JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam

Dr David Evans’ address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence,  was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three – so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid 1990s.

At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you’ll never trust a government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.

So it’s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.

So what is really going on with the climate?

The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture.

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

A carbon tax?

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Sorry, but you’ve been had.

Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

————————————————————————————

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

Other posts related to this topic:

The missing hotspot

The one flaw that wipes out the crisis

Is there any evidence?

Even gurus of warming admit the hot spot went missing

The models are wrong (but only by 400%)

Sherwood 2008: Where you can find a hot spot at zero degrees

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 9: The Heart of the Matter and the Coloring-In Trick

Dessler 2010: How to call vast amounts of data “spurious”

Thorne 2010: A very incomplete history of the missing hot spot

All posts tagged The missing hot spot.

PS: In the interests of full disclosure, it seems only fair to mention that I met David Evans years ago, and was so impressed, I married him… not that that makes any difference to the climate.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.4/10 (5 votes cast)
David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It's a Scam, 6.4 out of 10 based on 5 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4fjf2ar

264 comments to David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam

  • #
    PJB

    “They keep lowering their expected temperature increases, from 0.3C per decade in 1990, to 0.2C per decade in 2001, and now 1.5C per decade –”

    Not sure that those numbers are right…

    Otherwise, a nice summary of the situation. It is hard to fight against the mass of alarmist information but each fact outweighs a ton of misinformation.

    Thanks.

    [Thanks, I'll fix that. 1.5C ought to be 0.15C -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Thank you David and Joanne.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I can’t help wondering what MattB and july might say to this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    There has never been even one shred of empirical evidence to support the CAGW scam. The closest they ever got was the now thoroughly debunked and discredited hokey schtick (MBH98) and Briffa et. al. temperature reconstructions which suffered the same fate as Mann’s ginormous fraud. A small cabal of rent seeking scientists at the CRU in conjunction with their gravy train riding counterparts in the U.S. (Hansen and company) engineered this scam. They did it for the most ancient of motives: avarice and pride. They peer reviewed each others papers and censored other who disagreed. They conspired to obstructed justice and sold their souls in the process. They were responsible for the one chapter of the IPCC report that blames humans for CAGW. No contributor to the IPCC report was asked to sign a document agreeing with the conclusions of the assessment reports. Because their interest aligned with socialist politicians they had significant influence on who got published as well as funded. And in the real world it is indeed all about the money. You either go along to get along or become ostracized and unemployed.

    Not one of the climate scientists’ model forecasts has come true. The liberal media has not only acquiesced in this fraud but they are an accessory to it. After all, if it bleeds it leads and the end of the world catastrophic warming hype sold a lot of papers and attracted a lot of advertising dollars.

    Meanwhile, we rape the third world of their vital and precious resources and tell them to essentially live in the stone age. The average life span of someone living in Sub Saharan Africa is 45! Their lives are short and brutish. And this to please the neo-malthusians?! So much for the liberals clamor for social justice!

    The useful idiots who bend to the will of their green masters have gotten away with this pogrom until now because it didn’t effect the first world’s standard of living. Societal change is normally born of economic necessity. A revolution is unlikely to occur when all is relatively well. As people realize that the greens real intent is to control the very breath they exhale they are starting to react. I believe we are at the very beginning of this reaction and that this groundswell will continue to grow until this scam is swept away! I pray that I live long enough to see it so a bounty on the climate criminals heads, dead or alive!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    David Evans:

    You proviode an excellent summary that needs wide distribution.

    Thankyou.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernal

    Eddy, from your lips to God’s ear. You are, I pray, exactly correct. Most importantly in writing that this is the very beginning of the reaction to CAGWCWD church doctrine. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warm/Cool Wet/Dry, that is.

    I expect this reaction to come with furious anger as the third world and neo-third world, our children, see what the wizards of smart have lined up for them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    It is almost getting to the stage where a protest rally should be planned for outside the Governor General’s house as well.

    Might make for a tense Christmas dinner though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Yes, David Evans, a truly excellent summation in plain english. I think I’ll have to bookmark and print this one out.

    Thank you.

    * * *

    Eddie Aruda,

    Fraud, academic misconduct, government corruption and white collar crime happens every day somewhere. We can accept that some people, indeed sometimes entire systems, are corrupted by greed and hubris, most of the time they’re eventually discovered and punished.

    I understand your outrage at the climate scientist frauds and the Labor/Green machine which cynically uses climate demagoguery as a means to seize control of our economy, but for me the central focus of outrage is reserved for the vast mass media conspiracy to suppress all the voices, like David Evan’s, out there that would be happy to spend the ten minutes of air time, on our national, taxpayer funded ABC, needed to deflate the climate fraud.

    The failure of our MSM to properly investigation the CAGW fraud and expose both side of the debate to the public is the most dire breech of public trust, not the fact that pollies and researchers can be corrupted. For our democracy depends on a well-informed electorate to make intelligent voting decisions. Without an honest, intelligent and unbiased mass media to shed light into the darkest corners of our polity, there is little long term hope for us surviving as a free and prosperous nation.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I recently came across an article in the July 1985 edition of “Omega” titled “Greenhouse Earth: False Alarm?” written by Tom Yulsman. The gist of it is that global warming from CO2 buildup in the atmosphere may be only half as great as expected and sea levels, rather than rising, could drop.

    Yulsman writes

    “much like panes of glass in a greenhouse, atmospheric carbon dioxide is transparent to solar energy but hinders the escape of reradiated heat back into space.”

    I recall that people used to say that the interior of a car left in the sun heats up rapidly because of the greenhouse effect and believed it until someone pointed out that it is actually a lack of air circulation causing the rapid heating. Open the windows and the car soon cools down.

    I have a lot of trouble visualising Yulsman’s analogy about CO2 being similar to panes of glass in a greenhouse. A good experiment would be to get a class of 25 children to each draw up four pages of ruled lines so that on each page they prepare a grid of 100 square inches. Then all the pages would be joined in a big grid of 10,000 square inches. Four children would be asked to colour in one of the squares of their choice of the grid. They would then be asked whether they believed a parachute made to look like their “net” would work.

    For the life of me I just cannot see why CO2 should have any effect on temperature given that on average its molecules are so sparsely separated from each other. Of course, intuitively CO2 molecules are larger than nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour, but even so there is just not much of it, relatively speaking.

    Getting back to Yulsman’s article, he was pretty well spot on after 25 years. Sea levels have hardly changed. Changing sea level is the easiest “physical evidence” of climate change for the average person to notice and I’d say that anyone aged more than 80 would be hard pressed to claim that they have noticed any change in their lifetime.

    Thanks Jo and David for your contribution to the Australian rallies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    I know that when the next demonstration is on there will be many more in attendance. The vitriol from the ALP, Greens and left press has stirred the grey haired and the small business man. Even for the low lifes of the left calling a 91 year old lady an extremist is maybe one step too far.

    Where in our constitution does it say that demonstrations are the exclusive perogative of the left?

    David Evans succinct resume of the science so far should be sent to every newspaper and TV network in the nation. They won’t print it of course but eventually they will notice. At some stage the media smell blood and like sharks go into a feeding frenzy. Observe the fall from grace of NSW ALP. Not long ago Kristina was a pretty saviour, now she is a target. Not really fair as I think she is the gutsiest politician I’ve ever observed. I wish she were on my team.

    Hopefully the vote today will send some shivers up the spine of the Federal ALP. The Nats and O’Farrell have both made it a vote on the CO2 tax. Julia will strenuously deny the vote was anything other than a rejection of 16 years of State Labor. She will know otherwise and so will her supporters, Windsor and Oakeshott. I hope Bessling has a plan B.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Eddy Aruda: #4

    Another of your temperate summaries, I see :-)

    But I absolutely agree with you.

    One thing that strikes me is that this is predominantly a US and European phenomena, with Australia and New Zealand jumping up and down on the sidelines saying, me too, me too. (I have said as much before).

    But nobody is really talking about China. I spend a lot of time watching China, and other parts of Asia, and they are very positive about AGW, and the steps that the West are taking to address the issue.

    But have you noticed that the non-western countries are in no great hurry to follow? Have you noticed that, for some reason, they are not expected to follow?

    The UN is primarily based in New York and Geneva. The EU is based in Brussels and Strasbourg. So both organisations work within a societal framework that still has a predominantly catholic philosophy that man (meaning humankind) is irredeemably sinful. The British in particular, are always apologising to each other for something, whether real or imagined.

    The west actually feels guilty about its industrial and financial success, and in true catholic style is using AGW as a form of self-flagellation. And the non-western countries, in their condemnation that “the west” is destroying the planet, are actually reinforcing those feelings of guilt.

    We either need to wake up to that fact, or start learning Mandarin.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PeterD

    As my cartoon friend Foghorn Leghorn would say, “It’s the pointy end of nothin’ sharpened!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael of Brisbane

    Thank you Jo and David.
    This article does indeed warrant WIDE distribution.
    The AGW debate sometimes makes me feel like we are living in Fantasy Land.
    It has become quite ridiculous.
    Thanks again for all your efforts.
    Cheers!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Wow … if you live long enough you see all kinds of amazing things. I see MattB (assuming it is the same chap) agrees with me that calling nuclear energy racist is drawing a long bow:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45612.html

    If we can agree on that point, who knows what else is possible? OK I shall try not to get too excited … be still my heart.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    “The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.”

    The warming has been exaggerated both by dodgy measurements and the urban heat island effect. The exaggerations amplified “divergence” from an obviously solar corellated trend. Alarmed green do gooders and gravy train scientists are then inspired to tweak data in order to help motivate the world to action with deliberate white and Green lies. It has become a self feeding self perpetuating circle. Then the buisinesses and politicians that can benefit from this have joined in to help the circle go round.

    “The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680.”

    The real cause of the non divergent warming has been forgotten and ignored. The planet is inherently stable so “What goes up must come down!”

    Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 – 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

    Yes and also the long long warming trend from the little ice age is also simultaneously ending. The cause of the little ice age can be seen as the Maunder minimum. The current state of the sun is being described as a new Maunder or at least Dalton minimum. So these two effects will combine to cause a more rapid and extreme cooling.

    “Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?”

    A wise old farmer recently said to me “Droughts always end with floods”. Dr Roy spencer said “The corresponding water vapor plot (vertically integrated) shows a rather spectacular plunge in recent weeks:” Here
    So with water vapour feedback (to the solar warming) now ending and the above two cycles being in a cooling phase, do we not have a more intense cooling occuring? With all the recent northern hemisphere snow reflecting heat off the planet, will a delayed cooling not result? With the darker seas around the edges of the Arctic ice radiating more heat out during the long Arctic night, will cooling not result? With the Antarctic sea ice extent growing for thirty years having reflected heat away from the water underneath, will cooling not be happening?
    Elevated CO2 has other effects that directly oppose the small greenhouse warming.
    EG: An endothermic reaction needs to absorb energy to proceed. So heat can be taken in and stored by an endothermic reaction. Photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction. For every kilogram of glucose that is produced 15MJ of energy is stored. This means that plants are cooling it down as they grow. Carbon dioxide feeds plants, algae, planktons etc and encourages growth. So CO2 is causing plants etc to soak up the light instead of it being absorbed as heat. More CO2 means more photosynthesis. More photosynthesis means more cooling. This will happen in the seas also. CO2 + H2O + heat energy absorbed from the sun = C6H12O6 (Glucose).

    So while man made CO2 does a total of…nothing much, the planet is heading into a period of cooling. Thanks those members of the Gaia suicide cult having taught its sheeples that “thou shalt not lie” has no value, we are unprepared for the environmental problems that cooling will bring. Thanks to the greed of big green buisiness teaching that in order to save the world we need to buy the green product, we are investing all that we will need to survive the cooling into the wrong investments. Thanks to the tyranny of militant green politics, we are being enslaved by a system that will collapse in the wars, starvation and disease it will cause.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    wes george:
    March 26th, 2011 at 7:31 am
    Wes, You are operating under the misapprehension that the MSM is there to inform the population. They are there to offer entertainment to fill the space or time between advertisements and keep themselves in jobs. Hence their output is as sensational as possible. They simply don’t care about the truth or balance. It isn’t even on their horizon and doesn’t have any effect on their bottom line. It is even easier in the ABC as they simply run ads promoting themselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The ice core record (Law Dome spliced to Mauna Loa) is a bit dodgy too.

    Evidence for molecular size dependent gas fractionation in firn air derived from noble gases, oxygen, and nitrogen measurements

    Huber et al 2005

    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Huber_closeoff_EPSL2006.pdf

    6. Conclusions
    The enrichment of elemental ratios near the close-off region measured in the firn air from Devon Island and NGRIP, can be modeled assuming a constant close-off fractionation factor between closed off air and open pore composition during air enclosure. The strong similarities found at both sites indicate a universal physical process causing this close-off fractionation. Our model approach
    is able to explain and predict the general shape of the firn air profiles from various different sites. However, it fails when the firn density structure has impermeable layers that cause large non-diffusive zones at the bottom of the firn. This has to be implemented into a future model.

    The bottom of the firn is critical. This is the inclusion zone where firn transforms to solid ice.

    Close-off fractionation factors for different gases depend strongly on the diameter.

    Except they use an inappropriate diameter. They use collision diameter (molecules colliding with other molecules) when they should be using kinetic diameter (the aperture size that will let a molecule pass, CO2 collision dia 39nm, CO2 kinetic dia 33nm).

    The mass of the molecule is less important, since the effect on isotope ratios is very low. The critical size of about 3.6 Å [36nm] seems to be an upper limit up to which molecules fractionate during the close-off process in the firn.

    CO2 will pass 36nm if kinetic dia is used.

    A possible explanation for this could be the diffusion of molecules through channels in the ice lattice. From our findings we believe that the effect of close-off fractionation is nonexistent or at least very small for isotope ratios and for large molecules, like Xe, Kr, N2, CO2, CH4, and N2O.

    They have only considered a simple sieving mechanism. Others, notably Ideka-Fukusawa et al describe a hydrogen bond breaking lattice distorting mechanism where CO2 passes through the ice latice.

    http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2005/054b.html

    This is an important confirmation for the integrity of polar ice cores as a climate archive of the ancient atmospheric composition of these gases.

    I don’t think so. I would be interested in any comments on this either here or at CCG

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/

    This bears repeating at every available opportunity too.

    The “correction”:-

    ……the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The “corrected” ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous “Siple curve”. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age assumption”[10], but they failed[9].”

    “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time”
    by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., March 2007

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    This is the dataset that ALL IPCC climate models use for initialization and subsequent simulations are based on, the results of which became the basis of govt policy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    I hope that David is aware of Flannery’s revelation yesterday, that even if the entire world stopped emitting co2 today we may not see a result for 1000 years or 3011.

    This has to be the greatest CON in world history.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Meg

    You’ve really hit the spot with this article.

    I was really worried about ‘global warming’ for 20 years or so, thinking it was all just about CO2. That’s what our trusted government organisations and our ever so reliable ABC was saying. It was all so obvious.

    Then came ‘Climategate’, when I actually began to look into the science. I was astonished to discover that the whole idea of ‘dangerous’ warming came, not from CO2 directly, but from water vapour and high cloud. Why of course there had to be room for valid scientific scepticism, which should be contre-stage in all discussion about CO2 effects.

    So where was the on-going public discussion about this vital water vapour issue? Surely the ABC would have been pursuing where the evidence was all along. They have ‘serious’ public affairs analysis. They have dedicated science programs. They have a charter to serve the public interest with even-handed analysis of all issues.

    Except that the ABC holds its charter in contempt. Now I can see that on this issue, as with so many others, it is censoring or manipulating the news and analysis to serve the causes, assumptions and biases of its ideologically skewed staff. I most particularly blame the ABC for its role in this issue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    As usual I’ve had to come to this site to read something sensible on this issue today. Have to agree with Wes @ 8, it is the mindless bias of the media (with a few exceptions), their deliberate ignoring of the problematic nature of the science, that gets my goat. Then they have the audacity to call us extremist. Last poll I looked at firmly suggested the majority of people are not in favour of this tax and fewer people believe now in the theory of dangerous global warming, than they did a few years back (something like only 34% of people believe, about an equal number don’t and the last approximate third are confused).

    On another note, if I see someone with an offensive sign at the Brisbane protest in May, I will personally suggest to them they are doing more damage to our cause than good. I can understand people being angry and wanting to express that, but with a biased media just itching to focus on the minority and to portray ordinary people as extremist and irrational, it doesn’t help. I know some here have suggested that people with these signs may be plants with that purpose in mind. As a group we need to send a clear message that we are ordinary people with the right to protest an unfair and deceptive Govt action.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rodzki

    Very nice speech – concise and to the point, and nails the essence of the sceptic argument.

    Slightly O/T but I’ve just been viewing a recording of the Geelong Climate Change Commission hearing from yesterday, and there have been some outrageous claims made. Firstly Will Steffen opened up by asserting that CO2 was the biggest driver of global temperature rise. No mention of temperatures leading CO2 levels by several hundred years, or what caused the rise prior to WWII when emissions were small.

    Then more outrageously, in response to a question about why we don’t see publicised debates between the alarmist and sceptic positions, he basically said that’s because in real science circles there “is no debate – there hasn’t been for a couple of decades”. The sceptic side of the argument is only promulgated by radical organisations. The real climate scientists have retreated into their burrows to continue their vital work.

    Hopefully we can get a transcript of the session. It would be good to use subsequent session of this sham group to directly challenge the rubbish they are spruiking as fact, and use their own words against them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Let’s set a few things straight

    They’re in the process of that at CERN with the CLOUD project. I’ve just been grinding through “Cosmic Rays and Climate”, Kirkby 2008.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

    4.2 Experimental goals [page 29]
    The essential experimental goal of CLOUD is to carry out definitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes through which cosmic rays may affect the number of cloud droplets or ice particles. Where effects are found in the experimental data, they will first be evaluated with cloud models and, if climatically significant, parametrised for inclusion in General Circulation Models (GCMs). The CLOUD facility is designed to have sufficient flexibility to make a broad experimental survey of this poorly-known field. A series of experiments will be carried out over a period of several years to investigate the influence of cosmic rays on a) aerosol nucleation and growth (x3.1.2), and b) cloud microphysics such as ice particle formation and collision efficiencies between aerosol particles and cloud droplets (x3.1.3).

    Until all the alternative drivers such as cosmic rays have been fully investigated, the jury is still out.

    The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

    A guess with no evidence. I’m more inclined to go with real science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Mike,

    True. Most of the media have a profit motive because they are businesses. This is why at least some of the Mainstream Media have tried to be balanced about the climate debate, because they see a market niche that is not being serviced by others, where they can capture audience. News organizations as such the Wall Street Journal, The Australian, Fox News and others have considerable voice and audience. The fact that most news outlets are for profit businesses means if they fail to deliver news they will be punished in the marketplace.

    I have no issue with ideological bias in the private media. If The Age thinks it can sell more newspaper by having a pro Greens/Labour bias. Fine. That’s their inalienable right. (In fact, The Age’s circulation is in decline, heh!)

    But the ABC and SBS are publicly funded by we the people. The ABC has no right to bias in any direction, nor do they have a profit motive to help keep them honest in the marketplace of services and ideas.

    Their audience isn’t liberal or conservative, but ALL the people of Australia. The ABC should not discriminatingly favour one group in our society over any other. Worse, the ABC plays on the illusion of objectivity to achieve a unique leadership position in the world of Australian media.

    Yet the ABC has lied egregiously to the Australian public on a daily basis for years now about CAGW. They have actively censored and suppressed all alternative POVs to the climate orthodoxy. They have engaged in cover-ups when corruption in climate science was revealed by Climategate. That’s an ethical violation of journalistic standards. In fact, the ABC is no longer a news organization, rather it’s the de facto ministry of information management for the Greens/Labor political machine.

    This is the great conspiracy that has perpetuated the Greens/Labour climate fraud to the point where it is now a national morbidity. Without the collusion of the ABC in the Climate Change fraud Australian politics would be far healthier then it is today.

    I think the ABC’s failure as a ethical journalistic institution is a far greater systemic threat to Australia’s future than a group of greedy pollies and technocrats trying to run a scam. At least we can throw those bastards out at the next election.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust – if you open your eyes you’ll see I speak truth a lot more regularly than that;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The politicians and advocates know they are lying. That is why they keep bleating “The basic science is sound, the basic science is sound”.
    Which it is in lab experiments on carbon dioxide.

    As you say the key to it all is the so called feedback mechanism.

    However when they are finally called to account, the lab experiments will be their “I did not have ‘sex’ with that woman” defence.

    Will someone be made a scapegoat over all this? Possibly

    Will the majority walk away scot-free? Almost certainly

    This has achieved too big to fail status, how many banking CEOs were held to account for the global financial crisis?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    Are we to have a tax on CO2 only?

    Apparently not.

    In an answer to that question in ABC’s Unleashed, the writer replied:-

    “I think you will find that the carbon tax or carbon price would be levied on all man made greenhouse gas emissions and are given the symbols CO2e, tCO2e or MtCO2e [M = million, t = tonnes, e = equivalent].

    This means that the other greenhouse gases are priced on their equivalency to the impact of CO2.

    For example, methane [CH4] is considered to be 23 times more effective a greenhouse gas than CO2, so its price would be 23 times greater per unit than CO2.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    This is an anecdote to show how falsehoods are perpetrated and accepted by a group of people. Bad assumptions are an amazing thing (see P. Kelly in todays Australian). Anyway, here we go -

    The scene – IT sales meeting with Manager of IT(MIT) at a major financial institution (ca 2001), 1 salesperson(SP) and me sent to support salesperson.

    MIT: Thanks for coming. Can you help us with this database corruption problem?
    SP: Yes! I am sure we can, it is pretty clear what the problem is and we have a solution.
    MIT(raising eyebrows): Hmmm?
    SP: Well it is sort of technical, but, as you know all network transmissions are performed in binary code, like ones and zeroes (MIT nods). And the problem is with the ones. They cause the data corruption.
    MIT: I do not understand, explain further
    SP: Well, with all that network cable lying on office floors the cable gets gets bent, the zeroes have no problems with the bends, but the ones because of their shape get stuck in the corners. You hence get a build up of ones in the bends and when the cables get bumped the ones come loose and that causes the data corruption. We can solve the problem by recabling the building.
    MIT: Do we have a quote for recabling?
    SP: Yes, it just requires your approval.
    MIT: OK. I will see to it, lets get moving on this.

    Truly, this happened. The MIT retold the 1/0 story to several of his employees, no-one managed to enlighten him. The salespersons argument was more powerful than the argument of his technicians.

    The parallel with the CAGW scam is interesting. Start with one fact, distort the effects to suit your own agenda. It is accepted because of the ignorance of the decision maker.

    We have daily examples of our decision makers undertaking expensive operations based on the pseudo-science of unscrupulous sales people. This is CAGW. It is a fight, sales-speak, propganda versus rationality, science, deductive reasoning. It is exacerbated by the ignorance and poor education levels of MSM journalists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    The reason I remain anonymous is because I wouldn’t put it past some of the goons on your side of this debate to come around and throw a match in our paddocks.

    Given the strong reaction to the farmer thing I will say this.

    In my area 98% of the original vegetation has been cleared for farming. I belong to a very small farmer group that replants 30000 trees a year and lobbies govt against further land clearing. I get abused as a rabid greenie by the feral farmers because I’m not showing balance in the conservation debate. They want to clear the remaining 2% and call that balance. See, I told you they are stupid and greedy.

    Just so you know I’m not a hypocrite, I have returned 20% of our land to conservation, including a small restored 30 acre wetland that is now home to an endangered frog species. The woodland is home to endangered species of birds and marsupials.

    My farm produces enough food to feed 5-10,000 people a year depending how you calculate these things. In the past 20 years our rainfall has dropped off 25% and is predicted to dry out further under current scenarios. We have already been forced to radically change our farming practices. You see where I’m going here?

    You tenderfoots of the concrete jungle have no idea about what it is to go hungry, yet. I have seen this first hand ( I happened to be in Sudan in 1985 and visited a Ethiopian refugee camp, not something you forget easily). As well I have witnessed first hand the industrial scale destruction of Amazonian rainforest in Rondonia and in Sumatra as well.
    You people, who have no connection with the land, clearly do not understand how precarious these things are. If you did you would be a lot more cautious.

    If you care about your childrens future I strongly urge you to rethink your anti-science lobbying. It will be the only thing that will save us given the projected pop’n increases and climate impacts. Please don’t not wind back the clock of progress to the dark ages and don’t believe the whingeing farmer lobbies who say a carbon tax will destroy them. It certainly wont, but significant climate change will.

    If you have read this far, I thank you for persisting with such a long post. I hope you take some time to think about what’s at stake here.
    (PS; I like you Eddy, you’re a straight shooter. I’m happy to be your “site bitch”).
    Oh and lastly, keep listening to MattB, he is worth every post.

    [July -- or who ever you are -- can you name one example of skeptics who vandalized or damaged public goods, or even called for that? It's the eco-zealots, and greenies every time who don't respect rule of law, and issue threats of violence "we know where you live", "jail the CEO's". And which side bullies and namecalls in every other sentence: "denier"? Terrorism is what your team do. It's not how we work. --JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Flannery’s done it again! Opened his mouth, stuffed in both feet, then shot them. The man’s a treasure. :-)

    See here:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/flannerys-admission.html

    Listen to the interview — the transcript doesn’t nearly do it justice. What a hoot!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    July,

    Now that you’ve explained your concern I can only ask, why are you trying to solve an imaginary problem when — as you point out — there are so many real ones?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    July@28

    It seems that youself and Tony Abbott have viewpoints that have much in common – that mans destruction of the natural environment has a very noticeable effect on climate. I couldn’t agree with you more.

    But Julia blameing climate change on the level of carbon in the atmosphere: well, I just can’t agree.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    You think a 25% drop off in rainfall over a the medium term is imaginary Roy? Walk a mile in my shoes mate and see what you think then.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    July #28

    If you are planting trees then I certainly have no problem with that. However you’ve not addressed any one of my comments which I politely addressed to you. My point is that the science (and I’ll admit to being a working scientist) on any objective look at the data (not models – I use them, you can make black into white easily) you will see that climate sensitivity is very low with respect to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If you quadrupled CO2 in the atmosphere you would get about a 1 C rise, and have an awful lot of very happy plants (your yields would rise significantly, if you have a good water supply).

    This is my concern – I would prefer the ALP to stay in the game, but the way they are going they have a serious risk of political suicide if they persist with their carbon tax policy – the science is against them, the politics come straight out of Eastern Europe of the ’70′s and as the NSW poll today will show people do not like unfair unjust incompetent corrupt and dishonest politicians. In Canada the Progressive Conservative Party went from being the government to having 2 whole seats after the 1993 election. That party no longer exists. The ALP should read history and come back to the centre, and reject the religious green ideology of global warming climate change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Gee Whizz July!!

    Are you not glad that so many state governments have spent all that money on De Sal Plants instead of health, education, roads & transport?

    Thank God we had Uncle Tim the Omniscient to warn us that the PDO & el Nino/la Nina was old hat!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    July #28

    I admire your tree planting efforts (soil erosion is a big problem in NZ), but you are really just admitting that man-made climate change is about changes in land cover – not fossil fuel emissions.

    I strongly urge you to rethink your anti-science lobbying

    I do not admire this on the other hand. Since when was questioning unsubstantiated claims “anti-science”? If you care to look up-thread and at previous posts you see that the prevailing basis of argument of the sceptic perspective is scientific i.e. science is used to highlight the failure of CAGW to live up to it’s predictions. Specifically:-

    The global average temperature has been flat for the last decade when the IPCC says there should be an acceleration due to AGW.

    The global average sea level has been decelerating when the IPCC says it should be accelerating due to AGW.

    Ocean heat content is falling when the IPCC says it should be increasing due to AGW.

    These are scientific observations, so how is the conclusion that AGW is a null hypothesis “anti-science”? Our opposition is anti-CAGW because GHG’s are being promoted as the major climate driver and that mans emissions are the most significant factor when clearly the ability of GHG’s to “trap” heat has not been proven empirically and mans contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is minor compared to natural emissions.

    There are several other credible climate driver hypotheses that do not get airtime that show correlations with temperature that leave CO2 for dead but do they have 100′s of billions of dollars spent on them? I’ve mentioned one such study (CLOUD at CERN) the outcome of which I’m sure will further erode AGW if not bury it completely but how many people know it’s significance? Do you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    william gray

    Will Stephan ‘because in real science circles there “is no debate – there hasn’t been for a couple of decades”.
    I would love to witness a debate and lots of them ASAP.
    Since Warragamba Dam was commissioned, snowfall in the Blue Mountains has decreased CATASTROPHICALLY. Once local waterfalls would ice up most winters and valleys nowdays are filled with cloulds most often. Its said the Dam changed tempatures up to i Deg C. By the way I don’t know if these changes have done any damage to the fauna and flora. I think its affected tourism though.
    Roger Pielke Sr states that 47% of the earths landmass has been altered by human activity, also 3% has been urbanised.
    July MAN AFFECTS CLIMATE CHANGE. All of us know it, even you.
    I think you should encourage some of your freinds to consider the above and ask them if they wish to ask some serious questions.
    I think being serious about these issues shows you respect the world we live in.
    Thankyou.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Siliggy: #15

    Nicely put.

    We have had a group of people move onto a property one or two kilometres down the road from us. I met them at a local residents meeting.

    They plan to grow their own organic food, and they have an organic cow that produced organic milk, and they only use organic fertiliser, and they have an organic composting toilet, and are very much against, “the use of carbon as a way of life”.

    In fact, they, “… don’t want to use anything that contains chemicals”!

    Do you think I should point out to them that if something is organic, then by definition it must contain carbon, and that everything contains chemicals, including their cow?

    Hmm, perhaps not … what would be the purpose?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    July
    Firstly 25% shifts in rainfall over extended periods (approximately 30 years – not surprisingly matching the dipole) are not unprecedented.
    In my area of far south-west Queensland, cherry picking the lowest thirty-year period from 1921 to 1950 there was a 250 mm median, as opposed to the highest period from 1971 for 2000 when there was a 430 mm median ( a bit more than 25%!).
    However it is generally acknowledged that changes in vegetation and land use can cause localised climate shift. I assume you are in WA, I visited there over 20 years ago and I took the opportunity to talk to local farmers at my overnight stops, excessively land clearing was an acknowledged issue even back then. Though at the time it was mainly in relation to salinity problems.

    Ironically in my area land management mistakes have caused the exact opposite problem.
    Namely excessive overgrazing and fire suppression has resulted in millions of hectares degenerating into a monoculture mulga scrub.
    The underlying problem with the vegetation management laws have been in the one size fits all attitude the evangelistic nature and heavy-handed application of the law. This has put a lot of farmers unnecessarily offside.

    You are trying to lead by example and that is good to see, however I strongly recommend that you take a leadership course. You will never ever change people’s minds by abusing an insulting them. Cultural change takes time, it’s essentially is a generational thing. Eventually people will notice that your farm is performing better and a new generation will adopt your methods.

    I changed my management practices 20 years ago and people have noticed that my stock and pastures are in better condition than the average. I am now noticing that the younger generation are starting to adopt my stocking practices as they take over management.

    You also need have a careful look in the mirror and be absolutely sure that you are not guilty of the very thing you are accusing your neighbours of.
    i.e. A blind adherence to one particular ideology.

    You accuse this site being antiscience however the exact opposite is the case; we are insisting that scientists stick to the scientific method. Share all their workings and when the data doesn’t fit the hypothesis, change the hypothesis to fit the data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    July @32,

    You think a 25% drop off in rainfall over a the medium term is imaginary Roy?

    No, I don’t. I just don’t believe it’s caused by CO2. In the 1930s the states of Arkansas and Oklahoma were in a state of drought for so long that whole communities were forced to pack up and leave. High winds blew dust across what was once good farm land until the whole thing went down in history as the Great Dust-Bowl. Was that caused by CO2? I think you know the answer (no). And today you’d never know anything had happened there.

    California where I live has had a decade of rainfall so low that water use is now seriously curtailed in order to be sure what we have will last as long as it needs to last. Reservoirs are alarmingly low. But this year the rain started early and has lasted far longer than usual. Winter resorts opened for skiing early and they’re skiing on so much snow now that they can go yet quite a while beyond their usual closing dates. Last week the rain was so heavy that one reporting station measured 10.5 inches in one day. That’s nearly as much as our yearly average of 12.5. I don’t believe CO2 was responsible for any of that that either.

    It’s easy to blame. It takes no effort to point a finger. What’s a little harder is to be right about where your finger is pointing. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    To Richard & Bruce,
    because I am a farmer I do not go to my doctor and accuse him of belonging to a corrupt profession because of all the vast amounts of money cancer research gets. Because I believe in the scientific process (which by any measure has served us incredibly well)I trust the real climate scientists (as opposed to every weekend wannabe who has figured out how to use the filter function on their new Excel spreadsheet) to go throught the peer review process and reach an intelligent conclusion. It would be like me arguing with my doctor about which drug works on which disease. It’s absurd.

    Therefore I accept the current state of climate science, and until someone comes up with a counter consensus that’s the way I will play it. As I have said before (ad infinitum) until you can publish peer reviewed science that is accepted by the mainstream climate science you are just wasting time. And please, enough of the conspiracy theories, they too are unsubstantiated.

    Often the less intelligent of the farmer community say to me; “bloody scientists, what would they know?” I’m never quite sure what to say to that, I just look at them incredulously….

    Not that it matters, but I can’t stand Julia any more than you can, but Abbott’s mindless opposition makes me want to weep for intelligent political debate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    incoherent rambler: #27

    It is not the ones that are the problem per se. It is the fact that they are in the wrong font. Those serif fonts cause this sort of problem all of the time. If they just stuck to Ariel, they would work just fine … :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    July

    You make a fair point Binny, but trying to reason with unreasonable people is liked bashing your head against a brick wall and expecting it to soften. As Richard Dawkins would say, in any debate if words don’t have established meaning then the debate is futile. Some of the Neandethals I have to deal with only understand one way of attack. Trust me, I’ve tried the other, but sure, maybe I should have another go at the softly, softly approach.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    great piece for emailing to friends, david.

    we simply can’t afford more mistakes based on a false belief:

    26 March: Australian: Hedley Thomas: Operator of dam ‘invented’ rain data
    EXTREME rainfall so rare it happens on average once every 2000 years has been “invented” by the government operator of a major Queensland dam as part of its explanation for releasing huge volumes of water that caused most of Brisbane’s January flood…
    But no such rainfall event was measured by any rainfall gauges. Instead, the claim was manufactured by SEQWater after it modelled the rapid rise of levels in the dam, repositioned rainfall data to an area immediately upstream of the dam, and then doubled it…
    He (Senior independent engineer Michael O’Brien)said: “To get the inflow rate, SEQWater had to manufacture an unmetered rainfall event over the dam, which was twice the size of any of the metered rainfall events, and this becomes a rainfall event with a one in 2000.”
    The technical report by SEQWater shows it relied on a manual gauge of dam levels, not the actual rainfall in gauges, to extrapolate data to claim the occurrence of a one-in-2000-year event.
    However, in doing this, SEQWater disregarded the data from a nearby electronic gauge, which showed dam levels lower than those in the manual gauge.
    Mr O’Brien said SEQWater’s methodology in adopting the data from the manual gauge, ignoring the data from the electronic gauge, and then having to “scale this rainfall up by a factor of two to match the rapid lake level rises” would become a “major technical argument”.
    “When they calculated the dam inflow rates that would be necessary for the manual gauge board to be correct, they had very high inflow rates — much higher than any other time during the whole event,” he said…
    A panel of hydrologists and engineers has categorised the Brisbane River flood as a “dam-release flood”, meaning it was largely the result of massive releases…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/operator-of-dam-invented-rain-data/story-e6frg6nf-1226028379093


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    July #42
    With your new “softly, softly approach”, would you care to share
    your thoughts/critique on Dr Evan’s excellent post above ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    July @ 28

    You say:

    I wouldn’t put it past some of the goons on your side of this debate to come around and throw a match in our paddocks

    First of all, calling people a load of goons is not going to endear oneself. Secondly, I think that most people on this site are more likely to feel pity for you than violent anger. You seem to have been sucked in by the junk science of the IPCC et al, and are clinging to it even when it is at odds with some perfectly sensible statements refuting AGW. You can’t – you refuse to – accept logical evidence. (e.g. Please critque David’s article above and explain why you would support human-caused global warming.) You might also like to review the links and explain to this site the error of our ways…

    July, you are emotionally attached to the global warming fiasco. It is pointless trying to reason with you because you can’t reason a man out of a belief he didn’t reason himself into. But the pain in your head – trying to believe the unbelievable – makes me pity you as well.

    As for “goons”. Arguments are made by humans and humans make mistakes. But I can’t think of an example where a warmist was threatened or beaten up for their opinions. And you will agree that the courtesy that you and other trolls get at this site is way and above better than what we receive at alarmist sites like RealClimate. But if you want an example of where warmists unfairly persecute the sceptics, then please consider the case of the Thompson family (also linked at this site). Like you, they are farmers. They have been harassed and driven to the point of bankrupcy by the faceless government bureacrats. Their crime? Being climate sceptics. You have nothing to fear from us sceptics except that we might tell you stuff you don’t want to hear.

    I’m sorry, but if global warming is your religion (as it seems to be), then your god is dead. I don’t know how to break it to you more gently than that.

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    July #40

    It would be like me arguing with my doctor about which drug works on which disease.

    Wrong.

    The process by which drug manufactures gain FDA approval for a new drug is light years ahead of the state of climate science. If there was similar rigour applied to climate science then we might be able to “trust the real climate scientists” but we now have a mountain of evidence to prove they are untrustworthy and no equivalent to the FDA to call upon.

    (as opposed to every weekend wannabe who has figured out how to use the filter function on their new Excel spreadsheet)

    Again you’ve labouring under a delusion. The credible opponents to AGW outside of climate science are physicists, scientists in their own field, engineers, technicians, statisticians, you name it. The principles involved with climate science are readily understood outside climate science but what outsiders have found is that the rigour with which they must approach their own work (e.g. drug invention) is completely missing when they look over the fence at climate science.

    The climate science peer review process is a joke in some quarters but don’t forget that there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers that take issue with the “consensus” with firm foundation. The only reason that those papers don’t gain traction is that they are immediately villified by a small clique of AGW proponents. That situation is changing, more and more people are cottoning on to the realization that there is much more to the climate change issue than what the AGW folks would have us believe.

    Your point regarding Excel functions is salient. In NZ, NIWA insist on applying a linear regression to the national record because +0.91 C/century fits the scary scenario that reaps research funding. That linear trend is nonsense when extrapolated either way. It is a simple matter for “every weekend wannabe” to select polynomial trend instead of linear. On doing that, NIWA’s scary trend evaporates and we see a sensible cycle emerge (which is now in a cooling phase BTW).

    “every weekend wannabe” can do the same with the global metrics and the same thing happens. The scary linear trend disappears and is replaced by decelerating curves. To paraphrase your words “Therefore “every weekend wannabe” does not accept the current state of climate science because they have enough nouse to know when they are having the wool pulled over their eyes i.e. they are not as gullible as you are.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    July

    “makes me want to weep for intelligent political debate.’

    And yet you call the opinion of a Rhodes Scholar (something not given out to anybody that rocks up) mindless.

    You call others with a differing opinion unreasonable.

    You call others who hold differing views neadethals.

    You say “because I am a farmer” as if that makes your opinion worth more than any others.

    Yous say because I believe in the scientific process and call for those who oppose you to provide evidence when the case you argue is based on the pridictions of computer models not observed evidence.

    You prattle on about real climate scientists, when there is no such thing as climatology draws from a wide range of scientific fields, due to the complex chaotic nature of the climate system & the multitude of contributing factors.

    You say “weekend wannabe who has figured out how to use the filter function on their new Excel spreadsheet” but ignore The Oregon Petition and views of academics that don’t agree with your argument, including lead contributors to the IPCC.

    You talk about “peer review” as if it is some infalible & sacrosanct pinnacle of science, when it doesn’t require the replication of experimentation or the full disclosure of data sets, analysis methods & uncertainties which by the scientific method you hail is required to validate research.

    You talk about “consensus” as science when science is about evidence & shepticism.

    You class others who don’t agree with you as less intelligent when all of your postings continue to display just how intellectualy barren you are.

    You justify your anonymity by saying those of us who don’t agree with you would come & burn your farm if we knew who you were, showing yet again how morally bankrupt you are.

    And to put the cherry on top you trot out the Lovejoy defence saying those who don’t agree with you don’t care for their children or future generations.

    You are truly delusional if you think any of this ammounts to reasoned or logical debate. You do nothing to foster civility or reason, you constantly use the basest tactics that would see you thrown out of any debating society, you are a pathetic spiteful petulant child screaming about having to wear a hat outside. You contribute nothing, you add nothing to the debate & lower the tone of this blog by your deliberate actions. You are a sad & pathetic person & would better serve youself by not posting as all you do is harden opinion against you. Go sit and talk to yourself in a mirror because that will be the only person who will put up with your tactics & accept that your views & opinion have any worth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    July
    ‘Some of the Neandethals I have to deal with only understand one way of attack.’

    Been there done that;But don’t worry eventually they will die of old age.

    You just need to remember you can’t save the world from itself, and you certainly can’t save it from anything tomorrow.

    If you’re on the right track eventually people will notice and follow.
    And it doesn’t hurt for you to check your map against your surroundings every so often either.

    One of my favourite sayings is “Only the truly ignorant make definite statements about nature and land management”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    July,

    You tenderfoots of the concrete jungle have no idea … I happened to be in Sudan in 1985 and visited a Ethiopian refugee camp, not something you forget easily

    I understand you, perhaps better than you might think. Cambodia used to be one of the most beautiful places in the world. But then the Vietnam war intervened, and it changed forever. I was on the Cambodian border during the Pol Pot purges. I saw the results of that. You do not forget.

    … trying to reason with unreasonable people is liked bashing your head against a brick wall.

    Unreasonable people come in all stripes and colours, and from both sides of the fence.

    David has made a valuable point, in that Hansen made a judgement call in regard to his hypothesis over the feedback mechanism. That sort of thing happens in science all of the time. Nobody should expect everybody to be consistently right. In fact science thrives best on mistakes because that is the way you learn. When I was at university, we were taught that the most important question in science is, “Why the [expletive] did that happen?”. But then, when I did science being cynical was fashionable, and being a sceptic was mandatory. I fear we have lost that objectivity.

    From David’s explanation, it is now clear to me that a lot of the disagreement over whether or not CO2 is going to wipe us all out, can be traced back to Hansen’s refusal to accept that his cherished feedback was negative rather than positive, and hence his life-long crusade to convince the rest of us that he has been right all along.

    And that too has happened before, in other times and with other people, just not quite so publicly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Rereke Whakaaro
    ‘And that too has happened before, in other times and with other people’

    Quite so, these people tend to take their beliefs with them to the grave.

    At which point a new generation moves on… in a different direction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    I just hope that David or some other qualified person could offer their opinion of this post at Jennifer Marohasy’e blog about emissivity of the earth and atmospheric co2.

    If grey bodies are treated as black bodies and that is wrong and 1 should really be 0.002 then we really have big problems with the science and projected warming.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/#comments


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    July let’s stick to the science. @ 32

    Southern Australia has been drying out NATURALLY for at least 5,000 years, read the transcript or look at the video of De Deckker’s 20 year study of crater lakes right across southern Australia, including SW WA as well.

    Pause the graph after 8+ mins on video to appreciate the magnitude and extremes of NATURAL CC.

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    July at 28
    Something about your figures don’t add up – 300,000 trees per year that’s nearly 2 per minute (average 8 hours per day every day) – I would like to see your planting equipment? Secondly you state you have returned 20% of your land to original (including 30 hectares – sorry acres) – at what rate per square meter did you plant because if it was usual forestry practice of one per 10 square meters (Very high to give you the benefit of the doubt) you have succeeded in planting some 3 million square meters (300 hectares) or what is your result? How many years have you been doing this? If you have replanted for only the last year (20%) your property is some 1,500 hectares?
    Keep up the great work July – you’ve only got 4 more years of planting – you’re doing better than the Forestry Departments around Australia. OH – forgot to take off your time on the computer?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    July also check out rainfall anomoly for southern Australia 1900 to 2010, much better for second 50 years than first fifty.

    In fact 1900 to 1950 the line is completely below average. Average or mean is zero. Pity about SW WA though, change shutter to select SW WA and WA as a state and see the difference.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0112&ave_yr=15


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    July at 28,

    Still working out your statement of feeding 5,000 to 10,000 people every year – could you tell me the main five crop groups you make this claim on please?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    July

    David, Not only on my farm all around the district.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    Thanks July – with 30,000 hectares you’ve been at this replanting for 20 years at 300,000 trees per year if 20% of your farm is returned to native vegetation – well done for the environment July. Now I just need your cropping breakdown (crop types & percentages please) to work out your food contribution & efficiency of the remaining 24,000 hectares of farm crops?
    Thanks for your time in this July?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    July #40

    Thanks for your reply. I would like to correct you a little on the nature of science – you may not have read my post about Barry Marshall which I addressed to you yesterday. The message of that post is that the general consensus is not always correct, the majority in science does not always rule the minority, and that when the data calls for a reversal of the hypothesis a good scientist does this.

    I have myself developed a couple of technologies in the anti-global warming area, and when I was developing these in order to attract government and corporate funding (both stand up quite well compared to the current consensus thinking) I then started to look closely at climate data. That is when I saw that the measured data, not modelling outputs, does not favour the consensus view. That was when I became Sceptical, rather than just ordinarily sceptical which is what all scientists are.

    If you would like to look yourself, as I previously mentioned the key linkage is between the length of the solar cycle (SCL) and the temperature data. If you do this on Excel you will immediately see a strong correlation. It statistically explains about half, or a bit more, of the variance in the temperature record in 1900-2000 (I mainly use Butler & Johnston 1996 with the CET, which is the longest available and is at the same latitude). Then factor the cyclical PDO/AMO effect which explains about 1/3 of the temperature rise last century, as I described yesterday.

    CO2 does have an effect, about 1/6th to 1/8th of the temperature rise last century, by difference from SCL and PDO/AMO. That corresponds well with the published measured values for 2XCO2 of about 0.5 C or 0.6 C. You might note the principal authors of the linked peer reviewed papers are quite well regarded in the climate fraternity.

    You will note I have not criticised climate scientists, since the appropriate approach is to call their results into question and to offer an alternative hypothesis which better fits the data.

    What that means for you is that yes climate change occurs and is quite real. But most of the variance last century, including the dry patch these last couple of decades, is caused primarily by natural solar variation (see Svensmark et al for the proposed mechanism). Regrettably there is not much we should do about that (geoengineering could be used, but this would never be acceptable for such a self limiting variation). Also there is no meaningful result possible from any amount of carbon taxing or CO2 emission control, because CO2 just does not have much of an effect.

    I urge you to look into this yourself – for me it was necessary for my work, since I’ve been in this general field 30 years. I would not presume to tell you about farming, but I can legitimately talk to you about science and even climate science, although that is more a sideline for me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    July

    Data from the Productivity Commision has the average farm size of 3,340 hectares – your holding is in the top 3% to 4% of the biggest farms in Australia. Who are you July? Or maybe imagination? Please confirm this as your credibility may slide into nothing – OH and with the crop income of Australia being nearly $20 billion – you must be one of the wealthiest farmers in Australia.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Great article David – thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    G/Machine:
    March 26th, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    July #42
    With your new “softly, softly approach”, would you care to share
    your thoughts/critique on Dr Evan’s excellent post above ?

    No, of course he wouldn’t!

    He hasn’t a clue how to answer to David Evan’s rational argument…better to change the topic. July wouldn’t know anything about the logarithmic effect of CO2, because they didn’t mention it at his Landcare farm management seminar, did they, July? No instead, July has dined intellectually on a feast of carbon sequestration propaganda.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Just for the record, I’m also a farmer and an environmentalist care taker of 340 hectares of endangered primary forest and wetlands at 1100 metres on the western slopes of New England. I also once worked for the UNHCR and traveled extensively in some of the poorest parts of the world. I believe that everyone on the planet should have the opportunity to live at the same comfortable level of health we do here in Australia and I have yet to find a rational limit to growth which would prohibit the expansion of the same sort of facilities and pleasures we take for granted to everyone on the planet eventually.

    July’s comments are non sequitur to the climate debate.

    A rambling post on what a clever and compassionate fellow he is isn’t evidence for CAGW, rather it’s evidence that clever and compassionate farmers can be as airheaded as latte-sipping fashion models in Bondi.

    What July has offer us thus far is nothing but an appeal to authority, a splash of fearmongering and few gratuitous insult just to prove he’s also bigoted…

    He claims there is a “consensus” in climate science for the CAGW theory and that’s good enough for him, especially when combined with his own anecdotal experience of continental drying. (Of course, now we have continental wetting and that’s also evidence for CAGW.) It’s must be nice to let other people do your thinking for you.

    I challenge July to make a rational case for catastrophe anthropogenic global warming—if he can—because thus far he has offered not a single datapoint of solid evidence to support his faith.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    So July is a farmer; well, vitriol aside he still relies on the false premise of authority to sustain his support of AGW.

    The idea that climate scientists are the only ones competent to decide on AGW because of their expertise is a false concept; firstly, because academic qualifications are not the only basis of expertise; the law recognises the expertise of non-academic persons who have had demonstrated experience in the subject area; secondly, in a democracy ideas, concepts and beliefs must run the gaunlet of public scrutiny and opinion; it is grotesque for climate scientists to make pronouncements as the final staemetn on this subject, not only because it is undemocratic but because it also unscientific.

    The essence of science is falsibility; every hypothesis must be capable of falsification and it only requires one observed contrary bit of evidence to refute a theory. Evidence can be positive in the form of an alternative explanation; and there already exists an alternative explanation for the recent, slight warming; oddly enough the evidence for this alternative is in the IPCC literature, in TAR:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm

    I would be happy to give further links to other evidence supporting TSI as the explanation for the movements in GMST.

    The second way a hypotheis can be disproved is through the failure of its own tenents; in the case of AGW NONE of it predictions or crucial components have been vindicated; NONE; it is amazing that such a flawed idea can still drag itself along.

    As to farming, these videos wewre made by a farmer who has some ingenious ideas about increasing yield while improving the environment; needless to say he has suffered at the hands of the AGW fanatics:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgqn56_TKKA&feature=channel_page

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpitYF8ISHE&feature=channel_page

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvgMlueA1uY&feature=channel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GBees

    Can I use it for a full page advertisement in my local rag?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    On come on, Cohenite, Janama…admit it, we’re just toying along with the farmer Brown BS… ;-)

    I can’t keep it to myself any longer…ROTFL…

    How many farmers worry about having their paddock burnt down by roving bands sceptical Mad Maxs? Or aren’t worried that a carbon tax which includes agriculture will be the final “tipping point” for their business?

    July is obviously my old girlfriend, the troll formerly known as The Creep, now sometimes called Luke. (I call him my girlfriend, because when ever we meet online, I leave strangely satisfied.)

    He’s a unionized government bureaucrat, commenting usually on tax-payer funded time. He probably makes about 5,000 pro-authoritarian comments a year while “at work”. Lives in a cement jungle and drives a 4-wheel drive that has never been off-road. He can barely keep himself in junk food and beer, much less feed 10,000 people.

    In the past he’s advocated violence against skeptical scientists and the suspension of habeas corpus and elections to force a Green dictatorship. Luke believes that democracy cannot “save the planet.” So the anti-violence hypocrisy is cute. Luke is addicted to violent rhetoric…

    He once demanded that Kevin Rudd declare war on the Japanese by sinking their whaling fleet in a surprise attack at night, killing all on board. Unfortunately, Jennifer Marohasy had to eliminate his comments because of the vile anti-Asian racist content qualified as hate-speech. (See why snipping extremist rhetoric protects alarmist zealotry? I’d be happy to link to Luke’s comments if they were still online!)

    July has various substance abuse issues, which make his evening comments descend towards the demented fringe. Wait for it.

    The farmer masquerade is cute and I’ll play along, but July won’t be able to stay in character very long or fool the real farmers here.

    It’s Saturday afternoon. I bet Luke’s on the grog by now. LOL!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    Wes,
    You’ve explained why July’s farm only produces enough food for between 5,000 & 10,000 people when 24,000 hectares should be producing for for between 25,000 and 40,000 people. The drugs, grog and junk food are the reason for the 50% decline in productivity. Goodbye July


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Within an hour we should see a change of Govt in NSW.

    The Libs and Nats have campaigned heavily against a carbon tax and while it is only one issue, I can’t see it hurting their chances.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    This French Chappie reckons it’s a “mound de merde”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded

    About 32 minutes and well worth it. He had problems getting data from Phil Jones too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    So July is our dear old chum luke?! Fair dinkum this lad has so many personas he will get up in the morning one day and see this:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Portrait_of_Edward_James.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Rereke Whakaaro:
    March 26th, 2011 at 11:32 am
    Do you think I should point out to them that if something is organic, then by definition it must contain carbon, and that everything contains chemicals, including their cow?

    I would be happy to eat the produce from that farm if they have accidentally avoided toxins, hormones and other potential nasties. They sound like good people who have just been misled and are confused. Why not get them a cheap gift that could get the grey matter going.

    Some of these pencils “without carbon powder or toner”.
    Then print of this page to tell them about the graphite/carbon free recipes:
    http://www.graphitefree.com/category/food/
    They will think you are wonderful…for a while.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    The lights are out at the farm. He’s working night shift.
    Yes, really


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Cohenite,

    Good summary of the scientific method.

    And July might be Luke? I’ll defer to Wes in this case and I’ve copped flak from Luke, in it’s various incarnations since JM started her blog all those years ago, though what little I’ve read of July’a posts does not lead to this conclusion at first. Interesting conclusion, none the less.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    The biggest laugh has to be the statements by carbon based life forms pompously announcing that they are on a low carbon organic regime. Heavens the post modernists have really dumbed the population down.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Mark @68,

    Thanks for the reminder about the video. One of many from the conference.

    There is (shorter) video of Dr Vincent Courtillot making some salient points about science, the public and communication.

    One could take a rainy weekend to watch all the conference videos. Well, perhaps not all if you don’t understand German. It would not be a wasted weekend.

    Now … where’s the rain??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    I found this out with my own research and dug deeper to find a great deal of science is still just a guess. The science laws are the worst load of crap and focused physics mindset that is absolutely correct. I have so much science and research to show the theories are failures.
    This is why science still has not figured out how the planet and solar system works mechanically.

    So, I moved on to studying real science of following the clues that this planet has laid out.Following the evidence and physical path in science and not the fiction out of peoples heads.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Neville #67

    NSW residents will now be aware that the ALP has been absolutely smashed by the electors. Biggest swing in a Newcastle based seat, 28.8% Greens stuck on 11%. Your ABC is giving the ALP a measly 22 out of 93 seats. 17% swing statewide. A former premier, Nathan Rees, defeated in what used to be a cast iron Labor seat. And Rob Oakeshotte’s mate defeated in Port Macquarie.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Kristina Keneally is now conceding defeat. A damn sight more graciously than that boorish oaf Brumby in Victoria.a few months back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    notice the Green vote dropped


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see Keneally is chickening out and dropping the leadership. Clearly she is not interested in leading in opposition. Watch her make a tilt for a Fed seat. Hard to respect that IMO. She is more interested in the next step of her political career than the people she is supposed to represent. If I am wrong I am happy to admit it… but we’ll have to wait and see on this one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    BTW I note the Nats doing well in the Oakeshott?windsor areas… if that isn’t sending a clear message then what is? Those guys are toast at the next Fed election.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaxL

    Gee it was nice to feel warm and comfortable when I turned the heater on during Earth Hour.
    It would be nice to be able to do that more often, especially during winter.
    I just wish I could afford to do that more often.
    P.S. I had to leave the lights on too, it’s dangerous wandering around in the dark.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Bulldust:
    March 26th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    BTW I note the Nats doing well in the Oakeshott?windsor areas… if that isn’t sending a clear message then what is? Those guys are toast at the next Fed election.

    At this point , time for them to reassess their position. They should admit they are out of step with the wishes of their electorates, retire now and bring on new elections or change horses, either way their dead men walking. Dear Rob & Tony that should not be taken as a death threat, it’s a statement of fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Bulldust and Bob.

    I wonder whether Rob is smart enough to know what’s happened. Ah, I know! He’ll probably consult his 4 year old and his 6 year old.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    I wonder if someone is going to produce a fallout map of the NSW election?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    The truth is – using Dr. David Evans words “This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians” the comments by such idiots as Luke, Lucy and July are the reason for this division. They are all involved in this scam of AGW and will continue to bleat until they are all exposed. IP addresses are becoming very regular on all these types of BLOG sites – and as WIKILEAKS once said – You will be exposed! The internet is a very small platform Lucy Luke and July – I don’t mind others – but MattB is also ready for exposure!

    July’s Farmer storey is an incredible made up life, (the Walter Mitty of AGW) and is an absolute disgrace in this discussion.

    All the other contributors of this site whom I enjoy with regular visits (I can’t name them – too many as they are all above) – the info they provide should not be rubbished by the likes of July / Luke and his lies.

    Great article Dr. David Evans and Jonova.

    July – email me as you and I have previously corresponded.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    July,it’s great that you devote 20% of your farm to conservation, but so what? I have planted 500 trees on my 15 acres, grow my own vegetables and fruit, do not use artificial fertilisers, and I still disagree with you. As far a your constant complaint that those who hold a position contrary to yours are anti-science, well – I hold an arts and two science degrees, and yet I still think differently to you. You must argue the salient facts,not quibble about extraneous details. Nor is it an argument to appeal to a higher morality because, as a wealthy middle class westerner, you got to witness someone else’s suffering. We can all tell our tales of woe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The refrain of those who uphold the dogma of AGW is that the world is on the precipice of climatic disaster. This is an exraordinary claim. You must provide evidence – hard evidence of sufficient force to back up that claim. In addition, that evidence must stand up to the scientific principle of falsifiability. Mixing one’s emotional responses ( and believe me, we all have them )into an argument about hard facts, and then thinking that that will sway anyone with half a brain demonstrates either pitiable naivety, or the height of arrogance.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard (C), thanks again for another plug on Joanna’s blog of my hypothesis about “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” in your comment on March 26th at 9:20 am. The more discussion the better regarding the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of air “trapped” in ice over decades, centuries and millennia and the oversight of the “experts” regarding the relevance of kinetic not collision diameter when diameters of the pores and channels approach molecular size.

    Although I generally agree with how you have tried to summarise what I have been presenting here and elsewhere I suggest a couple of clarifications. First, you say that the fractionation through the small channels along the ice crystal boundaries is “ .. a simple sieving mechanism .. ” but it is not really a simple process within the ice sheet fabric due to chemical/physical complications. Even the “experts” in the subject like Professor Severinghaus, Dr. Huber, Professor Jaworowski, etc. find it less than “simple”. One of the possibilities that keeps coming to mind is the reduction in pore and channel diameter due to the adsorption of CO2 on the surface and the effect that this has on the migration of not only CO2 but other gas molecules.

    A quick read of your comment may give the impression that it was Ideka-Fukusawa who said “This is an important confirmation for the integrity of polar ice cores as a climate archive of the ancient atmospheric composition of these gases.” It might help to make it clear that this was said by Huber et al. when concluding that “From our findings we believe that the effect of close-off fractionation is nonexistent or at least very small for isotope ratios and for large molecules, like Xe, Kr, N2, CO2, CH4, and N2O. This is an important confirmation for the integrity of polar ice cores as a climate archive of the ancient atmospheric composition of these gases”.

    As I have pointed out repeatedly on the “Fallen Snow” (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46112) and “It’s Not Warming You Nitwit – its Cooling” (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360) threads, because it is kinetic and not collision diameter that applies in the bottom of the firn, they (and other “experts”) should exclude CO2 from those atmospheric gases with kinetic diameters exceeding that magic 0.36nm.

    July, in your comment of March 26th at 9:52 am you link CO2 to significant climate change in Australia, but why? Do you believe everything that politicians tell you? I understand that Australia has had droughts and floods throughout its history. Also, aren’t you keen to get more crops for your dollar? Doesn’t a CO2 concentration of about 1000ppm appear to be optimum for crop growth and reduce the need for so much water?

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Oh God. The whole election was a waste. The barking-mad, moon-screamer Clover Moore has survived in Sydney. Alan Jones will not be pleased when he returns on Tuesday morning.

    It also looks like former premier Nathan Rees has just prevailed in his seat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    On the bright side, Holland seem to have had enough as the reality of the Euro-zone going down the pan dawns!

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/holland_energy_switch/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    “But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!”

    If I understood it right, it wouldn’t matter if the model predicted it was .15 or even 1.5 degrees cooler since those doesn’t take into account that about a billion more people will own at least one car by 2050 in African countries, India, and China alone. And taking into account that even the world bank now recognizes the need for cheap energy in Africa, such as coal, I’m thinking that any model that predicts a cooling will be offset by developing countries progression to prosperity, health and peace.

    So instead of fuzzing over how much warming or cooling will be had and if it’s good or bad, spending trillions of taxpayers money doing the fuzzing, taxpayers could use all that money to be allowed to adapt to the ever changing climate if the need arises or just such non business’ as stemming wild fires with say, oh I don’t know, a few more water bombing flying contraptions perhaps. But that’s probably a too overly crazy and wild suggestion for the crazed climate hippie freak show in the political circus. :p


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bernal

    The hockey stick and its eventual application to all phenomena.

    From a commenter at WUWT: “I heard that global warming might have made the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, worse.

    I guess the logic there is that global warming (especially AGW) dehydrates the ocean waters, which makes the tsunami lighter (therefore higher and faster) and also far more able to absorb water (therefore increasing in mass).

    The fact is, tsunami destructive force was increased exponentially by AGW”[!]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So let’s see — MattB is conspicuously AWOL on this one and July is anonymous because some crazed skeptic might come along in the middle of the night and burn him out.

    I’ve been following JN for a long time now and it never ceases to amaze me how something so elegantly simple to understand can be made so complicated that it needs mega billions spent on researching it, grand taxing and other schemes to solve it and gazillions of words to tell the public how bad things are.

    I just pasted Dr. Evans post into Microsoft Word and got the word count: 1,584. That’s all it took to expose the sham called global warming. It’s straight forward, to the point and elegant in its simplicity. His actual explanation of why it’s not a problem is less than half of that, just 554 words. The Skeptic’s Handbook is similarly simple, on point and elegant.

    July alone — leaving aside dozens of others — has spent many times that word count trying to deny reality. You can’t get simplicity, much less to the elegant degree of Dr. Evans, from anyone who argues the AGW cause. Sometimes you can’t even get basic civility.

    When will they learn the difference between a scientist and a witch doctor?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    July,

    I’ve made some pretty strong statements both here and elsewhere, even to the point of displaying my contempt for President Obama. I always do it under my real name. It keeps me honest. I can’t say things I wouldn’t want my wife or my friends to see. I’ve probably POd some people but I have the courage to stand behind my convictions. Do you have that same courage?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you’ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.”

    Don’t they publish official documents that detail all this quite openly?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “MattB is conspicuously AWOL”

    Saturday is Saturday is Saturday is Saturday.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Saturday is Saturday is Saturday is Saturday.

    Yes, the Sabbath


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    It looks like the good people of New South Wales have been doing something a lot more productive with their Earth Hour day
    Kristina Keneally has stood down as leader of the NSW Labor Party after suffering a catastrophic defeat in the state election

    Having an Earth Hour day (well really it needs to be a day) was a great idea, until it got hijacked for the superanuations plan of the political class.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Did you really link to Deltoid????? Balance?

    You work so hard to build friends here and then you tear it all down …..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    But MattB, You didn’t waste any time chiming in, did you?

    Sorry! But what do you expect when you go off on the moon landings being faked and then later say it was all a joke.

    1. We’ve all seen the convenient change of position from the tropical hot spot is a sign of greenhouse warming to it’s a sign of any warming. And we note with great laughter that it’s still missing, even in spite of the contortions used to try to prove it’s there.

    2. In spite of The Drum, no one on either side of the fence disputes the trivial nature of direct CO2 contribution to warming. So the debate is, as Dr. Evans points out, over the feedbacks. There is absolutely no evidence that such positive feedbacks are present. By the way, does it not disturb you that the prognostications of temperature rise have been constantly revised downward? Talk about courage of ones convictions.

    3. If Deltoid was published in print and if I had a dog, I would put Deltoid down for my dog to use. That’s not balance Matt, that’s propaganda.

    We love ya Matt, honestly, we do. JN was not the same without you. But as I said to you months ago, you’re much more astute at politics than you are at science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Thanks for your links to Deltoid Matt B. ;-)

    It’s nice to see Timbo still plugging away at the old imaginary Hotspot.
    As I understand it though, the exisence of a Hotspot would ,at best , only serve to validate the models, which is why they’ve (eg. Santer et al.) had to contrive a justification with some statistical gymnastics on uncertainties, to ‘show’ its existence – while it doesn’t really. (Emperor, clothes an’all that ).

    However, the observed lackof a Hotspot doesn’t disprove GW, it just disproves the models, if there were warming. It no longer has any relevance to actual warming (rather like the models ), but please correct me if I’ve picked this up wrong.

    In terms of actual warming, shouldn’t we be paying more attention to the observations and their integrity. Observations that don’t create projections , fantasic or otherwise.

    Isn’t it rather time to lay the Hotspot to rest, as a historical artefact of the modelling ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Joe V.,

    Nothing seems to hang around longer than discredited ideas.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Please ignore my previous comment which was intended for Judith Curry’s blog


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Roy Hogue, ref. March 27th at 1:08 am – I couldn’t agree more with you. I detest the cowardice of those who hurl insults from behind a false name.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Pete Ridley @103 Do I have to ignore it?

    I found it very interesting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    David Evans

    Lets be perfectly clear. The Earth and its atmosphere are not analogous to a greenhouse. It is an atmosphere effect due solely to water vapor. Water vapor is by far the most powerful absorber in the atmosphere, second to ozone. Co2 at a tiny concentration of .04% makes C02 not EVEN a BIT player in the scheme of things. It is entirely insignificant!
    All other things being equal the more WATER VAPOR in the air the warmer the planet, Co2 is irrelevant.
    “Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet”. That’s what the fake scientists WANT you to believe!
    “But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.” No, the issue is pseudoscience being taught to our schoolkids.
    “Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature.” They do, do they? Who are they?
    “These calculations come from laboratory experiments;” Well, there you have it Heurism(math)rules the day!
    “the basic physics have been well known for a century”. The very, very high absorption by water vapor has also been known since the experiments performed by Tyndall. What basic physics!
    “Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans”. That would be true if you believe that the atmosphere can heat the oceans. By the way a chain of events is NOT a feedback. This is physics? Actually climate science really is pataphysics created by a bunch of pataphysicians.
    “This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.” That Bureaucrats are dim-witted fools and liars is nothing new. The real problem comes when so called scientists cook the books and cook the science as well for the “crats”. A Carbon tax is Really a Water Vapor Tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Cohenite @#63:

    “The idea that climate scientists are the only ones competent to decide on AGW” – I’m often bemused at the hypocrisy of these statements by some alarmists. Have they not heard of Rajendra Pachauri (Railway Engineer) or Tim Flannery (Paleontologist)?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    bernal (march 27 at 12:33am)

    “I guess the logic there is that global warming (especially AGW) dehydrates the ocean waters, which makes the tsunami lighter (therefore higher and faster) and also far more able to absorb water (therefore increasing in mass).”
    This bernal is perfect example of pataphysical gobbledegook. Since when can one dehydrate water? I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair. This makes a Tsunami lighter? I can’t go any further my stomach hurts.
    People will believe ANYTHING so long as it sounds good. In this case it doesn’t even sound “good”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    “The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680.”

    was it longer? One way to “hide the decline” is to shorten the incline:
    Steve McIntyre uncovers another hockey stick trick – where are the academic cops?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/#more-36551


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    A bit off topic, but the state election in NSW last night was a historic ripper!

    Everyone knew it was going to be a rout for Labor, but the ABC repeatedly editorialized that the much of Labor’s loss would slide to the Greens, because everyone knows what a great threat “carbon pollution” has become. WRONG! The greens were unable take Balmain or Marrickville, the Sydney seats the ABC tipped as Green moonbat strong holds. The swing went about 17% to the Coalition, while the Greens only snared about 1.2% gains for a total of ZERO seats.

    When Barry O’Farrell, the new premier, told his party that he would fight Canberra’s Carbon Tax, the crowd cheered and began to chant, “Carbon, carbon, carbon.”

    According to the ABC, the corrupt and incompetent Labor regime with its history of failed policy had over stayed its welcome and therefore the 17% swing towards the Coalition has no correlation to how voters feel about the corrupt and incompetent Federal Labor/Greens regime with its history of failed policy. None whatsoever. Apples and Oranges.

    It’s completely unrelated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Siliggy @109,

    Just wait a while. I’m sure they’ll figure out how to explain it away.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Another superannuated ex-government Minister from England seems to be doing the rounds in support of the Carbon Tax.

    Climate change doubters are endangering our common future , say John Selwyn Gummer, an ex Govt. Minister from the Thatcher era, in the Australian this week.

    He ends the article by saying……….

    The scientific consensus is now so significant that, even if we ourselves remain doubters, it would be wrong to endanger our children by hoping for the best

    He who is best known for feeding his own infant child Beefburgers, as
    John Gummer: Agriculture Minister
    to make a political point, about how there is no scientific concensus to support Mad Cow Disease being a danger to humans. Mad Cow Disease which went on to cause slaughter of the national herd, world wide embargo on British Beef, & compensation claims against the government for many delayed & painful human deaths.

    Perhaps he could be excused for being over cautionary now, after such an embarrasing episode.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    BW @ 108

    It is that filthy nuclear power cooling substance di-hydrogen oxide AGAIN!

    BAN IT!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark D, ref. your comment of March 27th at 5:03 am, please don’t ignore my comment of March 26th, at 10:00 pm which Iwas hoping someone would take an interest in. The comment that I wanted ignored has not yet appeared here so maybe the moderator recognised that it was intended to go elsewhere, however, it does relate to the same topic that I commented about on 26th. If you wish to follow up on this topic then please pop over to Judith Curry’s “Agreeing?” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-57700) where I provide some more information (March 26, 2011 at 2:41 pm) and links to relevant discussion threads.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Bolt’s interview with Flannery has gone viral around the globe.

    This Washington paper has the headline spend trillions now and you might get a fall in temp in 1000 years.
    Bolt says wait till they meet 100 metres Williams. ( ABC science show )

    Where do they find these hopeless, barking mad dingbats?

    What an embarrassment for Australia parading these hayseeds and numbskulls for all the world to see and hear.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/spend-trillions-now-and-world-temperatures-might-fall-1000-years


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Joe V. @ 101:
    Lack of a hot spot could be due to three things:

    1) The models are wrong.
    2) The surface data showing warming is exaggerated.
    3) The Hot Spot temperature data are wrong.

    Needless to say the AGW mob immediately jumps to option 3…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Pattoh @ 113:

    I think you mean dihydrogen monoxide which is well established as an evil compound – even has a dedicated web site:

    http://www.dhmo.org/

    The fact sheet is pretty scary:

    http://www.dhmo.org/dihydrogen-monoxide/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Brian W @106

    Notice some, if not all of the Australian climate scientists are compromised or at least their scientific credibility is by their ecological presuppositions. Steffen is a prime example. Check out his organisational associations in Europe etc. Then there are those who are also political activists under the banner of “Concerned Scientists”, which indicates what their likely motivation for dogmatism, alarmism and fudging the science comes from. No wonder these characters imagine the science is settled. Maybe their partisan “science” is but that is a different kettle of fish.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MattB@96 links to the usual suspects to support AGW including David Karoly who says this:

    “The best explanation for recent global warming is variations of the sun or cosmic rays. This is untrue. The spatial pattern of responses to increasing solar intensity is warming at the surface and warming in the upper atmosphere, which is not consistent with the observed cooling in the upper atmosphere.

    Increasing solar intensity is also not consistent with the observed greater warming in winter and at night, when sunlight is less important. There are no observed increases in solar intensity or in cosmic rays over the last three decades, a period of pronounced global warming. The largest variations of solar intensity and in cosmic rays are associated with the eleven-year solar sunspot cycle. However, global-average temperature shows a long-term trend and no pronounced eleven-year cycle linked to the sunspot cycle.”

    This is profoundly wrong and the only conclusion which can be made is that either Karoly is ignorant or misrepresenting the facts; those facts are:

    1 Total Solar Irradiation, the measure of all solar radiative effect on the Earth is strongly correlated with temperature over the 20thC; even the IPCC shows this:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm

    Dr Glassman shows the correlation between movements in TSI and temperature at over 90%:

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

    2 There is no significant observed cooling in the upper atmosphere [stratosphere]:see comment 96:

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

    3 Warming in winter and night is consistent with UHI

    4 The long term temperature trend in all land based indices is the product of data adjustment which is subject to legal action in NZ and the USA and enquiries in Australia; the only valid temperature record, the satellites does not show any long term upward trend.

    Karoly, Steffen and Flannery do not put forward reasonable, transparent or scientific arguments in favour of AGW or a carbon tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    MattB:
    March 27th, 2011 at 1:56 am

    The following are worth a read for some balance:

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32174.html

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/david_evans_and_that_missing_s.php

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

    MattB these links you give to Deltoid predate the thorough spanking Timbo gets on the subject here:-
    This is vintage spinmeister-Tim.

    and the final exposure of Santer et al. by Herman et al. here :-


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    “Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one.”

    More importantly, during the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons in fact found no warming in the entire global lower troposphere whatsoever. Neither did the satellites. Skeptics at the time were citing these as evidence for a lack of global warming. They turned out wrong. The balloons and satellite records contained errors and had missed the warming.

    Now skeptics have kind of fallen back to citing a small part of the troposphere (the tropics).

    But if the satellites and balloons had trouble getting the entire global lower troposphere right, why do you expect they will be accurate about a specific part of the troposphere in a specific part of the world (the tropics?).

    Of course all of the history of this is rarely discussed by skeptics. Interestingly in an area of such historical uncertainty skeptics seem willing to just accept the measurements. I wonder why (actually I don’t).

    “This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.”

    It wouldn’t even do that because water vapor feedback is not the same thing as the tropospheric hotspot. The absense of a tropospheric hotspot doesn’t necessarily mean a lower climate sensitivity. It could mean a warmer sensitivity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    “All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism”

    There is evidence – the atmosphere contains more water vapor than it did decades ago. Water vapor does track global temperature. The warmer the world is, the more water vapor there is. This is precisely the water vapor feedback that amplifies the direct CO2 warming.

    The uncertain feedback is clouds, not water vapor. Of course you need negative cloud feedback to cancel out the water vapor feedback. So the uncertain feedback in this case is the one skeptics rely on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “The absense of a tropospheric hotspot doesn’t necessarily mean a lower climate sensitivity. It could mean a warmer sensitivity.”

    Congratulations, that sentence puts you in the running for the loon of the year award. Check out your competition here:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/comment-page-1/#comment-477940

    His name is luke and he has posted this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    “There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming”

    So many that Evans doesn’t list them!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Cohenite @ 119

    You are clearly not a person to be messed with. Unfortunately the trolls are slow learners, but it does make for entertaining reading…

    I wonder how they’ll get out of this one?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    “They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results “global” warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.”

    The trick with Evans, like all skeptics, is to watch that thimble move.

    First Evans claims climate scientists place the thermometers. This is complete nonsense. If Evans had even a slightest clue about this subject he’d know the thermometers are in weather stations, some of which have been around long before global temperature records even existed. Climate scientists have not placed those thermometers, they have used them after the fact.

    [The point he makes is that real scientists would care about the quality of the data they used. Even if the air conditioners were inadvertantly installed, the scientists were not checking their "warming" data to see if there were any artificial influences. Evan's point stands, and global warming fans are scared of it. It took volunteers to expose the poor quality of the data, and even after they did, so-called scientists didn't promptly say "crickey!" and "let's drop those stations" and look seriously at only the unaffected ones. It's a lie by omission. --JN]

    Second he’s pushing the bogus claim that the warming is just due to airports, AC units and car parks. this stuff has been sufficiently tested. Rural stations, the best graded stations and airport stations show similar warming as the urban and badly sited stations. AC Units, tarmac and even airports have been ruled out as having a significant effect.

    [Of course. Close your eyes, imagine a hot 2km of tarmac. There's no way it could influence a sensitive thermometer. We all know that will a carefully homogenised set of data (where some "rural" is bad quality, and some urban is good quality, it's possible to "show" they are equally bad sets. ]

    “Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.”

    And this part seals the deal. Watch closely as Evans DOESNT point out that the satellites show 2010 is statistically tied with 1998.

    [And there's been no statistically significant warming since 1996 either. Sounds like, looks like, a "levelling off"... --JN]

    Yes that’s right if you believed what Evan’s claimed you might be misled into thinking the satellites show far less warming than the surface. Yet no! RSS satellite record shows MORE warming than HadCRUT3 surface record.

    Evan’s “analysis” is at best sloppy. At worse a pack of lies.

    [You havent actually shown that Evans was dishonest on any point. As far as the tax paying public is concerned, what difference does it make if the scientists accept results from thermometers near air conditioners, even after they found out the air conditioners were there. How many establishment scientists protested at the poor data, would that be none? ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    cohenite you are wrongly assuming the hotspot is a result of water vapor feedback. It isn’t, the hotspot is a result of the moist adiabatic lapse rate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    “The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks”

    Utter toss. Like claiming a qualification in plumbing makes one an expert on sea level rise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    “the hotspot is a result of the moist adiabatic lapse rate.”

    Very good, and what makes the “moist adiabatic lapse rate” moist?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    And now you are confusing water vapor with water vapor feedback.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    lolwot

    “1 Total Solar Irradiation, the measure of all solar radiative effect on the Earth is strongly correlated with temperature over the 20thC; even the IPCC shows this:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm

    There’s strong correlation until about 1950. Then it goes flat while global temperature starts rising again.

    If the strong correlation is meaningful then the sudden lack of correlation should be a red flag that the Sun is no longer in control.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Well said Dr Evans…. The message is getting through. The NSW vote and annihilation of Labor and the Greens was testament to that. The lamestream and drive by media may try and create a narrative that attempts to say otherwise…. But most Australians see through the politics and spin and know that it’s THEIR money that will be paying for it… Higher taxes, higher prices, higher cost of living, higher electricity prices.

    … and Australians aren’t stupid. We see through the lies. We can see the Flannerys and Bob Browns for what they are. Extremists… and the AGW hypothesis for what it is. A scam.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The IPCC view is that TSI influence effectively ceases about 1970; Figure 6.5 from TAR contradicts this because it shows a TSI correlation with temperature upto near the end of the 20thC; the Krivova et paper confirms this:

    http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/papers/uvmm-2col.pdf

    See figure 6 and 8 from the paper:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TROOdgOGFJI/AAAAAAAABd4/2a-Lx0vQdlo/s1600/uv+irradiance.jpg

    A discussion of this issue is here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/does-solar-activity-have-to-keep-going-up-to-cause-warming-mike-lockwood-responds-3/#more-36270


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    Llew Jones (March 27, 2011 at 8:25am)

    The whole thing is really quite a shame for science in general. Scientists have put their reputations on the line for decades and that is what they are concerned about. It’s not about funding anymore. It is about as the Chinese would say “saving face”. It has to be settled because there is too much at stake and the psyche won’t allow any other outcome. The alternative is complete ruination. If you’re a well publicised scientist and you’ve been preaching the gospel of agw regularly to the masses as unconditionally settled, then to discover plainly that you are wrong is not an option. Kids to feed, wife to keep, mortgage to pay etc. So the warmists with so much invested will just keep bashing away at it constantly looking for ways and angles to work their magic from. From what I see so far at least one generation has been completely indoctrinated(I use 22yrs per generation). Its all about state control of human behaviour.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    One of our regular Warmist Contributers “MattB” actually stated the following admission in post (199) of this discussion

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/thousands-of-angry-ordinary-australians-turn-up-and-alarmist-smears-begin/comment-page-5/#comment-244212

    …………….
    The words of MattB;-

    “Therefore we can only logically conclude that there is No Proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mankind is responsible for global warming”

    THAT’S WHAT I SAID!!!
    THAT’S THE ANSWER!
    ……………….

    That response was in relation to my challenge at post (121) of the same discussion

    My Words (and challenge):-
    Simple question for you characters “MattB”, “John Brookes” etc..

    Please post at least one Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper which PROVES, Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt, that mankind is responsible for global warming.

    I await your responses with baited breath…….
    …………

    Well there you have it!

    The warmists admit that there is No Proof and thus No Justification for a carbon DIOXIDE (Plant Food) Tax!!

    I rest my case.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Afternoon all, just a note on last nights hour of power, I was involved in a 17.5hr video conferencing session with up to 72 participants around the world (started at 5:30pm)for the RPG & M&SWG group I am part of, had a great time and did my bit for the planet by generating 1.82t of plant food, all for a personal cost of approx $35 on my power bill. Now that I’ve finished lunch it’s time to crank up the aircon on dehumidify & catch a couple of hours kip before turning the plasma back on & watching the GP.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    lolwot:

    And what molecule do you presume is most responsible for changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate?

    A rate is not a “forcing” itself, it’s only a measurement. It can’t change anything. “rates” don’t pop in from near Earth orbit and warm us. Something has to be altered to make the rate change.

    As for confusing “water vapor with water vapor feedback”, go on, if you can tell which molecules are feedback and which ones are forcings, quick (!) rush and tell the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    #126 lolwot

    “Climate scientists have not placed those thermometers, they have used them after the fact.”

    That’s broadly true but it is also true that climate scientists choose which ones to include in a global “average” and which to leave out (Google “The Great Dying of the Thermometers”). And if you’re Phil Jones of CRU you will refuse requests for information on what the criteria are, and if pressed you’ll say the relevant information has been “lost”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    If the overall feedback from water vapour is positive there should be runaway warming every time the sun shines on water (no need for CO2). If an initial direct effect of sunlight is enough to cause some evaporation of water the positive feedback should cause an extra degree of evaporation beyond that caused by the direct effect. That in turn has an additional effect and so on. So not only would we experience global instability and not not be here to discuss it, we would also experience local instability with runaway local heating any time there is sun on water.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    macha

    Something for JBrookes and MattB to ponder …interpreting science rather than political discourse.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/#more-7739

    The most significant ‘smell’ surrounding the IPCC is what is does NOT say. ie. does not say anything of any great note about ‘other’ forcings and factors. The PDO, TSI, etc. etc. Zealots perhaps?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian W

    lolwot
    (March 27, 2011 at 10:26am)

    lolwot. Your hot SPOT is no spot at all. It is a deviation or bump in the lapse-rate curve from normal at 10km. Thousands of balloons and hundreds of satellite readings were most certainly not in error because this is what the measurements indicated. NO constantly rising variation or any deviation was observed. The instruments did precisely what they were designed to do! If you claim that heat is trapped in the atmosphere then you need to have evidence of that claim and that is where your fabled(Aesops?)hotspot is. It is also evidence of heat accumulation. Since it is physically impossible to trap either heat or radiation in the atmosphere and the only way to physically raise heat at this height is to place a REAL, SOLID, TRANSPARENT shell that encircles the earth at say 13km. So far there have been no reports of such an oddity! Go figure. You apparently suffer from historically “spotty” delusions. The hot-spot is physically impossible so you will never see it in your lifetime.
    Water vapor feeds back nothing. It does however provide tremendous opacity to the sun’s (non-visible)infrared rays. More water vapor provides increased ABSORPTION in the IR. ABSORPTION is not FEEDBACK and you are apparently engaging in pataphysics, was this your major?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    There is evidence – the atmosphere contains more water vapor than it did decades ago.

    And like the warming, WV concentrations have stalled (CO2 has no influence on either it seems).

    Drop in warming linked to water vapour decrease

    Jan 29, 2010

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41594

    Much of the flattening in global temperature rises seen over the last decade can be attributed to a reduction in the concentration of water vapour in the lower stratosphere, according to a group of US climate scientists. Conversely, it is likely that a significant part of the warming observed during the 1990s was due to a rise in such concentrations. The inability of current climate models to incorporate these effects represents a significant weakness in those models, say the researchers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    lolwot #122

    So the uncertain feedback in this case is the one skeptics rely on.

    We don’t “rely” on it, we point out the unresolved science and that the science is nowhere near “settled”. Upthread at #22 you will see reference to CERN’s 4.7 MEuro CLOUD project where a cloud chamber is exposed to experimental cosmic rays as a result of the cosmic ray flux hypothesis. This is only one of a number of competing climate driver hypotheses (including AGW) and combinations of influences but at least research is taking place on it (miniscule compared to the 10s of billions committed to AGW), but conclusions are still a long way off.

    On its own, TSI is relatively insignificant compared to other potential natural correlations even when just solar is considered and yet it is the IPCC’s only natural forcing. If the IPCC’s preemptive conclusions were accepted by CERN, the CLOUD project would not be underway but fortunately for us they are not scientifically constrained by IPCC group-think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Brian W @ 135

    Brian if for example you check Steffen out you will find that he is the Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute. That in itself is a pretty clear indication of his motivation to discredit other highly credentialed climate scientists like John Christy, Dick Lindzen, Roy Spencer and a host of others, who reject the notion that CO2 is likely to be a significant driver of climate change post the IR. His Climate Change job and those of many others would soon disappear if those conclusions, derived by less ideological scientists, from the same climate science were accepted more widely by governments.

    If you have a glance at the titles you will see that he brings to his practice of climate science a number of soft almost quasi-scientific or even no more than ideological opinions that have nothing to do with climate science per se but no doubt provide him with a rationale to believe that the existence of anthropogenic climate change is beyond all doubt. That has more to do with arrogance than an incontrovertible science. We could do the same check with other CACC scientists and find that their science also is seriously compromised by similar sorts of associations, beliefs and biases.

    Below is some of his background including publications that indicates where Steffen is coming from as mentioned:

    Steffen has a long history in international global change research, serving from 1998 to 2004 as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), based in Stockholm, Sweden, and before that as Executive Officer of IGBP’s Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project. Prior to taking up the CCI Directorship in 2008, Steffen was the inaugural director of the ANU Fenner School of Environment and Society. From 2004 he has served as science adviser to the Department of Climate Change, Australian Government.

    Research and Teaching Interests
    Steffen’s interests span a broad range within the field of sustainability and Earth System science, with an emphasis on the science of climate change, approaches to climate change adaptation in land systems, incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis; and the history and future of the relationship between humans and the rest of nature.

    Research and Teaching Interests

    Steffen’s interests span a broad range within the field of sustainability and Earth System science, with an emphasis on the science of climate change, approaches to climate change adaptation in land systems, incorporation of human processes in Earth System modelling and analysis; and the history and future of the relationship between humans and the rest of nature.

    Notable publications

    Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J. and McNeill, J.R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of Nature? Ambio 36: 614-621.

    Costanza, R., Graumlich, L. and Steffen, W. (eds) (2006) Integrated History and Future of People on Earth, MIT Press, Dahlem Workshop Report 96, 495 pp.

    Gordon, L.J., Steffen, W., Jönsson, B.F., Folke, C., Falkenmark, M. and Johannessen, Å (2005) Human modification of global water vapor flows from the land surface. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 102: 7612-7617.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    Hi Jo,

    Hope you don’t mind but I’ve copied David’s speech to my local candidate (ALP) in the hope they might just read it. (They don’t follow links to web pages).

    Let me know if this is not kosher and I won’t do it in future.

    Great discussions BTW

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    This expalins a great deal about what is happening in Australia!!!!!

    “The Evolution of Socialist Strategies to Rescue Socialism from Failure”

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/purpleslog/3455894014/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “MattB” (96),
    You can’t be serious when you try and refer GULLIBLE readers to websites like “bravenewclimate” and the “abc” to find some “balance”.

    Both those sites are well known Rabid Pro Global Warming Propaganda locations.

    Honestly you must be a Comedian!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    you must see all those sites I linked to are far more “mainstream” than this site here. That’s not an insult, but you can;t genuinely post at Jo Nova and in the same sentence type that Deltoid is unreliable. Or ABC. Or Bravenewclimate. etc etc. Next you’ll be saying WUWT is pure science central.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Eddy Aruda: March 26th, 2011 at 3:23 am “No contributor to the IPCC report was asked to sign a document agreeing with the conclusions of the assessment reports.”

    The top authors if each IPCC group were required to sign that they had sought and dealt with any objections raised by authors below them and the rules required that they disclose such cases. I have the requisite form signed by David Karoly. It’s a Xerox form pre-worded the same as others from other countries, and has a signature on the bottom.

    Otherwise, I agree with you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    Joanne Nova:

    “And what molecule do you presume is most responsible for changes in the moist adiabatic lapse rate?”

    It’s not about *changes* in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It’s about the moist adiabatic lapse rate itself. That lapse rate is curved, not linear. Meaning that a warmer surface is associated with an even warmer atmospheric temperature at eg 10km. Ie a hotspot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emagram.GIF


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    #126 lolwot: “Climate scientists have not placed those thermometers, they have used them after the fact.”

    #140 davidc: “That’s broadly true”

    I would say it’s pretty much completely true. If it’s only broadly true then that would make Evan’s statement broadly false (which is rather charitable considering).

    [lolwot is not answering the substantive point, just picking on an irrelevancy -- "they placed". Who would trust climate scientists who used those thermometers in place of satellites, and present their readings as the definitive "global" data? It's unanswerable and the implications are obvious -- the government climate scientists are cheating. ]

    The idea of Hansen or Phil Jones traveling the world placing thermometers, even going back in time to the 1950s to make sure thermometers exist back then is absurd.

    [And David didn't suggest that. He referred to a very loose undefined group "Alarmist Climate scientists". To show David is misleading people, just point to all the newspaper headlines of press releases issued as climate scientists discovered to their horror that the siting was abysmal and how they were throwing out some stations.... Sure. The misleading behaviour that matters is as usual, all from your team. --JN]

    David Evans either knows no better, or he’s trying to mislead people. In either case in fact the end result is that he misleads people – plenty of people will go away with the idea that climate scientists have deliberately stuck thermometers next to AC units to get global warming.

    And it doesn’t even make sense from a “how will this work” angle. If you stuck a thermometer next to an AC unit all you would guarantee was the first measurement would be high. You wouldn’t get a sudden leap in temperature because you haven’t yet got any temperatures. Not to mention that a sudden leap in temperatures would obviously not tie in with gradual warming. The claim that climate scientists went around placing the thermometers is not only known to be false, it defies common sense.

    [Of course. All those airconditioners running in 1880 would have had the same influence on temperatures as they do in 1980. We're quite ok with thermometers that started in carparks back then too. / sarc--JN]

    Not to mention that the satellite records show about the same amount of warming as the surface records (eg RSS shows more warming than HadCRUT). Which David Evans doesn’t really make clear.

    [Just look at a graph. Compare them yourself. All the "records" come from surface records-- there have been no record "hottest ever" temps from satellites since 1998. -- JN]

    Skeptics should police their own a bit better, if they don’t want to be tarred with the suggestion that they are happy to mislead the public. Including perhaps telling David Evans to correct his errors and apologize to the scientists he smeared. I mean if skeptics won’t apologize why do you expect climate scientists to do so?

    #140 davidc: “but it is also true that climate scientists choose which ones to include in a global “average” and which to leave out (Google “The Great Dying of the Thermometers”).”

    No this is false as well. It’s yet another baseless and misleading smear which skeptics have failed to prevent slipping out of their ranks and misleading people. In this case you seem to be one of the misled.

    [And to substantiate that ... nothing.. "it's just false". Trust me. ]

    It’s unfortunate this kind of baseless smearing is rife in the skeptic community. It’s not something the skeptic community seems willing to clean up, and is rather hypocritical given their demands for perfection from climate scientists.

    “And if you’re Phil Jones of CRU you will refuse requests for information on what the criteria are, and if pressed you’ll say the relevant information has been “lost”.”

    Any reason why you couldn’t just go with the station selection in GISTEMP, which shows more warming anyway? If there’s a problem with station selection (which by the way Hansen does not control, before that claim is made) why not demonstrate it in GISTEMP? The singling out of hadcrut when any task could have been accomplished through NASA GISTEMP made the whole episode look like a witchhunt and smearing rather than actual concern over the science.

    [Getting a tad precious about the reputations of people who admit they've lost entire data sets (but only after they're caught) so hiding data and then losing it is OK, but pointing that out is a "smear"?? Methinks you doth protest too much. JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    #141 davidc:

    “If the overall feedback from water vapour is positive there should be runaway warming every time the sun shines on water (no need for CO2).”

    That’s a common misconception. Positive water vapor feedback doesn’t mean the warming runs away infinitely.

    The only reason I reply is I notice your comment got 6 likes and no dislikes…which is odd as it suggests the complete opposite of a willingness by others to correct mistakes on their side.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    #143 Brian W:

    You seem to be under the misconception that the “hotspot” is actually a spot of atmosphere high in the sky that is “hot”. As if we could just launch a balloon and see if there is a bump in the lapse rate. And failing that we could just launch another one.

    The name “hotspot” isn’t great. It’s as bad as “greenhouse” effect. It’s a similar misconception as people who imagine the greenhouse effect is like an actual glass greenhouse.

    No, “the hotspot” is actually about a warming trend specifically in the tropics.

    So those thousands of balloon measurements you mention are not 1000s of attempts to find the hotspot. They are one attempt. Snapshots of the atmosphere over decades using different equipment with known and unknown biases and then you then have to stitch together all that data into a timeline and try to tease out the warming trend at different altitudes over time and compare that with the surface warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lolwot

    lolwot #122:
    “So the uncertain feedback in this case is the one skeptics rely on.”

    Richard C #145:
    “We don’t “rely” on it”

    I wasn’t saying you’d agree, but it is true. Without a strong negative cloud feedback there’s nothing to cancel out the strong water vapor+lapse rate feedback.

    The water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback combined have very little uncertainty:
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/lapse-rate-water-vapor-ipcc-ar4-v2.gif

    It’s cloud feedback that is the major uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

    “Upthread at #22 you will see reference to CERN’s 4.7 MEuro CLOUD project where a cloud chamber is exposed to experimental cosmic rays as a result of the cosmic ray flux hypothesis. This is only one of a number of competing climate driver hypotheses (including AGW) and combinations of influences but at least research is taking place on it (miniscule compared to the 10s of billions committed to AGW), but conclusions are still a long way off.”

    We don’t need to wait. The easiest thing to do surely would be to demonstrate that cosmic ray forcing over the 20th century correlates with 20th century warming – the last 3 decades of warming especially. I’ve yet to see anyone supply such a graph.

    “On its own, TSI is relatively insignificant compared to other potential natural correlations even when just solar is considered and yet it is the IPCC’s only natural forcing.”

    cohenite claimed TSI was strongly correlated with global temperature.

    “If the IPCC’s preemptive conclusions were accepted by CERN, the CLOUD project would not be underway but fortunately for us they are not scientifically constrained by IPCC group-think.”

    IPCC doesn’t say currently unknown forcings don’t exist. It just doesn’t assume they do. It also can’t take into account things that don’t even have any numbers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Case

    Since 1850 world temperature has trended up a little over 0.7°C and atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 390 ppm today. Those two facts work out to a climate sensitivity of about 1.5°C per doubling of CO2. The IPCC claims a climate sensitivity of 3.2°C per doubling. They are wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    Hello Lowlot? (and sorry Hi MattB) – LowLot Aren’t you going to Sri Lanka with MattB for the Sir Lanka VS Blackcaps match?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    In his comment on March 26th at 8:49 am (not “at 9:20 am” as I previously said) about my hypothesis about “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” (the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of air “trapped” in ice over millennia) Richard (C) once again made a misleading comment about the kinetic and collision diameters of molecules and the size. Some of you may not have spotted his error so here’s clarification.

    His ” .. CO2 collision dia 39nm, CO2 kinetic dia 33nm .. ” is two orders of magnitude too great. The commonly quoted sizes are 0.39nm and 0.33nm more often quoted in angstroms (3.9 Å and 3.3Å). He makes the same mistake when saying “ .. CO2 will pass 36nm if kinetic dia is used …”. None of the atmospheric gases should have any problem diffusing as normal in open spaces like that, which exist much higher in the firn. Down at the bottom where channel and pore close-off is occurring it is the reduction of these towards 0.36nm (3.6Å) that results in the preferential fractionation of CO2 out of the air pockets.

    Here’s a link to an excellent length convertor which includes nanometre (10 power -9 metres) to Angstrom (1 power -10) http://www.convertworld.com/en/length/.

    Richard, I’m not suggesting that “ .. If you can’t see this you obviously have no conception of scale and are totally out of your depth. I can’t be bothered wasting my time repeating this concept ad nauseam if you continually fail to at least try to understand it. I have to say that my patience has run out .. ” (your comment of
    March 25th at 12:45 pm on http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46211). I’m a patient man and am quite happy to await your apology for what some might consider to be an unnecessarily sarcastic comment.

    Steve (Case) you may be interested in having a look at the analyses carried out by retired award-winning Canadian science teacher Roger Taguchi on Judith Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/), Roger Taguchi has provided excellent anayses here, particularly in his comments of Feb. 7th, Feb. 9th and Feb. 22nd. Which substantiate what you said in your comment on March 27th at 9:11 pm. Lolwot, you too would learn from it.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    David @ #85
    ” IP addresses are becoming very regular on all these types of BLOG sites – and as WIKILEAKS once said – You will be exposed! The internet is a very small platform Lucy Luke and July – I don’t mind others – but MattB is also ready for exposure!”

    WTF? that’s great advert for blog – post here at your peril:) lol. Can you lend me a [SNIP] hat david you drongo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard’s the kiwi. I’m a pom (cricket only)- got thrashed last night.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    lolwot @126,

    And this part seals the deal. Watch closely as Evans DOESNT point out that the satellites show 2010 is statistically tied with 1998.

    And this means… …well, I can’t figure it out. Can you help me here?

    And, “… 2010 is statistically tied with 1998.” Is this then an admission that 2010 wasn’t the warmest year on record as claimed?

    On and on — the deck chairs need to be rearranged before the ship sinks I guess. Don’t you just love the nitpickers?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] numera gått över till att bli skeptisk. Översättningen är min (och Googles). Hela talet finns här. (Jag är dock osäker på om talaren på bilden är [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David

    MattyB. @ 160 = that’s “Spangled Drongo” – stay with the picture – you with me here?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    lolwotsays post 152

    Lolwot correctly states:

    It’s not about *changes* in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It’s about the moist adiabatic lapse rate itself. That lapse rate is curved, not linear. Meaning that a warmer surface is associated with an even warmer atmospheric temperature at eg 10km. Ie a hotspot.

    He provides a link to a chart showing the curved moist lapse rates.

    Note that a 5 degree Celsius change in surface temperature from 15 C to 20 C corresponds to a temperature change at 30 kPa pressure level of 11 C, from -45 C to -34 C, according to this diagram (see the dashed lines).

    This diagram is not in dispute. The central flaw in climate models is the false assumption the temperature profile in the tropics should follow the moist adiabatic lapse rate. This assumption leads to the false idea that the relative humidity in the upper troposphere would stay approximately constant.

    Thermometers on weather balloons do not show this enhanced warming, and humidity measurements do not show constant relative humidity. Relative humidity has been falling as shown here.

    Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that the atmosphere does not follow the moist adiabatic.

    A new paper by Dr. William Gray and Barry Schwartz is featured in my Friends of Science March Newsletter here.

    The authors analyzed a wide variety of albedo and radiation differences which are associated with rainfall variations on many different space and time scales. The analysis indicates that there will be very little global temperature increase, about 0.3 C for a doubling of CO2, certainly not the 2-5 oC projected by climate models.

    The study finds that in areas of heavy rainfall, the albedo cooling is much stronger than the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation. Increasing updrafts in storm clouds act to increase large return downward air flows around the cloudy areas. The downward air flows cause a reduction in humidity in the upper atmosphere which leads to enhanced radiative cooling to space.

    Precipitation and deep convection increases with temperature, causing extra return air mass subsidence. Saturated air from the upper tropospheric outflow from clouds which sinks from 200 mbars to 300 mbar has its relative humidity reduced by 86 percent. The reduced humidity allows longwave radiation to escape to space, offsetting the effects of increasing CO2.

    Line-by-line code simulations show that a change in specific humidity at the 300 – 400 mbar level has 41 times the effect on outgoing long-wave radiation as the same change near the surface. So only water vapour changes in the upper atmosphere matter. (See here)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry, I provided a wrong link.
    The paper by Dr. William Gray and Barry Schwartz is here.

    I discuss the paper in the Science News section of our newsletter here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    lolwat@152 says:

    “It’s not about *changes* in the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It’s about the moist adiabatic lapse rate itself. That lapse rate is curved, not linear. Meaning that a warmer surface is associated with an even warmer atmospheric temperature at eg 10km. Ie a hotspot”

    I think you are a cut and paster because you continue to say things which do not make sense; the moist lapse rate [MLR] of course is neither curved or linear but can be both since the different water content in particular air parcels will make different air parcels react differently as they ascend due to condensation which will occur at different levels according to the temperature of the air mass, as well as the humidity level and the temperature of the surrounding air which has its own, different lapse rate called the environmental lapse rate [ELR], and of course both the ELR and the MLR are subject to inversion effects.

    The idea, I think, you are trying to clumsily express is that the THS will occur with extra water in the atmosphere due to the heating affect of CO2 causing more water to evaporate; since there is more water in the tropics the argument is that extra water will cause a much more rapid heating trend in the atmosphere over the land/water in the tropics; this will be shown by a steepening of the MLR because, according to the theory, the extra water in the atmosphere will lesson the temperature decline with height.

    Quite simply, this is not happening, there is no THS and the MLR has not altered in the tropics, or do you have evidence to the contrary? If not put on your loon hat and go out to your street corner and start shouting at strangers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    loolwot #156

    We don’t need to wait. The easiest thing to do surely would be to demonstrate that cosmic ray forcing over the 20th century correlates with 20th century warming – the last 3 decades of warming especially. I’ve yet to see anyone supply such a graph.

    That’s what CLOUD is all about so we do have to wait. The mechanism is more complex than you surmise. The problem is cloud cover changes during the 90s and what caused them (it wasn’t CO2). Obviously less cloud cover means more insolation, more cloud cover means less insolation but what caused the cloud cover reduction in the early 90s? The climate models didn’t parameterize the cloud cover change either so the results from the models are deficient. The cloud mechanism that is being investigated is part of a number of interactions that have not been detailed yet so you wont find any conclusions anywhere. Neither will you find a graph showing “cosmic ray forcing over the 20th century” because at this stage (in my understanding) the hypothesis is that cosmic rays are a modulator – not a forcing.

    The major effect of the change in 90s insolation as a result of cloud cover change was on the ocean being the worlds greatest heat sink. The ocean took in energy over that period, now it is releasing it. Several papers document that the combination of solar and internal variability account for approx 0.5C/century warming since the LIA i.e. this much is completely normal (and cyclical) but how the trend will progress is uncertain.

    “On its own, TSI is relatively insignificant compared to other potential natural correlations even when just solar is considered and yet it is the IPCC’s only natural forcing.”

    cohenite claimed TSI was strongly correlated with global temperature.

    Correlation yes but a 0.1 percent increase of solar irradiance alone in 24 years is not enough to cause climate change although if sustained could according to NASA.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm

    What I meant was, it is what happens to the suns energy after it reaches the atmosphere that really matters, a major influence being on the ocean as described above. Solar influences are complex and TSI is just one metric but in terms of the 11 year solar cycle correlates well with temperature, I agree. There is at least one graph around showing almost perfect TSI correlation with Arctic temperature and Spencer has done his own estimate of CS from the 11 year solar cycle where he shows the cycle correlation with HADCrut3.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/low-climate-sensitivity-estimated-from-the-11-year-cycle-in-total-solar-irradiance/

    Note that his estimate is sans cosmic ray modulation. Correlations are one thing but identifying impacts and causation are another matter entirely. The fact remains, that solar/cosmic/celestial/ocean oscillations are far better correlations to climate than CO2 has ever been and can even be used for successful predictions which you cannot do with CO2. The exact causes have yet to be identified.

    “If the IPCC’s preemptive conclusions were accepted by CERN, the CLOUD project would not be underway but fortunately for us they are not scientifically constrained by IPCC group-think.”

    IPCC doesn’t say currently unknown forcings don’t exist. It just doesn’t assume they do. It also can’t take into account things that don’t even have any numbers.

    Yes, basically they are being premature and deficient in their conclusions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    lolwot #153

    Keep up the good work.

    Quote from #153/
    #140 davidc: “but it is also true that climate scientists choose which ones to include in a global “average” and which to leave out (Google “The Great Dying of the Thermometers”).”

    No this is false as well. It’s yet another baseless and misleading smear which skeptics have failed to prevent slipping out of their ranks and misleading people. In this case you seem to be one of the misled.
    /Unquote

    OK. So there are (guess) millions of thermometers in the world. Some are used in the calculation of the “average global temperature” and some are not. Who decides which are included? Climate scientists or some other group?

    I just love “yet another baseless and misleading smear” which really can be used anywhere and any time for any purpose. Like “Trust me, I’m a Climate Scientist”. As I said, keep up the good work


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Come on people, it’s obvious that July is a moby troll.

    Let’s examine the evidence:
    - 5th generation farmer, yet no children (hope to be 6th generation!), despite being old enough to visit a refugee camp in Sudan in 1985. I’d be finding a lifetime partner of breeding age pretty soon, at that age time is definitely ticking on that 6th generation.
    - 5th generation farmer would conservatively put the age of the farm (and associated family) dating back to the mid-late 1800′s. Let’s be charitable and say july was 20 in 1985 for that shocking trip to the sudan. So born 1965. That makes Dad born 1940 – quite possible. Then Grandad born, say, 1915. Then Great-Grandad born about 1890. Great-Great-Grandad born 1870ish – and owned the farm at some point between 1870 and 1890. I’m 2nd generation in my area, and my Grandmother was born in 1902 – so 5th generation born between 1870 is a generous concession. Look, its possible, don’t get me wrong. Let’s move on.
    - then we get to the rainfall – 25% reduction (which doesn’t align with any BOM statistics for any part of Australia, but let’s be charitable and say that this local area has a micro-climate that has suffered a reduction. Yet this terribly dry area also has a large wetlands that July has been able to donate.
    - July, despite from being from an important cross-generational farming family has also managed to travel to Sumatra, Amazon Brazil as well as the already mentioned trip to Sudan. We’re not talking package contiki holidays to bali here folks, we’re talking serious off-the-beaten path travel. Travel that takes time, money and persistence to achieve. Again quite possible. But don’t forget they are also donating time and money to the local farmers tree-planting group. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact most tree-planting groups are either trying to (a) claim carbon credits instead of growing food (see NZ) or (b) trying to fix salinity problems caused by land clearing that have nothing to do with co2?

    So let’s look at the balance of probabilities, as the carbon phobic scientists are often heard to say.
    Is it likely we have someone amongst us whose family has been farming a well-cleared plot of land for 140-150 years, and has plenty of spare time and money to indulge in refugee and environmental tourism, despite pressures on the farm due to falling rainfall levels (and extensions commitments to tree planting and environmental activism?) Someone, who despite falling rain (25%) still has 30 acres of wetland lying around? Someone who insults and name calls like an undergraduate (you’re all rednecks!) but is probably nearing 50 years old? Who, instead of farming is posting on a relatively obscure (sorry Jo) climate skeptics blog? Despite this high profile and undoubted activism and achievement, prefers to post anonymously using a gmail address? And the reason for this is that they think some skeptics lynch mob is going to engage in retribution and ‘torch the fields’ (as if such as thing were really possible, unless they grow sugar cane, in which case it would be beneficial anyway).

    Or, is it more possible that July has created a pastiche internet character, someone who is purposely designed to seem like a progressive (sic) farmer. Someone who just knows the future we face if we don’t cut our evil co2 ways.

    Yes, it’s possible all the backstory is true. I just ask the impartial observer to balance the weight of probability.

    My conclusion is the July is a troll designed to try and appear as a conservative farmer and elicit insults and statements designed to be then shown to other members of whatever group they come from. ‘look what I made them say!’

    Again, I go back to the best strategy ; just ignore the trolling. Note that this post is addressed to other readers of the blog, and not ‘july’ themselves. Just don’t answer the taunts and accusations and it will go away, or perhaps amusingly invents some more interesting backstory, like being witness to JFK’s assassination and helping out with the evacuation of the Saigon embassy, pausing only to clean up the prince william sound and knock down the Berlin wall.

    [BRC, be assured that the moderators are watching "July" closely. Keep up the helpful posts.] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    Something else I wanted to post. Does anyone have a prediction for the names David Evans is going to be called for this post? Has he gone from being ‘a reputable scientist’ to now being a ‘shill for big oil’? Those that reverse their previous public policy statements are indeed a tricky case for alarmists to deal with.

    Thank you, David, for this contribution to the debate highlighting important facts that just get glossed over time and time again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: (@150)
    March 27th, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    you must see all those sites I linked to are far more “mainstream” than this site here. That’s not an insult, but you can;t genuinely post at Jo Nova and in the same sentence type that Deltoid is unreliable.

    Is this the same Deltoid that you say claims that “plants can’t grow at altitude” if CO2
    “falls to the ground”? (This thread, post #42.)

    How smart can someone be if they think that plants growing at altitude are suspended in mid-air? Is that representative of “mainstream” thinking? (Or just your thinking?)

    I see that you have thought long and hard and have come up with a new version of the logical fallacy “argument from authority” — now you would like to define “authority” as “what is found on ‘mainstream’ sites”. Sad to say, MattB — it’s still a fallacy.

    But, enough of insults (deserved or not) — link some posts that show that the science found here is wrong. Start with anything in the “Skeptics Handbook”, for instance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    Re “sock Puppets”

    Aim:- To create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries and reports that do not correspond with the governments objectives.

    http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/media/internet/news.php?q=1300552644


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    This is an absolute treasure chest of information about the global warming FRAUD……..

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

    Some terrific articles!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    BobC – well excuse if I go from memory rather than read tha handbook(s) again. Fundamentally the issue is that of “empirical evidence” that CO2 is causing the warming. And beyond that – empirical evidence that the CO2 warming causes feedbacks to approximately treble the impact of CO2.

    The issue being that, perhaps conveniently, skeptics denounce any of the empirical evidence presented as being meaningless. In reverse the field of climate science, perhaps also conveniently, insist that it is valid and the skeptics are just trying to cause confusion and distrust in the public.

    There are bits and pieces of the handbook that I think are a bit dodgy.

    Point 3 of the surgical strike:
    “Proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused the warming”

    Should really be “All of the warming” as I am regularly told here by a range of users that it is about the feedbacks, and there is no debate about whether CO2 is actually a greenhouse gas. So to me the handbook has a foot in both camps, a bit like the Liberal party.

    Just as an aside the bottom of page 2 of the handbook says:
    “Carbon, Carbon Dioxide and CO2 are used interchangably here, as with public use.” Which exposes the absurdity of regular clamouring on this blog of the demonisation of “carbon” – even Jo does it and has done for years.

    Page 3: The hotspot.
    Personally I think this is a big red herring. Ok the models say it should be there, and then depending on the day of the week it either is there or it doesn’t matter that it isn’t there… my reading is that the skeptical movement would not take the presence of a hotspot as evidence that GHGs dunnit, as they would just say that all types of warming cause the hotspot (which is one of the reasons warmists say it doesn’t matter). Skeptics would just say – “Wow all you’ve done is confirm a model that is fundamentally flawed anyway” or similar. Simply pout I don’t see it cutting the skeptical mustard as “direct empirical evidence of GHGs role in warming.”

    The Ice Cores – I feel this is suitably addressed by the climate science. If the cores did match CO2 the parralel universe Skeptics Handbook would just say “Wow CO2 led the warming back then, but there were no SUVs so it is just natural cycles… the amount man emits is a trivial %, citing dubious sub-sea volcano info”. Another red-herring.

    Temperatures Are Not Rising. I am not of the opinion that this statement is backed by the temperature record. As we all know, you guys more than any, there are other forcings at play that at times will put downward pressure on temps and at other times upward. The the scientist said “there is no statistical warming over period X” that was jsut an accurate appraisal of a short window of time – so short that it is very difficult to get statistical relevence. I don’t think that the “not warming” meme has any legs sorry.

    CO2 is already doing all the work it can do. This statement essentially defies understanding of logarithms. It also says “all the warming it can do” although a page earlier I’m told there is no empirical evidence it even does any warming. Maybe it’s not done any of its warming yet, al the rest was “something else” and we are about trigger CO2 warming from scratch with massive impacts per increase in CO2. OF COURSE THAT IS RUBBISH – I’m just pointing out that the argument is not backable or consistent.

    We also have this statement:
    “Something out there affects our climate more than CO2 and none of the models know what it is”. Well I know one – the Sun. I’m not really sure the purpose of this comment.

    I also randomly note that Joanna Simpson is quoted. Elsewhere (easty to find) it is clear that Prof Simpson strongly believes that we should be cutting GHG emissions based on the science we understand to date. She is actually skeptical, but is of the opinion that there is enough doubt that we should take action as the consequences are so dire.

    Lol I see Richard is on the page of Believers are becoming skeptics… lol there is no way Richard ever believed any of this as I think he has always known about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!

    Petition project – My understanding is they add scientists who they think have made skeptical comments, rather than get an actual endorsement from siad scientists. There is lots of debate in the webs about this, but anyway who cares – not me really. I think it is still pretty clear that the significant/vast majority of scientists back the science on this one.

    ____

    Your “understanding” isn’t correct. Every scientist on the list has to voluntarily sign up. And why would this be an issue of debate on the Web? Go to the Petition Project site and read for yourself how it’s done. If some debater claims it’s done some way other than it’s done, does his opinion actually count?

    And you must have defined “significant” and “vast majority” in a new way. Nobody has ever polled all scientists on this issue, so you can only guess at numbers. — Editor


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    MATTB @ 172

    Re Carbon and CO2, see comments @ 26


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hi Kevin – did you mean a different post? #26 has nothing to do with my post.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    I don’t think that the “not warming” meme has any legs sorry.

    You may not think so MattB but the global metrics are pointing to a millipede. What warming there was has run out of puff. No acceleration in global average temperature (stasis), sea levels (decelerating) or ocean heat (falling).

    Certainly nothing happening that implicates mans fossil fuel emissions as being a culprit.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    MATTB @ 174

    I’m just pointing out the deceptiveness of the governments arguement on Carbon/CO2


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Kevin – how does it show that? What is deceptive about targeting all GHGs? Is this seriously news to you? How absurd would it be to just target CO2 and not Methane… sites like this would rightfully have a field day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    MATTB @ 177

    See comments @170


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    What – you are a sock puppet?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MattB @172,

    You’re becoming another nitpicker.

    Just as an aside the bottom of page 2 of the handbook says:
    “Carbon, Carbon Dioxide and CO2 are used interchangably here, as with public use.” Which exposes the absurdity of regular clamouring on this blog of the demonisation of “carbon” – even Jo does it and has done for years.

    On and on you go!

    And so what? Where is your evidence Matt? It’s a simple concept captured in a simple question.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m not a nitpicker – I’m arguing against the nitpickers.

    Roy the evidence has been given.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MattB,

    Where?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Here a day or so ago?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Via email I have 2 comments from Ken Gregory that have not appeared here yet.

    Ken, thanks for the links to friendsofscience.org and my complements on the the nice layout and especially the “Climate Science” index

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=194

    I am a big fan and user of information repositories like this and the more of them with the type of information you present, the better.

    [are they number 165 and 166 here?] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Meanwhile at NZs preeminent warmist site, this is how “the science” is peddled.

    Mike Palin March 28, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    Well little Johnny, here’s how it works. CO2 acts as an important greenhouse gas by absorbing thermal (IR) energy radiated from Earth’s surface and re-radiating it in all directions, including back down toward the surface. (A YouTube video of this process:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo.) As a result, the surface temperature is higher than it would be if heated solely by incoming solar radiation. This permits our planet to have liquid water and sustain life rather be an icy ball in space.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talkin-open-thread/#comment-25304

    Apparently CO2 has a magnificent capacity to replenish the heating effect of LWIR back to what it was as SW, this then heats the earth’s surface even more than what incoming solar SW can. A truly amazing trace gas and all that from only 0.00029ppm atmospheric concentrations.

    Dr Micheal Palin is a lecturer at the Geology Dept, Otago University BTW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Should have been “from only 0.00039 of the atmosphere.” at #188 but you get the gist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard are you sure your #188 makes sense?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    MattB.

    If you can’t make sense of the physics then it might be time to hit the books.

    If it’s satire that goes right past you then just move right along to Joanne’s Lewandowsky post


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hmm I don’t think the issue here is me not getting the physics:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    MattB.

    Are you seriously implying that you subscribe to Palin’s fabulous CO2 earth heating mechanism?

    That “permits our planet to have liquid water and sustain life rather be an icy ball in space”?

    Good luck with that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    well it is a blog thread post and I know not to get too hung up on them. But all I see is the concept that CO2 absporbs and emits IR, with some of those emissions “down” rather than up out of the planet, thus making it warmer than it would be without the CO2 in the atmosphere. Which bit is it you want me to be shocked at? Were there no greenhouse gases then indeed it would be a lot colder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Were there no greenhouse gases then indeed it would be a lot colder.

    Correct but that is a LOT different than saying that CO2 makes the earth hotter than solar SW does – insulation is not a heat source is it?

    BTW, how much colder would the earth be without CO2?

    And without water vapour(a “greenhouse” gas too remember)?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    brc

    BTW, how much colder would the earth be without CO2?

    Well, we know the moon is ~+100 deg c on the sunny side and ~-100 deg c on the cold side.

    If the earth had no atmosphere keeping heat it’s pretty safe to assume the temperature would be something like this, though you would assume a bit warmer because as the earth spun the surface would retain a little bit of heat for a little while.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    It is that CO2 makes it hotter than if there were no CO2, not that it has more influence on temperature than the sun itself. A jumper makes me hotter on a hot day Richard. No?

    “temperature is higher than it would be if heated solely by incoming solar radiation.” is CLEARLY an accurate statement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bruce, can’t remember the exact amount, but go add up all the bars on Spencer’s chart and you’ll be in the ball park.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] But what does he really think about AGW. This is so obviously a scam now. Dr David Evans David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam « JoNova I can guarantee you as the climate cools, scientists previously on the gravy train will be [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Your Ad Here David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam « JoNova Aussie Scientist Dr. David Evans, former Carbon Accounting Modeler, Now Says It's a Scam! [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mattb, crickey, that’s the most useful comment I’ve seen you do #175. Thanks! I’m travelling interstate this week, so no promises, but sometime I’ll try to point out why each of your points is irrelevant, wrong, or true but inconsequential. It may take a while. But the most important point — the hot spot — I need to do a whole post on. It’s not just that the models are wrong, but that because it’s missing, it wipes out the amplification (haven;t I said this 20 times already in this blog?) Without a hot spot, we’re looking at less than 1.2 degrees of warming. With it, 3.5 degrees. The hot spot is about the feedbacks – -especially water vapor, not about cO2′s direct effect.

    AS for “carbon” vs “CO2″. I used to think “who cares,” but I may be changing my mind. I didn’t realize joe-public might think carbon = soot, but if that is the public understanding, then yes, maybe I was wrong. Anyone seen any polls of the public on the different association with those terms?

    LOlwot: I put inline replies in to #128 and #153.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: (@175)
    March 28th, 2011 at 11:29 am

    The issue being that, perhaps conveniently, skeptics denounce any of the empirical evidence presented as being meaningless.

    So…my question was (and still is): What empirical evidence? It’s certainly meaningless if it doesn’t exist. If it exists, I haven’t seen it. All the papers I’ve read (and I read quite a few) simply claim that model results are evidence. That doesn’t meet the definition of “empirical” (e.g., observed in the real world).

    The CAGW cabal does ignore a lot of empirical evidence, however, if it contradicts their models (i.e., here, here, here, and here).

    You may have noted that David Evans (in this post we are commenting on) describes the crisis in climate science as the failure of empirical evidence to verify the assumptions of high positive feedback needed to make CO2 a significant player in global temperatures. The very fact that the climate scientists (mostly computer modelers, here in Boulder) assumed high positive feedback in a system of demonstrated long term stability shows they don’t understand what they are talking about, since stable systems can’t be dominated by high positive feedbacks.

    If the Earth’s climate was dominated by positive feedback, we would have turned into either Venus or Mars a billion years ago and wouldn’t be here to discuss it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boltzmann's Demon


    3% has been urbanised.

    ~~william gray~

    Although GW, Global Warming is hardly a threat, we definitely have a population explosion. We need international treaty to sterilize every newborn male. Female sterilization is more dangerous. HSE, Heat Sink Earth weighs 5.9 X 10^24 Kg. That means that it would take the sun’s radiation quadrillions of years to warm HSE by 22 degrees. By then we will have run low on JetFuel. Population bomb is another problem.

    Concentrate on the real problem
    !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    MattB #197

    A jumper makes me hotter on a hot day Richard. No?

    No. The jumper prevents air circulation (is there a wind blowing?) so the heat that your body has already generated by metabolic means is unable to disperse but you have two heat sources – solar and metabolic (the earth’s internal heat source is hardly comparable to physical metabolism). So on a hot day, what makes you hot is the combination of factors: solar heat, body metabolism, no wind and unnecessary insulation.

    Also, on a hot day there is no heat gradient through the jumper, its hot on both sides. If it was a cold day with no wind and direct sunlight you would be able to take off your jumper to receive direct sunlight illustrating that not only does insulation prevent heat going out, it prevents heat coming in in the form of solar radiation (think bikini skiing in the Alps). I live at the beach and see this demonstrated especially at this time of year (Autumn). If there is no wind, you can take your shirt off and be warm from the direct sunlight, meanwhile there are people bundled up in jackets looking cold, because they are not receiving the benefit of the heating effect of the solar SW radiation.

    Even if there was a “greenhouse” barrier surrounding the earth preventing heat diffusion or convection the statement would still be rubbish. As soon as night-time comes and the solar heat source is removed, you are reliant on your bodies metabolism to keep you warm even with a jumper on. If you have no fuel to burn (food), your jumper wont help you much i.e. you will not be made hotter by your jumper.

    “temperature is higher than it would be if heated solely by incoming solar radiation.” is CLEARLY an accurate statement.

    Rubbish. The earths geothermal heat source aside, there is only one heat source, the sun. The greatest heating effect is from solar SW radiation. Once that radiation is re-radiated the heating effect is reduced due to the change in wavelength, SW to LW. The heating effect of the radiation is progressively spent every time it is reflected or re-emitted so a lessor form of radiation in terms of heating effect will never heat the earth’s surface to a temperature that is higher than the superior form does.

    In summary: insulation is not a heat source. The more effective the insulation is as barrier to heat transfer and the less heat gradient there is, the more super-heating (heat accumulation) will occur over time (making you hot on a hot day with your jumper on) but no new energy is introduced by the insulation. There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to even come close to being that effective as an insulator, it is water vapour that does the bulk of work e.g. Sahara desert vs Singapore.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard – I have a feeling you are arguing for a total re-understanding of the climate system and atmosphere by the world’s scientists… rather than arguing with something I persoanlly don’t understand. Good luck with that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Good luck with that

    Don’t need it, there’s plenty of physicists that know the science. That’s why AGW is meeting more and more opposition from that sector, many of whom deal with thermodynamics more intensely than any climate scientist ever will e.g. furnaces, heat transfer, insulation, gas scrubbing etc.

    It does not matter how many climate scientists “understand” one particular hypothesis, if that hypothesis is unproven then they are all wrong especially if:-

    A) 10,000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere did not produce AGW prescribed conditions in the past.

    B) The climate is not producing AGW prescribed conditions in the present.

    Its the AGW folks that need the luck, I hold the null hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jo – go on you’ll have to explain the hot spot thing again for me when you have the chance:)

    Also “AS for “carbon” vs “CO2″. I used to think “who cares,” but I may be changing my mind. I didn’t realize joe-public might think carbon = soot, but if that is the public understanding, then yes, maybe I was wrong. Anyone seen any polls of the public on the different association with those terms?”

    Look I completely agree, I just think it is a case of an effort to make people not get scared off by “science talk” and bring it to a level they can try to comprehend… not some malicious attempt to subvert the masses. It is totally irrelevant to me to be honest – a bit like the change from global warming to climate change. No impact on science anyway.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    As luck would have it MattB, here’s an article from a physicist that details the science.

    Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect

    Joseph E. Postma (M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy)

    Page 24 onwards being most useful.

    Theory of the Greenhouse Effect vs. the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

    AGW vs physics basically


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Water Wizard

    Perhaps someone could answer the following.

    Does CO2 in solution change the boiling point of water at sea level?
    Does CO2 in the atmosphere change the amount of SW energy absorbed by water vapour.
    Does CO2 in the atmosphere affect the formation of water droplets?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard – if you can get Tony Abbott to publically state that the reason AGW is a scam is because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics well that indeed would make things interesting!

    That link just re-states what we have discussed many times before. Except he doesn;t use headings or anything to help a reader know where the good bits are. He needs something as follows.

    3.2.2 THE BIT WHERE I MAKE STUFF UP

    so scientists can wade through the waffle to find where he flips the 2nd law on its head.

    Seriously we are making fun of Lewandowsky, or some bloke who sid something about ocean levels rising, but you think you can just happily toss in that AGW breaches the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

    What is that other thing that breaches the 2nd law of thermodynamics… oh yeah EVOLUTION:)

    And to think I get poked fun at for jesting about the moon landings.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard – you may like to read this. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.htm

    at least as credible a source as Joseph E Potsma.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lastly Richard, you should check out the leat WUWT post jsut now: “Visualising the Greenhouse Effect”

    Specifically check out the Point 4:

    “4. The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule. ”

    And in conclusions: “The greenhouse effect heats the earth because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards earth.”

    Outrageous… you’d better get the @nd Law posse on to her.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard C(umming) (NZ), on March 28th at 6:03 pm you correctly said “ .. insulation is not a heat source .. ” but overlooked the fact that CO2 is not your common-old-garden variety of insulator. That type prevents energy flow in or out but CO2, like other greenhouse gases, lets most solar energy in but restricts only some parts of the IR band either in or out. As a consequence, next time the sun comes out the earth is hotter than before so warms up from a higher starting point, hence the “heating effect” and H2O is even better because it stops even more IR bands going out, which is why it is so much more important a greenhouse gas than CO2. At least that’s the theory, but there are other complicating processes that need to be taken into consideration, not least of which is cloud feedback. It is H2O that provides the all-important global temperature control knob, not CO2 as favoured by Richard Alley (http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/).

    If anyone is interested that blog was where I first started discussing the issue about atmospheric CO2 from air “trapped” in ice cores. An interesting set of exchanges was cut short by idiots intent on nothing else but disruption – from behind false names of course.

    MattB (March 28th, 2011 at 11:29 am) Dr. Jeffrey Glassman makes reference to that same point about the IPCC’s preference for positive feedback in his comment of March 27th at 9:51 pm on Judith Curry’s “Agreeing(?)” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-57866) when responding to my comment about CO2 and “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?”. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that the assumed positive feedback effect dominates. If it did we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Have you looked at the analyses done by Roger Taguchi (see my comment of March 27th, 2011 at 9:50 pm)?

    I’m delighted to hear you say “ .. The Ice Cores – I feel this is suitably addressed by the climate science .. ” because this must mean that you can point to evidence that there is no size-dependent preferential fractionation of CO2 arising from its smaller kinetic diameter (see my comment of March 26th, 2011 at 10:00 pm etc.). Please be good enough to provide links to such evidence and I’ll pass it on to the experts like Richard Alley, Jeff Severinghaus, Michael Bender, Chris Huber, etc.etc. who have been unable to provide me with. Note that I ask for evidence, not simply rejection such as came from Oeschger in his criticism of Jaworowski or unsubstantiated claims to have refuted the argument.

    On carbon v CO2 (March 29th, 2011 at 11:56 am), the politicians and “greenies” quite deliberately use carbon because you can see it and the soot that comes out of badly maintained cars, those diesel buses and industrial smoke stacks. I used to work in an office overlooking Tottenham Court Road, London which carries buses every second. Anything left on windowsills would be covered in filthy soot after a few days. On the other hand CO2 is odourless and colourless as well as being essential to life on earth as we know it. That other trick of the scaremongers like the BBC is to show power station cooling towers belching out water vapour and claiming that it is a vile pollutant. The pity is that many of us are fooled by such tricks because we don’t bother to validate what the media feeds us with.

    As for “ .. empirical evidence that the CO2 warming causes feedbacks to approximately treble the impact of CO2 .. ” that you seem to claim we sceptics keep ignoring, please be good enough to provide some. I don’t mean showing a correlation between claimed rising atmospheric CO2 and claimed rising global mean temperature, because as you should be fully aware, correlation does not equal cause/effect. As BobC said “ .. What empirical evidence? .. ”.

    You make reference to some highly suspect blogs, like abc (enough said), John Cooke’s Skeptical Science and Professor Barry Brook’s bravenewclimate as though they are the source of gospel truth about climate science. Forget it – John is not a scientist but a blogger like you and I and despite his title at Adelaide University Brook has not demonstrated particular expertise in understanding the processes and drivers of global climates. He is an biologist with demonstrated expertise in specie extinction and the like. His understanding of climate processes and drivers is nicely summarised on his “Heaven and Earth” thread (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/) QUOTE: .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 .. UNQUOTE. I persistently questioned him on how he could adopt the stance that he does on the CACC issue yet admit “ .. that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers .. ”. He never justified that, simply resorting to banning me from his blog. As for his implication that he understood 95%, that figure came straight out of the air without any justification, in the same way that the IPCC quantified uncertainty in AR4. So much for “empirical evidence”.

    I think that both you and Richard would benefit from having a look at the analyses undertaken by retired award-winning Canadian science teacher Roger Taguchi on Judith Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/). In particularly see Roger’s comments of 7th, 9th, and 22nd Feb.

    Brc (March 28th, 2011 at 8:03 pm) you were at risk of misleading others when only partly quoting Richard C(umming)’s “ .. how much colder would the earth be without CO2? .. ”. The important bit that you left out was “ .. And without water vapour(a “greenhouse” gas too remember) .. ”. Also, the fact that the earth’s surface is 70% water might make a significant difference between earth and moon temperatures, don’t you think?

    Richard C(umming), that U-tube presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo) that climate science “expert” Professor Mike Palin, Otago University, linked to of a Scotsman attempting to persuade us that CO2 traps a lot of IR requires further scrutiny. The experimenter looks suspiciously like the BBC’s Ian Stewart and I am always suspicious of anything that the BBC or its minions (like Stewart) say about climate change. The same goes for Mike Palin since getting involved in exchanges with him (http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-twilight-zone/) on my favourite issue, the validity of attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 concentration from air “trapped” in ice for millenia. I puzzled over what that demonstration really tells us. On investigation, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermographic_camera) advises that the colour picture from an infrared camera is not true but pseudo colour, where the colours represent intensity. So when Steward shows us that candle turning more and more blue what is he really demonstrating. In my humble opinion he may simply have verified that the candle gets colder and colder as the CO2 that he is pouring into the tube replaces the O2 upon which the candle depends to keep burning brightly (highest intensity). As most of us would expect, the O2 in the tube is depleted and the candle glows less and less brightly until it goes out. Stewart’s presentation was cut short to ensure that we didn’t see it go out. Well, that’s my conspiracy theory anyway. As alsays I’m open to persuasion that I am wrong.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    MattB #212

    And in conclusions: “The greenhouse effect heats the earth because greenhouse gases absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards earth.”

    Way too simplistic – and wrong (what makes you think I subscribe to everything printed at luke-warm WUWT BTW).

    Lets start with energy.

    Radiation and heat are two different manifestations of energy, correct?

    For radiation to transfer energy to create heat it must strike matter, correct?

    Heat is manifest when molecules are excited (in this case by radiation), correct?

    During the day time at the earth’s surface, solar SW creates a level of excitation (heat measured in K or C) in molecules encountered at the earth’s surface in the first instance (i.e. more heat) than LWIR that encounters molecules at the earth’s surface in the third instance because what started out as focussed SW has been reflected/re-emitted and scattered (possibly a new term to you – take note), lost some ability to excite molecules because the wavelength has changed, then encountered GHG molecules in the atmosphere, again been scattered/reflected/re-emitted, a tiny fraction of which is directed at the earth but the earth’s molecules are already at a higher level of excitation due to solar SW so the now spent LWIR in terms of heating ability is unable to raise the level of excitation of earth molecules to a higher level than what they are already at, therefore no more heating is achieved (the temperature is not raised). Correct?

    During the night time, much of the heat (not all) induced during the day that is resident in the earth dissipates to the atmosphere but is prevented from free exit to space by the thermal insulation effect of a number of atmospheric gases, the most significant and effective of which is water vapour compared to the others by virtue of its sheer volume. Correct?

    If the atmosphere is dry, the night will be cool or cold, correct?

    If the atmosphere is moist, the night will be warmer than if it was dry, correct?

    Only the solar SW will heat the ocean because LWIR is completely ineffective to do so, correct?

    So that’s the surface, but in the atmosphere, heat (even that which is slowed in its ascent by GHGs) is performing according to the laws of physics in that it will generally move from hot to cold, the ultimate cold destination being space. Correct?

    Depending on wind movement, the heat may accumulate for a while and may even form a heat wave but will eventually dissipate to space over time because it will follow the gradient and although its passage is interrupted temporarily, the heat is not trapped by any material that is anything like the type of insulator that would be required to do so. This is proven just by looking at the satellite temperature measurements up through the different altitudes where no accumulation of heat can be identified. Correct?

    The Chief Heat Seeker himself, Kevin Trenberth, has not been able to find any excess (accumulated) heat in the atmosphere and is now of the opinion that it could be below the reach of the ARGO buoys. Correct? He forms this opinion because he bases it on his modeled and estimated energy budget that returns an energy imbalance. Correct?

    MattB, do you think Kevin T will find his missing heat at the bottom of the ocean? Or do you think the missing heat will be found in the atmosphere? If neither, where do you think it will be found?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    It’ll come home wagging its tail behind it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave Dodds

    The Vostok data show that 90+ % of the last 400,000 years have been spent in a glacial period. Interglacials are typically less than 10% of the total time and the current interglacial is blessedly longer than the other 4. The glacials would make the Little Ice Age look like a picnic. With Earth’s population scheduled to max out at about 9 billion we should be very worried about the next glacial period – about which we are way overdue. The current minor warming and increased co2 are beneficial for food production but even a repeat of the Little Ice Age would be devastating. Be glad for the current long interglacial. Climate research should be focused on the trigger that ends an interglacial and an idea of how fast that change can come.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well I score that volley: Richard C (NZ) +10 MattB a dismal -1 with extra negative credit for the useless “tail wagging” comment.
    Well done Richard.

    Once again MattB comes up flailing and failing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Radiation and heat are two different manifestations of energy, correct?”

    Erm nope. Heat is radiation. do you mean warmth?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Heat is radiation.

    Not in space it isn’t MattB. The temperature of space is about 3 degrees Kelvin so if radiation is heat, why is there next to no heat in space with all that radiation passing through it? Could it be that there is no molecular matter for the radiation to excite and thus produce heat?

    Consider the 0 degrees Kelvin baseline absolute zero i.e. no heat whatsoever. By definition at absolute zero thermal energy of matter vanishes. Absolute zero can be achieved in space where there is no matter (but there is radiation), but where there are molecules there must be no molecular movement at all at 0K. Temperature then, measures particle movement.

    Solar radiation transfers energy via the light spectrum but in itself is neither warm nor hot or cold. It is only when it intercepts matter that radiation energy is transformed to heat energy by molecular excitation.

    A further subtlety is that by definition, heat energy is the continual transfer of kinetic energy by particle collision.

    Definition: Heat energy (or just heat) is a form of energy which transfers among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particle. In other words, under kinetic theory, the heat is transferred by particles bouncing into each other. [no mention of radiation note]

    http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/heat.htm

    Compare that to the much larger context of energy in all its forms. Wikipedia is as good as any for that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I didn’t say radiation is heat.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ref. my comment of March 30th at 3:54 am, I’d love to see Stewart repeat that experiment using N2 instead of CO2. My prediction is that the result would be the same, showing once again that he and the BBC are presenting a distorted picture of the CACC issue. I understand that the BBC’s pension fund managers have been persuaded to invest heavily in renewables (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181811825.html) and their “Pensions” site says “The Scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/responsible-investment.shtml). Another interesting article says “ .. The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe.
    Its chairman is Peter Dunscombe, also the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment .. “(http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156703/-8bn-BBC-eco-bias–8bn-BBC-eco-bias-#ixzz1I5sFcf2l).

    Well isn’t that a surprise, but here’s another surprise for you. See who gets a mention alongside IIGCC “ .. The investor statement was announced at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations that included UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, billionaire investor George Soros and former Vice President Al Gore. ..” (http://new.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=608&ArticleID=6446&l=en&t=long).

    You may be interested in reading my article “Climate Change & Pension Funds” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/05/climate-change-pension-funds.html) which provides a link between the BBC and Al Gore.

    MattB, ref. your comment on March 30th at 1:30 pm, “ .. Heat is radiation .. ” Erm nope. Listen to what Richard Cumming is enlightening you with on that score.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Pete Ridley #221

    What did the Romans say? Cui bono (who benefits).

    What do we say nowadays? Follow the money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Richard #208… lucky for me Ira Glickstein, PhD, at WUWT has posted a comment to her own piece that addresses that Joseph Potsma tech-know link you gave.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/#comments

    her comment reply March 30 2:02pm.

    “RJ says:
    March 30, 2011 at 9:05 am
    Ira

    Here’s one link

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

    Thanks, RJ, that link worked. I read up to page 6 and stopped, and I want my ten minutes back! The author goes on correctly and then provides an example:

    … imagine a blackbody which is absorbing energy from some hot source of light like a light-bulb, and it has warmed up as much as it can and has reached radiative thermal equilibrium. The blackbody will then be re-emitting just as much thermal infrared energy as the light energy it is absorbing. …

    The author is OK so far. Notice that the amount of ENERGY the blackbody is RE-EMITTING is EXACTLY the same as the amount of ENERGY it is ABSORBING. That is the very definition of thermal equilibrium, and absolutely correct. But, the author goes off the rails when he continues:

    However, because the blackbody doesn‟t warm up to a temperature as hot as the source of light, its re-emitted infrared light is from a lower temperature and thus of a lower energy compared to the incoming light that it is absorbing. …

    Say what? After correctly saying the RE-EMITTED ENERGY was EQUAL to the ABSORBED ENERGY, he now contradicts himself with the false claim that the RE-EMITTED ENERGY is of “a lower energy”. Nope! Thermal equilibrium is when energy in = energy out.

    Now, what is true is that the input energy was from a light bulb and was therefore in the shortwave region (around 0.2μ to 4μ) and the output energy was from a blackbody at a lower temperature and therefore in the longwave region (around 4μ to 20μ). But, BUT, the amount of ENERGY (say in Joules) is EXACTLY EQUAL.

    Having made that error, the author continues:

    Now here‟s the clincher: imagine that you take a mirror which reflects infrared light, and you reflect some of the infrared light the blackbody is emitting back onto itself. What then happens to the temperature of the blackbody? One might think that, because the blackbody is now absorbing more light, even if it is its own infrared light, then it should warm up. …

    Yep, it should warm up and (if it is a true blackbody in the longwave region) it will absorb that reflected longwave energy and, all else being equal, will warm up. (NOTES: (1) Indeed, some commercial incandescent light bulbs have an IR-reflective material on the inside to do just that. (2) In your example, we are dealing with longwave radiation and there is a problem with the idea of “reflecting” longwave radiation, so I will assume that the “mirror” proposed by the author is actually a thin surface that absorbs and re-emits longwave energy, about half back towards the source, and half outwards. Almost any metal painted black will do.)

    Given the incorrect science, the author continues with wrong conclusions:

    But in fact it does not warm up; it‟s temperature remains exactly the same. The reason why is very simple to understand but extremely important to physics: the blackbody is already in radiative thermal equilibrium with a hotter source of energy, the higher radiative energy spectrum light from the light-bulb. You cannot make something warmer by introducing to it something colder, or even the same temperature! You can only make something warmer, with something that is warmer! This reality is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and is so central and fundamental to modern physics it cannot be expressed strongly enough.

    The above is simply not true. It is a misunderstanding of the laws of physics.

    When you make a false assumption, you can “prove” false conclusions. For example, ASSUME I have a perfectly smooth elephant with neligible mass. Wow, can he do amazing circus tricks. Or, assume I have a frog who eats clay and has a rectangular anus. Wow, he will (make) bricks.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB, after the tail wagging comment @ 215 above which was particularly rude to Pete Ridley, I am absolutely convinced that YOU are a clay object with a smooth rectangular anus that eats frogs, cannot do circus tricks and you make ASSumptions about the Elephant in the room.

    By the way all beer deals are off. I hope you suffer extreme beer drought brought on by carbon taxes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oh I forgot: you have negligible mass.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    MattB #223

    Let’s see what Potsma actually wrote keeping in mind that re-emission is NOT reflection.

    One concept needs to be introduced before we continue with some math, which is called a “blackbody”. In physics, a blackbody is an extremely important conceptual tool because the behaviour of a blackbody relates to fundamental concepts in physics, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. A blackbody is simply exactly what it sounds like: an object which is completely black. The reason why it is black is because it absorbs 100% of all the light that strikes it, and doesn‟t reflect any of it back. Therefore it appears black! This is one part of the “behaviour” we refer to when discussing blackbodies: the behaviour that it has when struck by light. And the behaviour is that it absorbs it all. It should be pointed out that in the real world, most objects will reflect some of the incident light and absorb only the rest. But even in this case many objects can still be very closely approximated by a theoretical blackbody, and you do this by factoring out the amount of radiation lost to reflection. For example, if 30% of the light is reflected, then 70% is absorbed and you can take account for this in the math.

    When a blackbody absorbs the energy from light and there‟s no other heat or light sources around to warm it, then it will warm up to whatever temperature is possible given the amount of energy coming in from the light being absorbed. If the source of light is constant, meaning it shines with the same unchanging brightness all the time, then the blackbody absorbing that light will warm up to some maximum temperature corresponding to the energy in the light, and then warm up no further. When this state is reached it is called “radiative thermal equilibrium”, which means that the object has reached a stable and constant temperature equilibrated with the amount of radiation it is absorbing from the source of light. This is distinct from regular “thermal equilibrium”, which is when two objects which are in physical contact eventually come to the same temperature, if they started out at different temperatures. In radiative thermal equilibrium, the object absorbing the light will not come to the same temperature as the source emitting the light, but actually will always be cooler than it because the distance between the two objects reduces the energy flux density of the radiation from the source.

    Glickstein says “The author is OK so far. Notice that the amount of ENERGY the blackbody is RE-EMITTING is EXACTLY the same as the amount of ENERGY it is ABSORBING. That is the very definition of thermal equilibrium, and absolutely correct.”

    Fine, no problem, but note her context is thermal equilibrium – not radiative thermal equilibrium (see the definitions).

    This leads us to the second part of the behaviour of a blackbody which makes them so great. When a blackbody has reached thermal equilibrium, it can no longer absorb more light for heating and therefore has to re-emit just as much light-energy as it is absorbing. Because the blackbody can‟t just reflect the light, it has to re-emit it as thermal radiation. The spectrum of this re-emitted light follows a very well known equation called the Planck Blackbody Radiation Law, after the German physicist Max Planck who helped discover it in the early 1900‟s. This law allows us to calculate the total amount of energy in a blackbody spectrum, and what the temperature the object actually needs to be at in order to emit that amount of energy. We can determine exactly what the equilibrium temperatures must be. For a real-world object that actually reflects some light but absorbs the rest of the light, when we factor this is into the equations we find that the object still closely approximates the ideal blackbody, and this is of course confirmed by observation. We can therefore calculate the “effective” temperature the object would need to have if it were a perfect blackbody emitting that amount of radiation.

    So strictly speaking, although the blackbody absorbs all the light that strikes it, it wouldn‟t actually appear perfectly black at all wavelengths because the thermal energy it re-emits is also a form of light. But it appears black because this re-emitted light is of a much lower energy than the light being absorbed. For example if the object absorbs visible light, then it will re-emit infrared light which we can‟t see, and therefore it still appears black. The object would need to heat up to some very high temperature indeed for it to re-emit visible light; a red-hot oven element, for example, can approach 10000C (but it heats up due to the electricity being run through it).

    [Snip]

    Lastly, there is one fundamental law of physics that relates to blackbody emission of thermal energy: it is absolutely fundamentally impossible for a blackbody to further warm itself up by its own radiation. This is actually true for all objects, but we‟ll just keep referring to blackbodies here since that‟s what the subject is about. For example, imagine a blackbody which is absorbing energy from some hot source of light like a light-bulb, and it has warmed up as much as it can and has reached radiative thermal equilibrium. The blackbody will then be re-emitting just as much thermal infrared energy as the light energy it is absorbing. However, because the blackbody doesn‟t warm up to a temperature as hot as the source of light, its re-emitted infrared light is from a lower temperature and thus of a lower energy compared to the incoming light that it is absorbing. Now here‟s the clincher: imagine that you take a mirror which reflects infrared light, and you reflect some of the infrared light the blackbody is emitting back onto itself. What then happens to the temperature of the blackbody? One might think that, because the blackbody is now absorbing more light, even if it is its own infrared light, then it should warm up. But in fact it does not warm up; it‟s temperature remains exactly the same. The reason why is very simple to understand but extremely important to physics: the blackbody is already in radiative thermal equilibrium with a hotter source of energy, the higher radiative energy spectrum light from the light-bulb. You cannot make something warmer by introducing to it something colder, or even the same temperature! You can only make something warmer, with something that is warmer! This reality is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and is so central and fundamental to modern physics it cannot be expressed strongly enough.

    Glickstein then quotes from this paragraph “However, because the blackbody doesn‟t warm up to a temperature as hot as the source of light, its re-emitted infrared light is from a lower temperature and thus of a lower energy compared to the incoming light that it is absorbing.”

    She says “After correctly saying the RE-EMITTED ENERGY was EQUAL to the ABSORBED ENERGY,” (1)

    Yes he was correct because he was talking about thermal equilibrium – not radiative thermal equilibrium.

    Then she claims “he now contradicts himself with the false claim that the RE-EMITTED ENERGY is of “a lower energy”.” (2)

    Rubbish, he has not contradicted himself. (1) is in the context of thermal equilibrium, (2) is in the context of radiative thermal equilibrium and again he is correct.

    She even goes on to confirm that he is “Now, what is true is that the input energy was from a light bulb and was therefore in the shortwave region (around 0.2μ to 4μ) and the output energy was from a blackbody at a lower temperature and therefore in the longwave region (around 4μ to 20μ).”

    But then again she confuses radiative thermal equilibrium with thermal equilibrium “But, BUT, the amount of ENERGY (say in Joules) is EXACTLY EQUAL.”, which is fine for thermal equilibrium but, BUT, not for radiative thermal equilibrium.

    Given Glickstein’s apparent befuddlement (despite the PhD), I can’t be bothered dissecting the rest of the comment. Suffice to say , that reading comprehension seems to the problem here. I do share your dilemma however, in that those of us not from the higher echelons of science are often reliant on others we trust to speak for us but we do have to apply our own critique to our best ability to avoid this type of embarrassment.

    And I did make the point previously about my not subscribing to everything in print at WUWT (comments included) or any other blog for that matter, this one included. It might be worth keeping in mind yourself in future. My approach is that if I am wrong (and I am from time to time I admit), I will be taken to task by someone and will learn from it but I’m not moving from my position if I can see deficiencies in the opposing argument by my own critique without having to resort to reputable backup.

    I do appreciate your attempt nonetheless because this topic goes to the crux of the anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-are-causing-catastrophic-global-warming issue and the more that atmospheric thermodynamics in respect to CO2 are discussed and understood in the context of conventional physics, the better – and better luck next time, AGW folks need all they can get.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB, in my comment of March 31st at 3:25 am I suggested that you “ .. Listen to what Richard Cumming is enlightening you with on that score .. ” but that was only w.r.t. your “ .. heat is radiation .. ” comment. As far as his support for Potsma’s unusual view of black bodies and energy equilibrium I think that you found a far superior source in Ira Glickstein, PhD, at WUWT. Although Richard is no more a scientist than you or I he does what we all should do. That is to be sceptical of claimed evidence or expressed opinion from either side of the CACC debate, analyse it as best we can then decide for ourselves if we think that it stands up to scrutiny. Too many of us are happy just to accept what “experts” tell us, which is why it is so easy for politicians and the power-hungry to con us.

    On the Climate Conversation Group blog (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46719 on March 29th at 11:40 am) Richard said of you “MattB at JoNova backed Palin’s statement. My response #204” before offering the Potsma article as “ .. A very useful article in this vein. .. ” (March 29th at 5:04 pm). I had a look at the first few paragraphs of that article but was not impressed, so commented QUOTE:

    .. that certainly is an interesting article that you link to (March 29 at 5:04 pm) but I wasn’t convinced of its authenticity. As I have said before, I’m a retired Chartered Electrical Engineer, not a scientist, but the small amount of science that I studied conflicts with what Postma says there. In my ignorance I understand that “radiative transfer means the transfer of any energy by radiation away from the source” not only by the limited range of E/M radiation within the band 4000 (violet) to about 7700 (red) angstroms.

    Related to this is Postma’s claim that “ .. A blackbody is simply exactly what it sounds like: an object which is completely black. The reason why it is black is because it absorbs 100% of all the light that strikes it, and doesn’t reflect any of it back. Therefore it appears black! .. ”. Once again my understanding differs because to me a black body is a QUOTE: .. full radiator (a hypothetical object capable of absorbing all the electromagnetic radiation falling on it) “a black body maintained at a constant temperature is a full radiator at that temperature because the radiation reaching and leaving it must be in equilibrium” UNQUOTE (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=black%20body). Note that reference to ALL e/m radiation, not just light.

    When I reached the point where Postma said “ .. So strictly speaking, although the blackbody absorbs all the light that strikes it, it wouldn’t actually appear perfectly black at all wavelengths because the thermal energy it re-emits is also a form of light. But it appears black because this re-emitted light is of a much lower energy than the light being absorbed. For example if the object absorbs visible light, then it will re-emit infrared light which we can’t see, and therefore it still appears black .. ” I decided to stick with more dependable analyses ..

    UNQUOTE.

    Thanks for that link to a more dependable source, Ira Glickstein.

    Why not pop over to the Climate Conversation Group thread, read the rest of the exchanges and join in there.

    Mark D, I didn’t read Matt’s “tail wagging” comment as being addressed to me. To me is appeared to be a response to Richard’s “ .. MattB, do you think Kevin T will find his missing heat at the bottom of the ocean? .. ”. Isn’t it interesting how two intelligent individuals can look at the same evidence and come to completely opposing conclusions. That’s one thing that Matt and I seem to agree on (“When you make a false assumption, you can “prove” false conclusions”).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    My mistake Pete Ridley, It was Richard C (NZ).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I posted a reply earlier from work but had had to get web browser re-installed and think I typed as Matt b not MattB and it went to moderation. But yeah it was to basically say that my “wagging its tail behind it” (Little Bo Peep anyone?) was meant as a joke and basically an admission that I had no bloody idea where his missing heat was. I honestly would not have thought that anyone could read that as rude – and it certainly was not intended as such.

    Incidentally… that link I gave a few days ago in regard to Rereke’s PhD conversation… about unexplained expansion (sea level rise) being explained by deep water warming (previously they only thought surface water was warming = expanding but it turns out the temp transfer is happening on decadal not 100+ year timescale)… well that’s the missing heat isn’t it? Just been mulling it over for a day or so.

    Of course it would be bloody convenient and expect to be told they don’t actually have any empirical evidence of said warming:)

    Pete thanks for the offer… I’ve been off the climate blogging for a few months and to be honest I’ve now had a good look, seen not much has changed, and will be weaning myself off… that’s not to say science is settled, just that climate blogs I guess depend on daily traffic, but the reality is that new science does not come around on a daily basis and the rest is just to tempt discussion/argument:) I’ll have a look for sure but I’m not looking for another blog! Other than chook rearing as just added a couple to the family!

    yeah in 218 I did get it a bit twisted that’s for sure. Radiative heat is radiation… obviously there is a lot of heat that is not radiation! To me still though you can’t say that radiation and heat are two different manifestations, as there is an overlap, or is it really only heat on contact? Anyway it is by the by to be honest:) I’ll go get my undergrad physics books from the Shed. Did I mention I have a BSC in Physics (Astrophysics) LOL I seriously was not very good. Now I’m waffling I lost my love for physics in 2nd year as it was literally “All greek to me” and I couldn’t see it had any relevance in my life… but stuck out the degree as stubborn and had an engineering degree as main study… turned that in to environmental engineering, got in to sustainability and climate change, took me 10 years to realise just how useful the physics would have been – wish I’d discovered my calling a bit earlier… anyway there’s a snippet of MattB’s life. Hoo roo all… although as usual I’ll be back no doubt:)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi MattB, thanks for the background in your comment of March 31st at 11:03 pm (I’m a nosy git, I know). It’s been interesting exchanging opinions with you and I hope it isn’t long before our paths cross again in the blogosphere, here or elsewhere. Again I apologise if I caused you a bit of agro.

    My daddy had a market garden, orchard and some livestock, including chickens. He had to spend a few months in hospital and guess who had to look after those chickens. They drove me mad, flying up into the trees and refusing to come down at the feeble “bck-bck-bck cal of a 10-year-old. In the end I just left them up there. Then there was catching and killing one for special-occasion Sunday dinner (what the posh folks call lunch). My big brother (13) helped me with that, but it still wasn’t easy – but I did love those fresh eggs.

    Enjoy the break. I keep saying that I’ll take one but it’s like an addiction.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Checked out Glickstein at WUWT, turns out he is not a “she” and a systems engineer not a physicist or Mech/Chem engineer, the latter might explain the semblance of understanding but deficiencies in fundamental thermodynamics.

    WUWT definitely confirming a luke-warm stance. I don’t see Glickstein being taken to task apart from the few exceptions and those that normally would must have abandoned WUWT and gone elsewhere, maybe to Climate Etc (or they can’t be bothered raking over the same old argument, it does get tiresome). Much easier to let the climate do the talking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No Pete is has been a pleasure – your posts are actually interesting and point me to new things I need to check out, given the time, rather than just a crock of sh*t:)

    Anyway I’ve basically decided to take a hiatus because to be frank I do think I’m turning… the evidence is weak, the mainstream players are covering their asses, and the response to dissent is pretty piss poor… if the science is not settled I’m better spending my time on the science rather than arguing on blogs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ MattB
    I got the tail wagging joke MattB and I think it was somewhat magnanimous of you to clarify the comment you made at 215. I even gave you a thumbs up (the first one given at 215).

    Then I read your comment at 232 and I was disappointed at you for throwing in the towel. As the site’s “professional wrestler” I thought I would never see that. I hope you have a moment of clarity and that you decide to keep coming back. Good luck with your search for the truth.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Folks,
    Check out the March edition of Science Heresy which features Climate Alarmism, the biggest furphy in the history of science. The lead article, “Alarmists and Deniers”, tells Tony Abbott what he needs to know.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Glad that you realise that MattB. The science is one thing, the reaction of one side to the slightest questioning of their “art” is quite another.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John (Reid) (your comment of April 1st at 1:59 pm) that’s an interesting article but I was not happy with the “Editorial” bullet #6 “It is true that if there were no atmospheric CO2 the earth would be much cooler. It is the unwarranted extrapolation of this idea to high CO2 concentrations which provides the basis for Climate Alarmism”. What I didn’t like was that “ .. much cooler .. ” bit. In my opinion that sort of unscientific language is the main reason that the power-hungry, the politicians and the environmentalists are able to pursuade the gullible with their CACC propaganda.

    Surely a more accurate statement would be along the lines of “It is true that if there were no atmospheric H2O the earth would be much cooler. It is the unwarranted extrapolation of this idea to those TRIVIAL CO2 CONCENTRATIONS OF A FEW HUNDRED PPM, WHICH ONLY ACCOUNT FOR A FEW DEGREES C OF WARMING, which provides the basis for Climate Alarmism .. ”.

    Tony Abbott, his colleagues, all of his policy-making opponents and the idiots who elected them all around the world should open their eyes and realise how poorly the processes and drivers of the different global climates are understood, even by the “expert” scientists themselves. One of Australia’s “top” advisors to the Government, Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University, acknowledged two years ago that (see my comment of March 30th at 3:54 am).

    Anyone know who is behind that Science Heresy site?

    Mark, some of us might think that a more appropriate word than “art” would be “religion” and an appropriate rejoinder to “denier” is “disciple”.

    BTW, for anyone trying to use the link in the notification E-mail if you haven’t spotted it already, the link is corrupted by the “ at the end.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Pete #236

    Yup, i’ve used religion in the past. Thought it was time for something different, so, art as in bullARTistry.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark, it is good to have a variation on a theme and art can be linked very closely to dishonesty, especially the art of Pablo Picasso “ .. one of the greatest and most influential artists of the 20th century and the creator (with Georges Braque) of Cubism .. ” (http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/583278/Pablo-Picasso-as-discussed-in-Western-painting-art) and his ilk. Just as with the disciples and supporters of CACC, who distort the truth in order top paint a picture that suits their not-so-welhidden agenda, Picasso distorted reality in order to paint pictures that suited his not-so-well-hidden fantasies (http://www.google.co.uk/images?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&q=Pablo+Picasso&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=p-qVTYaKFoG2hAfn-YHoCA&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=568).

    Many of his quotes are directly relevant to the lies of the CACC fantasy that were so enthusiastically promoted by Stephen Scheider (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm). “Art is the elimination of the unnecessary”, “Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth”, “Everything you can imagine is real”, “If there were only one truth, you couldn’t paint a hundred canvases on the same theme” (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pablo_picasso.html#ixzz1IhlcdPlH).

    Picasso was way off-beam with his “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers”. The implication in that one is that the computers give correct answers but, as we all know, those climate change computer models only give garbage out.

    The power-hungry (Gore, Soros, Strong, etc), the politicians and the environmentalists could well have been weaned on Picasso’s words and works.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Pete Ridley:

    Well that’s a slant that hadn’t occurred to me Pete. Very apt though.

    I take it you don’t have any Picasso prints in your house. Except, maybe in the smallest room?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Pete, you say:

    What I didn’t like was that “ .. much cooler .. ” bit

    Okay then how about just “cooler”

    also

    TRIVIAL CO2 CONCENTRATIONS OF A FEW HUNDRED PPM, WHICH ONLY ACCOUNT FOR A FEW DEGREES C OF WARMING,

    The concentration of CO2 is small but not trivial. It is only important in the 13 to 17 micron band which is almost completely saturated. Triatomic molecules like H2O, CO2 and O3 are very powerful absorbers of infra-red. There is a really interesting diagram that can be found here. The first diagram down the page shows data from a radiometer looking downward through a dry atmosphere near Barrow Alaska. The absorption band due to CO2 can be clearly seen. It is also obvious that this band is saturated implying that adding more CO2 will make little difference to the shape of the graph. However if we removed the CO2, radiation in this band would be free to escape into space from ground level. This would have a cooling effect.

    Once you understand that the CO2 absorption band is “clipped” in this way and is therefore highly non-linear, it makes a nonsense of the idea of “climate sensitivity” which assumes a linear relationship.

    Also

    “Anyone know who is behind that Science Heresy site?”

    That would be me, John Reid, a retired physicist who is fed up with the arrogance and group-think of his former colleagues who seem free to spout any nonsense and are powerful enough to lock out anyone who questions them. I am not affiliated with any party, movement, industry or lobby group. This way I can publish unorthodox ideas (my own and other people’s) and maybe make some money from the ads. So far we have made $12.60 from Google Ads.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Welcome John Reid, thanks for disclosing your massive stipend from Google. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy A. with regard to 233
    can I ask; what is the definition of “high maintenance”?

    For example did you ever get an admission that you were correct?

    Or did you get “humor”

    Or did you get “nothing”

    or did you get a trip down the yellow brick road.

    or did you get the wagging tail of missing heat?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John,
    “Once you understand that the CO2 absorption band is “clipped” in this way and is therefore highly non-linear, it makes a nonsense of the idea of “climate sensitivity” which assumes a linear relationship.”
    No – in fact the variation of forcing with GHG gas concentrations is very well worked out by radiative transfer progoams. Although sensitivity actually means the ratio of temp response to forcing, so it isn’t itself determined by radiative transfer.

    The general shape of the CO2 dip is fairly fixed. But the temperatures aren’t. As CO2 concentration rises at all altitudes, the mean altitude of emission in each waveband rises. That means in each part of the spectrum, the emission temperature is generally colder, and the intensity less. The bite in trhe spectrum moves downward.

    Since the total to be emitted is fixed (insolation), that means the proportion emitted by the “window” has to rise. That is the part that is emitted from close to ground temp. The only way that increase can happen is if the ground gets warmer.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John (Reid), your comment of April 2nd at 12:13 pm fits in precisely with the analyses of Roger Taguchi, to whom I referred on March 27th at 9:50 pm and 30th at 3:54 am. Did you take a look at those comments of his or not? Are you interested in chatting with Roger (http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-Taguchi/723212493#!/profile.php?id=723212493)?

    Roger has just sent me an E-mail relating to that article “Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” by Joseph E. Postma that was referenced above by Richard Cumming (March 29th at 5:04 pm on March 29th, 2011 at 2:02 pm). Roger says QUOTE:
    .. The author is correct in pointing out the major problems with the radiative transfer theory of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect. However, I too have demolished this theory in my Feb. 22 posting on Judith Curry’s blog “Physics of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect?” at http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/ (it’s the last major post, near the very end of the long thread).
    I find at least two major flaws in the “Thermodynamic” paper ..
    (1) it repeats the assumption that the atmosphere emits IR black body
    radiation. As I have stated, individual gas molecules cannot emit black body radiation, ..
    (2) The author calculates a temperature for the Earth’s surface to be -18 Celsius in the absence of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect; this is similar to the mean temperature of the Moon (the Moon’s mean temperature is actually a little higher, since it lacks highly reflective clouds, so the Moon’s albedo is lower, meaning it absorbs more of the incoming Solar radiation). However, the satellite spectra obtained over cloudless areas of the Earth during the daytime over the mid-Pacific, Guam, the Sahara, Iraq, etc. basically show a 288 K to 330 K black body spectrum, with bites taken out of it at resonant frequencies of CO2, H2O, and O3 (ozone). The temperatures are those of the solid and liquid Earth which actually emit a continuous IR black body spectrum (as explained in (1) above). There is absolutely no evidence for any additional black body IR emitted from layers of the atmosphere, ..
    UNQUOTE.

    If anyone is interested then I can post the full E-mail.

    I’m not happy with “cooler” because it leaves too much room for the CACC disciples/supporters to manoevre. 1C is cooler but not “catastrophic”, 10C is also cooler but also has nasty consequences for a lot of life forms. but would prefer “a little cooler”. I agree on the misuse of “trivial”, which applies to changes in CO2 concentration from today’s level, not the absolute value.

    Thanks for clarifying your position on Science Heresy and for the background information about yourself. I much prefer to know a little about the people I am exchanging opinions with.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Mark D.:
    April 2nd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    Eddy A. with regard to 233
    can I ask; what is the definition of “high maintenance”?
    For example did you ever get an admission that you were correct?
    Or did you get “humor”
    Or did you get “nothing”
    or did you get a trip down the yellow brick road.
    or did you get the wagging tail of missing heat?

    Mark, I always enjoy reading your comments. When I commented at 233 it was without reading the entire thread. Sometimes, I “start from the bottom up.” I got the humor. Matt wrote at 232, ” I do think I’m turning… the evidence is weak, the mainstream players are covering their asses, and the response to dissent is pretty piss poor… ” I would love to witness MattB seeing the light! If not, I would hate to see him leave. Like the professional wrestler that everybody hates, he is good for “ratings”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “I do think I’m turning… the evidence is weak, the mainstream players are covering their asses, and the response to dissent is pretty piss poor…”

    APRIL FOOLS!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Nick Stokes says:

    The general shape of the CO2 dip is fairly fixed. But the temperatures aren’t. As CO2 concentration rises at all altitudes, the mean altitude of emission in each waveband rises. That means in each part of the spectrum, the emission temperature is generally colder, and the intensity less. The bite in the spectrum moves downward.

    Okay, I can see that. The whole lapse rate curve moves sideways (warmer) parallel to itself as the “region of last emission” moves upwards in the stratosphere. But it is surely still a second order (logarithmic) effect because of the exponential decay of density with height. Convection will always trump radiation.

    Thanks for the great diagram.

    Pete Ridley says:

    I’m not happy with “cooler” because it leaves too much room for the CACC disciples/supporters to manoevre.

    Sorry mate, I am a scientist. I don’t fiddle with the facts to fit some political agenda. Isn’t that the core problem here?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Pete Ridley, you say:

    I find at least two major flaws in the “Thermodynamic” paper ..
    (1) it repeats the assumption that the atmosphere emits IR black body
    radiation. As I have stated, individual gas molecules cannot emit black body radiation, ..

    Individual molecules do not emit black body radiation whether they are gaseous or not. Black body radiation is a property of large numbers of molecules. It is a statistical property as are all thermodynamic quantities. If gases do not emit black body radiation, as you say, then why does the sun’s radiation so closely approximate that of a black body?

    and

    There is absolutely no evidence for any additional black body IR emitted from layers of the atmosphere, ..

    I thought the Nick Stokes’ diagram that I referenced earlier was pretty good evidence.

    and

    I’m not happy with “cooler” because it leaves too much room for the CACC disciples/supporters to manoevre.

    If there earth had no atmosphere the average temperature at the surface would be -18 deg C

    If the earth’s atmosphere consisted solely of Nitrogen which neither absorbs nor radiates infrared then the temperature at the surface would still be -18 deg C

    However the average temperature of the earth’s surface is observed to be higher than that which implies that gaseous absorption of infra-red must make a difference. It follows that removal of CO2 from the atmosphere should lead to cooling. But as I said before that does not imply that increasing CO2 will lead to a similar degree of heating because the absorption band is already saturated. There will be some heating as Nick pointed out but it will be small. Climate sensitivity decreases with increasing CO2 concentration. It is not linear.

    Apart from this little niggle I think Potsma puts it pretty well. For me the great unsung hero of this debate is Akasofu.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John,
    Thanks, but it’s Grant Petty’s diagram.

    It’s not second order – the CO2 below the emission layer doesn’t affect it. Imagine looking at the Earth from space with IR (15μ) eyes. You just see emission from a high band of a few km at most thick. It’s like we see the Sun at 6000 K or so, even though it’s mostly much hotter. And if that few km moves up, it gets colder. Less heat escapes in that band. It doesn’t matter how the heat gets to that layer, or how much CO2 is below. It’s the CO2 you see that counts for the final emission stage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    MattB:
    April 3rd, 2011 at 8:18 am
    “I do think I’m turning… the evidence is weak, the mainstream players are covering their asses, and the response to dissent is pretty piss poor…”
    APRIL FOOLS!

    Actually, Matt, in your case it is year round!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Nick
    You say:

    Thanks, but it’s Grant Petty’s diagram.

    Well thank you for bringing it to my attention.

    You say:

    Imagine looking at the Earth from space with IR (15μ) eyes. You just see emission from a high band of a few km at most thick. It’s like we see the Sun at 6000 K or so, even though it’s mostly much hotter.

    Yes, I agree.

    And if that few km moves up, it gets colder.

    No, I don’t agree.

    Less heat escapes in that band. It doesn’t matter how the heat gets to that layer, or how much CO2 is below.

    Yes, I agree.

    It’s the CO2 you see that counts for the final emission stage.

    Yes, I agree.

    Let’s do a little thought experiment.

    Suppose each CO2 molecule is a spherical balloon. Each balloon will be much larger than a single molecule of CO2 because it represents the radiative cross section of CO2 and CO2 is a very good absorber.

    As you look up from the ground (in the 15 micron band) all you see are the balloons above you. As you get higher in the atmosphere the balloons become more sparsely distributed until you finally get to glimpse “deep space”. As you go higher and higher, more and more deep space will be visible. There will be some height at which exactly 50 percent of the zenith sky is filled with balloons and 50 percent occupied with deep space. This is the height at which a 15 micron photon has an even money chance of escaping from the atmosphere. Call it the “median height of last emission”, MHLE, say. The MHLE will depend only on the number density and hence the partial pressure of CO2 so there will be a “Median partial pressure of last emission”. The MPPLE is a constant depending only on the radiative cross section of CO2 in the given band (i.e. the size of the balloons). As the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the MPPLE will stay the same but the MHLE will rise. Because pressure changes exponentially with height, the height at which a given pressure occurs changes logarithmically. (As the number of balloons increases, the balloon density at which you can see half the sky stays the same but it will be higher. But it won’t be very much higher because balloon density falls off so rapidly with height.)

    We are talking about the stratosphere. The stratosphere does not get colder with increasing height. The temperature of the MHLE is determined by Planck’s Law. It is not black body radiation of course because it is limited to a set of bands and emmission lines. Nevertheless these bands and emission lines lie along the Stefan-Boltzman curve corresponding to the equivalent black body radiation. The temperature of the MHLE is determined by the amount of radiant heat leaving the earth as described by Potsma. It is fixed at 255 K. This is born out by Grant Petty’s data mentioned above.

    Both the temperature of the MHLE and the lapse rate (i.e. the slope of tmperature vs height) are independant of CO2 concentration. Only the MHLE increases with CO2 concentration. Therefore the temperature at the ground must increase because the whole lapse rate curve has to move upwards to match the the upward movement of the MHLE and this is logarithmically related to the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore surface temperature increase is also logarithmically related to the proprtion of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is a second order effect.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Political Gold:
    You guys have come up with political gold, a first, a first beginning of a credible climate change (CC) micro-explanation:

    John has argued simply and strongly that the man-made contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is having a negligible effect on climate, and he has done this in terms that many will be able to follow and expand upon.

    Furthermore, this micro-explanation is consistent with by far the best macro-explanation so far of Climate Change, an explanation which is also fairly easy to understand:

    Akasofu’s explanation (via Comment 248 link), of climate in terms of natural climate oscillations and noise.

    Akasofu’s and John’s explanations thus lend themselves to further good science and a CC video. Such video is needed as an antidote to general CC misunderstanding, the potential cost of which is awesome, say the end of Western civilization.

    This part of this thread is thus worth Copy-ing and Send-ing, to film-makers and so on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert Dammers

    Dr and Mrs Evans are to be commended on their wisdom, strength of character and good taste.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Walker

    Robert, I second that!

    Thank you, David and Jo, for your dogged determination to pursue the truth and all the details therein.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] whatever…. Interesting now that some "scientists" who were into climate change theory are now back-peddling! We said it was 'horse-cookies' all along, and that's what I love about this party. Having read [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graham

    Hi.
    Just wondering, [nothing to do with the article, or David's position, with which I thoroughly agree] whether this DAvid Evans is the one I went to school with in Atherton. A check of my email address should be enough info!!
    G.N.

    [REPLY _ I don't think David ever went to school in Atherton, but I'll ask. There are a lot of David Evan's -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    CO2 heating the earth is as lame as water vapor heating the earth. See the technical article Hans Schreuder, Nasif Nahle and I wrote proving that it cools.

    http://omsriram.com/Greenhouse_Gases_Cool_Earth.pdf

    They call water vapor the strongest greenhouse gas. If you go outside on a sunshiny day and a white cloud (of water vapor) goes overhead do you feel warmer as David Evans suggests or do you feel cooler. Common sense prevails.

    Kindest Regards,

    Bob Ashworth


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Bob (Ashworth), you say that “If you go outside on a sunshiny day and a white cloud (of water vapor) goes overhead do you feel warmer as David Evans suggests or do you feel cooler. Common sense prevails.”

    Pardon my ignorance but I thought that water vapour, like other atmospheric gases (CO2, O2, N2, etc.) was invisible and that those white things in the sky were not water vapour but “A cloud is a visible mass of water droplets or frozen ice crystals” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud).

    I know that Wikipedia is not a particularly reliable source of information, especially regarding climate change, but how can we be sure that Hans Schreuder, Nasif Nahle and you are any more reliable?

    Best regards, Pete Ridley


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Zlitan Zawiya

    Z-Day

    Is ZZTOP, Zlitan Zawiya Towards Our Petrol a good day to celebrate ZZTOP Day? Celebrate Z-Day? Z-Day, a day to celebrate our freedom from the human-backwardness of TGWH, The Global Warming Hoax? The Hoax that attempts to conceal the plain fact that HSE, Heat Sink Earth has a SH, Specific Heat too large to permit HSE to warm by one degree in less the a trillion years, in light of HSE’s great mass of 5.9 x 10^24 kilograms? After one trillion years will our Mediterranean Cousins be out of jet fuel? Who knows? One thing for sure, “With their determination and spirit of freedom, there is very little that they will not have for their future generations of proud freedom fighters.”

    Congratulations, Z-Day fighters! Congratulations from free people-s, free nations, and Free Thinkers The World Over!

    Rip ‘m up!
    Tear ‘m up!
    Give ‘m h
    !


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This article first appeared on JoNova [...]

    ————————————————————–
    This leads to here http://real-agenda.com/2012/05/26/global-bullies-climate-models-and-dishonesty-in-climate-science/ – Mod


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] after page of bullshit and guesses, but no actual evidence. If you are open minded, read his story here or [...]

    ————————————————————————————
    To save readers time all this ends up referring you to here: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/ – Mod


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...]  First “Splattergate” and now this?  Even if the science was on their side (which it isn’t) there is no way we could trust these people with any amount of [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #