nathan Bindoff (oceanography), Dave Griggs (sustainability) and a bunch of hanger-oner-ers who’ve never looked under the hood of a climate model once. People like Jean Palutikof (impacts and adaption), Frank Jotzo (economics), Mark Howden (impacts), and Justine Bell (lawyer). Most of their jobs, like Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s, depend on assuming the broken climate models do something useful.
The leaked email below, for the event next Tuesday:
Keep reading →
How much sunlight makes it to the surface?
We all know how powerful clouds are. Just stand outside on a patchy day — feel the goosebumps. These megaton floating conglomerates of water act as vast shields — they cover 60% of the surface of Earth, and even a small change makes a big difference. While changes in the total amount of direct sunlight coming off the sun are very small, the changes to the amount of reflecting surfaces floating above Earth are, proportionally, at least twice as large, and possibly much much more influential. The IPCC includes changes in sunlight (TSI), so it does not make sense to ignore the larger and more powerful changes in the Earth’s albedo (fraction of sunlight that is reflected) due to “external” factors (due to factors other than feedbacks to surface warming). Both contribute to the amount of sunlight heating the surface, or “absorbed solar radiation” (ASR) (before feedbacks).
There are lots of reasons clouds might change that are not included in standard climate models. Just for starters — cosmic rays may seed cloud formation. Aerosols released by plants, plankton and marine life do — some aerosols are included, but new varieties are turning up in studies. We know the solar magnetic field influences cosmic rays. Who knows what other effects solar factors have on clouds — through changes in spectral properties (like UV versus visible light), or through the solar wind. The IPCC admits they are weak in this area, saying “Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty…”.[IPCC, AR5, p592 Ch 7]. They also admit that different models handle them in different ways and they have “low confidence” in many aspects of cloud feedback. But if influences on clouds are a forcing, and they have been omitted, it turns their models inside out.
David compares the data on variation of albedo to the observed variation in total solar radiation, and finds that the former has at least twice the impact on surface warming. Obviously, any alternative climate model has to include “EDA” – external driven albedo — and since it is externally-driven, it is, by definition, a forcing.
We haven’t seen this comparison done elsewhere, though it may have been.
10. Externally-Driven Albedo (EDA)
Dr David Evans, 7 October 2015, Project home, Intro, Previous, Nomenclature.
Having discussed the main errors in the conventional basic climate model — heavy reliance on unverifiable partial derivatives, omission of feedbacks that respond to climate drivers directly rather than to surface warming, and applying the solar response to non-solar climate influences — this blog series now moves on to its second part, constructing an alternative, improved basic model for estimating the sensitivity to increasing CO2. (The third and final part of the series will be aimed at finding what did cause recent global warming, where the search will result in the notch-delay hypothesis.)
Albedo changes that are not in response to surface warming — those presumably driven by external forces — will come to play a potentially important role in climate modeling, so we need to discuss them before we embark on the alternative basic model. The externally-driven albedo changes omitted from the conventional basic climate model and the big computerized climate models (GCMs).
Albedo is the reflection of incoming radiation from the Sun back out to space, mainly by clouds and ice. Reflected radiation does not heat the Earth. The amount of albedo is very significant — about 30%. That is, only about 70% of the sunlight (or to be more exact, of the total solar irradiance or TSI) incident on the Earth contributes to heating the Earth. We call that 70% the absorbed solar radiation (ASR).
The significance of albedo is that it only takes a small change in albedo to make a big difference to the amount of ASR, and thus to the surface temperature. It’s like a tap on a fire hose. Unfortunately albedo is difficult to measure, and data only covers a short period.
Keep reading →
I did a spot on the ABC Drum today. Very odd to do it from a studio where I could not see any of the panel at all, and didn’t know the etiquette of how these things work. (I know a lot more now). But I’m glad to have a chance to speak, even if it was short.
So just in case there is anyone out there thinking that Lord Deben had some good points, here’ s what I was thinking as he spoke without pausing to breathe, and here’s my reply (it would have been nice to say it on air):
Firstly, all of this presupposes that there is a reason to reduce CO2. Thousands of scientists and millions of measurements suggest not.
That aside, saying Australia is “not a special case” is to deny geography and demographics.
The UK might have the fastest growth rate in the EU but Australia’s population growth rate is two-to-three times faster than the UK. Do those people count? Not in climate change maths. Australia’s population has grown by 38% since 1990. It’s massive and it matters.
Adding more wind power won’t help solve the problem that on our Eastern National Grid, about once every ten days or so the wind towers contribute nothing. More towers on the same grid only makes for more wild swings: 3,000 MW one day, nothing the next. We have to have the coal or gas back up, and wind can’t replace it.
Nor can Lord Deben add a mountain range and large rivers to an ancient flat land that doesn’t have them. Other nations doing “renewables” like Norway and China can do hydro power. Without adding another Great Dividing Range, we can’t. And politically, thanks to the Greens and Labor Party, we won’t consider nuclear, which is how France meets its renewable targets.
As for China, its efforts are just token. They are producing massive emissions, adding new coal stations, planning even more, and it isn’t just because they are making the “world’s products” that they produce large emissions. It turns out they are also hopelessly inefficient. For every kilo of product made, they produce four times as much CO2 as factories in the EU would produce. So shipping our jobs and our factories to China would be making the problem worse, (if there was a problem). And they may well promise big cuts in future, but how much of that is due to them inflating their emissions right now? How easy would it be for them to artificially pump up the numbers now, and can anyone trust any of the figures coming out of China? (I have two posts coming up on exactly these points).
Deben said he likes Australia but spends most of his time unfairly putting the nation down trying to give us the guilts in the hope of getting us to cough up more money to support the Green industry. He claimed that Australia wasn’t pulling its weight at Kyoto, but he ignores the fact that we actually met our targets and most of the countries that promised to do more than us, didn’t. Per capita we cut our carbon emissions by 28% from 1990 to 2014 – and that includes us gaining 38% more people. That’s really spectacular (not that I think it was useful, worthwhile, or “an achievement” in any sense).
As for us being more “vulnerable” to climate change — they say that to everyone. All nations are more vulnerable than every other nation, it just depends on which nation the UN is trying to scare some money from this particular minute, doesn’t it? (See this map of countries most at risk? Australia isn’t one of them).
Deben pulled the “science is settled” excuse, which is always what someone says when they really don’t want a debate about the science. Climate science is immature, and thousands of scientists are protesting around the world: go online and find them. Thirty thousand scientists have put their names to a petition protesting at this exaggerated scare, that includes 9,000 PhD’s, astrophysicists, nuclear chemists, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and thousands of geologists and engineers. It also includes two guys who won Nobels in Physics, and three men who walked on the moon. Those guys have reputations that matter. They certainly know a lot more about climate science than Lord Deben.
If Lord Deben was really concerned about the environment, he would want the best science and open public debate.
You can watch it (though the Deben arguments are the same-old-same-old tedium) Deben runs from 2:00 – 8:40. I speak from 8:50 – 10:30, he replies from then to 13:00. Yes, typical mainstream media “time-share”. There are a few more bits after that like from 17:25.
If the ABC Drum got some real interchange, with to and fro, and live debate going, its ratings would probably double. A TV in the studio with the show on (muted) would be a helpful thing.
It’s taken five years to figure it out, but apparently climate change is even worse than the last time we thought it was worse. Who knew? Once upon a time, glaciers were at a constant perfect position. Life was paradise on Earth and all the animals were happy. But then mankind built that first planet-destroying coal powered station in 1880 and now mountains are being moved, the Earth is changing.
Or at least, that’s sort of what the press release implies. What this tale is really about is the way the media hyperbole is just another excuse to repeat The Climate Mantra even if has nothing much to do with what the paper. What were those observations again?
If Nature, the formerly esteemed journal, was half what it used to be, it would have helped young Michele Koppes keep a longer term perspective, and not lace the press release with baseless speculation. Probably she’s seen a few too many Greenpeace-BBC specials and thinks Antarctica is warming (when the satellites show it isn’t). And curiously, the part that is warming happens to be right over the edges of the tectonic plates where the volcanoes are. She might think climate models work too.
The paper itself might reveal some new insight about the world, but the press release is just untested assumptions extrapolated ad absurdio.
Global warming can alter shape of the planet, as melting glaciers erode the land
Climate change is causing more than just warmer oceans and erratic weather. According to scientists, it also has the capacity to alter the shape of the planet.
In a five-year study published today in Nature, lead author Michele Koppes, assistant professor in the Department of Geography at the University of British Columbia, compared glaciers in Patagonia and in the Antarctic Peninsula. She and her team found that glaciers in warmer Patagonia moved faster and caused more erosion than those in Antarctica, as warmer temperatures and melting ice helped lubricate the bed of the glaciers.
Keep reading →
The ground is not the sky
Here’s a big big flaw that is easy for anyone to understand, yet has lain at the core of the climate models since at least 1984. Indeed, you’ll wonder why we all haven’t been chuckling at this simplistic caricature of our atmosphere for 31 years.
The theory underlying the alarm about CO2 is built around a bizarre idea that blocking outgoing energy in the CO2 pipe is equivalent to getting an increase in sunlight. The very architecture of all the mainstream climate models assumes that the Earth’s climate responds to all radiation imbalances or “forcings” as if they were all like extra sunlight. (We call that extra absorbed solar radiation (ASR) to be more precise. It’s all about the sunlight that makes it through to the surface.)
Extra sunlight adds heat directly to the Earth’s surface, and maybe the climate models have correctly estimated the feedbacks from clouds and evaporation and what-not to surface warming. But it is obvious, in a way even a child could comprehend, that this is not the same as blocking outgoing radiation in the upper atmosphere, which is the effect of increasing CO2. Why would the Earth’s climate respond to this in an identical way? Why would we think that evaporation, humidity, winds and clouds would all change in the same direction and by the same magnitude, whether the warming occurred by adding heat to the ground or by blocking heat from escaping to space from the upper atmosphere?
Computation diagrams like this expose the architecture of climate models much better than a bunch of equations.
The climate modelers have viewed Earth as a baby-simple energy-in energy-out diagram — but in reality, for starters, there is one path in, and four main paths out. Blocking the one solo path that energy comes in on is not the same as blocking one of the four exits, where energy escaping to space can reroute and flow out a different pipe. This is not a symmetric or reversible flow. Also, the energy flowing out is at different wavelengths to the energy flowing in; they don’t have the same effect as they travel through the air.
In short, the ground is not the sky, yet conventional climate models treat warming on the ground as the same as blocking outgoing radiation in the sky — they say they have cause the same radiation imbalance, so they have the same “forcing”, so they have the same effect.
Establishment scientists have been touting this simplicity as a feature for years, e.g. right in the abstract of James Hansen’s landmark 1984 paper
“Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of 4°C for either a 2 percent increase of [total solar irradiance] or doubled C02.”
And on page 138:
The patterns of temperature change are remarkably similar in the [total solar irradiance] and C02 experiments [i.e. the answers his models give him], suggesting that the climate response is to first order a function of the magnitude of the radiative forcing. The only major difference is in the temperature change as a function of altitude; increased C02 causes substantial stratospheric cooling [due to sunlight on the way in interacting with ozone]. This similarity suggests that, to first order, the climate effect due to several forcings including various tropospheric trace gases may be a simple function of the total forcing.
This is Hansen saying that experiments based on his computer models show extra sunlight and extra CO2 have the same effect (once the effect of incoming sunlight on ozone is stripped out). His models are based on the basic climate model, which treats all forcings the same. It’s circular all the way down.
This over-simplification is the inevitable result of an architecture based only on a simple radiation balance. There is more to the climate than balancing radiation! Any radiation imbalance, no matter what the source, has the same effect in the conventional basic climate model, including all the feedbacks to the imbalance (and its very nearly the same in the GCMs; the differences are second order). If some climate phenomenon (such as the rerouting feedback of post 7) isn’t a response to sunlight then it does not — cannot — exist in the conventional basic climate model, and basically doesn’t exist in a GCM.
Because of this architecture, the models keep making predictions that don’t work. Modelers are so sure that this is “basic physics” and the models are right that they assume the equipment needs correction — but really it is the models that need rebuilding. What’s more likely, the models are right, or all the radiosondes, satellites, Argo buoys, and ground thermometers need adjustment in the same direction?
Years from now people will wonder how such a simple mistake could have diverted so many lives and so much money — Jo
9. Error 3: All Radiation Imbalances Treated the Same
Dr David Evans, 4 October 2015, Project home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.
We call the response of a climate model to increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR) its “solar response”. Due to its architecture, the conventional basic climate model applies its solar response to the radiation imbalance caused by any influence on climate, even a radiation imbalance due to increased CO2 — one size fits all. This causes clashes with certain physical realities, which we explore in this post with the dual aim of developing a more realistic model for estimating sensitivity to increased CO2.
While no model is perfectly realistic, these clashes are sufficiently severe as to make it difficult to take the conventional architecture seriously. This architecture, based only on a radiation balance, is the foundation for both the basic climate model and the big computerized climate models (GCMs). Something more than a radiation balance is going to be required to more realistically model the effect of increased CO2.
Increased ASR primarily heats the surface, which could explain why the conventional model neglects feedbacks other than to surface warming (post 5), thereby excluding the possibility of a CO2-specific feedback such as the rerouting feedback (post 7). The conventional model considers only forcings (radiation imbalances due to influences on climate) and “feedbacks” (but only in response to surface warming), so it has a blindspot for feedbacks other than in response to surface warming. Due to the possibility of CO2-specific feedbacks that do not apply to increased ASR, climate model obviously needs a specific response to increased CO2. There is no place for a CO2 response distinct from the solar response in the conventional architecture, but there is in the alternative model developed later in the series.
Following the conventional architecture, the GCMs apply the solar response to all radiation balances to first order, where as we argue that the actual response to increasing CO2 is very different from the solar response.
Good news, a spot of media coverage.
Perth Edition, The Sunday Times
Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says…
The series of posts flows under the tag: “Climate Research 2015″
Australians have voted against a carbon tax twice. Liberals threw out Turnbull over the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2009, yet here he is, barely leader for two weeks and already they are floating a timeframe for the introduction of emissions trading.
I did warn that the Turnbull agreement with the Nationals to keep Tony Abbott’s climate policies means almost nothing. It’s easy for him to keep the “target” and shift towards an Emissions Trading scheme (ETS) and he and Greg Hunt are suggesting that already.
Indeed, some of the fine print Turnbull probably wanted was already written in Abbott’s plan. Thanks to Al Gore and Clive Palmer, the possibility of emissions trading was left in the Direct Action legislation.Why else would Gore fly out here to stand next to a coal miner? And what did he offer Clive in return we wonder? Suddenly, Palmer demanded an ETS for his vote, but finally settled for a clause saying an ETS should be “reviewed” if our main trading partners brought one in. So Turnbull can technically keep the Abbott “plan” but entirely break the spirit of it. The Nationals (and 54 pro-Turnbull Liberals) will look like fools if they have inadvertently given a green light to force Australians to pour money into corrupt pointless foreign carbon trading schemes. It’s money for nothing. The EU will get to decide how much a carbon credit (and your electricity) costs in Australia.
Our main trading partners — like China — are bringing in token trading plans. China is going to keep increasing emissions for at least ten to fifteen years (which it was always going to do). But these symbolic plans are enough for Turnbull to pretend that bringing in an emissions trading scheme is what the Abbott plan does, and what Australian voters “want”.
Australians have voted against a carbon tax twice. Liberals threw out Turnbull over the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2009, yet here he is, barely leader for two weeks and already they are floating a timeframe for the introduction of emissions trading.
A forced payment to a “trading scheme” is a kind of tax, and it’s the worst kind where the money goes direct to financial houses rather than the government, creating long-lived commitments that are expensive or difficult to get rid of.
From the Australian Fin Review last weekend:
The purchase of international permits could start as early as mid-2016 with the introduction of the government’s safeguard mechanism regulations for the top 140 biggest polluters. Andrew Meare
Mr Hunt said “the door was open” for international permits to be considered as part of a 2017-18 review of the emissions reduction fund and safeguards.”
The Turnbull government is considering fast-tracking a scheme to allow big emitters of carbon to buy international permits to offset their emissions.
This is the strategic door left open by Clive Palmer when Al Gore came in June 2014:
The Abbott government left the door open for review of the purchase of international permits in 2017-18 as part of its Direct Action scheme to tackle climate change.
But the departure of Tony Abbott – who was not a fan of international permits – has cleared the way for a reshaping of the federal government’s climate change policies including bringing forward the date for the purchase of permits as well as the survival of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
The purchase of international permits could start as early as mid-2016 with the introduction of the government’s safeguard mechanism regulations for the top 140 biggest polluters.
Under the possible changes, international permits could also be used by companies in the $2.5 billion Emissions Reduction Fund to meet their obligations. That option was supported by Environment Minister Greg Hunt when the fund was first proposed and blocked by Mr Abbott.
There has been no direct discussion about the international permits being moved forward, but it is strong possibility given the support for the scheme, including from Mr Hunt and senior Nationals MPs.
But the review will be carried out by the Climate Change Authority, and we can guess what they will say. It will be the excuse. Abbott stymied Palmer (and Gore) as much as he could, but the door was still left open. An ETS was not ruled out.
From October 2014:
Wednesday’s deal also represents a concession by Mr Palmer because he has secured no commitment to adopt an ETS even if the review finds one is required to meet Australia’s international obligations.
Fairfax Media first revealed on Sunday that an agreement was imminent after Mr Palmer appeared to soften his position by calling for a review of an ETS, rather than a straight commitment.
Here’s a detail we need to pay attention too in the Fin Review last weekend:
Under the Coalition’s safeguard mechanism policy – which is supposed to stop rogue emitters from negating reductions in other parts of the economy – companies will be penalised for exceeding emissions baselines. The purchase of international permits would allow them to offset any potential rise in their emissions.
Hunt said there has been “no decision” or even a discussion on bringing in international permits. The second auction for the Direct Action plan happens next month.
Keep your eyes on the “Safeguard mechanism”…
This may force some of our companies (and hence Australian consumers or stockholders) to buy emissions permits:
Some have criticised the federal government’s carbon rules as “all gums, no teeth”, which would allow big polluters to increase their emissions without penalty. They said the emissions baselines should be lowered to force companies to change their behaviour and cut emissions.
A study by Melbourne-based carbon consultancy RepuTex in August found that only 30 of the largest 150 polluters will be required to reduce their carbon emissions under the existing safeguard mechanism rules.
The “Safeguard Mechanism” is a basis for an ETS, it gave hope to Alan Pears, Sustainable Energy and Climate researcher at RMIT, Nov 4, 2014:
The fine print on Xenophon’s proposed “safeguard” mechanism to prevent emissions blowouts under the Direct Action scheme will be critical. If this is weak, as envisioned by the government, we are wasting time we no longer have. If an effective framework is introduced, it could form a basis for a “baseline and credit” emissions trading scheme, which could be run by industry if the government doesn’t want to be accused of a backflip, having promised never to return to what it views as the dark days of carbon pricing.
Sadly, Pears resorts to namecalling in the rest of his confused article, but then, if CO2 has a minor role, he doesn’t have a job.
Greg Hunt has been given the role of “greening cities” and working with state and local government
The ICLEI and Agenda 21 people will like the direction this is going.
The new government has beefed-up Mr Hunt’s responsibilities ahead of crucial international climate talks in Paris later this year.
Although Mr Hunt, a Victorian, backed Mr Abbott in last week’s leadership ballot, he has emerged from the cabinet reshuffle with greater powers, including overall responsibility for the new Cities and Built Environment portfolios being taken on by junior minister Jamie Briggs.
The yet-to-be-finalised cities agenda is expected to focus on long-term planning for cities up to 2050, transport – including a greater focus on public transport and road design to deal with congestion – and the “greening” of cities.
The new role is expected to involve close cooperation with state and local governments …
Read more: Australian Fin Review (paywalled).
…. Grand Final game in Australia today.
Psychological projection anyone?
Remember how some climate scientists wanted to give up debating science and potentially jail skeptics instead? These were the 20 “scientists” who reasoned by looking for “tobacco tactics” in opponent’s arguments. They called for a RICO investigation — a the kind of racketeering investigation done on the mafia. I pointed out their team used more “tobacco tactics” against skeptics than anything the skeptics did, but looks like that may have been only the minor part of their projection of their own flaws.
It turns out that the scientist driving the letter, along with his wife and daughter, has made over $5m above his university salary, and now questions are being raised in Congress about his “double dipping”. The National Science Foundation is very unhappy about scientists who blur the line between their university and their outside consulting, and earn twice for doing the same job. I hear people have been jailed for this sort of thing.
Have a look at how well the leader of the group-of-20 has been doing: meet Jagadish Shukla, professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University, who must now be wishing he hadn’t called for an investigation.
Their letter was posted on the website of Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), a non-profit, tax-exempt research institute led by Shukla. Oddly, after the media attention, the RICO request letter suddenly disappeared off the website in late September, with a note saying it was “inadvertantly posted“. Oops? This is about the same time the investigation he requested turned around to bite him. Roger Pielke Jr investigated Shukla’s 990 filings and the odd way a Prof at a public university was also earning millions on the side. That was reported and expanded upon by Steve McIntyre.
Ian Tuttle at the National Review picks up their story:
The curious disappearance set several people inquiring. It turns out that heading up IGES is nice work if you can get it. The Washington Free Beacon reports that since 2001 the organization has received more than $63 million — 98 percent of its total revenue — from taxpayers, mainly in the form of grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And an astonishing amount of that money has ended up in Dr. Shukla’s pocket.
Not only did a lot end up in Dr Shukla’s pocket, but a lot ended up in his wife’s and daughter’s pockets too. His family has gained some $5.6million in compensation from IGES since 2001, plus his daughter’s salary (whatever that was). Shukla also earned a salary from George Mason University, a nice $314k last year.
This “double-dipping” — receiving compensation from a research organization on top of academic compensation — is prohibited by the federal agencies from which IGES receives money, as well as by George Mason University, as detailed by Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre. Yet IGES officially joined the university, as part of the College of Science, in 2013.
Over the years, as Shukla earned more from his university, he and his wife earned more from the non-profit too. Too much is never enough?
As Steve McIntyre reported:
“Despite the various changes in grant structure, one constant (or rather steadily increasing amount) has been the several sources of compensation to Shukla and his wife.
Keep reading →
Energy is emitted to space from many different heights in the atmosphere, depending on the wavelength (not to scale, suggestive only).
One more quick post of mostly uncontroversial foundation for the math-and-physics-heads among us. But it’s a must for anyone who wants to talk Stefan-Boltzmann and follow the details of the next posts. My intro here, just has the gist without the equations.
Mostly the IPCC will agree with this post, but they might be a bit snooty that David thinks their “effective temperature” is too much of an approximation conceptually, and the slightly more complicated idea of a “radiating temperature” is needed. Strictly, the effective temperature idea treats Earth like it is a black-body at infrared, which it isn’t really. Earth is almost a black-body, but not quite.
There is no single layer that radiates to space, instead emissions come from many different heights, depending on the wavelength. We could average the emissions into “one layer”, but doing that would lose detail that matters when computing sensitivity to increasing CO2.
Technically the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not supposed to be applied to Earth, because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it. So this is where David introduces and defines the concept of “radiating temperature”, so it can effectively be applied.
As David says: “This linearizes the otherwise highly non-linear Stefan-Boltzmann law, giving us a simple result: the increase in radiating temperature is equal to λSB times the increase in OLR, where λSB is the slope of the Stefan-Boltzmann curve where the Earth is.”
8. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth
Dr David Evans, 2 October 2015, Project home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature.
Before discussing the third error in the conventional basic climate model (next post), we will review the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law to Earth. This is the last of the foundational posts, predominately reviews to ensure readers can get up to speed on background topics.
It’s not quite straightforward, because the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the emissions of a body with a single surface for all wavelengths, whereas the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) comes from multiple emission layers (see post 6).
Keep reading →
19 contributors have published
2043 posts that generated