Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

http://www.desmogblog.com/douglass-and-christy-bad-science-disingenuous-commentary

Ig nore the desmog blog bit if yuo want, the pdf link to the letter is at the bottom.

Essentially backing up the criticism of Douglass et al 2007, which is important in the subject of this post.

Report this

00

OK, so we know the hot spot is missing.

Can I suggest another (unneccesary given the above, but the more the merrier…)
David Archibald has been presenting a plot of the effect of CO2 at sea level for many years now.
He measured this in a repeatable, verifiable experiment,
1.5 degrees Celcius temperature rise for the first 20ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere at sea level.
Temperature further increasing by two tenths of the previous “step” per doubling of atmospheric CO2 level thereafter.
When plotted this gives a very sharp rising initially, and then flat (ie logarithmic) curve.

The IPCC says that through the depth of the atmosphere the above effect becomes 10 degrees Celcius for the first 280ppm,
and a further 1 tenth per CO2 doubling thereafter.

Plotted the IPCC figures give a similar shape, but much higher, and further to the right, the effect being given the present atmospheric CO2 concentration there is still some heating left in the “system” if CO2 levels continue to rise.

Please see,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/Slide6-66.jpg

The difference is stark, David Archibald suggests there is no temperature rise left in the system, and hence no trigger for the (presently missing) hot spot.
The IPCC states that there is still a CO2 caused temperature rise left in the system and hence “hot spot”.

David Archibald’s figures are from a repeatable, verifiable experiment.
What evidence has the IPCC or modelling offered for the 10 degrees celcius rise for the first 280ppm atmospheric CO2 through the depth of the atmosphere figures.?

If the IPCC used figures of say 10 degrees for the first 20ppm (or even as high as 180ppm – from a rough add up in my head as I type), then there would be no AGW.
So, the ball really is in the AGW camp, what is the evidence for the 10 degrees Celcius, and the first 280ppm CO2 figures.
Without such evidence there is no AGW, as modelled at present.

Report this

00

I was walking past one of the electronic engineers’ bench & lab space he had carved out of the corner in a telecommunications place I worked, and he says to me, “Hey Walter, did you hear about Global Warming? We’re going to be noticing some increased ionization in the atmosphere; it won’t affect us it’ll mostly affect ocean communications and maybe some satellites,” (their two way communications, not weather sats)

And I said to him, “Yea but they’ve been saying that a long time and we’ve got nothing,” in just an offhand remark on the state of things as known to be. He kind of grinned and said “But they’re sure now, they say it’s grown to the point we ought to be seeing it,” and then he finished with “Definitely in the next couple of years,” and that was the last time we ever talked about it.

That was twenty years ago(ish) and at that time, we were tuning receivers on just middle of the road pro communications equipment to be responsive to NINE one MILLIONTHS of a VOLT’s signal strength. If you should so see fit to write down a decimal point then go out to the right – 0, 0, 0, on till you finally write that 9…

and you think about the fact that was TWENTY YEARS AGO.. and these clowns are telling you, that “This Magic Lens is too “Special” for your puny instrumentation to detect because you’re stupid”

Well, I’ll take that bet. At the drop of a hat, and I’ll drop the hat. Because whoever tries to pull that is full of sh*t. There would be so many signatures in that sky you wouldn’t be able to NOT see that lens if it was actually active, and heating all that air.

Here’s another thing to think about when they tell YOU, that YOU’RE stupid. And this isn’t entirely based on the presence of that “hot spot” but does in fact relate to you, HOW MUCH AIR this thing would be having to heat.

Do you know what the difference is, in the specific heat of water, vs. air? Specific heat, is how many therms have to be added or subtracted from a compound to change it’s temperature by one degree.

WATER: is the most THERMALLY INERTIAL freely found compound in the world. NOTHING, found in large amounts in nature, holds as much heat: as MANY THERMS as water: before it’s temperature changes X amount.

Atmospheric AIR on the other hand, has a TINY specific heat by comparison. the difference if I recall is like 3,000 to ONE. 3,000 air molecules would have to give to a water molecule enough heat that each air molecule changed temperature one degree, for that water molecule to change temperature: by one degree.

Now you think of all this water they’re telling you has been heated up: two ice caps have become riddled, spongelike, sodden messes. Entire oceanic FLOWS have been altered. Now things like stone, soil, trees, the blacktop and concrete we have, the amount is less than water to change it’s temperature but it’s still, far, FAR, FAR more than that of air.

Ask yourself: in 30 years: how has this Magic Lens moved THAT much heat: THAT much air: and nobody EVER found it? Not EVER- not EVER??

Remember if water vs air have about a 3,000/1 ratio – what about all that soil, concrete, wood, whose temps have changed? They’ve got to be – most of them at LEAST 1,000 to one, and i’m betting most of the things in the everyday world have a specific heat differential on the order of 1500 to one.

And that doesn’t count the heat IN the AIR itself: all THAT’s got to be counted, TOO.

All this air is supposed to have been shuttled through a region at somewhere around .. oh let’s give it 40,000 feet not 50,000. Do you know how THIN the air is at that altitude?

And ALL this heat is supposed to have schlepped up there and AMAZINGLY, GOTTEN BACK DOWN to SEA LEVEL and not a SOUL on this EARTH has ever been able to find how.

You might find somebody to come in and address one.. or two of these with some circular bullsh*t. They might leave the uninitiated thinking, “Hmm, i’m not sure what he said but he sure did sound sure of himself.”

But what about the other six or eight MANDATORY requirements? And I have to confess I’ve had a few of them try to explain that they “have a link to this article.” And it’s always the same. We have no evidence but we did a study and we ran some models.

Well… wrong answer vs the laws of physics. In a PLETHORA of ways. And there’s just no gettin around that.

Report this

00

For instance: Gavin Schmidt whose work I wouldn’t trust to burn in a fireplace because of the laws he happily nullifies, has said that he sees that “this type warm region would be present whether the warming was manmade or otherwise: to try to throw people off the fact that first, it HASN’T been found and if they massage their data enough they can make it look as though it’s been found but “not as robust” etc.

The problem with Gavin Schmidt is he never studied electromagnetic radiation or he’d have known that IF that LENS was in FACT serving as a TRAP for outgoing HEAT, then whatever heat was ultimately spread around and eventually migrated upward due to the convective effect would STILL be overlapped by the fact that, AS the EMITTER of that energy, the ENERGY DENSITY coming CLOSER and CLOSER TO THE FACE would HAVE to become EVER GREATER until it accounted for whatever was THERE from previous net energy entrapment, AND what was coming in, AT that TIME. For instance: If you have any electromagnetic emitter of ANY TYPE: a light bulb, an infrared heat lamp, an infrared magical refractive (ultimately a net reflector) lens, – or a radio antenna – as you DRAW AN INSTRUMENT CLOSER TO THE EMITTER FACE you MUST encounter an EVER increasing ENERGY DENSITY.

So his assertion the hot spot would be there anyway is factually, mostly, INcorrect: since what he says denies the very action of the lens as the primary emitter in the first place. No matter how hot it gets up there, the places where the sun is able to input most, and the lens able to TRAP most: this is KNOWN to be around the tropics MUST be HOTTER than the SURROUNDING AREAS NO MATTER WHAT. Because if you have a BOX and on the inside it’s painted white: and you shine a light into a hole in that box, the HIGHEST DENSITY of ENERGY in that BOX WILL BE at the place where all the previous light has been put in: and YET STILL MORE, BEING INTRODUCED.

This so called hot spot has GOT to be there. The air: at that altitude is QUITE thin; so the AGW crew has to justify one of two things: either there is MASSSSSSIVE air being pumped past that lens such that it equalizes or very nearly does, temps: and we KNOW that this has NOT happened -

or, that energy has to be stored on the backs of EXTREMELY highly energized air molecules. And this has been going on for 20 years? And setting records for the last TEN? and not ONE single SCIENTIFIC field on THIS PLANET: can find ANY of this heat? Say, WHAT????

Now: on to the OTHER missing signatures Gavin Schmidt doesn’t know how to adequately lie his way out of because it quite simply can not be DONE: because HE can’t GET together all the records and massage away the truths, and massage in lies. Make NO BONES about this I am not accusing Gavin Schmidt of having ONE single HONEST BONE in HIS BODY because these facts are BASICS in electromagnetic radiation whatEVER the medium.

There is the matter that, no matter HOW much of a trickle they claim there is, of heat coming into the atmosphere, in order for that lens to work, there MUST BE enough heat that SOMETHING could detect it: and one of those things that we know WOULD is the land based, optical astronomy field.
They’re the guys who helped Einstein establish part of gen. relativity in 1915 by measuring the deflection of a beam of starlight as it passed by the SUN during an eclipse. Those guys. The field which helped WRITE the laws of physics.

It wouldn’t matter very much how MUCH heat there was: ANY amount more than the norm, would IMMEDIATELY begin to show up as increased thermal turbulence; and if the atmosphere had in FACT been heating, then alllll around the world, as things got hotter and hotter, the OPTICAL ASTRONOMY field would be saying “See here? This is a phot of X star on X day of X year. Note the distortion of the image of X star. Now: here’s one, in say, 1979. See the increased turbulence? Now, here’s one in 1998, and another one, today.”

No. You do NOT hear that going on – not from the professionals, and not even from the many amateurs with various sized scopes. The reason that you’re not, is because the atmosphere overhead, hasn’t been heating to a degree even noticeable by some of the most highly analytic, and most CERTAINLY able to DETECT that thermal turbulence in the heated night sky – people, in all of analytical science. They’re FAMOUS for their capacity to winnow the truth by looking at things over, and over, and over.

Why: WHY no optical turbulence? If record setting heat has been being trapped all these years, it HAD to be up at the face of that lens, SOMETIMES. And not a soul’s seen a wobble. In all these years. Who’s reported it? See – that’s the point. NO ONE HAS.
Not one. Notice how it’s so silent from the optical astronomy field on this issue you can hear a pin drop? It’s because people have checked. What – nobody thought to do that? In 20 years, not one student thought, “hmmm, i have to write a paper, global warming’s pretty big, i’ll check photographs of XYZ through the years and compare thermal turbulence below the face of the magic lens and be a big star to my professor.” Nope.
Because they don’t exist. Gavin can’t massage that data because he can’t get his hands on it, and there are too many controls on telescope records for him to massage some up. And if he did, others who had scopes would show their own photos of similar and perhaps even the identical events – and say, “here are my undoctored photos. His don’t look like mine,” and he’d be busted before he got far from the gate.
That’s why not one WORD from the optical land based astronomy field.

Let’s move on to ANOTHER MANDATORY SIGNATURE if there was a lens: which there’s not.

The radio telecommunications business: wireless electromagnetic communications. There is a field in radio, the ocean going radio field, who due to their long distances from any horizen antenna, had to find early on, a way to talk past line of sight around the globe.
They did find one.

It’s called Non Line of Sight Transmission and it involves bouncing radio waves, off – guess what? The face of the Troposphere. The difference in the temperatures between the downward facing side of the troposphere and the outward, upward, space facing side, creates an effect, which makes radio waves of certain frequencies, bounce off of it. When it’s hotter they switch from a higher frequency to a lower one for reasons I could explain but if you’re a radiation guy you know these type things.
These refracted waveforms are dependent to varying degree, on the difference in temperature, and the ionization of, the face of that tropospheric region.
In all these years, have you ever seen some newsbyte from some communications field people, “We’ve noticed that when the old Meltaroonie is really cranking, we get X, Y, or Z changes in our propagation capacity using this method, and have changed our communications strategies by doing the following when it’s really active..”

No you have not. Because the face of the troposphere has been showing about the same, normal response characteristics as the people in that field expect to see, and it’s business as usual.

Here’s another area where Gavin Schmidt can’t lie and massage data: the defense field, applied and in research.

Radars are used for a variety of tasks. They’re used for weather: and also they’re used, for tracking small, fast, incoming air-to-air missiles as planes come toward each other at speeds often in excess of Mach 1: the missiles they fire at each other often reach enormous speeds: and this means, that when two planes are closing, just a couple of seconds’ respite from being detected, could be the difference between a good day and a bad one.

These military people look hard and long, and exploit every single facet of the environment they can, to achieve these ends. In the past TWENTY YEARS: HAVE you seen ONE – JUST ONE defense bulletin on a news site saying, “Due to the high levels of heat and ionization around the face of the Magic Lens at some points, when it’s particularly active, it’s been found that a small air-to-air missile can be shielded from detection for a FEW seconds, as it zips toward it’s target: by hiding it just above the hot face of that lens. The temperature differences aren’t that great, but when the missile tracks along just above the face of the lens, a plane coming toward the missle’s radars, are looking into a longer cross section of the lens, if they’re up quite high: say, 40,000 feet and above.”

Anything like that at all in all these years? That weather radars, or highly sensitive defense radars, have noticed anomalies in the sky that used to not be there before the Magic Mel-0-Myth-0-Matic Mannian Mechanism started churning up the ice caps with spun off therms?
Nope. Not one word in all these years.

The VERY PEOPLE you’d think, “Aw yea, they’re up there with their 50 million dollar planes and all this gear, they know what atmospheric environ they’re dallying about in. I’m NOT SURPRISED to HEAR that they started thinking of hiding missiles’ HEAT signatures and their general radar cross section up behind that ionized, heated layer” – NOT a WORD. Not ever.

So: we’ve got NO thermal sensors work. OPTICAL VIEWING no longer tells the truth, the telecommunications field says NOT one WORD in all these years as they BOUNCE signals OFF the troposphere, DEPENDENT to a large degree, on the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL of that tropospheric face;

we’ve got the WEATHER radar people and the DEFENSE radar people: they also detect ZERO electromagnetic anomalies up there.

As far as their attribution that “these radiosondes suck” isn’t it odd, that they were ok to send people into space, based on their information?

There are MORE signatures MANDATORY for that lens to be up there.

There would be GAS IONIZATION. This would come in several flavors: the first one would be, that there would simply be electromagnetic field charge noted when someone flew instruments through the face of the lens. The other type is that of simple auroras.

Auroras are caused when primarily nitrogen atoms but also oxygen and others, escape far enough into space, that they ionize, or split off into protons and electrons. When this happens, some light’s given off, and it happens at the poles a lot due to the lines of the magnetic field of the planet etc.
If in FACT there was a lens up at around 50k feet, shuttling so much air through there that it was simultaneously enough heat to melt two ice caps, disrupt continents, etc

the presence of the vast quantities of air needed to move this heat away, would (again i know i used the word just now already) VASTLY increase the number of actual air molecules, escaping out to eventually reach the ionosphere and the auroroas would be VERY easy to notice as being different. This is a matter so beyond disputing that if anyone tried to argue against it he’d be laughed at by any group of atmospheric scientists around Ye Olde coffee machine.

There’s yet ANOTHER signature MANDATORY for such a heated sheet of air molecules up in that cold, dry sky: DUST ionization.

All this air they claim has been heated, in a dry, cold environ up there just 50k feet: and this lens has been active they tell us, since say, 1979 or 80. This is 2009. All this time this thing’s been trapping heat and shuttling it around super stealthily – and in moving ALL this warm dry air, there’s been NO NOTICE of DUST behaving differently? The air that’s heated is charged with energy. The air that’s not, has a lower potential. And this lens has been becoming EVER MORE active so we’re told: and there’s no change at all in the characteristics of the air up there vis-a-vis the dust?
That’s simply not possible. Because to TAKE that AIR up THAT HIGH you HAVE to HAVE, sufficient motive force, to bring more DUST up there, TOO.

So why isn’t the dust that would necessarily be subject to the charging forces of these disparate charge layers of air, acting as though it is? Because there IS no warmed, charged layer, that’s why.

And if there is say you: see the previous arguments and ask yourself who’s wrong – all those sciences NOT seeing anything of any significance, or the people whose predictive powers I’ll just leave at, wouldn’t encourage me to play their lottery number selection?

You have got to bear in mind, that these people CONSTANTLY try to give you the slip: CONSTANTLY telling you that “you don’t understand.” The only problem is, they claim NO ONE understands, but THEM. And they say, THAT lens is THERE.

Then what happened to the entire spectrum of detection & sensing sciences NOT associated with climate specifically but who, just like all of us, expect to see the same classical universe we learned about in college and the work place? See – they’re just bystanders who WOULD not be able to HELP but see, if there was anything there. Not all thermal sensors are on weather/climate instruments. Mil/Research planes, commercial planes, private craft, they’ve all got thermal sensors and many have logging of it.

There’s another: D.I.R.E.C.T. RESULT of the lens, which might SEEM to be a matter of “climatological” this & that but in fact, MUST EXIST for the lens to: the massive moisture uptake/release dynamics claimed for this Magic Melter.

Remember the moisture uptake isn’t just due to heat as they will sometimes claim but also due to the fact that the HEAT will cause such great UPWELLING of AIR. This moving air that wouldn’t normally be pulled over oceans, becomes subject to the vacuum of the lens as it lifts air from below, heats it, pushes it out to the side: this is REQUIRED for there to be a LENS because of the convective force. So when we DON’T see the storms of mammoth height, DON’T see the enormous air in motion THAT TOO is DIRECTLY BECAUSE: we find no hot upper atmosphere.

On, and ON, and ON the list of missing signatures goes. Science after science, field after field, there’s NOTHING.

Report this

10

Report this

00

A short discussion of how and why levels are selected and reported during radiosonde runs might be enlightening to some. I will try to be brief, but I do not intend to gloss over any pertinent details. My comments apply primarily to older radiosonde observations, not the new computer reduced versions, although as far as I can tell, similar conditions prevail.

I will mostly take a pass on the accuracy and/or precision of the temperature elements used. Although I believe they were quite good, they were certainly not of laboratory quality. Beyond noting that they closely agreed with launch site temperatures at launch time and that response time seemed very rapid, I will defer to others more familiar with such hardware.

Traditionally, tropospheric mandatory reporting levels were, surface, 1000, 850, 700, 500, 400, 300, 250, and 200 hPa. At some recent (to me) time, 925 hPa was added.

Mandatory means just what you would suspect, temperatures (and more) must be reported for these levels.

Levels between mandatory levels can also be reported, for several reasons, but essentially they are because of significant linear departure from the bounding mandatory reporting points. These levels are called, (surprise) significant levels. (Give the weather guys credit here for descriptive nomenclature!)

The temperature criteria for selecting a level below the tropopause as significant was a departure from ‘trend’ between any two reported levels by 1 degree C or more. Picture drawing a straight line between two consecutive reported levels (at temperature crossings) and if the actual temperature trace equals or exceeds 1C, on either side, it must be selected and reported as significant.

Sometimes the selection of one significant level created criteria for a nearby second significant level. Obviously the report should allow anyone to create a very similar temperature curve.

In summary, temperatures at points other than mandatory levels, below tropopause, are reported based on what could be termed ‘significant departure from expected,’ and sometimes for other reasons not pertinent to ‘hot spots.’

Note: WMO now defines as significant “the bases and tops of temperature inversions and isothermal layers greater than 20 hPa in thickness and at pressures greater than 300 hPa and the bases and tops of all inversion layers with temperature changes of 2.5°C or 20% relative humidity at pressures greater than 300 hPa.”

In my opinion, thinking that a radiosonde of any era was consistently unable to detect layers with significant changes in temperature seems ludicrous. And I think most folks that had been around radiosondes would agree. I guess the hot spots might not be very hot, or too thin to be significant.

Or maybe they just didn’t exist.

Report this

00