Comments on: The missing hotspot

By: Bob Webster

Bob Webster — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:51:47 +0000

The reaction of Scripps “scientists” who set out to prove one thing and ended up collecting evidence that pointed to an opposite effect strongly suggests a lack of the requisite objectivity and integrity needed to perform legitimate scientific research.

This is not unlike the reaction of warmist “scientists” to the CERN CLOUD research that essentially confirmed Svensmark’s cosmic ray/solar wind theory (which had already been independently confirmed by experiments conducted by Svensmark). Yet to read warmist reports on CLOUD conclusions, one would get the idea that all that research really showed nothing of consequence!

AGW peddlers have no real credibility with real scientists.

This is the first I’ve heard of the Scripps study. Very interesting.

Report this

0 0

By: ebm

ebm — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:13:32 +0000

A couple of years ago, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography did a study of solar radiation warming the ocean through the cloud cover over the Fiji area of the Pacific. As I understood the study, it was intended to prove that the high-altitude cloud cover (i.e., clouds that were facilitated by a peculiar mechanism of cloud-forming nuclei of ionized CO2?) had a net warming effect on the ocean. Isn’t this cloud-cover-related warming theory the real crux of the Greenhouse CO2 theory? (The UCSD documentary I saw on our local access TV here in San Diego certainly seemed to suggest that it is!) Anyway, the Scripps study was elaborate. The scientists flew one impressively outfitted plane above the clouds to compare solar radiation coming from above with radiation reflected back upwards. They flew another specially equipped plane right below the cloud cover looking up to measure the radiation that was being transmitted through the cloud bank and comparing this with the amount of radiation being reflected back upward by the ocean. A third plane was flown right above the ocean looking upward and downward in the same way. The bottom-line problem with the Scripps Study is that it found only a net cooling effect of the cloud cover. (Duh!) The Scripps scientists seemed pretty sheepish as they confessed the failure of their study–which is another reason why I have assumed that the cloud-cover effect is the crux of the CO2 theory of AGW. (In my opinion, the scientists did not have a good grasp of radiation physics in the first place.) Has anyone on the forum read any published report of this elaborate, expensive (time-wasting/unnecessary) study?

Report this

1 0

By: Brian H

Brian H — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 07:22:59 +0000

The terminology discussion made me realize the Alarmists are using “change” in a special way. They mean it as an active verb, as in “alter” or “fiddle”. So I think it should be understood to mean “Climate Destruction”. Which is, of course, whack-O.

Report this

0 0

By: WatchTheSources

WatchTheSources — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:30:03 +0000

Interesting comment at the end of Jo’s piece, referencing across to David Evan’s.

“On David Evans site there’s a full definitive explanation of the missing hot spot and all the common attempts to rebut it on one pdf here”

[SNIP: It's well known that David Evans and Jo Nova are married. So? You haven't got any evidence the hot spot argument is wrong. ...No.]

Report this

0 0

By: Brian H

Brian H — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 05:17:10 +0000

rmb;
a confused comment, but brings up a useful physics point.
Heat radiation is absorbed in the first mm or so, and will therefore result in enhanced evaporation. Set two identical buckets of water side-by-side and shine your heat gun at just one.

Watch which pail dries out first. The surface water of one was heated faster and evaporated faster; essentially it was “boiled” away slowly, from the top down. The heat energy went into the latent heat of condensation/evaporation, and resides in the water vapour generated. If a cool surface was held near the top of the bucket, much of the vapour would recondense on it and give up its latent heat, thus warming that surface.

Report this

0 0

By: Joe V.

Joe V. — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:36:41 +0000

Rmb @56.
Eh? Ok so call it radiation if you don’t like heat. Fundamentally it’s all energy and it’s the energy that does the heating.

Report this

0 0

By: r.m.b

r.m.b — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:30:54 +0000

Have any of you thought of the proposition that the oceans do not absorb physical heat only radiation. The reason- surface tension. I can not heat a bucket with a heat gun. Try it.

Report this

0 0

By: Dusty

Dusty — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:28:46 +0000

After reading through all the great posts accumulated here over a period of a couple of yrs. it has reinforced my lay person’s opinion of Man Made Global Warming.
I made up a simple acronym for all the Man Made Global Warming advocates to explain any temp. increases of our world if indeed there is any.
ITSS
Stands for, ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’.

Report this

0 0

By: waguy

waguy — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:47:40 +0000

Whats with all the “Chicken Little” politics these days ?

How much money does a politician have to throw in the air to make the weather change ?

Is the carbon price really about climate control or chanelling more $ through the hands of the wealthy ?

And when will people finally come to terms that they can not change the weather and that any effects by humans almost doesn’t rate ? I dare say some will NEVER admit it.

Ummm … I’m no expert. But I know this as a fact. The atmosphere absorbs only as much carbon as it wants to. Any surplus is diffused by various means.

No tax, no monetary amount, no politician, no protest song, no advertising campaign can change that fact.

Here’s a tip from a layman and I’ll keep it simple. Humans can’t control the weather.

Maybe Julia Gillard should introduce a Solar Flare Tax .. it makes just as little sense as a carbon tax.

Report this

1 0

By: Bob Webster

Bob Webster — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:11:59 +0000

Brian,

Thanks … that does explain the surprise messages and odd dates! I believe it is deliberate. I had to rebuild a site using php when asp became so vulnerable that I could no longer protect online databases using MS-SQL and asp. Microsoft’s solution: convert to aspx (which required a complete reprogramming of the many routines I had coded). I decided to switch to a Linux-based service and php. Should have done it much sooner. No MS security problems. Of course, with a spam-bomb, I’m not aware of what can be done to stop that. It is a behavior that is all too typical for those who would find Jo’s site worthy of attack.

Bob

Report this

1 0