Bit by bit, smart and influential thinkers are shifting. We’re seeing more and more of this type of exposition from people who are becoming skeptical. How much longer can the big bluff be maintained in the face of this kind of deep, considered and independent analysis?
Mike Van Biezen is a physics, maths and astronomy lecturer in the US. Until seven years ago, he accepted the premise that adding massive amounts of CO2 to the air would cause temperatures to rise. Then he noticed the slip in global temperatures from 1940-1980 and “could not ignore this subtle hint”. He did a lot of investigating over the ensuing years and has condensed that into ten very well written points. Like point 9: “It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist.” But things got so cold 150 years ago, people were afraid of glaciers and were asking “local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance.”
I also found point 7, and 10 particularly worth discussing. Point 10 is the one that he says captures the attention of his students.
The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true. Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.
…
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2. It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth. That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures…
Once I started reading it was easy to keep going. He has quite the knack for writing.
Van Beizen’s other points essentially were that modern temperatures are not unprecedented — it’s all been hotter before. The pattern of warming in satellites doesn’t fit the supposed “forcing”. The world cooled after WWII when it was supposed to warm. The urban heat island effect is real.Warming temperatures cause rises in CO2 (but not necessarily the other way around). (Quite a few of his points are the same as in the skeptics handbook. I too found the logarithmic curve of CO2 impact an eye-opener — at modern concentrations CO2 has little extra effect — it’s mostly already saturated.
He claims the 1980s were the coldest decade, which doesn’t sound right to me. I’d like to know more about that.
It’s well worth the read. Good on him
Mike van Biezen, Engineer at Raytheon, Professor at Layola Marymount University and El Camino College, Youtube lecturer
(@ilectureonline)
h/t to Brian H.
I get lost. Despite the trillions spent, is there a single proof of the theory of man made global warming? The data is outrageously fiddled, deleted, ignored, adjusted, always up and the raw data hidden. The CO2 increase is not man made. An increase in CO2 will not increase absorption. There is no correlation observed between CO2 and temperature. It has been much hotter before. There is no hot spot to make it even feasible that CO2 produces warming and temperatures are not going up. The seas are alkaline and not rising more than usual.
What then is the argument and what is the scare? If the precautionary principle was valid, shouldn’t we be preparing for an ice age too? Or a meteor strike? When were failed computer models the truth and not observations? Is temperature so hard to measure? Has a single prediction come true? Why isn’t Al Gore facing criminal charges when even a British High court judge ruled it full of lies and political indoctrination? Why did most National heads of State just go to Paris including military dictators, junta leaders, tyrants and Robert Mugabe? The weather? This is mass delusion, political science not real science.
Most importantly in Australia, when will merchant banker PM Malcolm Turnbull introduce his External Taxation System to save the planet?
1545
After the 2016 election …
ETS variants will NOT be an MSM feature of the election campaign
511
Ask your conservative MP before you vote.
251
I think it would be a complete and utter embarrassment (for them) to ask ….. ANY MP or prospective MP to explain an ETS.
They would have no idea, quite literally.
I await the day that a journalist actually asks those two questions.
1. Could you explain an ETS
2. Where does the money go.
Tony.
633
Assuming someone is capable of answering those 2 excellent questions, I’d like to see a ‘bonus round’ question:
“Is there a system in place to audit the various carbon sinks relied upon by a carbon credit system?”
232
You guys want far too much. Firstly you want “journalists’ and they are rare like real polar bears, the ones scrambling to get away from crusading photojournalists. Secondly you want ‘journalists’ to understand money, where it comes from and why thats important. Then you want them to understand why their stupid petty prejudices should play no part in their professional conduct. Methinks you want Santa Claus because right now he’s a better bet. at least he delivers, just ask the kids.
220
What we really want TurnBULL & Co to answer is:
“Prove, with scientific unadjusted data, the reduction in global temperature per billion of ETS” That’s what we really should be asking but our MSM don’t have the intelligence or guts to ask that sort of question!
100
3) Could you explain the ETS impact on the price of a birthday cake?
72
If he allows Australian companies to buy permits from overseas as well as from the government he does not need to change a thing.
30
I am happy to sell all the permits needed for one dollar a piece
10
Once again, an appeal to irrelevant ‘Mike’ authority.
336
Who is a relevant authority?
101
When you take away all those climate “scientists” with vested interest in keeping either their reputations or the truck looads of money coming, you don’t have many (any?) left.
If you really want to annoy these “scientists”, ask them for their evidence, with calculations, that CO2 poses a significant threat. The question has been asked of several of Australia’s leading alarmist/scientists and none provided that evidence. YOMD but I figure anyone with no evidence is irrelevant.
21
John Mclean.
“When you take away all those climate “scientists” with vested interest in keeping either their reputations or the truck looads of money coming, you don’t have many (any?) left.”
Truck loads of money, sounds like a lot. Evidence please.
Scientific evidence for the scientific theory of AGW. There is loads, with calculations. More than I can cover in a lifetime.
15
Harry, your feigned ignorance about the truck loads of money is a bore. You’ve been reading here long enough to see the scores of my posts on Climate Money.
Massive climate funding exposed | Climate money: Auditing is left to unpaid volunteers | Climate money: Monopoly science | Climate money: Big government outspends big oil
Spot the Vested Interest. The $1.5T climate change industry.
51
Frank.
‘Once again, an appeal to irrelevant ‘Mike’ authority.’
Yes, the Appeal to Authority fallacious argument gets a bit transparent after a while.
I find it puzzling that the work of most climate scientists is rejected with no explanation, yet the word from someone who is not even a climate scientist is accepted.
OK, it is grounds for a discussion if some fringe scientist disagrees with the mainstream, but I can never coax anyone to explain why they consider the fringe correct, and the mainstream not.
562
And yet at comment 1.6, you claim:
Anthropogenic Climate Change, is no more than a hypothesis. It has not been proven.
Mike Van Biezen is using mathematics to prove that the original station data does not, and cannot, support the current computer modelling – i.e. people playing with curve-matching algorithms, on super-computers.
623
Rereke Whakaaro.
‘Mike Van Biezen is using mathematics to prove that the original station data does not…’
By all mean explain his method and results to us, if you are familiar with it.
438
Rather than have me explain his method to you, it would be much better for you to do your own research into Mike’s methods – reading his paper would be a good start.
You can then draw your own conclusions, based on that information, and reasoned argument, rather than just accepting or rejecting other peoples views on it.
That is what real scientists do.
393
Rereke: Do you honestly think that Harry Twinotter or Frank will ever produce any arguments of their own using figures taken from their own researches? You might as well believe in porcine flight.
172
Carbon500
December 29, 2015 at 5:45 am
“Rereke: You might as well believe in porcine flight.”
I take it you have never observed a flying pig. We have one complete with leather helmet, scarf, and goggles. Where ya’all from? 😉
101
Will: you’re right, I’ve never seen a flying pig here in the UK!
40
I have noticed that Harry T pops up on numerous blogs and such around the globe, sprouting his usual collection of one-liners.
I am beginning to think he is actually a skeptic who has taken it upon himself to pose as a warmist and make statements that are so absurd that we will be convinced that the pro-AGW crowd are even more idiotic than we thought – if that is possible.
Keep up the good work Harry T, you are doing the skeptical world a big favour.
302
The very fact that you think in terms of ‘fringe’ and ‘mainstream’ with regards to a topic where the science is obviously far from ‘settled’, and that you regard (C)AGW as more than a hypothesis, is just demonstrating your lack of ability to be objective, and your total failure to understand the whole basis of thinking like a scientist.
Even the ‘fringe’ and ‘mainstream’ aspect can be debated, because there are clear statistical and methodological flaws in ‘peer reviewed’ papers which try to show a ‘consensus’.
As always, show me a few pieces of hard evidence (multiple independent indicators) that humans are causing the earth to heat up at a rate which is above natural variability, and I will accept that the hypothesis has legs, until then, I will continue to question it.
233
So Harry, you are appealing to the authority of “most climate scientists” (the “consensus”). Good one.
There are in fact mountains of explanations as to why “the consensus” is rejected, the most important one being that there is in fact no “consensus”.
Nobody is accepting “the word” of anybody. What we do accept is empirical evidence, as presented by Mike. We find this far more attractive than the CAGW hypothesis. Mike is eminently qualified to present the arguments he does, however in science they could be presented by anybody, even me.
122
‘but I can never coax anyone to explain why ‘ .. I get this a lot. I’ve had people ask why the heck I ramble on about plants and their role in the carbon cycle and C3 photosynthesis and with some, as soon as I begin to answer they purse their lips and ask if I can explain it without all that sciency chemical talk. Same happens with spectral absorption
They put no effort into learning and they treat knowledge as though it’s all a trick someone is trying to put over them. “well I don’t know about all that’ is a giveaway that the person is a willful ignorant although others who prefer sound bites and resort to adopting a superior attitude and chanting dogma they heard elsewhere.. talking points and the like.
It would be lovely if we could all comprehend things just by reading something once, but sadly that’s not the case. To learn things takes an effort that few people seem interested in investing.
161
The experience you are describing can be summed up like this:
“I can promise to explain it, but I cannot promise that you will understand it.”
00
Who is appealing to Mike’s authority? No-one is saying “Mike says it isn’t true, so it isn’t true.”
The article just looks at Mike’s reasons for scepticism.
And in this site the reason for rejecting the claims of “most climate scientists” are frequently repeated.
But here it is again , for those who haven’t noticed yet.
The predictions fail. And if the predictions fail, the hypothesis is wrong..
603
RoHa,
no, “Mike” is not giving reasons, he is making claims. It comes down to whether you believe him or not, hence it is an “argument from irrelevant authority”.
Personally, I think this climate change denialism thing of his is a publicity stunt. If he does have scientific credentials, he really should know he is talking nonsense.
374
So you actually have no idea what his credentials are? Ha!
It is you, who attempt to make an argument from irrelevant authority! Talk about projection!
Would you care to share your list of credentials with the rest of us? I feel like a good giggle, from time to time.
662
I must be missing something.
I can’t see anyone appealing to Mike’s authority as a reason for scepticism about AGW. I can’t see anyone saying “Mike says so, so I believe it.”
And if no-one says that, no-one is arguing from authority, and no-one is committing the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.
Of course, appealing to the authority of climate scientists who have a grand record of failure does count as argumentum ad verecundiam.
402
I think sometimes our friends Harry and Frank do not bother to read anything, they just homogenise a few key words, and build their own model of what was said.
262
As Rereke requested of you, Harry:
By rubbishing Mike van Biezen, you’re implying superior knowledge and qualifications in the area of Phyics (necessary for any study of the atmosphere).
Maybe you even know what the Second Law of ThermoDynamics is and how Maxwell’s Daemon works.
So dazzle us.
192
Sophocles
‘By rubbishing Mike van Biezen, you’re implying superior knowledge and qualifications in the area of Phyics (necessary for any study of the atmosphere).’
No, not really. Would you like to explain your claim?
230
Don’t dodge.
Dazzle us.
80
He is not denying climate change, no-one bar idiots is.
He is pointing out the egregious mangling of the scientific method to support a religious dogma aka “the Cause “.
283
HaHa,
The predictions are not failing, the temps are rising, please go to sites other than Jo/David / WUWT /etc.
243
Never visit WUWT and JoNova. They are dangerous!
They might say something about how after massive human emissions even the latest El Nino is not pushing up temperatures higher than 1998 …
572
But it is causing wild weather the latest climate expert fantasy writers insist:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/30454713/whats-driving-this-wild-weather/
The models predicted this kind of thing, they say…
About models and prediction … you can predict anything with a model. Case in point, my brother did an MBA in Geneva many moons ago. A guy there had predicted the oil price increasing four-fold during the original Oil Crisis (yes, back in the 1970s and 1980s). He also had models showing the oil price staying the same and dropping, and everything inbetween.
Such is the nature of models … what would you like the answer to be?
142
By how much, Frank? Please, give us a figure (plus the error margins), and to use a phrase and tactic you probably love – show me the peer reviewed literature on this too.
You’re the one making the claim that temperatures are rising, so the onus is on you to provide the specific evidence, rather than the lazy method of saying “go to other sites”.
Of course, I’m assuming you’re capable of doing more than making superficial and unsubstantiated claims…
222
Frank.
‘The predictions are not failing, the temps are rising, please go to sites other than Jo/David / WUWT /etc.’
It would be helpful if they did.
233
Harry Twinotter,
Tag Team Trolling! Like I said to Tristan, you all must really be worried that an engineer and college professor has not only defected from the ranks, but also has the writing skills to present the reasons for that defection and back those up with evidence. 😮 🙂
Not only that, but neither of you even had the common courtesy to come here and wish Jo and everyone else here a Merry Xmas even though she allows you to post your unsubstantiated dribble on her site at her expense.
So you’re not even descent human beings. 🙁
Abe
305
Are you able to show this to us from the satellite record? No, I thought not.
The predictions have been shown to be way too hot time and time again. Why do you base your beliefs on predictions and hypothesis rather than empirical evidence? Are you aware that in science the best you can do with a hypothesis (the CAGW hypothesis) is to either falsify it or to show support for it with empirical evidence? This you do not have.
Are you in fact aware that as far as the Holocene period is concerned temperatures are in fact falling and that we are now at the lowest “warm period” temperature wise during this era?
151
The most, if not only significant temp changes this century have been the progressive decline in historic temps., courtesy of NASA / NOAA et al.
121
Look at the temperature acceleration rise just like you press on the speed accelerator in your car, but perhaps you don,t drive and hence the concept of temp change rate is beyond you?
50
RoHa.
‘Who is appealing to Mike’s authority? No-one is saying “Mike says it isn’t true, so it isn’t true.”’
JoNova is.
230
No Harry.
You do really need to work on your reading comprehension. Please quote me the exact text, where Jo actually appeals to Mike’s authority.
302
I get lost too, and it frustrates me that even after the real agenda of the man-made climate change fraud is admitted by a senior UN executive the general media and many politicians choose to ignore it and pretend that global warming remains a serious problem, so throw more taxpayer’s monies at the “experts” who will save us from disaster;
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3vZ5WdpUr
[Yes, it’s a great quote isn’t it. From October 2015 – Jo]
472
Jo I keep posting it here and elsewhere and have sent it to various MPs.
The silence is deafening.
341
Dennis, fwiw, to show my concern at the duplicity of such a quote I have sent it to my (UK) MP. Thanks for the link.
142
“Has a single prediction come true?”
I keep asking this. I find it difficult to believe that the Warmists have got everything wrong. Surely, by sheer chance, they must have got something right. But no-one will tell me. Is this conspiracy of silence directed at me, personally, or is it a general refusal to admit any mitigation whatsoever to the colossal record of failure?
371
RoHa,
It has little to do with science, at least, not in the traditional sense of the physical sciences.
It has much to do with Political Science, Psychology, and Propaganda. Edward Bernays would be proud.
290
Maybe Herbert Marcuse too..
31
“What, then, is the argument, and what is the scare?”
Follow the money. But their ultimate objective is to destroy the money, no matter what the cost. In the meantime they will use it, but destruction is their goal.
As for the criticism of Malcolm Turnbull. I haven’t seen what he has done lately to earn the criticism that I see. When he was joining in the AGW thing a long time ago “The Pause” was visible only to sceptics. (Who, incidentally should no longer be called ‘sceptics” but “realists”) The Pause or whatever it is called is now, notwithstanding the massive campaign in recent months, so firmly established that even the IPCC has acknowledged it. If Malcolm Turnbull decides that it is all a scam there is nobody better qualified to take this message to the electorate. While I actively opposed the dumping of Tony Abbott I haven’t given up on Turnbull yet.
In the longer run, when the scam is finally busted, what should be done with the scammers? Clearly there were some who planned all this. I mention as a local example the appointment of a partisan board to the CSIRO in 1986. There are others in high places who believed the leaders. There are the people who, having joined the gravy train then worked to protect their patches. Then there were the very large number of people who were just misled.
Some should be called to account.
316
Ted,
Malcolm Turnbull is never going to willingly give up on the CO2 hoax. He is on record as having crossed the floor to vote for an ETS and calling AGW sceptics “Hitler appeasers”. The only thing more inflated than the absurd clams of the AGW propagandists is Turnbull’s bloated ego. Can you imagine Turnbull admitting that the global warming hoax was a global IQ test and that all of the left, including himself, failed?
The only way Turnbull can win even the slightest respect from me is if he resigns before the next election.
621
He must have a hide as thick as an Elephant and an ego that tells him he is operating at a level way above stupid mere mortals.
71
Yes, Turnbull will never have my complete respect. He is a clever manipulator and schemer. Frankly he’s much worse than Rudd ever could be for one simple reason. Turnbull has gained a lot of respect from the public and it appears it will remain due to the tricks he probably learned when he was with Goldman Sachs. Rudd was a one-time wonder with no experience or smarts. Turnbull is the opposite. So, that makes him an extremely dangerous leader for us. Too bad voters are so gullible to fall for people like them. Perhaps we deserve to be punished for our stupid decisions. It’s almost a given after the next election that an ETS style of regime change will be implanted upon us to milk us of more money to feed into the coffers of the government whose spending is out of control. Of course it won’t stop the debt bomb from exploding but it might delay it a little. All this shows it has nothing to do with climate change. After all, no one has shown how the trillions of dollars wasted will alter the global mean temperature by any measurable amount. For all we know their scams will actually help to increase the temperature. Go figure.
91
A side issue to this thread but as the question was asked, here are some of the reasons why Turnbull is criticized:
– scrapped Bjorn Lomborg’s proposed consensus centre as demanded by carbon warming extremists.
– urged Commonwealth leaders to do more to fight global warming.
– dumped effective Immigration Minister Peter Dutton from the National Security Committee.
– will not amend the Racial Discrimination Act to properly allow for freedom of speech.
– invited Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs to tea – an activist who has accused the government of crimes against humanity
– suggested a rise in the GST, inevitably leading to a tax grab after the premiers are paid off.
– announced a bid for a seat on the discredited United Nations Human Rights Council.
– had the partisan leadership of ABC chairman Mark Scott praised by his new Communications Minister.
– initially described the Islamist murder of Curtis Cheng as “politically motivated” and appears to support the Grand Mufti in saying that Islamist atrocities are our fault.
– asked, or approved of, the security chief phoning members of parliament to tone down language condemning terrorism.
– taking 12,000 refugees from Iraq and Syria with most not from the minority religions targeted by the Islamists but predominately Muslim.
– economic irresponsibility evidenced by allowing this financial year’s deficit to worsen by up to $5 billion, appointing spend-our-way-out-of-this Keynesian, Martin Parkinson, restored funding to the left/arty Australia Council, spending $1 billion for global warming projects overseas.
290
Good list, Lucky.
Keep them coming.
120
I should really mention major cribbing from Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair.
50
TDef.
‘I get lost. Despite the trillions spent, is there a single proof of the theory of man made global warming?’
If you are looking for proof of anything, try mathematics. Proofs do not work very well for scientific hypotheses.
But is there a preponderance of scientific evidence for global warming – yes. A good place to start is the IPCC reports.
The data is not ‘manipulated’ to give a desired outcome, that is a Conspiracy Theory.
465
Mike van Biezen knows the mathematics, and the physics required to unpick the science. He can demonstrate that the conspiracy is no longer just a theory, so that shrug-off line will no longer work in this context.
Did you actually read the post before typing your knee-jerk reaction to be at the top of the thread? No, I thought not.
GISS and NOAA will have a bit of explaining to do, once this gets into the political arena.
623
Rereke Whakaaro.
Oh boy – there will be blood, hey?
I don’t know “Mike” personally so I cannot comment on his abilities. But I do wonder how you can comment on his abilities.
The good thing about Conspiracy Theories is they require no evidence. All you need to is sit quietly for 30 minutes and let your imagination do the rest.
458
Simple, I looked him up, and did some research, and looked at his list of publications, and read the extracts, and did an analysis of his areas of interest.
It is what I do for a living.
Harry Twinotter, on the other hand, is just vapour, with no substance, and no footprint on this planet …
694
A fart then?
382
To be fair Rereke, this mess was devised, orchestrated and brought to fruition by many people who have mini train sets after their names on their business cards.Ultimately those of us blessed with the ability to think still have an obligation to do so, otherwise quite frankly the state has wasted resources.
182
Harry its not an organised conspiracy, the MSM lost its way because of economic restraints brought about by the communications revolution. At the same time a stream of left/green journalism students were graduating from reputable universities.
Their political bias, coupled with scientific ignorance on the subject, meant that the media (except for the Murdocracy) ceased to be a watchdog on climate change.
It was a beat-up from the start, but with the gravy train filling up fast there was no turning back.
364
El G (can I call you that?!) the MSM have behaved liked farts in the finest French perfumery for years now. Promising young journalists have been completely compromised because of the garbage put in front of them that they have for all intents and purposes lip sync’d. I do despair at the lack of journalistic integrity and the ‘framing of the message’ that young aspiring journalists are subjected to (I suspect, they work in an autocratic world I believe). I am not a journalist nor have ever been one but I have a damn good idea of what I would expect from one that I would respect. Basically, like I suspect of most here, want their intellect respected and due diligence given. I expect them to ask why in the face of so much opposition the entire MGWM has struggled to capture public opinion. That done being diligent journalists they would dig in to all the info out there like I have done, going back 15 years and perhaps they would find a few obvious points of genuine concern particularly since we are talking scientists and presidents and other notables. Throw in some possible graft, corruption that makes FIFA look like the Boy Scouts and then where do YOU the journalists’ find yourselves. I’ll tell you; you find yourselves at the point at which you have to question your profession and perhaps if you are brave enough, you’re own integrity. I have this very basic philosophical law that basically says that you are entitled to ask and expect an answer to any question you ever ask. If they can’t, won’t answer you know your question was especially valid. That is the position that every journalist should put themselves in. I won’t hold my breath thats for sure. If your profession dies and the likes of us find other sources for our current affairs information look to yourselves.
162
Its up to us citizen journalists to frame our message towards global cooling, simply explained and without alarm, but our seasonal projections must come true if we are to gain traction and credibility.
I was a sports scribe in print media and have ambitions of reinventing myself as an environment reporter.
71
Pls convice me. Don,t give me the reference to the reports but tell me:
1. is the Arctic ice still shrinking in 2015 (ice supposed to have despaired in 2013)
2. Is Antarctica ice shrinking?
3. Sea level accelerating ( should at least 2 to 3m by now according to some)
4. Satellite Temperature reading not stabilised despite >10% co2 increase in the atmosphere (IPCC predicted some 0.5-1 deg. warming by now).
Obviously you read IPCC reports and you will able to answer these in no time. Care to say anything or you will refer to authority again like Gore and that [snip] railway engineer?
I am a geologist with 30 years experience in paleoclimate reconstructions, but this not good enough for you when u sip your latte in some inner suburbia feeling moral and important.
453
Dariusz.
Are you referring to me?
Why the subject change with the cherry-picked questions? Try Skeptical Science the answers you seek might be there.
[Snip]
‘I am a geologist with 30 years experience in paleoclimate reconstructions..’
If that is the case, then you will know what a trend is. You will also know why cherry-picking is bad for an scientific study.
337
“cherry-picking is bad for an scientific study”
Harry,
It’s not cherry-picking to list several failed predictions of the CAGW hypothesis.
(even one failed prediction should cast severe doubt on a hypothesis).
262
Harry, please refrain from using the name of Jesus like that. It is offensive to Christians. Our feelings should be considered as well as those of people of other faiths. Thankyou, Annie.
[I have removed the offensive material, and a few other phrases that should not have got past moderation. My apologies for that – moderation is an art, and not a science] Fly
174
Annie.
‘Our feelings should be considered as well as those of people of other faiths. ‘
Along with railway engineers I guess.
210
And Warmists. We’re a faith right? Please don’t use Gore’s name in vain.
93
I am glad to see a warmist admit to that …
It has been obvious to the rest of us for some time, but it is satisfying to see it acknowledged by one as diligent in the faith, as yoruself.
92
People,
Instead of invoking the names of various deities/saints etc, you could use the phrase “Holy Smoke” — a favourite of Batman’s sidekick, Robin.
I suggest that it’s singularly appropriate for the topic of Climate Change™.
61
Directing people to Skeptical Science. LOL. Tells you all you need to know about the guy. What surprises me is that people are still indulging him (that now includes me). The Harry Twotter should be ignored – he’s like the old-enough-to-know-better kid in the playground insisting that Santa is real because his daddy says so – look at his arguments and you’ll see that’s pretty much the extent of his reasoning abilities.
183
Malcolm Short.
‘Directing people to Skeptical Science. LOL.’
Name calling.
317
No, Malcolm is simply pointing out that the only visitations that SKS has, is from its four devoted followers, and other people tricked into going to the site, by people like you.
92
Harry
My cherry picking starts 4.6 billion years ago, the age of earth.
The current trend is as it was before, we are rebounding from the mini ice age with no temperature increase acceleration observed. Again no one questions that the temperature were/ perhaps are increasing but that started well before co2 increase.
Some geological trivia for you. I am currently working on the Ordovician period (some 450mln years ago) and reconstructing the climate that was dominated by at least >1000 ppm co2 in the atmosphere and yet we have an unmistakable evidence of the ice age.
Another one is the Vostok ice core that has shown indisputably that the temp increase proceeds co2 increase by some 800 years (jo has written extensively about this). These two simple observations will have to be explained and using scientific approach you always look for the simplest reason. The conclusion is that there is no temp and co2 causal relationship. In fact the case of the Vostok core implies that temp is the cause of Co2 variations. Not the other way around.
Pls let me know if you have an alternate explanation. I am all ears and I don,t care about your scientific credentials. I will listen to any reasonable explanation as any scientist should.
203
Dariusz.
‘In fact the case of the Vostok core implies that temp is the cause of Co2 variations. Not the other way around.’
I warned you about the dangers of cherry-picking didn’t I?
OK Vostok. Now consider the case of the other hemisphere at around the same time.
213
It is you who is cherry picking.
Would you care to discuss the cyclic nature of temperature and CO2 variations, and the phase lag between them, and what a Fourier Analysis tells us about the cause and effect?
102
Rereke,
I’ve already asked Dr. DeHavilland to run a cross-correlation between CO2 and temperature (using readily available data sets from the Global Warming Art (dot) com website), either for the Phanerozoic only, or using the set which includes Cryogenian age temperature/CO2, but he, like everyone else, has steadfastly refused to advise us of the correlation coefficient he obtained.
If, as I suspect, he took one look at the two curves, realized that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, and just laughed it off, since it didn’t fit his pre-conceived notions of CAGW. John Brookes (“Brooksie”) would not rise to the challenge, ‘black-blather-the-4th’ backed-down from the challenge … … ; point of fact, everyone I’ve asked to run a correlation has refused. They just recite the last 150-200 years of ‘data’ which show CO2 and temperature rising in seeming lock-step, then claim that the real paleoclimatologists, i.e., geologists, are ‘cherry-picking’ 750 m.a. of data.
Dr. DeHavilland is just the latest refusal to see that correlation is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition, for causality. He just wants CO2 to drive temperature, so that’s the way it is for him.
And Tristan.
And Frank.
When they publish their coefficients on this website, we should resume the discussion. Unless and until they do, their contribution to the hoax they perpetuate is a lot of ‘hot air’.
Regards to all,
Vlad
(and, Dr. DeHavilland, thanks for the moniker — I use it everywhere now!!!)
61
Vlad the Impaler.
Still going on about the irrelevant, spurious question you asked that time.
Get over it…
14
Hello, Dr. DeHavilland:
Yes, I’m still going on about the “…irrelevant, spurious…” question.
Please, enlighten us on why, exactly, it is ‘irrelevant’, and ‘spurious.’ If, as I suspect, you consider it to be ‘irrelevant’ and ‘spurious’ because you are unable to explain WHY CO2 does not drive temperature for the past 750 m.a., then you will have to admit that the whole of the CAGW-hoax is just that.
You (used in a broad sense to include Gore, Jones, Mann, IPCC et al … ) claim that the past two centuries (give or take) of ‘warming’ temperatures are driven completely by the addition of CO2 from human activities.
Fine. Let us go with that. If that is the case, then I should be able to find evidence of same in the geological record. I should find, more often than not, consistent patterns of CO2 driving temperature, across geological time, in all areas of paleogeography, in all configurations of continents and ocean currents, and atmospheric compositions. As Lyell taught us, the present is the key to the past. I should be able to look at the past and derive an explanation for the present.
If I do not find consistency, then the hypothesis that the past two centuries temperature change is driven by a singular factor, must be called into question. That is an essential part of science.
The question I pose is neither ‘irrelevant’ nor is it ‘spurious’. It is a hard question which demands an answer. Is there a correlation between the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and average global temperature, or is there not?
The way I see it is this: you have some choices to make.
1) Provide us with the answer to the question I have posed (and none in your camp have dared to answer). I know at least several challengees have looked at Veizer vs. Berner & Kothavala, and realized that the correlation is tenuous, at best.
2) Explain why and/or how CO2 did NOT drive temperature(s) in the whole of the Late PreCambrian-to-the-present, then suddenly became a ‘greenhouse gas’ in the past couple centuries, when its concentration is a fraction of what it was during the Cryogenian glaciations, and the Ordovician/Silurian glaciations. Further, explain why and how, at concentrations sometimes measured in percents, the Earth was able to go into glacial conditions, if CO2 is this ‘all-powerful greenhouse gas’.
3) You could admit that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature. That is the position of investigators such as Jo, Dr. Evans, myself, the author of the paper which is the topic we discuss herein, Anthony… … … . Believe it or not, some of us “d-e-n-i-e-r-s” have actual science and engineering degrees, have looked at the (so-called) science the IPCC uses, and found it wanting, and do not accept the conclusions of ‘warmist’ groups, based on the science.
4) While you’re at it, go ahead and explain why and how a coupled, non-linear dynamic system is controlled by a single variable. Cite the engineer (published in the peer-reviewed literature) who will state explicitly that such a system is controlled and modified ONLY by a single input parameter. Just FYI, I do not accept that such a system is EVER controlled by a single input; that is physically impossible. Since the system under discussion (the global climate system)is also non-stationary, there is no such thing as a linear response to a single parameter.
So, make your choice. Continue to think that climate has never changed until the past two centuries (exactly WHO is the “climate-change- d-e-n-i-e-r?”). I’m fairly certain it has done nothing but change, for about 4+ billion years.
I look forward to your response (or lack thereof).
Regards,
Vlad the Implaler
(love that moniker!!)
51
Vlad the Impaler.
“Yes, I’m still going on about the “…irrelevant, spurious…” question.”
It’s irrelevant because the argument is a non-sequitur, it does not follow.
The reasons for CO2 relationships to global mean temperature in the distant past may never be known. The configuration of the globe was different then. There is evidence that the entire globe froze over a couple of times. There is evidence that the sun has gotten progressively warmer over the timescale of 100s of millions of years. Fascinating stuff, but not relevant to the last couple of thousand years or so.
If you want to research paleo CO2 and it’s effects on global climate, I recommend Dr Richard Alley’s work on CO2 as the global thermostat.
Play word games all you like, attempting to set up straw men all over the place, etc. This overload of weak reasoning is called a “Gish Gallop” (look it up). Skeptics do not respond to a Gish Gallop as it is a pointless waste of time, all it is is a rhetorical trick used to fool a naïve audience.
“That is the position of investigators such as Jo, Dr. Evans, myself, the author of the paper which is the topic we discuss herein, Anthony…”
Really? Who cares I certainly don’t. The names you mention are hardly authorities on the subject. By all means if they think they have something worthwhile to add to science they can get it published in the reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature.
17
Greetings, Dr. DeHavilland:
So, in sum, you are unable to answer any of the questions posed. Such as how one parameter controls a system such as global climate. You reference Dr. Alley. I saw one part of a presentation he made. Ironic you mention ‘Gish Gallop’.
Again, since you did not read the post in the first place, either we can establish a history (and not cherry-pick the last two centuries, but use ALL of the available data, which is something science does, by they way) that this trace gas controls global climate, or it doesn’t. That makes the history highly relevant. Of course you consider it a ‘straw man’. You are unable (or unwilling) to admit that the history is that CO2 does NOT control global climate. That would cause the entire house of cards you so desperately cling to, to fall apart.
Equally ironic that you cite Dr. Alley as an appeal to authority. Earlier, in a response to Rereke, you dismissed von Biezen and any credentials he might have. Before he became a “d-e-n-i-e-r”, you would have accepted his views (similar to yours) without question. Now that he has done what scientists do, i.e., investigate, cogitate, and change his mind when he found large inconsistencies, you consider him to be reprobate.
Please, let me know all these ‘straw men’ I’ve set up. As far as I can see, I’ve asked some fairly straight-forward questions: does CO2 control global climate; is a system as complex as global climate modulated by a single parameter; what does the history show.
You betray yourself when you ask, “Really? Who cares (sic) I certainly don’t”. Apparently you do care, since you continue to post here at Jo’s (and from what I can gather, other places as well. You come here thinking that you can Gish-Gallop some participants with your own rhetorical devices. Notice that Jo tolerates your endless posts, but the sites you frequently mention disallow dissenting opinion, much as skeptical literature is suppressed. Dr. Evans is putting his ideas out here, and the “peer review” you so highly revere is taking place before your very eyes (yet you did not see it — somehow I think there’s a Biblical reference in there … … ).
So, once again, you won’t take a small scientific step, and just try to overwhelm with words. Take the time to do what von Biezen did. It just might open your mind.
Vlad
41
I have noticed that whenever a so-called “climate science expert” is interviewed by the ever gullible MSM, the best they can do is utter the standard statement “the scientific evidence is overwhelming”. Never once do they provide even one example of this “overwhelming scientific evidence” and never once does a journo actually ask them to provide one.
The only thing along these lines that we seem to hear from these intellectual giants are such gems as “the overwhelming evidence of the climate models”, which for anyone with even a mediocre level of intelligence would regard as overwhelming stupidity.
So come on all you “climate science experts”, here is your big chance – let us in on this closely guarded secret of the “overwhelming scientific evidence” that you so often love to refer to so we can all be saved from the dark side of The Force?
For example where are the results of experiments that prove that a single molecule of CO2 can have any significant warming effect on the 2,500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen surrounding it? The only obvious “overwhelming” scientific evidence” is that every molecule of CO2 can be regarded as being totally surrounded by it’s own exclusive collection of TWO AND A HALF THOUSAND other molecules which are NOT CO2.
If it is actually possible for this miniscule concentration of CO2 to perform the miraculous task of heating up 2,500 non-CO2 neighbors, then you would have rename it “the God molecule”, would you not?
Oh and Harry, the IPCC reports are chock full of claimed evidence of melting ice and other such natural wonders of the planet. Surely all that is required to prove the theory that CO2 drives temperature is some experiments of the nature that I have just mentioned. I haven’t see a reference to them anywhere in any of the IPCC reports so far.
412
Ray Derrick,
Hard sceptics have been asking this question for years. And not only of the CAGW ™ cultists, but from luke-warmers as well. I asked right here on this web-site. All I got was illogical, irrational, hand-waving responses. ( ad-homs, and appeals to authority as well.) 😉
And that is as it should be, because when push comes to shove, there is no concrete, verifiable, reproducible experiment to prove such a preposterous notion because it can’t happen. Full stop.
And this is why you’ll see plenty of articles on luke-warmer sites that prove that CO2 rise follows temperature rise and at the same time articles that claim that CO2 rise causes temperature rise! 😮
Oh, but not too much. 😉
Abe
144
Harry Twinotter most likely cannot make the distinction between Carbon and CO2.No matter.No mind.
102
You are wrong.
I wrote a detailed reply but it failed to post. Suffice it to say that there is incontrovertible evidence to prove you wrong not least from within the halls of academe about which I was alerted by someone involved c.2008. My source is 100% trustworthy – computer models and data are manipulated to produce the results required by The Team for The Cause.
My evidence predates Climategate which proved what I had been told.
Somewhere, there’s an email file calling out to you: “Harry, read me!”.
172
Harry Twinotter December 28, 2015 at 3:04 pm ·
“The data is not ‘manipulated’ to give a desired outcome, that is a Conspiracy Theory.”
The data is ‘manipulated’ to give a desired outcome, as per the Feeding at the Trough Theory.
208
Harry, according to the IPCC human emissions are responsible for around half of the warming from the 50’s. That amounts to about 0.25 of a degree! Also according to the IPCC this has made zero impact on extreme weather events. Given the logarithmic nature of Co2 regarding infrared absorption, that’s the bulk of the warming done and dusted. So, using solely the IPCC (a political body) 0.25 of a degree with no impact on weather and not likely to get hotter.
Now Harry, if your going to cite “runaway warming” please outline how a molecule with logarithmic absorption properties and is already saturated will achieve this
162
A conspiracy theory eh. So does that mean that you think there is no group of people in the world who are benefiting from and promoting the fear of “human-induced climate change”? I think this conspiracy is not a theory. It is well and truly proven to be real.
92
Indeed I have asked the question myself why no one will simply block diagram out for me the place they see the atmosphere warming the earth at all.
I know things are stored in vacuum to keep heat from leaving, as in a vacuum thermos, and I know if something is in vacuum as the earth is,
the only way for energy to leave is radiant loss; as soon as an atmosphere is added, there are immediate modes of energy reduction to the earth.
For example the color of sky, overhead being blue, is due to light being kicked out that never reaches us.
There is a lot of energy kicked out by the atmosphere and most of it is kicked out by green house gases reflecting or refracting about half of the infrared of the sun out to space.
How can something creating 20% energy loss to the planet create energy gain to the planet if you put more of it between the earth’s main source of energy? I don’t think that’s possible.
If oxygen makes a certain amount of light not reach us that is a small amount of cooling, and if 1% energy was blocked by green house gases, that is energy blocked. Then 5% blocked, that is more cooling as more energy to the planet is blocked. The energy stream from the sun is many many times the energy stream from earth, that’s why there is diffraction loss, from existence of oxygen and the green house gases.
if the amounts of gases rise to 18, 19, and now 20% energy loss to the earth then putting more in the atmosphere till there is 21% loss of energy is by definition cooling. The story about the gases warming us comes from the fact that water cooling a pan, might warm a frog swimming in that water in one sense but if the water wasn’t there the frog’s feet would be many many degrees hotter.
00
When Phil Jones admitted in the FEB 2010 BBC interview that there has been no warming since 1998 and only slight cooling, and the world’s meteorological organizations didn’t correct their records, every word printed by them became and becomes [snip “misleading”].
Every temperature list
Every claim to a new record
Every claim based on that data in any way in any form is [snip “falsely”] derived.
Everyone saw Jones Mann Trenberth plotting to conceal it stopped warming.
Two years after firing Hansen the Met Office issued a statement saying same thing: No warming since 97/98 and very slight cooling.
What record shows this precise temperature for the world back to 1 9 9 8?
The raw data placed online by law that way so there can’t be [snip “misleading”] adjustments .
21
Theo Jones.
Did Phil Jones say that? Reference please.
12
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
21
Sunsettommy.
“Q&A: Professor Phil Jones”
This is what Phil Jones said in the interview:
“C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.”
He did not agree with the “cooling” question, he said so plainly. Not statistically significant.
14
Read again Harry,
“No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.”
He did say it is COOLING,but statistically insignificant.
Now it has been 5 years longer and what is it now:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2002/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2002/trend
Cooling trend continues.
Now the part you missed badly is that the warming TREND in all ranges Dr. Jones brought up are nearly identical by decade trend which is about .16 C decade.
The IPCC has repeatedly stated it has to be at minimum of a.20C per decade warming and the 2007 report specifically stated this:
This means at least .30C per decade,but we are getting a slight cooling trend instead.
There is simply no visible CO2 warming signature in it.
31
Sunsettommy.
He plainly answers NO. Or are you one of these people who argue “no” really means “yes”.
Phil Jones was not referring to the RSS dataset, so why are you? Are you confused?
“Now the part you missed badly is that the warming TREND in all ranges Dr. Jones brought up are nearly identical by decade trend which is about .16 C decade.”
Yes, warming.
“The IPCC has repeatedly stated it has to be at minimum of a.20C per decade warming and the 2007 report specifically stated this:”
No, the IPCC does not say this. You say this.
“There is simply no visible CO2 warming signature in it.”
Again, you make a claim without providing any evidence.
13
Jo,
It is Loyola, not Layola. After the founder of the Jesuit order – Ignatius of Loyola.
00
I am currently reading a book titled “What really causes global warming? Greenhouse gasses or ozone depletion?” by Peter Langdon Ward PHD.
Well worth reading for the many extended explanations of the physics of the atmosphere and the effects of electromagnetic radiation. Very little math if that bothers you. The dialog gets heavy at times but I fully recommend this book to help you understand the fallacies in the AGW ‘theory’.
238
The answer is neither!
Ozone is another of the scare industry successes.
101
Climate alarmism is to climate scepticism as communism is to democracy.
1. In both cases, the former is authoritarian and dictatorial, the latter are the upholders of the right to give the real facts and speak the truth.
2. Individuals from communist or alarmist communities often take huge personal and financial risks to defect to where they have the right to speak the truth.
3. Communists, like alarmists, can only justify their positions by gross and routine distortion of the facts. In contrast, democracy and sceptics can only justify their positions by vigilantly seeking to protect the facts from this kind of distortion.
4. Lefties, greenies and the gullible are the natural supporters/apologists for communism and alarmism, the rest of the statement is obvious………….
5. Name just one knowledgeable person anywhere who has defected from scepticism to alarmism, who did not live in fear of losing their job or career. The traffic is all one way from alarmism to scepticism.
996
Although there is some relevance, there’s one major problem with that analogy with communism. The climate alarmism is being propped up far more vigorously by democratically elected leaders of the world. We all know why too – it’s about grabbing more money from us using their soon to be introduced ETS scams.
133
PeterS,
No. They already have all the money they could ever hope to spend. It’s the power to control you and me and everybody else that they’re after.
Abe
104
They never will have enough of either. It’s all about money AND power.
80
Absolutely! (pun intended) 🙂
Abe
43
Having worked at Raytheon I salute Mike’s change of opinion on this subject.
As for this point he made:-
This is of major concern 🙁
883
Absolutely scandalous.
This one fact alone illustrates clearly who are the black hatted guys. Why wouldn’t NASA and GISS make the original data freely available unless they had something to hide, namely the magnitude and extent of its manipulation?
“Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks.”
Also, I note the trolls are out early today with their fingers on the red buttons.
894
The data will be there. It will simply not be made available, to those who are unauthorised to see it.
614
And if it isn’t there, those in charge should be charged with destruction of public property.
572
Yes, but:
declaring the unaltered temperature database subject to national security (ie. climate change is a live threat to national safety) will resolve that. This hasn’t happened yet but there are strong hints at it
253
Any politician who tried to say that historic temperature data was a potential future threat to national security, would become a laughing stock.
Politicians may be dumb, but even the dumbest, is not that dumb.
141
Disagree Rereke, they are dumb. It’s just that they consider their dumb to be better than our smart which makes them derisible.
121
To the red thumbs, please explain why the raw data is not important in science.
182
Graeme
The red thumb guys will argue vociferously that if the raw data does not fit their pet theory, then clearly this data must be wrong and needs ‘homogenising’.
In the real scientific world, if the data does not fit the theory, then the theory is wrong. Unfortunately, ‘climate science’ left the realms of the real scientific world many yrears ago.
I am sure Harry Twinotter and the other trolls will be happy to confirm this to you.
132
My major concern is that data that has been ‘adjusted’ is actually no longer data, properly speaking?
250
Properly speaking, data is a plural word, so the data have been adjusted and are no longer data as a result.
92
Annie, you were right the first time. There is only one set of data. That is the numbers as observed, measured and recorded. All the rest, adjusted, homogenised or simply processed, are statistics.
61
Annie December 28, 2015 at 3:46 pm
“Properly speaking, data is a plural word, so the data have been adjusted and are no longer data as a result.”
Both are correct! A “group of datum” as a singular aggregate is adjusted for purpose!
All of each of the aggregates are also adjusted for the same purpose!
39
Annie.
‘My major concern is that data that has been ‘adjusted’ is actually no longer data, properly speaking?’
No, data is data.
348
Wrong!
Data is measurement or observation, relative to time. If you measure or observe the same phenominon at a different time, it is different data.
If you subsequently change a measurement or observation, you divorce it from the original time to which it is relevant, and it ceases to be the original data.
This is first semester stuff …
533
In fact it ceases to be data at all. It is simply a number, or “something you observed, once”.
272
Even an enthusiastic amateur like me would understand that. Why can’t trained professionals?
142
Because they’re trained to look the other way?
Abe
121
Any changed data, if it was arbitrarily changed and not from observation, is not data and must be discarded.
70
Harry, data are data.
52
The singular is datum.
32
Harry,
Do you think then, that records should be kept to explain what changes were made, and why they were made, or do you think the data should just be changed and any modifications explained away as ‘too complicated to explain why they were done’, or other such statements?
If I conduct an experiment, and I end up with data points which do not fit within the expected trend, do I:
– Keep the full results in my own records, but remove the off-trend points from any data I give to others without mentioning the off-trend points?
– Just keep the results I was expecting my own records, making no mention of any off-trend points anywhere?
– Realise that I have so many off-trend data points that I need to apply various coefficients and factors (often contradictory to each other) to reprocess the data to fit the expected trend – and then not mention this reprocessing to anyone?
– Provide all the data as it was recorded, including notes that the off-trend points do not match what I was expecting, and that the matter needs to be investigated further.
In comment 1.6, you claim that manipulating data to give a desired outcome is a “Conspiracy Theory”. If I manipulate the data and don’t tell anyone i’ve done it, is it still a conspiracy theory?
If I replicate an experiment done by someone else, and end up with completely different results to those published, but decide to say nothing about it because the person who did the initial work is very experienced, and I am just starting out, am I part of a conspiracy theory?
211
Do you truly have no idea how much harm you just did yourself?
90
Point #1 relates to US temperatures. Of the high temperature records of the 50 states, 36 were set prior to 1940.
341
The source of the 36 out of 50 data:
http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm
60
Then we can add Mike Van Biezen to our list of sound thinkers about climate change.
His 10 reasons all make a lot of sense to me, starting with reason 1 which shoots down the whole premise of climate change — the unaltered temperature records do not show any trend upward in global temperatures. Surprise, surprise, surprise !!!!
And they will not listen to Van Biezen any more than they’ve listened to anyone else because their cause is driven not by climate or temperature but by something else.
I wonder what that something else could be, don’t you? Or do we already know what drives the climate change crusade? I think we do.
473
If a list of more than 1,000 sound scientists who say, “No!” doesn’t move them, what will be accomplished by the addition of one more name to the list?
We can only hope that the public at large finally sees which way the truth lies. And at least Van Biezen has professional credentials and cannot be accused of being an amateure or someone in over his head in a field he knows nothing about.
Chipping away so slowly at the climate change mountain is very frustrating. 🙁
482
Roy, there is cause to be worried, but remember your proverbs. Constant dripping~~, It’s the last straw~~.
This is World War III you know. The shooting hasn’t started yet, and we can still hope it won’t.
60
Roy
Was talking to a cousin in Florida over the holidays.
She maintains that the reason Obama is pushing his agenda is that he has aspirations of taking Bunky Moon’s job.
Is that something that resonates in California?
251
Wasn’t KRudd after that job?
[I realize that Kevin Rudd isn’t exactly popular. However, in the future please avoid such usage as “KRudd” done just for effect. It helps nothing. Thanks.] AZ
126
Gee, AZ is being a prude today…or suddenly PC??? I believe it is Rudd’s call sign on social media but no, it is forbidden here.
What about the name calling of Turnbull, Bishop and Hunt? Some of it is eye bleeding stuff…some I consider libelous!
It is either all or nothing…selective censorship is not a good look.
211
The moderators have been a bit touchy of late. Perhaps Jo has them on half rations, so they don’t get too overweight? 😉
Or perhaps “our Kev” was moderated, and complained to the Internet Standards Authority?
What is that you say? There is no such an Authority? Well just you wait until “our Kev” gets the top job at the UN, then we will see …
121
But everybody calls him KRudd. He is generally regarded, after all, as the worst prime minister Australia has ever had.
261
Probably worse. As they say in Germany when ya get a bad sausage”Wurst of the wurst”
91
I didn’t regard him as the worst Prime Minister we ever had. Have you forgotten Julia already?
191
Big Ears Billy McMahon was probably worse.
Probably the only way to overcome the dilemma (to which scaper alludes) is with a blanket ban.
21
I don’t agree. (avoid misogyny) I believe Miss Julia Elene Gillard was the worst.
She was a fabrication. (avoid homophobia) Her sexual preference was a fabrication. (avoid xenophobia) Her upbringing was a fabrication. (avoid denialism) Even her belief in AGW was a fabrication although she introduced the tax.
I could go on but all this PC rubbish just does my head in!
201
This was the best I ever saw.
Image of Kevin Rudd
The actual poster was in the window of an Australia wide ladies clothing store chain and was advertising their latest sale.
It was lucky I saw it in the first week, as I immediately went to their website, downloaded the image, saved it, and then edited out all the information pertaining to the clothing store. It took me a while to get it right, and it was lucky I did.
Seven days later, the poster was missing and yet the sale was still on, just with a name change, because they only had two sales a year and the main one was usually at Stocktake time prior to tax return time, mid year. I went into the store and asked if I might have one of the posters, and the young lady behind the counter told me they had to take them down and send them all back to head office.
Tony.
130
The best that I saw were a number of cartoons by Bill Leak. One I recall, coming after the ‘knifing” of K. Rudd and the Gillard/Brown/ABC live cattle export fiasco, depicted Julia togged out as a butcher, sharpening her tools, blood and gore and K. Rudd in pieces all over the floor with the head still talking. I can’t recall who the two bystanders were, but one said to the other: “I told her she should have stunned it first”.
60
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/opinion/2011/06/the-canberra-pr.php
50
This was my favourite Kevin Rudd picture, well according to my interpretation I guess….
40
Of all the Rudd pix, I think this one takes the guernsey!
20
Yes, Kevin Rudd’s Twitter name is MrKRudd, so I see no problem in using KRudd – who is referred to as ‘Mr’ these days?
110
Fred,
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by resonates in California. But certainly both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama must have their eyes firmly fixed on that aspiration. What other prestigious job is left for you after you’ve been Mr. President? It’s the same question as, what do you do next after you’ve walked on the moon? Nothing much higher to achieve.
I don’t know what the real possibilities are for either of them to get that job but I’m thankful that only one of them can get it. The two of them as powerful as UN head would be enough to send me to a shrink. One is bad enough, thank you.
60
Uncle Fred #6.2
Re. Obama.
See: CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CCX)
110
There are links that connect Obama, Clinton, Geithner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and a substantial part of the US government to the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Marvel at the involvement of Goldman Sachs in the history of Shorebank.
One of the threads that tie this together is the Joyce Foundation.
Witness the involvement of Citicorp, GE, and JP Morgan.
100
I will add Obama’s name to the bottom of the list of aspirants – it is getting quite long – people with “names” do so love a diary full of endless parties, held at the expense of others.
110
Good for him but he’s late as are the rest of his former colleagues with potentially dire consequences.
This debacle should never have happened and all our energy bills should be substantially lower. The correct science was known 50 years ago but the nascent ‘science’ of climate studies was hijacked by astrophysicists who relied on radiative physics alone because that is the only way they can study remote objects in the universe. Meteorology deals with non radiative energy transfers but they are completely ignorant of that field of endeavour which has enabled aeronautiocs and rocketry amongst many other practical applications. That ignorance has proved fatal to the advancement of the study of natural climate change for at least 30 years.
Some estimates suggest that every household in the UK is currently paying double that which would have been paid were it not for ‘green’ policies.
That is already causing hardship amongst the less well paid.
7115
And just like the broken window fallacy; it takes money away from more useful purposes for no good reason at all.
281
Peter Hitchens paints a disturbing picture of Britain’s power supply. It is beyond belief that utilities are PAYING businesses not to use power during peak periods. But what do you expect in a country that has a government that signs emissions treaties under which it imports and burns American trees to generate power, rather than using its own coal.
Bookmark Peter Hitchens: he is a very entertaining and insightful writer. I particularly like his article on why the Cameron government is destroying Britain – and it is for the same reason that [snip] pretend-conservative governments the world over are allowing the Left to control the agenda and in the process are destroying their societies – Germany immediately comes to mind, of course.
431
I concur Stephen.
I believe we are all to blame in letting this happen but perhaps in our defense we have been distanced by those who are solipsists in group form.
126
Yes, it’s all about greed and money, and has nothing to do with climate change.
105
“Some estimates suggest that every household in the UK is currently paying double that which would have been paid were it not for ‘green’ policies.”
I’m not too happy about my Australian electricity bill.
140
I concur with Steven that the entire “debate” should never have happened.
I am of an age where I personally saw the alarmists go from “we are going to freeze to death” to “the oceans are going to boil away” in just a few years. My God! Anyone should have seen they did not know what they were talking about.
And then there is the raw physics of the idea. If you know any physics and thermodynamics then you are a total idiot if you think that there is any possibility that CO2 warms the surface of planet earth. The AGW speculation (not even a hypothesis in my view)is so obviously wrong that it hurts my head to think of all the “experts” who claim CO2 warms the surface by 33 degrees C. Idiots.
Then there is the science of the matter. Science, as most who post here realize, is about observations and measurements. No one has ever shown any warming due to the mythical “back-radiation”. Show me some data!! And no, computer games models are not data.
And finally, even if the earth did warm from 1 to 5 degrees C (as various predictions claim will happen) what is the problem? Warm is good. Societies in history always did better in the warming periods, so why would now be different? Canada could feed a large part of the world if the earth warmed by a large amount.
1812
“The correct science was known 50 years ago but the nascent ‘science’ of climate studies was hijacked by astrophysicists who relied on radiative physics alone because that is the only way they can study remote objects in the universe.”
What arrogant nonsense! So far there is no evidence of “science” in any climate studies or meteorology! They both give Astrology or Tarot card reading a bad name! If serious studies are ever attempted, there will be much conjecture as to whether atmospheric or ocean fluid dynamics are more obscure and/or difficult!
514
So again, why are the historical temperatures being adjusted? I’ve read all the reasons and they don’t make sense when you consider the human body normal temperature range has been a medical standard for at least 200 years using all manner of mercury, alcohol and electronic equipment with no contradiction or need of homoginisation or adjustment to compensate for local changes.
5114
The reason they are adjusted is obvious. It’s all about money.
178
Sigh!
The historical temperature records need to be adjusted, because the are obviously incorrect, in terms of what we now know to be the truth, as postdicted by the Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory.
Since you persist in asking such silly questions, you obviously need to be taken away to a secluded facility, for reprogramming.
199
James, the medical profession doesn’t do this hokey pokey stuff. They are the real deal. They are dealing with lives not politics .They are professionals which is why it takes the best to be one of them. If that ever changes I will move to a cave.
61
That is hilarious. Poor naive you. Just look at how the medical profession has killed and made sick millions of people with their diet advice and then the treatment of diabetes currently.
Bad memes on par with the climate change delusion, Neo Keynesian economics and the lies being told …[yes, snip.. but lets not get too off topic! 🙂 — Jo]
30
Make that 11 reasons.
2016 will now have “normal climate’ and, premature claims that 2016 to be “the Hottest Year Evah” will be sorely tested:
Drought stricken farmers set for relief in 2016 as monster El Niño weather event declines (dailytelegraph)
“But Bureau of Meteorology climate monitoring and prediction manager David Jones said 2016 would deliver a welcome reprieve for farmers as the weather system winds down.
“Now as we move back into more normal climate we should see some improvement in the drought situation.”
~ ~ ~
Who knew La Nina represents “normal climate”?
The Brisbane floods of 2011 are now “normal”?
Without El Niño to push up global temperatures, where will Doomsday Global Warming alarmists find the extra heat?
Do these climate scientists really have a 97% clue whats going on?
232
The satellite and balloon data, unadjusted, show there has not been any significant warming for a couple of decades, and levels of CO2 have continued to rise linearly to 400ppm., thus no correlation. Not only is there no basis for the AGW theory, but also there is no evidence that “carbon taxes” will have any affect on global temperatures per se. However, economically they will make many poorer and a few richer. Do all our politicians have to act like lemmings, or are there enough to stop and think about it?
I watched the ABC yesterday talking about the Port Arthur tidemarks with a backdrop of a Spring high tide. Co-incidence???
415
What ABC program was that Robert?
Did they by any chance feature Dr John Hunter as a scientific guide?
Did they mention that the Port Arthur tide mark is currently higher than mean sea level?, or that Dr Hunter has tried to claim the mark was placed at some high tide level?
111
Peter, it was Catalyst, and it looked like Dr. Church talking.
40
This might be it?
ABC Catalyst
Thursday, 17 July 2014
SEA LEVEL RISE
20
Yes handjive, thank you.
Dr John Church is presented as a skeptic!
And here is part of the Narration:
So Dr John Hunter’s distorted view sails on. The idea than Captain Ross placed a high tide mark on the rock at the Isle of the Dead, Port Arthur is patently ridiculous, but it is the only way that they (ABC etc) can get the mark to indicate sea level rise.
John Daly explained the whole thing. It is an interesting read.
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/
131
The John Daly blog is a time capsule of links.
One piqued my interest: The Impact of the Little Ice Age on Mentalities by Wolfgang Behringer
“During the late 14th and 15th centuries the traditional conception of witchcraft was transformed into the idea of a great conspiracy of witches, to explain “unnatural” climatic phenomena.
Because of their dangerous nature, particularly their ability to generate hailstorms, the very idea of witches was the subject of controversial discussion around 1500.
The abstract concludes: “The enormous tensions created in society as a result of the persecution of witches demonstrate how dangerous it is to discuss climatic change under the aspects of morality.”
Wait. Of course. Kevin Rudd: “Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation”.
110
The spring tide reference is a quality science note that is glaringly committed from ABC Catalyst.
Measuring Sea-Level Rise in Tasmania
This Case Study was compiled from a number of studies and articles: Pugh, Coleman & Hunter 2002; Bowden, Hunter & Pugh 1997; and Houghton & Ding 2001
“This study has concluded that it is almost certain that the benchmark was originally placed near high water.
The conclusion is based on other estimates of sea-level made later in the 19th century, and on the fact that, if the mark had originally been placed near mean sea-level, then the Penitentiary building would have suffered flooding every few years (there is no record of this having happened).”
Quick History: As noted by the late John Daly, the above study was years late in its delivery.
50
Well the penitentiary building probably did not flood every few years, because the builders made sure it was built above the flood level. I have been to Port Arthur twice. The grassy area near the foreshore is apparently subject to flooding but the penitentiary building, as I recall was built on higher ground. So how Drs Pugh and Hunter et all came up with that idea is for them to explain!
60
And as for Geologists, the overwhelming majority, world wide, are skeptical about man caused co2 global warming and climate change.
This fact along with those outlined by Van Biezen above should cause anyone to go figure………
402
Negative feedback exacerbates AGW.
‘From some of the worst floods ever known in Britain, to record-breaking temperatures over the Christmas holiday in the US and forest fires in Australia, the link between the tumultuous weather events experienced around the world in the last few weeks is likely to be down to the natural phenomenon known as El Niño making the effects of man-made climate change worse, say atmospheric scientists.’
Guardian
101
It’s always unprecedented they claim. It’s hardly been record warmth for Christmas in my part of the USA (Mountain West). Right now it is 14 degrees F below zero and there is 3 feet of snow in the back yard. But that is hardly abnormal. Last year the East Coast of the USA got slammed. Last year the west had a very mild winter. When I lived back east during the 80s, I recall people in Northern Virginia mowing their lawns on one Christmas Day. The year before it was so cold that the lawns felt like walking on concrete. It was like living in deep freezer. The year before that there was so much snow that people could not drive their cars down Duke Street without getting stuck in a snow bank for nearly 2 weeks. Such is the range of natural variation.
And Northern California is getting slammed by yet another significant winter storm right now. That four in the last 10 days.
120
This subject is so very complex.
Mike’s post is very good but very high level , and much of what he has written is covered in greater detail by Jo in previous posts.
For Skeptics such as us it is a very heavy burden of proof we have, especially when it is the eqivalent of conducting the Manhatten project and with no support from our Governments.
To put it into perspective every Scientist is a specialist but there is no such thing as a person who comprehends Climate.
To make that assertion would be implausible to say the least.
131
It seems that CAGW has always been a case of religious dogma versus scientific data and facts versus fantasy.
Most of his points are not new to sceptics, but if he can get a bit more publicity and open up some more eyes then good luck to him.
243
Crossing the ‘climatism’ aisle has been done before and has a well established precedent. Here, we appreciate all their reasons, and in various forms we have heard them before. We also know the reasons why they cross and the why behind the grand Green Lie.
The ‘debate’, such as it was, was won lock-stock-and-barrel by the skeptics. Actually there never was a reasoned or proper ‘debate’ let alone a scientific discourse. Resistance was futile. The hypothesis of global warming became a politically correct hypothesis and remains today, incontestable as it is unfalsifiable, not even a hypothesis, simply a grand lie unrelentingly repeated, force-fed to lobotomized politicians who never understood how to lead or worse still, how to exercise independent thought, with occasional rare exceptions.
The MSM failed. They betrayed free society. As The Fourth Estate they morphed from cunning watch-dogs to nodding sock-puppets, fueled by Big Green, directed and managed by the eco-marxist gobalisation cabal at the UN. The mirror of history has reflected all of this before, showing us how a despotic regime can hijack civilised society in a short space of time.
The political push-back is where the fight will now reside. The real science is gradually eroding the ersatz nonsense of the speculative precautionary principle and post-modern ‘science’. Climate aisle journeymen and women are valuable to the cause because they physically demonstrate the very thing that leads to action, to change, the action that frees us from lies and eco-tyranny.
National politicians don’t yet appear to realise this. More importantly, neither do they appear to realise that by selling their countries out to the UN Green Cabal, they have placed themselves on a very fast track to absolute irrelevance and powerlessness. This political fact alone may help get their self-interested attention.
271
Steve McIntyre is trying to get good data about co2 emission levels per country and he finds that it’s very difficult.
He wonders why somebody didn’t do a proper audit for COP 21? What were those 40,000 layabouts doing in Paris for those 2 weeks?
But then again even James Hansen told the world that Paris was “BS, a fake and a fraud”. It seems that Gore’s long time adviser doesn’t agree with his dopey pupil. Here is Steve’s latest post—-
http://climateaudit.org/2015/12/23/cop21-emission-projections/
190
Mike van Biezen says that the 1980’s was the coldest decade in 100 years. I think hat he should have given some evidence for that because the historical temperature charts that we are used to show the 1880’s and 1890’s as being the coldest in the recent past ( thermometer station era).
91
Maybe he means 100 years prior to 2015?
60
The applicable ramification of photosynthesis is that CO2 is necessary for the initial step for all life on the planet and always has been. For life on land as we know it to have evolved there had to have been substantial CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 542 million years. If CO2 made the planet warmer it would have been doing it cumulatively for 542 million years. But average global temperature (AGT) has gone up and down over the eon. The only way this could consistently result is if CO2 has no effect on temperature and temperature change is caused by something else.
Further discussion of the compelling evidence CO2 has no effect AGT and identification of what has caused AGT change for at least the last 400 years are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com Only one input is needed or used and it is publicly available. The match is better than 97% since before 1900.
148
Pleas for religious help to stop the Swiss glaciers were made in the 17th century, about 350, not 150, years ago. See, for example, Ladurie, E.L., “Times of feast, times of famine: A history of Climate since the year 1000,” (1967) page 171. For example, about 370 years ago:
“The bishop promised to help, and at the beginning of June 1644 led a procession of about three hundred people ‘to the place called Le Bois above the village where hangs, threatening it with total ruin, a great and terrible glacier come down from the top of the mountain.'”
Now that’s climate worth changing.
180
Mike Van Biezen has found his inner Rutherglen, as for the 1980’s it snowed heavily here (Ballarat) in 1980 but the winters were and still are cold in these parts.
Let’s hope Mike’s honest self reflection encourages others to follow.
121
Mike Van Biezen’s conversion to reality is but a step in the long chain needed to discredit the CAGW meme. CAGW is not a scientific theory now but a religious movement and must be defeated with political methods not scientific reason.
This debate should have been over long ago but is sustained by misguided moral fervour, and this is now damaging the poor and inflating all our energy bills, pointlessly. CAGW propaganda is also damaging the education system. CAGW inspired Carbon (Dioxide) trading has spawned billions of dollars worth of wasted money and criminally misdirected and fraudulently seized money.
81
Jo asked: “He claims the 1980s were the coldest decade, which doesn’t sound right to me. I’d like to know more about that.”
For me it is difficult to know about temperatures and, further, when folks speak of a high or low period there is often little said about where (USA, Timbuktu, land, global, whatever) or what they refer to. The starting point is important. Maybe he created his own “best” data.
If you look at the Central England Temperature from the Hadley Centre (HadCET)[link at end] there does not appear to be a prolonged period of cold in the ’80s, but just a few years. For other, selected, data sets – Who knows?
Just after 1960 there were 2 quite low years, then 1 neutral, and another cold. The 1880s to about 1895 was a longer and colder period. That info from CET might not have been viewed by Mike Van Biezen. The UAH chart on Roy Spencer’s site shows 1984-1986 as cool, then increasing through 1989, so it seems to be stretching things a bit to call this a “coldest decade” – looking elsewhere, others may disagree.
Not much help, I’m I?
Cheers and Happy New Year.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
50
Wondered that same thing myself John. I have heard extended debates about the reasons for the 40s to 80s pause/decline. The usual alarmist fall back position is the same as for the current pause “it was cooling then, we just slowed it down”. But there is never any solid grounding for the claim in either time periods. Its just another “these arnt the droids your looking for” alarmist Jedi hand wave attempt. I actually think it would be better if everyone would just take a breath and admit we have NFI what the relationships between natural variation and CO2 affects are and start looking at what we do know rather than this continual claim and counter claim of uneducated guess work.
51
Sorry should have added. Which is why I liked David Evans recent work because it least it re-examined the basic theories rather than just stacking on more supposition to already tenuous logic.
110
The simple fact; That most who educate themselves with respect to climate,weather and history… go on to become extremely sceptical of AGW and contemptuous of CAGW.
Is the crack in the armour of self righteousness and smug ignorance the Cult reeks of.
That the most ardent believers will do incredible self contortion to avoid facts contradicting their speculations, does not go unnoticed.
“The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere. Except take science courses and learn something about it”
P.J.O’Rouke.
They screech; “We have the science”, but can never produce this “science” .
213
John Robertson.
‘The simple fact; That most who educate themselves with respect to climate,weather and history… go on to become extremely sceptical of AGW and contemptuous of CAGW.’
No, I disagree. With education people come to understand the scientific theory of AGW better.
I do not know where you get the “most” claim from.
434
Harry you are the best possible antidote for rational persons to AGW in that you typify those who hold to this very inadequate match of hypothesis and data. Not once have you attempted to show us how “the scientific theory of AGW” accords with Earth’s climate from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until the present. You along with every other warmist, including the alarmist scientists, really are quite clueless about those postulates of the science, you claim to embrace, that appear on the evidence, to invalidate the claim that we are witnessing post IR AGW. Maybe as a class you all suffer from some sort of cognitive disability?
241
llew jones
‘Not once have you attempted to show us how “the scientific theory of AGW”’
Why on earth should I do that when I am only here responding to comments made on JoNova’s post?
I think you suffer from a bad case of word salad.
224
That depends on your definition of “education”.
If the definition of “education”, is a desire to acquire knowledge and to understand how, and why, things are as they are, in the physical world, then John is correct.
If the definition of “education”, is the delivery of a predefined set of principles, and arguments, to a group of students who are expected to remember sufficient detail to answer a set of questions at some further time, then your definition is correct.
The first definition is what science is all about.
The second definition is called “propaganda”, and is what you indulge yourself with.
Propaganda was originally developed by Edward Bernays, who the first person to formulise the pyschological processes involved. These processes are at the centre of advertising, media management, and managing public perception on a range of issues, including a belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change, and the need to spend lots of money at Christmas, on things to give to other people, that they don’t want, and so will throw away.
191
Training is the conditioning of which Harry speaks. Education equips minds with the tools to find out, to examine & to evaluate for themselves.
80
Harry;”With education people come to understand the scientific theory of AGW better.”
For truth?
Please state the “Theory of AGW”.
I have read endless government documents in search of this same theory, the science, the data and the means by which this conjecture may be tested.
Obviously I have looked in all the wrong places, I should have sought the opinion of a pseudonym wearing internet troll.
Of course there is no “scientific theory of AGW” just as CAGW was the product being pushed by the IPCC.
Of course Harry Twinotter, you could present this great “theory” and cure my belief you are an empty gasbag, hiding behind a fake name.
Indeed with self education people come to understand that the meme of CAGW is age old BS.
Do you not find it ironic that your reply to’They screech; “We have the science”, but can never produce this “science” , is to claim you know the scientific theory of AGW, yet fail to produce it?
112
“With education people come to understand the scientific theory of AGW better.”
What scientific theory? Can you state any claim of CAGW that can be considered “scientific” in any sense whatsoever. All are but models of some planet and atmosphere that does not exist!!!
117
With education more people will realize the AGW CONJECTURE is a failure with a long track of failed and unverified future projections.
31
sunsettommy.
“AGW CONJECTURE” as a shout.
It is not a “conjecture”, it is a scientific theory.
14
No Harry,to be a Theory it has to have validation capability which is impossible when the 100+ Modeling scenarios runs to year 2100.
Conjecture: “to form an opinion or idea without proof or sufficient evidence”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture
Hypothesis: “a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena”
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis
Theory: “a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein’s theory of relativity.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
AGW is clearly a CONJECTURE since it doesn’t even meet the minimum basis for the Scientific Method.
Scientific Method:
“The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results”
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
All those 100+ climate models that runs to year 2100 is junk science.
AGW Conjecture fails utterly.
31
Sunsettommy.
“No Harry,to be a Theory it has to have validation capability which is impossible when the 100+ Modeling scenarios runs to year 2100.”
What does that mean?
You won’t find out much about AGW Theory by quoting from a dictionary.
You have not even defined the Scientific Method correctly.
“AGW is clearly a CONJECTURE since it doesn’t even meet the minimum basis for the Scientific Method.”
How so?
It appears you are just making claims without providing evidence. You not liking a theory does not make it invalid.
13
Whats disappointing about this is, none of it is new. I commented on Jennifer M’s Facebook that its all old stuff and not a word of it changes the view of alarmists. Its nice basic science and observation but those things don’t count for diddly in this debate. So a guy who should have known better has woken up… woohaa crack the bubbly…
191
‘…not a word of it changes the view of alarmists.’
Its too late to try and convince an alarmist that AGW can be falsified, they are too far gone. Every natural disaster they claim as global warming, when in reality its the beginning of global cooling.
172
safetyguy66
I thought this at first after reading the thread but then I thought, no, this is great because it is yet another technically qualified person having done a lot of independent research, comes out with the same conclusions, basing it on essentially the same arguments.
120
If the truth ever comes out, I want to see some sort of punishment, including financial penalties, for all those people who promoted the lie of anthropogenic global warming.
163
The ‘precautionary principle’ might save them from the justice system.
51
I think it’ll be more along the lines of:
“I was doing what I thought was right, I had good intentions”
“Oh, that’s OK then, all is forgiven…”
121
“Oh, that’s OK then, all is forgiven…” now please return your proceeds of crime to it’s rightful owners……crickets.
91
”The ‘precautionary principle’ might save them from the justice system.”
This and the excuse of “noble cause” is what many AGW propagandists no doubt hope will save them. But there is more than the justice system to worry about. The Internet keeps a permanent record of their burning shame. “Precautionary principle” and “noble cause” won’t work for those that tried to vilify sceptics to silence them. For those that used such vile tactics in a scientific debate there can be no excuses and there will be no exceptions.
1713
I think you could only reasonably call it a scientific debate if both sides were willing to discuss science in a sensible manner.
I could very well be wrong, as I often am, but I haven’t seen any real evidence of any followers of the CAGW or AGW religion do much more than bluster, name-call, or just refuse to even try, for whatever pitiful reason (The obnoxious and ignorant lawyer, Anna Rose and her ‘I won’t debate someone because they are not a climate scientist’ comes to mind). That’s no debate.
165
James Murphy.
‘I think you could only reasonably call it a scientific debate if both sides were willing to discuss science in a sensible manner.’
Which you then follow with: ‘… followers of the CAGW or AGW religion …’
Really?
Incredible.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
238
Actually yes, I do see a problem.
The problem is that you quote James outside of the context where those words were used.
And to make that point, as strongly as I can, the context is, and must be, the whole of James’s sentence, since the remainder of the sentence, that you choose to ignore, presents the case for refering to the belief system, of people like Anna Rose, as religious belief. She apparently cannot explain why she believes what she believes, as neither can you, for that matter.
Belief is the basis for religeon. Facts and reproducable experimentation are the basis for science. I trust you can percieve the difference.
332
No one mentions the multiple Oregon petitions of 32,000 scientists including 9,000 PhDs and that is only in the US and 18 years ago at the height of the scare. These people gave full name, qualifications, home address and a signature, not just a name. What is one more scientist?
Every defender of Global Warming starts with the 97% story. It is all they have now. Every piece of evidence has collapsed and the world has not heated at all, as admitted by the IPCC. Have a ready answer to the 97% and it is game over.
However I remain amazed that the elimination of scientists as not ‘climate scientists’ is usually made by people who are not ‘climate scientists’ themselves.
Take Australia’s former government appointed Climate Commission, not one of whom was even a meteorologist. Engineer, chemist and the like, even administrators and professional public servants and economists. Everyone gets a job except meteorologists and they all claim to be, by implication at least, ‘climate scientists’. Al Gore had no science. Chief Commissioner and Australian of the Year Tim Flannery studied English at La Trobe university when it opened as he could not get into science at university. Many more are in the science faculty but have little or no training in hard sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry. The ABC’s leading science commentator warmist Robyn Williams did his degree in biology but he was a stand in for Tom Jones, so he is qualified. So many more are real fringe dwellers in science. Real scientists cannot be heard, are afraid to speak or ignored as simply geologists, physicists and others with hard science qualifications who cannot see any science in man made global warming. One scientist would be enough, but there are millions of qualified scientists who think it is rubbish. Most learn to stay out of arguments. You can prove conclusively that there is almost no fossil CO2 in the air, but who would believe that?
So it persists and probably has another 15 years to run.
As COP21 showed, Robert Mugabe believes in man made CO2 driven Global Warming. Totally believes.
233
The Oregon Petition has been debunked. It says so here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html?ir=Australia
and here
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-if-the-oregon-petition-names-were-real/
and here
http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/06/06/on-foxs-special-report-hume-cited-debunked-oreg/139024.
So it must be true, mustn’t it?
Seriously, whatever the status of the Oregon petition, I’d look for a better answer to the 97% argument.
61
Looking at the 97%, 2/3 of the 12,000 papers expressed no opinion at all. Only 46 were dead against the idea, so it is argued that 97% who expressed an opinion were in favor of AGW. That is 97% of 33% or 32%. The Cook idea of implicit agreement is rubbish. So his real result is 32%. It means the idea is popular with a third of climate scientists but that does not make it right. On the other hand, to disagree means instant death politically and financially, so there might be a little bit of intimidation at work. The tens of thosands of independent scientists have no such qualms.
111
He’s right, of course, but, for the benefit of AGW believers, I can easily show he’s wrong.
“Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science.”
For those who are not quite up to speed with American academia, this means that he is a part-time instructor at those places. He scrapes a living by teaching a first year course in, say, Physics, in one place, and another in the next, and maybe a second year course in Mathematics somewhere. How can we take his word over the word of the full time, tenured, full professors in Climate Science, 97% of whom disagree with him?
Incontrovertible, isn’t it? You heard it here first, but you are bound to hear it again.
Send money now to your favourite banker, so that he can invest in Emissions Trading schemes.
(Hey, you there, at the back! Stop muttering about argumentum ad hominem.)
181
Yes, the key argument is the “full time, tenured, full professors in Climate Science, 97% of whom disagree with him”. Few people know the source of this 97% figure. It is from the Cook paper. Others looking at Cook’s paper completely disagree, even people he quotes and others put the figure on the same papers at the reverse, 1.6% and this is only for people who believe at most 50% of warming might be man made.
As for full time, tenured, full processors in Climate Science, that is just silly. Who said that? Our most famous Climate Scientist, our chief Climate Commissioner for the country, professor at Macquarie University and holding the Panasonic Chair in Environmental Sustainability holds himself out as such an expert. His PhD is in kangaroos.
232
The you can be a lifelong scientist specialising in Climate and atmospheric physics and a full professor like Murry Selby and be fired for delivering a lecture in Hamburg that temperature did not correlate at all with CO2. His credit cards were cancelled and his return flights to the same Newcastle University. Of course his dismissal was due to a disagreement about teaching duties.
263
Nope, Macquarie Uni
Seems pedantic, I know, but it does no good for sensible argument at all to stuff up something that simple (your own Wiki link …)
60
Sorry, I associate Newcastle with Lake Macquarie. A neural slip.
41
Perhaps I should add that I have been the Australian equivalent of an adjunct professor. To quote myself (and why not quote from the best?) in another context.
“The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn’t need its brain any more so it eats it. It’s rather like getting tenure.”
I never did get tenure, so you can add the “just jealous” ad hom..
290
🙂 🙂 🙂
111
Jo asked: “He claims the 1980s were the coldest decade, which doesn’t sound right to me. I’d like to know more about that.”
just noting – van Biezen qualified his statement:
– 3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, BUT FOR MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years…
For example, Greenland experienced SOME of the coldest years in 120 years during the 1980’s, as was the case in MANY OTHER PLACES around the world… –
of course he could have backed this up with graphs.
don’t know if there’s anything in the following, or the link in the comments, which might be relevant:
14 June: Steven Goddard: Record Cold In Southwest Greenland Continues
comment by ren: From 1985 to 2010, AMO has caused a temperature increase of more than 0.4 degree C !!! (LINK)
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/record-cold-in-southwest-greenland-continues/
or in this:
UCAR/NCAR: Cold but brief: Bob Henson • January 14, 2014
For the United States, a recent article (LINK) in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society shows pronounced variations over the last century. Cold waves were most prevalent in the 1980s and much
less common in the 2000s…
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/10928/cold-brief
60
Thanks Pat
10
Booker has some advice:
26 Dec: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Let’s all boo the global warming panto villains
It may be only now that the post-Christmas pantomime season opens, but one pantomime running throughout the year has been that staged by all those comic characters who try to persuade us that the world is faced with deadly “global warming” (“Oh no it isn’t,” shouts an ever louder chorus from the audience).
Much on show, for instance, has been our favourite “pantomime dame”, Prof Julia Slingo, the Chief Scientist for the Met Office, with her organisation’s latest bid to alarm us by giving cute little names such as “Storm Eva” to all these episodes of seasonal wind and rain, which may be hell for those flooded out, but are technically not “storms” at all…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/12070190/Lets-all-boo-the-global-warming-panto-villains.html
70
What nails it for me is that there has been zero trend in global tropospheric temperature while CO2 concentration has increased by 37 ppm.
210
And of equal importance, human induced CO2 emissions have stalled and natural CO2 molecules are overwhelming the system.
The good news is that the Southern Ocean carbon sink has clicked up a notch to cope, apparently its capacity is bigger than previously thought.
80
On the subject of sea level rise in Tasmania, there is a photo of a local landmark (the Supply Creek mill) which is at least 100 years old (the photo)on the net and it shows the high tide mark at the base of the building which is stone. I went there recently at one of the higher tides of the year and it was well below the base of the building. What sea level rise?
121
We often ask ‘Why are our politicians leading the world astray and being so financially destructive to their nations by so adamantly pushing AGW?’
We are seeing the same question put about strongly mixing non miscible populations despite history.
Note: Politicians may be ‘stupid’. They are not so
stupid or most couldn’t get elected.Scientists
may be naive, but they are not so naive as to
appear stupid. Bad for one’s career.
These ‘theories’ are products of minds of
Western Governments. Support outside comes
from financial gain and international
political strategy.
Compartmentalising the actions limits the argument.
Each theory and action gives a proof against one part of the whole only. Tunnel vision!
The real question is what is behind all these singly
strange aberrant policies that in toto attack the modern West alone? What and Who are the forces that drive these inherently blind, almost medievally irrational practices, one of which even seeks to construct a new ‘god’ called gaia – itself an ancient reconstruct of Greek mythology.
Get to the bottom of these Questions and you will find why History and Science are being deliberately destroyed and forcibly ignored/suppressed by our own governments. What and Why, Politicians? The Facts are in and against the actions. What and Why?
82
27 Dec: AFP: Morocco postpones opening of huge solar plant without explanation
Morocco postponed without explanation the inauguration of Noor-1, a solar power plant due to open Sunday in Ouarzazate, part of what will eventually be the world’s largest solar power production facility.
When asked by AFP, the communications agency that organised the inauguration on behalf of Moroccan solar energy agency Masen gave no reasons for the last-minute delay…
http://news.yahoo.com/morocco-postpones-opening-huge-solar-plant-without-explanation-202248801.html
26 Dec: MoroccoWorldNews: King Mohammed VI to Inaugurate ‘Noor’ Solar Plant in Ouarzazate
King Mohammed VI of Morocco will inaugurate the first phase of solar plant “Noor I,” on Sunday in Ouarzazate, according to Minister Delegate in Charge of Environment Hakima El Haite…
http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/12/176134/king-mohammed-vi-to-inaugurate-noor-solar-plant-in-ouarzazate/
30
27 Dec: Gazette Iowa: Terry McGovern: Industrial wind is destroying Iowa’s eagle habitats
(Terry McGovern is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and business professor at Clarke University in Dubuque)
The bald eagle recovery program in Iowa is perhaps our state’s best wildlife management success story to date, but progress is being lost due to the mass killing of bald eagles by industrial wind turbines. This conflict between industry and environment is now playing out near Fairbank, Iowa located in Fayette County, where shell companies Mason Wind (parent firm is China’s largest naval defense contractor) and Optimum Renewables (parent company is a German wind services firm) are attempting to build their wind farm in an area known for bald eagle habitats…
The good news story of bald eagle recovery in Iowa has turned tragic as industrial wind turbines are slaughtering raptors such as bald and golden eagles by the thousands every year…
Since bald and golden eagles, including their bodies, parts, and feathers, are protected by the 1940 Act, the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) has set up a repository where dead golden and bald eagles can be processed to allow people the opportunity to legally own eagle feathers and other parts. Eagles play an important part in many Native American traditions.
The repository has seen a sharp rise in eagle carcasses in conjunction with the proliferation of industrial turbines across the Midwest. The number of bald eagle carcasses sent to the Eagle Repository have increased by about 250 percent since 20005. A much higher percentage of the eagle carcasses received by the Eagle Repository are mutilated, a condition typically caused by wind turbine blade strikes…READ ALL
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/industrial-wind-is-destroying-iowas-eagle-habitats-20151227
70
27 Dec: WND: Michael Bastasch: Obama scandal ‘4 times greater than Solyndra’
Feds drop 1,200 pages of heavily redacted documents on green-energy loans
The Department of Energy recently turned over more than 1,200 pages of heavily redacted documents in response to a records request about a subsidized biofuels company from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
In October, TheDCNF filed a FOIA request with the Energy Department, asking for email records from government officials regarding federal loan guarantees given to Abengoa, a Spanish-based green energy company. The request came on the heels of reports Abengoa was running into big financial problems, despite being given generous taxpayer-backed loans…
The DOE gave TheDCNF the records it requested Dec. 18, and after spending time reviewing the documents, it’s apparent there’s a lot of information the department did not want the public to see. The DOE redacted virtually all information specific to Abengoa — in many cases whole pages were blacked out…READ ON
http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/obama-scandal-4-times-greater-than-solyndra/
27 Dec: KSNV News: Christine Kim: New rate structure puts solar savings on hold for customers
This, as it files petitions to seek reconsideration or clarification on the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada decision to increase service rates and slash credits for solar customers.
“Anger is just the tip of that, for sure,” said Yvonne Fernandez, a solar customer and Solar City employee.
Her solar panels turned on this Halloween, and while she says her panels are producing power, she’s not seeing the savings because NV Energy has not yet come to her home to verify the meters. She says it’s frustrating because she recently got the solar panels installed, so she’s been paying more than she would without them with the incentive she’ll save in the long run. Now, she believes, that won’t happen.
“I was going to see a jump ahead in 3-5 years where it would put a little more money in my pocket,” said Fernandez. “I’m really going to have to rethink some of this stuff when the final rulings come down and we know what NV Energy wants.”…
Fernandez believes she may end up paying more than non-solar customers…
Solar City, the biggest solar provider in the country, announced it’s ceasing all sales and installations of rooftop panels in Nevada, saying the changes would kill the industry and put its 6,000 Nevada workers in jeopardy…
http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/New-rate-structure-puts-solar-savings-on-hold/f3lwec7n4EqRZ0T5FfUPUA.cspx
50
Well known by 97% of climate scientists and sprouted often during the cooling scare by those who now pretend that the science was settled since Arrhenius.
From Steve Goddard.
91
Sadly this is where Mike Van Biezen, like so many other sceptics gets it wrong. “minimal impact” is correct, but the net effect of radiative gases in the atmosphere is atmospheric cooling not warming.
Ask yourself – “How would the atmosphere cool without radiative gases?”
Both empirical experiment and CFD modelling show that without cooling at altitude, a poorly conductive gas column in a gravity field will superheat if it is only conductively heated and cooled at its base. Our atmosphere has only one effective mechanism for losing energy at altitude, LWIR to space from radiative gases, primarily H2O. The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is atmospheric cooling not warming. The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures is cooling not warming.
This AGW inanity will drag on forever unless sceptics grow spines and reject the conjecture of a net atmospheric radiative GHE. No such thing exists. Trying to offer the alarmists a face-saving “warming but far less than we thought” soft landing is pointless. That’s politics not science. The only thing that can truly kill this hoax is getting the science right.
1314
These are not the same, and the second does not necessarily follow from the first.
We have seen from weather balloon measurements that the stratosphere cooled and the lower troposphere warmed over the last 60 years. The satellite MSU showed a similar discrepancy.
This data is enough to show that cooling in one part of the atmosphere (or even the statistical average) does not necessarily imply that cooling will take place at the surface (or everywhere in the atmosphere).
The comment above contains no explanation as to how your reasoning or box convection experiment addresses the actual radiative global warming proposition under debate which is that, if all other external inputs were held constant under present day conditions, an increase in CO2 would increase surface temperature.
As an increase in CO2-specific radiation has already been observed and an increase in influx should raise temperature, it seems the basic GHE proposition is qualitatively true, even if measurement was 35% less than the basic theory implied.
How do you reconcile the hypothesis of a gas net cooling effect on the surface against the observed Earth history and radiative transfer theory?
Possibly you have encountered this issue before. If you have an older comment somewhere on the Internet which answers my question already then you can save yourself the typing effort and please just refer me to where I can read about it in more detail.
124
If the top of the atmosphere was not colder than the surface, then making the atmosphere darker in IR region but not the UV-visible should make the atmosphere colder.
The more radiation to space that is emitted from a colder top of the atmosphere than the warmer surface means a warmer atmosphere. I think the real issue is the claim that energy accumulated in the upper troposphere would warm the surface as much as it loses heat to outerspace.
20
Andrew McRae December 28, 2015 at 5:20 pm
Konrad: (“The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is atmospheric cooling not warming. The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere on surface temperatures is cooling not warming.”)
“These are not the same, and the second does not necessarily follow from the first.We have seen from weather balloon measurements that the stratosphere cooled and the lower troposphere warmed over the last 60 years. The satellite MSU showed a similar discrepancy.”
This claim that the lower troposphere has increased in temperature in the last 60 years is but a a bold faced lie! The increase in atmospheric radiance near 15 microns does not now, and never has, indicated an increase in atmospheric temperature at any altitude, nor does such indicate any EMR flux from the atmosphere in the direction of the surface.
Such measurement only indicates a lesser atmospheric optical depth at these wavelengths indicating the atmospheric temperature at a lower altitude. Your ©CACAC™ folk are well aware of this distinction, yet maliciously promote such as warming, while never defining what the word warming may possibly mean! Just like you do!
412
Thanks Andrew.
I had a look at the article that you quoted. It raised a number of questions in my mind;
1. What is a “ground-based Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer” and what does it actually measure?
2. Why is downwelling radiation from CO2 so hard to measure and why has it not been measured before Feb 2015?
3. Have they actaully measured downwelling IR from CO2?
4. The IR at the CO2 absorbtio frequencies is said to be fully absorbed within 10m from the ground at current CO2 levels so would increasing the CO2 amount actually increase the downwellinfg IR return to the surface?
The full paper is paywalled and I don’t feel like paying $40 to read it. There seems to be a problem making infrared spectrometers which can measure and discrimate IR at long wavelengths.
20
Your googling is as good as mine. I’d guess it uses interferometry to measure the intensity at different wavelengths, instead of using refraction, to create a spectrometer.
It’s not hard to measure, it has been measured hundreds of times in dozens of places. What is different about this study is it is collected over many years so they can show a trend in how the contribution from CO2 has changed over time.
Yes and no. Yes, the measurement includes a contribution from CO2, but no it isn’t purely CO2. The measurement near 15um will include contributions from H2O and CO2, there is no way around that.
By subtracting the spectrum simulated based on actual conditions without CO2, the remainder will represent the CO2 contribution to the extent that the simulation was accurate. If you doubt that radiative transfer models are accurate, by all means look up every real test of them you can find.
No they aren’t all fully absorbed. If partial pressure of CO2 increases then the side lobes (or wings) of the CO2 absorption spike will tend to fill out, increasing total absorption. This is logarithmic, but there is no hard limit to how much more the absorption can be increased.
Surface air temperature (i.e. boundary layer temperature) is the central quantity in the global warming proposition. If that surface outgoing IR is absorbed by 10m of air, then the lowest 10m of air can be heated from above by atmospheric CO2 radiation. The IR can heat the air before reaching the surface, so it does not matter that the downwelling IR doesn’t actually return to the surface. (That’s also why one of Konrad’s water LWIR absorption experiments is unfaithful as an analogy for the air above the ocean.)
Perhaps an even better question is… how did Feldman & Co. know the net increase in surface radiation?
They would need to subtract outgoing IR from downwelling IR to gauge a net effect of increased CO2. But I do not remember the press release saying anywhere that they did that.
If CO2 can absorb it can emit, if it can heat it can cool, it works both ways.
More CO2 at the surface allows the surface air to cool quicker, but the CO2 above it is heating it more too. Which prevails for the surface?
This is one of those circumstances where intuition is not entirely helpful to figure out which direction “wins”. All I can say on this point is that the same math that works well every other time RTMs are tested by spectrometer is the same math that says there is a positive GHE which increases with CO2. I have never heard of any fact that contradicts this, despite many attempts.
If there is no significant correlation in prehistoric proxies, that’s as much a sign of the insensitivity of the proxies and the variety of climate drivers as much as a reason to doubt the GHE.
The Feldman result provides more supporting evidence from a period where we can observe very accurately.
60
Andrew McRae December 31, 2015 at 1:45 am
“If that surface outgoing IR is absorbed by 10m of air, then the lowest 10m of air can be heated from above by atmospheric CO2 radiation.”
Just where in your fantasy do yo get such a rediculous conjecture? Have you measured any radiant flux either upward or downward in the waveband brtween 14 and 16 microns? I thought not! No one else has either! all fantasy, no science!
“The IR can heat the air before reaching the surface, so it does not matter that the downwelling IR doesn’t actually return to the surface.”
More fantasy and no measurement!
“(That’s also why one of Konrad’s water LWIR absorption experiments is unfaithful as an analogy for the air above the ocean.)”
Just how can you claim you have acquired any understanding of how thermal EMR is produced and transmitted. Your statement above indicate that you have no such understanding!
14
”..the second does not necessarily follow from the first.”
Andrew,
I agree this is not a full explanation. The gas column experiments simply show that without cooling at altitude, our atmosphere would superheat. Radiative gases are the only mechanism by which our atmosphere can lose energy at altitude. The experiments also show that conduction back to a radiatively cooled surface is ineffective at cooling an atmosphere in a gravity field. So the experiments show our atmosphere is primarily cooled by radiative gases, and would superheat without them.
Now part 2. Is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere surface warming or surface cooling?
This question is very simply answered, again by empirical experiment. We know the current average surface temperature, around 288K. So all we need to find is a good answer for “Average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere”. Climastrologists claim 255K, but they simply input 240 w/m2 of average solar reaching the surface into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. This effectively treats our deep solar translucent oceans covering 71% of the surface as a “near-blackbody” opaque to solar radiation, non-convecting and constantly illuminated. What could possibly go wrong? Just about everything. Why? Because our oceans are in fact an extreme SW selective surface.
Empirical experiment shows that a diurnal solar cycle peaking near 1000 w/m2 and penetrating deep into the oceans would drive their average temperature to 335K or beyond were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere. (No, a non-radiative atmosphere cannot provide such cooling as it has no way to cool itself). From empirical experiment, a fair figure for “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” is 312K, far above our current 288K. Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling the solar heated surface of our planet.
But what about back-radiation? Surely that slows the surface cooling rate? For the oceans, empirical experiment says no. Surface incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool. The best you’d get is immeasurably slower cooling at night, only on land and in very still wind conditions.
Andrew,
Lukewarmers have long accused hard sceptics of making all sceptics look bad, essentially an argument from fear. I say this AGW madness would have ended long ago if more lukewarmers got over their fear and did more empirical experiments into radiative physics and fluid dynamics.
510
Thanks Konrad,
Others have moved on. However I have a question and will check back in case you have an answer.
Can that in fact be true? Non radiative gases are apparently transparent to incident radiation. But is it possible for non radiative gas molecules to in fact cool by radiating as mini black bodies?
At present I have no idea how to conduct an empirical experiment since a hot gas must be contained in some way and then the container becomes the radiating surface.
10
Peter,
By “non-radiative” I am referring to gases such as N2 and O2. While they can absorb and radiate LWIR, they are very poor at it.
Our atmosphere almost totally runs out of H2O at the tropopause. At this level the lapse rate reverses and strong vertical convection ceases. Because of the poor ability of N2 and O2 to radiatively cool, molecular temperatures rise into the hundreds of degrees in the thermosphere.
Interestingly, while water vapour is far greater in quantity and has far greater ability to radiatively cool our atmosphere than CO2, neither plays the major role in atmospheric cooling. The greatest radiative cooling is provided by condensed water – clouds. This can be seen when scanning the sky with an IR Bolometer, particularly during cloud formation. The temperature of a forming cloud is far greater than the humid air mass it condenses out of, and radiation emitted is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.
In our atmosphere the only “greenhouse gases” are N2 and O2. H2O allows the troposphere to cool.
310
Peter C December 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm
“Thanks Konrad,
Others have moved on. However I have a question and will check back in case you have an answer.
Konrad: (“No, a non-radiative atmosphere cannot provide such cooling as it has no way to cool itself”)
“Can that in fact be true? Non radiative gases are apparently transparent to incident radiation. But is it possible for non radiative gas molecules to in fact cool by radiating as mini black bodies?”
There is no such thing as transparent ‘mass’ at any frequency/wavelength! It is all a matter of degree. The effective 20 km thick N2 and O2 atmosphere has sufficient opacity/emissivity to account for more than 10% of the EMR radiative exitance to space. The very variable atmospheric H2O in all 5 phases ‘can account’ for up to 90% of that exitance.
Near 15 microns wavelength atmospheric CO2 ‘can account’ for 7% measured EM exitance to space at anything more than 100 ppmv, as all originates near the tropopause at temperatures less than 200 Kelvin. Near this wavelength, only 2 km of tropopause has 0.96 emissivity. Does such absorb exitance from the surface as claimed? NO!!! The radiance of near surface CO2 strictly limits any exitance from the surface as per Maxwell’s equations, and has done so at all concentrations greater than 100 ppmv. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, in no way changes the radiative effects of Earth’s atmosphere!
“At present I have no idea how to conduct an empirical experiment since a hot gas must be contained in some way and then the container becomes the radiating surface.”
Indeed! A cold gas can and does does absorb EMR flux from a higher radiance source, but can only emit in the direction of a lower radiance sink!! Two important details. A gas is not a surface, it is a volume never black with many resonances. Neither Planck’s fine integral for black surfaces, nor the S-B equation, no mater how mangled by post modern physics, can ever apply to any gas, let alone a pressure, density, temperature stratified atmosphere!
All of your ©CACAC™, pronounced ‘kaka’ in both Latin and Cyrillic, know this very well, yet keep promoting CAGW for personal monetary gain. 😉
110
Thanks Konrad and Will
20
About the only bone I have to pick with van Beizen’s article is this:
According to Dr Tim Ball, mankind’s total contribution to the annual co2 budget amounts to only 3 1/2%. van Beizen alludes properly that co2 concentration is mostly a function of temperature and not the other way around, but he then repeats the common, and obviously, faulty assumption that mankind is driving up co2 concentrations of any significance in the atmosphere. That false assumption leads to the additional faulty assumption that mankind can somehow mitigate mankind’s co2 output to control co2 concentration.
130
Dave in the states,
by inference you are saying that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is as a natural result of natural temperature increases rather than industrial output.
I’m not disagreeing, but at the risk of trolling a dead horse, can you refer to any studies or articles to this effect?
20
David Dilley’s presentation here contains a good survey on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4hbKF5-qUE
Also consider Henry’s Law.
20
JoNova.
“Bit by bit, smart and influential thinkers are shifting…”.
No, they are not. If anything, climate change denialism is becoming more a fringe belief over time.
342
Keep telling yourself that Harry, hope you have a good shopping trolley and dressing gown picked out…..
232
Yonniestone.
Ad hominem.
125
Harry Twinotter.
#YouAintNoScientistBruv.
182
Yonniestone.
Actually, probably not an ad hominem as such. Just a childish insult.
Usually I prefer to discuss in forums where the moderators remove insults (they do not add anything to any discussion).
326
So your comments should be removed entirely?
292
Yonni,
Who’s stuck out in the cold in sites like this because the scientific community is too bored to engage you ?
116
Yes, the end of the world is near, and 50% of the population are not convinced, but climate scientists are too “bored” to answer questions…
Mass extinction is coming, but we can’t have a bored scientist can we?
261
Oh to have a climate scientist come on over and prove to us that man-made CO2 / temperature nexus is about to create some catastrophic scenario.400ppmv and all’s well.
121
Those who think that climate change is mostly due to carbon dioxide in the teeth of the evidence are surely the denialists. So you might be right Lonely Harry.
293
Graeme.
Another childish insult.
Is this the best you insulters can do? It is really pathetic you know.
(You have used the word Denialist before,thus your whining make you a hypocrite) CTS
333
Pathetic only to those unable to distinguish indoctrination with independent thought, or in your case a trifle above abstract.
202
You are easily insulted Harry.
51
CTS.
‘(You have used the word Denialist before,thus your whining make you a hypocrite) CTS’
I disagree.
But by all means join the discussion if you are up for it, instead of just trying to insult me.
19
Harry,
Large numbers of believers become skeptics everyday.
Name 3 skeptics who have become believers.
You can’t because:
‘Once you’ve had facts you’ll never go back’.
322
James Bradley.
‘Large numbers of believers become skeptics everyday.’
Evidence please.
332
Harry,
The evidence is your own trolling of skeptic sites such as this, because of your fanatical belief and need to attempt to control what skeptics discuss, believe, know and write, because Harry, the warmist meme is hemorrhaging believers every day.
Proof of this can be found by visiting warmist sites such as (I’ll pick the most famous and widely quoted by warmists) Skeptical Science and comparing attendances and comment numbers – I haven’t looked for months but I’ll b et my last dollar that if you go there now you will find articles that have attracted as many as 2 or 3 comments in the last couple of weeks – its own ratings are there for you to read, I mean, Harry, just on this one post this afternoon there are 150 comments for Jonova.
Don’t you just want to eat your own liver, that’s how skeptics are doing it – we are the silent majority.
Count the number of skeptic comments on SkS – nil – skeptics don’t troll warmist sites because skeptics don’t care what you think unless you attempt to force your opinions then you will be rebutted with facts – that’s another piece of evidence you lack – facts.
But hey, keep fighting facts with obfuscation and diversion such as – an oldy but a goody you always pull out – the accusations of ad homs and abuse – a sure diversion while you make a hasty getaway to google more warmist wisdom and green quotes.
Here, I’ll give you the opportunity now for that hasty escape – you’re a [snip]
313
James Bradley.
“the warmist meme is hemorrhaging believers every day”
Evidence please.
221
Ok, Harry,
You want more evidence, just go down the line of responses here just on this post.
I can pretty much guarantee that each and everyone, including our host, began as a believer, of some sort, in man made global warming.
Now the fact that you have a very large number of people representing here from very diverse backgrounds, disciplines, professions, experiences and knowledge bases who now are skeptical should be evidence enough – Followers + Posts = Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s).
Now go do a fact-check back at SkS and count the contributors and comments then go over to Watts Up With That then come back here for market comparisons – as I wrote – hemorrhaging believers.
You, Harry, who set great store by the ‘consensus’ can’t continue to ignore the consensus measured by followers of blog sites, and that the majority of people on the planet just aren’t buying the climate crap anymore.
I can write this with authority because you come to post here, because you get no satisfaction or response from believer sites either, because no one follows them.
If you actually have the strength of your convictions you would post to SkS and support your ideology instead of improving KPI’s for Jonova.
Oh and BTW – sticks and stones, Harry, you were definitely educated to become a victim.
272
James,
You can’t use sceptic site postings as evidence because of their biased nature- a bit like theology, you can question eveything except the first premise.
The very large number of people from diverse backgrounds here I’m sure listen to their’ doctors when they’re sick , they wouldn’t google some stats that they’re not proficient to interpret and self diagnose ? . This is what you’re doing as well as heeding irrelevant authorities.
Counting the number of vocal ex warmists is a poor statisical guide, complainers always post more than supporters.
BTW, please stop your sniphead abuse.
16
Yep, James.
That’s me you describe, I’m pleased to admit.
I even made money out of it.
And then I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears the disingenuous statements of those with whom I worked. They knew CAGW was incorrect but they were on the train; on the band wagon and making good money as a result. They can’t yet admit the truth, but they will when they’ve finished milking it and secured their superannuation.
The sceptic’s journey has many tributaries and when it’s finished it will be a roaring torrent.
101
Frank,
That is actually very true. People do listen to their doctors because their doctors are trusted.
Doctors are trusted, because what doctors tell their patients is backed by decades, if not centuries, of research, all of which is well documented, and all of which is published, and all of which is independently checked and verified. And when the occasional piece of malpractice is uncovered, the doctor is struck off, and may even be prosecuted under the law.
What has that got to do with hiding historic raw temperature observations, and then only including those readings that just happen to match todays manufactured version of what passes for truth in this brave post-normal world?
That is what this particular post, and the ensuing conversation is all about. Not drawing tenuous parallels that just don’t stand up under scrutiny.
Nice attempt at diversion, on your part, but really an epic fail …
111
James Bradley.
‘You want more evidence, just go down the line of responses here just on this post.’
In other words, you have no evidence.
111
Frank, the doctor analogy – really…
Harry & Frank, if believers were the majority then why you still trolling?
61
Wander on over to Judith Curry’s site, Climate etc… and have a quick scroll through the list of denizens (I think it’s on the right-hand side). It would be fair to say that they all believed that ACO2 was causing warming until they got around to examining the data and the claims being made about what that data represents. As someone else said before – changing your mind about AGW is one-way street.
71
Harry is one that actually believes the “97%” meme.
I used to have a name for his type but now I mostly consider them to be irrelevant.
41
James Bradley.
As to your childish name calling and insults: as I said above, pathetic.
219
You really are a precious ,annoying prat son. I am surprised that our host or moderators have not given you the boot for your inane whining.You are a lonely non- entity who has nothing to say of substance.Go home.
151
Glen Michel.
Thanks for proving my comment.
Get a life 🙂
110
Harry,
How would you define, “large numbers of believers”?
Answer that question, and I might answer your question, on James behalf.
Or I might let James have the all fun on his own, if that is what he wants.
152
Hmm, James has made his choice, I see. Nice one. 😉
112
”No, they are not. If anything, climate change denialism is becoming more a fringe belief over time.<”
A. AGW sceptics do not deny climate change. We have fought long and hard to stop the CO2 propagandists trying to erase the MWP and LIA from history.
B. More than half the Australian population are now CAGW sceptics and the numbers continue to rise.
They say dogs can smell fear. Well AGW sceptics can smell panic. You reek of it Harry. Possibly you’ve heard of stylometrics? That’s where computer text analysis identifies every little AGW hoax enabler on the Internet, no matter how many “sock puppets” they have tried to hide behind. I’ve been trialling some of analytical engines on blog comments. Normally they say a long body of text is required for good analysis. My results indicate that in the Internet age, multiple short comments grouped in one .txt doc works just as well. Function word analysis, lexical analysis and punctuation analysis work regardless of comment length. You and yours have left a permanent trail of “climate science” behind you that would fertilise the Simpson Desert.
Is it going to be the current crop of sceptics that come after you and yours? No, it will be the general public armed with the evidence we have stored. AGW propagandists have effectively lost the first information war of the Internet age. AGW sceptics, being engineering types, have built an information dam, storing every little lie and smear you thought would be lost in the “dust of battle”. This information dam has built a giant head of rage. Do you hope the dam will collapse and allow you and yours to escape in the flood and confusion? Forget that. Engineering types, remember? When the general public is angry enough, we just give them control of the small valve at the bottom of the information dam and allow them to unleash the iron hard jet of vengeance.
You and yours corrupted science for politics. There can be no forgiveness.
2214
Konrad.
‘They say dogs can smell fear. Well AGW sceptics can smell panic. You reek of it Harry.’
Ha ha ha. Very inventive, how much time did you devote to writing it? Best laugh I have had since Xmas.
‘A. AGW sceptics do not deny climate change. We have fought long and hard to stop the CO2 propagandists trying to erase the MWP and LIA from history.’
Fought long and hard at semantics and splitting hairs, methinks.
735
Too panicked to discuss stylometrics are we “Harry”? It doesn’t mean we get to identify every “anonymous” Internet enabler of this foul assault on science, reason, freedom and democracy. But if any of the lesser AGW apparatchiks ever try to take on a future public position of power or influence, they will be instantly identified as a former AGW propagandist. And publicly destroyed.
Paris failed, even James Hansen said as much. Your foul hoax is failing. The left have long claimed to be an intellectual and moral elite. In one fell move you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are the perennial village idiots. Seriously? You believed adding radiative gases to a radiatively cooled atmosphere would reduce its radiative cooling ability? You vilified those who dissented and called them “holocaust deniers? Just how did someone like yourself so illiterate at radiative physics and fluid dynamics think this was going to work out?
1814
Konrad.
‘Your foul hoax is failing’
Stop, please stop! I am laughing so much I can’t breath.
923
There is your answer, Konrad. Harry has nothing but wind and metaphoric hand waving. He is a certified fact-free-zone.
271
Please laugh harder, for everyone else’s sake!
Speaking of laughter how funny was that COP21?, I mean after all that sincere pleading to save the planet there’s barely a mention it even occurred, apart from talk of how large sums of other peoples money is to be redistributed the only people that that are mentioning the apparent danger are…..well people like you…..on science blogs….not engaging in science….
131
Good thing too, Harry,
All that extra exhaling only increases atmospheric C02.
Now take a big deep breath and… hold…
121
Harry this is what we have to contend with, do you see any fault with Dr Williams comment?
‘Dr Paul Williams of Reading University said the warming atmosphere is already increasing the chances of floods, heatwaves and storms in Britain – and the problems will only get worse if emissions continue to rise.
“There is a time lag in the climate system,” he said.
“We are storing up problems that we haven’t yet seen because the climate system takes decades to respond to the carbon dioxide.
“So even if we cut emissions dramatically today there are big problems stored up for future. This is why we need to take urgent action.’
Sky News (before the Paris summit)
230
None of Dr Williams statements have any specificity, nor meaningful time horizions. There is an undefined time lag (which could be millenia). Undefined and unspecific “problems” are being stored (for decades, or millenia). And finally, his answer is for everybody to panic, now! (and not wait for millenia).
These people are amateurs.
The sad thing, is that Harry will see nothing wrong with it. He has been conditioned.
291
‘These people are amateurs.’
He was right about the time lag in the system, now here is a bloke who imagines weather has something to do with climate.
‘Britain is now facing “unknown extremes” in weather, which means flood defences alone will not prevent disasters and people will need to “waterproof their homes”, David Rooke, the deputy chief executive of the Environment Agency, has said.
“We are moving from know extremes to unknown extremes,” he told the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, adding that no country can guarantee against flooding.’
81
“his answer is for everybody to panic, now!”
And why not? We’ve nothing better to do.
51
el gordo.
‘Harry this is what we have to contend with, do you see any fault with Dr Williams comment?’
It would depend on the context. If he did indeed say “increasing the chances” then he is correct, that is what the trend data shows for certain events.
222
Ooooh, Harry, what a spectacularly erudite comment! Someone writing the script for you, are they?
113
‘If he did indeed say “increasing the chances” then he is correct, that is what the trend data shows for certain events.’
All sides agree on the hiatus, the ‘warming atmosphere’ is old hat.
Floods, heatwaves and storms become more pronounced as the jet stream goes awry, which is what we would expect as global cooling takes hold.
You can get a better picture of what is coming to Britain in the years ahead by looking back to the High Middle Ages. We ain’t seen nothing yet.
121
el gordo.
‘Floods, heatwaves and storms become more pronounced as the jet stream goes awry, which is what we would expect as global cooling takes hold.’
Evidence please.
Global cooling? Go ahead, explain why 2015 having the warmest Global Mean Temperature (GMT) on record is caused by Global Cooling.
113
I would be more interested in knowing what the trend data was for uncertain events.
Events that are “certain” can be planned for. It is the uncertain or “black swan” events that carry significant risk, and cause the most damage.
Certain risks are an annoyance, but can be easily mitigated.
51
Please stop feeding the dual-beaver! The first rule for combating a pathogen is isolation and containment! Likely such will rapidly consume itself! No need for restitution either, a valuable lesson to be remembered and passed on to the most clever of off-sprouts! Most will rebel from even this, as they must! The real reason for single malt Scotch!
40
Not surprising considering that you will not find anyone who comments here that believes the that the climate never changes.
If you are referring to denial of the science then you actually have 10 points to refute with scientific evidence. Please stick to that as the term is idiotic eg. the attacks on Lomborg as being a denier of the science even after using the MAGICC model and a climate sensitivity of 3°C to do the calculations for the impact of current climate models.
142
to do the calculations for the impact of current climate
modelspolicies.I do need to take my tmie and proof read.
31
I agree with you 100% Harry.
Those climate change deniers who deny The Medieval Warm Period, The Cycles of Arctic Ice Extent, The influence of the sun on climate etc., etc. are indeed becoming thinner and thinner on the ground…..
181
Backslider! Welcome back and what a cutting comment to start… No loss of form during your absence then!
71
The tipping point will happen when genuine scientists finally take control of the national science academies like The Royal Society and expose the dangerous man-made global warming deception. When that happens, the IPCC mantra pushed by the pro-global warming politicians, economists, media and the United Nations will come tumbling down like a house of cards.
253
CAGW = BS
AGW = SFA
game over .
93
Egor,
Thanks for raising the level of scientific debate, a real zinger !
415
Frank, thanks for proving mediocre people are always at their best!
If you were a clairvoyant you’d be a slightly above average medium.
91
27 Dec: AFP: Emily Ford: Dreaming of energy security, India pumps desert oil
The deserts of Rajasthan may be the showcase for India’s solar revolution but the oil explorer that struck gold beneath the same sands insists the country needs to pump out more fossil fuels to wean itself off imports…
Yet deep in the desert, and less well-publicised, are four oil fields operated by an offshoot of Scotland-based Cairn Energy that churn out nearly a quarter of all domestic crude.
Each day the world’s longest heated pipeline funnels 176,000 barrels from the remote Barmer region near the Pakistan border, bound for the refineries of Reliance Industries, Essar Oil and Indian Oil Corporation.
Exploration continues apace, with less than half the state’s 150,000 square kilometres (58,000 square miles) thought to contain crude deposits developed so far, and millions more barrels likely still trapped in the rock…
“This is changing the lives of the people in the desert,” Deepak Upreti, principal secretary to the Rajasthan government, told AFP.
More than a dozen luxury hotels have sprung up to cater to oil executives. Local businesses set up to serve the industry have generated a market worth 15 billion rupees ($225 million) in procurement…READ ON
http://news.yahoo.com/dreaming-energy-security-india-pumps-desert-oil-045300259.html
27 Dec: WSJ: Allysia Finley: Go Live Elsewhere, We’re Cutting Carbon Here
The Newhall Ranch project near Los Angeles is green but not green enough for the antidevelopment crowd.
Earlier this month California Gov. Jerry Brown promised to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal will be nearly impossible to achieve with California’s current population, projected to grow by 30% over the next 35 years to 50 million. So ecovangelists are trying to block any economic development that could help support more people.
The Newhall Ranch project in north Los Angeles County, which aims to provide housing for nearly 60,000 people as well as tens of thousands of jobs at stores, schools and recreational centers, is the most recent target…READ ON
http://www.wsj.com/articles/go-live-elsewhere-were-cutting-carbon-here-1451259617
30
Letter I sent to my state MP, federal MP to follow:
Global Warming Lie
Hi ******,
I see that despite our recent meeting and the information I gave you, you are still a “believer” in the lie of anthropogenic global warming judging from your posts on Facebook promoting expensive and useless “alternate” energy.
Anthropogenic global warming is the biggest fraud in world history. It is disappointing that you and your supposedly conservative, rational Liberal Party continue to believe in this lie and promote it which will cost Australia countless billions of dollars. Tony Abbott’s skepticism about this matter (plus his concern about the war against the West by a certain 7th century “religion”) are no doubt the reasons for the coup d’état against him.
You may be interested in this article for further information. http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/10-reasons-we-know-global-warming-is-not-man-made-physics-prof-explains-his-switch-to-skepticism/
Kind regards,
Dr David Maddison
202
David Maddison,
Great letter. More of us need to do the same sort of thing. I am not a citizen of your country so can’t help there, but the USA needs help too.
135
Good article. Not sure if it has been posted here before.
http://junkscience.com/2015/12/climate-skeptic-maurice-newman-says-world-leaders-embracing-junk-science/
82
Chan also covered the Oz story for the Guardian.
‘Tony Abbott’s former business advisory council chairman, Maurice Newman, has criticised Malcolm Turnbull and Barack Obama for prioritising “collectivist visions” over “private choice” in relation to climate change.
‘Newman, who was not reappointed to the council by the Turnbull government, has accused world leaders of acting “like ancient druids pleading with the gods for good seasons” at the recent Paris climate talks.’
161
Thanks for that David. I’m glad to see Maurice is still active, and would have missed the article.
Cheers,
Dave B
21
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1
http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts
130
Would that be as opposed to hysterical climatologists, of the later generations ? 😉 Another one who started his career in electronics I see. Is Electrical Engineering or Physics as good a grounding for those if a practical bent as a grounding in Philosophy & the Classics is for others ?
20
If I can have my two cents worth, here is my take on what is wrong with the science, FWIW,
[SNIP… check your email for an explanation – Jo]
2. The belief in Global Warming has clearly become a religious belief system (whether eventually found to be true or not). It is self-reverential, self-reinforcing, unfalsifiable and immune to logic.
3. Confirmation bias among alarmist researchers in the area of climate is endemic. These researchers demonstrably lack scientific objectivity, and have formed self-reinforcing cliques of like-minded people who then rely on their perceived authority to stifle any and all dissent, as particularly evidenced by “Climategate” emails.
4. There is no true consensus among scientists in the area of Global Warming. The fake “consensus” is maintained by endless repetition (“97% of scientists say …..”), statistical chicanery (Cook et al.), or unscientific surveys (Doran and Zimmerman) of a small number of hand selected “experts”, where questions are neither specific nor remotely pertinent to the belief or otherwise in the underlying theory of CAGW. This is overt deception and misrepresentation. Scientific organisations, such as the Royal Society or the American Meteorological Society, then further reinforce this by speaking for the majority of their members in joint statements as though they were a completely unified group and all in total and complete agreement with CAGW theory, when in fact there is no such unified position among individuals within these organisations, and many have resigned in disgust at their actions.
5. There has been a disturbing trend in the last 3 decades toward the emergence of the scientist as activist. This unfortunately thus abandons the very foundations and principles of the scientific method (particularly that of objectivity, which is completely incompatible with activism) that should underpin good research methodology, and therefore the ultimate validity of a particular hypothesis or theory.
6. There is a lack of transparency in the methodology of alterations to data, or adequate justifications for said adjustments. Inconvenient data is conveniently altered, “homogenised” or otherwise filtered statistically to reinforce the desired result (whether this is consciously through fraud or unconsciously through entrained biases is entirely irrelevant). Data that is altered so significantly can no longer be said to be actual data, as it is merely an artificial construct reflective of the mindset of the scientists who have altered it. Similarly, the concept of “global average temperature” prior to the advent of satellites is unsustainable, being entirely an artificial construct rather than an actual measurement, or even close approximation of one.
7. Alarmists have serially avoided debate beyond the circle of their fellow believers, so as to reinforce their hypothesis without the tawdry requisite of having to defend the inconsistencies with observations, the gap between theory and reality, or the potential harm wrought by the supposed “solutions” advised. The have made the blanket assertion that the time for debate is over before it has even been had, and that “the science” is settled when it is anything but settled, as the endlessly shifting goal posts and the movable feast of predictions that don’t come true continue unabated.
8. The bullying of dissenters who risk not only loss of tenure and reputation, but loss of employment opportunities and risking great financial disadvantage, their marginalisation within the workplace and within scientific circles in general for speaking out, not to mention the torrents of abuse directed at them that they must endure should they hold a contrary opinion, is an entirely unhealthy and completely unacceptable situation for true scientists to find themselves in, especially those who purely seek to find the truth, which should be the sole and ultimate goal of any scientist worthy of the name.
9. Computer modelling, upon which most (if not all) of CAGW theory relies, cannot be considered evidence. Unaltered and unexpurgated observations and empiricism, however, should trump any virtual reality constructed by computer simulations of these same real world observations (no matter how allegedly sophisticated), not the other way around. The parameters of such computer simulations should be altered to conform to the dictates of observations, rather than observations altered to conform to the expectations and projections of these simulations.
10. Surface temperature measurements, even unadjusted ones, are contaminated by UHI, poor siting issues, lack of continuity and quality control issues that render pre-satellite global temperature reconstructions useless. UHI is a real and significant issue due to the magnitude of effects in urban areas where long term thermometer records are concentrated, but also is a misnomer in that it is not merely confined to urban areas, as altered vegetation from land clearing for agriculture, deforestation and the concentration of thermometers at townships and around rural airstrips, etc also have distinct influence on temperatures as it is measured at these locations.
11. Surface temperature measurements have also been directly influenced, among other things, by the switch from glass/mercury thermometers to electronic/digital recording of temperature, which some recent studies (e.g Klaus Hager) suggest give rise to variations (when compared side to side) of between 0.5-0.9 deg C of increase in temperature recorded electronically, artificially introducing a further warming bias into the alleged latter day rising temperature trend, notwithstanding the other potential warming biases introduced by human adjustments to the record itself.
12. CO2 is an unfairly and much maligned, yet absolutely vital trace gas within our Earth environment, whose influence on global temperature has never been empirically demonstrated within a planetary atmosphere. If in the unlikely event that CO2 is indeed responsible for some or all of the warming noted since 1880, the beneficial effects of this warming have been completely ignored in favour of fanciful speculation about runaway warming and tipping points to catastrophe that have no precedent within the historical or archeological record. The benefits of CO2 on increasing crop yields in both C3 and C4 plants, on plant metabolic processes and growth and overall health, but also in improving plant resistance to disease are largely undervalued, whilst also the effect of CO2 in the promotion of drought resistance/resilience and in improving of nitrogen fixation are completely ignored or significantly downplayed by alarmists obsessed with vilifying a compound which is in every sense the “staff of life” for carbon based life forms.
13. CO2 has at times been up to 20x or more than the current atmospheric concentration of 400 ppm within the geological record without any eco-catastrophe resulting from this far higher level being at all evident. Quite the contrary, ecosystems that supported the largest animal species that ever walked the planet thrived for millions of years in an atmosphere far higher by an order of magnitude than the present day, relatively CO2 deprived atmosphere we currently enjoy. Rising CO2 clearly follows temperature rise rather than vice versa, as expected by Henry’s Law and the gaseous exchange of CO2 rising proportionately to temperature at the ocean/atmosphere interface.
14. CO2 concentration, in the absence of H2O amplification, is a logarithmic relationship. Water amplification (see 15 below) has not been demonstrated to occur, and therefore even if one accepts that CO2 causes temperature to rise mildly – the effect attenuates over time. There is therefore NO urgency for transition from fossil fuels on this basis, no impending disaster or catastrophe or eco-apocalypse, in which case there is NO need to ruin the economies of the Western democracies, no need to promote energy poverty and deprivation, no justification for causing needless suffering, privation or harm to those in otherwise affluent economies but on low, fixed incomes or pensions and having to choose between eating or staying warm and/or cool. The onus of proof must be very high to justify the harm wrought in the name of mitigating CO2 emissions when people’s lives are threatened by unjustified fear-mongering, and undue haste where none is actually required.
15. The hypothesis of CAGW relies upon “catastrophic warming” caused not by CO2 alone, but through the agency of enhanced water vapour amplification, the most important “greenhouse gas” of all, responsible for around 95% of the so called “greenhouse effect”. This alleged amplification requires that there should be a distinctive signature warming of the tropospheric layer of the atmosphere about 8km above the surface of the tropics, due to the predicted rise in water vapour enhancing the effect of rising CO2 concentration (which conveniently ignores the phase changing ability of H2O, not to mention the immensity of the global water cycle). The presence of this “tropospheric hotspot” is absolutely central and absolutely essential to the CAGW hypothesis, and it is completely absent from actual observations, in spite of some researchers using wind shear instead of temperature measurements, plus some deceptive colour schematics in diagrams (Sherwood, 2008), or by using highly dubious and unsuitable statistical methods (Sherwood and Nishant, 2015) to attempt to demonstrate something that clearly isn’t there in reality. In short, no water amplification = no catastrophe.
16. 70% of the planet’s surface is water. The oceans on our water planet are incredibly vast and deep, and down-welling long wave infra-red radiation (LWIR) cannot penetrate beyond the surface interface down to a mere 15 microns. This putative down-welling radiation, alleged to be the mechanism of CO2’s greenhouse effect, cannot therefore warm these oceans that are free to evaporatively cool, by releasing heat via latent heat of vaporisation and breaking of the surface tension of the ocean’s “skin”, thereby facilitating heat transfer from the ocean to the sky. Short wave infrared radiation, on the other hand, from fluctuations in the solar irradiance output spectrum of the sun, can and does penetrate deeper into the oceans, and can therefore cause rising of ocean temperature in the surface layers at least, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with rises or otherwise in atmospheric CO2, nor to the influence of mankind and his activities.
17. The differing heat capacities of the oceans and the atmosphere, and the respective volumes involved, mean that minor fluctuations in atmospheric temperature make no significant difference to ocean temperatures, BUT tiny discrepancies in ocean temperatures, caused by fluctuations in solar activity (plus possibly variations in plate tectonics and volcanism), can easily influence atmospheric temperatures to a far greater degree.
18. Across the entire Holocene interglacial period over the last 11,000 years, wide variation in climate and temperature has occurred completely independent of variation in CO2, let alone the influence of mankind and his activities. The early Holocene, called the Holocene Climate Optimum, for example was a period of atmospheric temperatures well in excess (probably between 2 and 6 deg C) of those found today. Also, within the early Holocene period the world’s oceans were probably up to 0.7°C warmer on average than today 8,000 Before Present (BP), and more regionally, Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures between 9,000 BP and 7,000 BP were likely around 2.5°C+/-0.4°C warmer than the late 20th Century (Rosenthal et al, 2013). There were also very clear and quite rapid swings in temperature with periods with cooling of the poles, increased tropical aridity and major atmospheric circulation changes notable during the periods 9,000 to 8,000, 6,000 to 5,000, and 4,200 to 3,800 BP (Mayewski, et al.- Quaternary Research 62 (2004) 243-255). More recently, there were very clear peaks coinciding with the so called Minoan Warming Period (3,300-3,100 yrs BP), the later Roman Warming Period (2,150-2,000 yrs BP) and finally the Medieval Warming Period (1,100 -1,000 yrs BP) have preceded the current rise in temperature, which might be termed the Modern Warming Period (150yrs BP till present), for the sake of convenience, with each of the former peaks and troughs in global temperature being unrelated to CO2 variability, and of a similar or even possibly more extreme variability than we are presently experiencing. Therefore wide variations in climate are the norm, and are entirely independent of any influence from anthropogenic causation. Nothing occurring in our global climate in recent decades is in any way unusual, unprecedented or beyond the norm, except in the most myopic view of antiquity.
19. All historical evidence shows that these warmer times throughout history were universally beneficial for human civilisation, with bountiful harvests, improved living standards, reduction in disease and privation, and the flourishing local communities and nation states and the expanding of Empires. Conversely, sudden shifts in climate to colder and more arid conditions led to collapse of civilisations and much suffering, disease and conflict. The modern experience is no different, other than our technological advantages that help vitiate any alleged ill-effects easily, on the proviso that energy is not made to be at such a premium that the populace cannot afford to avail itself of these advantages. Prosperity is our best defence against a changing climate, no matter what the cause.
20. The technological “solutions” proposed to take “action” against “Climate Change” are impractical and unworkable in their present form. They neither reduce CO2 emissions in any meaningful way (just transfer it from generation to manufacture, deforestation and fossil fuel backup), nor do they suit the provision of 24/7 base load power supply necessary to provide a properly functioning civilised society, especially a technologically advanced one. To rely on “renewable energy” from wind and solar is to pay a premium for little actual provision, to make no meaningful reduction in reliance on fossil fuels, and to unnecessarily destabilise the grid through intractable issues of intermittency. Wind and solar are neither renewable nor environmentally responsible, and require vast tracts of land clearance in the case of the former, and are both a looming toxic burden on the environment due to their relatively short longevity before requiring replacement. If anything, this blind alley of previously discarded and irredeemably inefficient technology is actually delaying the search for truly efficient and effective, energy dense technological alternatives to fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, by applying subsidies to guide investment into areas of wind power and solar research that cannot ever provide energy generating solutions that are in any way fit for purpose.
By all means critique me. Fire away.
146
14. Should read “CO2 concentration and its effect on atmospheric temperature, in the absence of H2O amplification……..”
42
Winston,
Please post a sanitized version of your #1 that was snipped by Jo. Fix up whatever she did not like (she says to look at your e-mail) and post it so your ideas will be complete. Please.
21
Mark,
Essentially point #1 related to the motivation for belief in CAGW that seems, from my observation over many years, to relate in these individuals to many other things completely independent of climate and what CO2 does or does not produce within our environment.
I mentioned political power and control (particularly the UN), financial gain (bankers, investor in boondoggles and grant seekers), noble cause corruption from the self absorbed in the West looking for a symbolic justification for their existence and to ease their guilt at their good fortune, then almost certainly invoked the ire of the mods by suggesting that Malthusianism (and by extension racism) might have played a role through inflicting deliberate impoverishment on the denizens of 3rd world nations as a means of population control. To me this seems a quite transparent goal of a significant number of alarmists (including Obama who openly stated that they could not allow the 3rd world to develop in the way the US had) and the various organisations using CAGW as a means to an end (the IMF and World Bank especially). I think the “conspiratorial tone” of my comments detracted from the point I was trying to make- that being that the prime motivation for CAGW alarm is transparently largely ulterior, and considerably more broadly based than what is presented prima facie as the reason for their belief.
Hope that helps.
42
Winston, I was going to quip:
Then I ran across this totally off topic yet fascinating look into post-(something) academic reasoning. I though you and others might like to take a look. http://www.academia.edu/282300/The_Love_Whose_Name_Cannot_Be_Spoken_Queering_the_Human-Animal_Bond
New words I’ve learned from the link;
Humanormativity
Heteronomativity
Honestly, as I read the above, Alice in Wonderland seemed more normal…….
20
Make that “whose”
10
So @ClimateofGavin’s adjustments are just the tip of the iceberg. But van Biezen is not a Climate Scientist 😉 He certainly does go on about the 1980s (It’s not just a typo for the 1880s) but only in terms of the last 100 years or so.
I remember the winter of 1984/85, Paris opened its Metro at night to let people living on the streets take shelter from the killer cold, while in London politicians talked about it.
70
Omg a physicist who does not understand bandsaturation of the CO2spectrum.
https://klimaathype.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/summed_co2_absorption.png
12
He’s not the only one. Would you care to elaborate, from what may be self evident to an expert in the field?
10
Hi Ava, his biggest mistake is his claim that the co2 band is saturated, which it isn’t. Using available lab spectral CO2 data from EPA it is a basic calculation in excel using lambert beer:
https://klimaathype.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/co2_051248.png
Btw i am a lukewarmer, but physicist should get their physics right. 1.3 degrees warming for every co2 doubling is not the end of the world, in fact it is beneficial. The CO2 spectrum reaches bandsaturation only at 2 percent co2, the maximum CO2 concentration this century for the worst RCP8.5 scenario is below 1000 ppm which is 0.1 percent.
(True, but largely irrelevant because most of the TERRESTRIAL IR leaves the planet OUTSIDE of the main CO2 IR absorption band,thus the little postulated warm forcing effect of CO2 will likely be LESS than the standard CALCULATED warming effect we have been told about. It is a mathematical construct that blindly centers on the calculated effect while ignoring possible mitigating effects of COOL forcing process in the atmosphere via other energy absorbing and transferring molecules and Water Vapor forces) CTS
23
So interpreting that into lay-person’s language … the theory is academically correct, but the materiality of the theory is not meaningful, on this planet?
30
I think he means what David Evans calls rerouting feedback. The CO2 Warming emissions are “captured” by the more plentiful H2O molecules either intercepting the radiation or by the excited CO2 molecule being dissolved in an H2O droplet.
Either way the energy is transferred from the CO2 to the water and can then be emitted via any of the plentiful applicable emission modes of the water or even by broadband (thermal) emission where the H2O is partially liquid.
22
Cts, but that’s not my point, is it? Van Biezen makes a scientific claim about spectral saturation which can be refuted in every physics lab.
01
Hans Erren December 29, 2015 at 8:05 pm
“Cts, but that’s not my point, is it? Van Biezen makes a scientific claim about spectral saturation which can be refuted in every physics lab.”
What total arrogant nonsense! The CO2 absorption of 15 micron EMR flux from a higher thermal radiance source is easily demonstrated. The reduction of exitance at any wavelength by an opposing radiance at that wavelength is also easily demonstrated.
Van Biezen’s saturation involves “only” the demonstrated atmospheric reduction of 15 micron surface flux. Where has this physical effect ever been refuted in any physics (or physical) laboratory? Atmospheric radiative suppression of 15 micron surface exitance at low concentration of atmospheric CO2 is well established! Thjs is not any sort of absorption!!
That reduction of surface exitance is nicely replaced by mass motion (convection) and gravitational dispersion of noise power outward to an altitude where ‘efficative’ dispatch to space vie EMR may be employed! Any higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 can absorb no radiative flux that is not emitted.
Maxwell’s treatise on electricity and magnetism describes this whole mechanism quite nicely!
17
Hans, are you talking about CO2 or the real issue, CO2 in the context of the absorption spectrum of the whole atmosphere?
Perhaps this is related to the comment by CTS in the next item?
KK
21
All of it,
There is the well known logarithmic absorption of IR by co2, which leads to a benign climate sensitivity of 1.2 degrees C for every doubling.
Then there is the discussion about enhancing effects (Clausius-Clapeyron) or reducing effects, (cloud albedo, Lindzen iris effect, Miskolczi negative feedback).
See also Craig Loehle’s new short elegant paper.
01
Hi Hans
The whole point of the “log effect” or asymptotic effect is that for any series of “doublings” ( mostly by nature by the way)
the “doublings” will produce successively smaller and smaller increases in incineration.
I’m not sure you can use 1.2 C deg for every doubling??
KK
10
“How much longer can the big bluff be maintained in the face of this kind of deep, considered and independent analysis?”
A) Begging the question – there’s no bluff.
B) If this is the quality of the deep/considered/independent analysis in question: Forever.
422
Jo, you tell us something like once a month that the house of cards is coming down, that people are waking up, etc. When’s it actually going to happen?
422
Ah! I see we have had a shift-change at Trolling-Central.
Bye-bye Frank and Harry! Hello Tristan!
214
Rereke,
The number of trolls plus the amount of posts from each troll is directly related to the increasing number skeptics.
163
In regard to the world’s other major problem that originates in the 7th century and that is also threatening Civilisation it is said that “truth is the new hate speech”. In regard to climate issues, truth is equally not tolerated, and usually by the same people…
132
Tristan.
Rereke Whakaaro said:
“Ah! I see we have had a shift-change at Trolling-Central.
Bye-bye Frank and Harry! Hello Tristan!”
If you are new to this group, you will find out who the attack dogs are pretty quickly. Every climate change forum seems to have them. They are under the delusion that discussions and science can be influenced by insults. Personally, I think they need to get out more and get a life.
311
Thanks for the heads-up Harry, but I’ve been called a soros-funded astroturfing socialist who wants to kill little old ladies plenty of times 😉
There is definitely confusion about the term ‘trolling’ on these boards though. Trolling is not holding a diametrically opposed opinion.
78
Tristan.
Fair enough. I was not sure.
Yep, I have seen plenty of intentional “misinterpretations” such as what a troll is used with the intention of insulting or as ad hominems.
The attack dogs are not here for a discussion. Something else entirely motivates them. They become a yawn pretty quickly as they add nothing to the discussion. On other forums there is zero tolerance of them, they are just deleted and blocked out of existence. It appears they have found a happy home here, just like they do in WUWT.
69
OK, Tristan and Harry,
Let’s see whether you truly want a discussion. or whether you are just speaking for effect.
Q1. Do you suggest that the global climate as we are currently experiencing it is anything outside of the boundaries of normality in the last a) 1000 years?, b) 2000years?, c) 12,000 years? If so, how do you know this and upon what evidence do you base this assertion? What specifically do you suggest is occurring now that could not, or has not occurred before in the relative recent history of our planetary environment?
Please enlighten me.
74
A) Yes
B) Yes
C) No, temps from ~9000-5000BC were similar to today’s
But much more relevant than absolute temps is the rate of climatic change. To get to that Holocene maximum, it took 1800 years for temps to rise 0.5C – but temps today are about 1C greater than they were a mere 120 years ago.
Deets: “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years.” Science, 8 March 2013: Vol. 339 no. 6124 pp. 1198-1201)
68
Is it really reasonable and accurate to draw conclusions about the rapidity of modern climate change versus the early Holocene, when we only have low resolution proxies upon which to extrapolate the fluctuations in the Holocene, but have much higher resolution measurements derived in an entirely different fashion for the modern period?
75
I don’t know, in a statistical sense, how constrained the decade to decade or century to century temperature movements are in that study. Maybe those details are in the full paper. But physics lets us be confident that there could not have been the same rate of change that we have seen over the past century. Variation in solar energy (the largest driver absent humans) simply isn’t large enough to push the climate as hard as we have.
68
To summarise your position,
Because you believe mankind is more capable of causing rapid climate change than say orbital mechanics, fluctuations in the various elements of the solar spectrum comprised within TSI (rather than the total which varies little), etc etc, then it must be more rapid, even though we have no means of objectively ascertaining that.
Don’t you think, Tristan, that that is a classic example of circular logic?
86
A) 1000 years ago, the northern tree-line in Siberia was further north than today, and at higher altitude than found today –
Evidence: The study by Naurzbaev and Vaganov (2000) (Journal of Geophysical Research 105: 7317-7326.), who developed a 2200-year proxy temperature record (212 BC to 1996 AD) using tree-ring data obtained from 118 trees near the upper timberline in Siberia. And based on their results, they concluded that the warming experienced in the 20th century was not only “not extraordinary,” but that “the warming at the border of the first and second millennia (i.e c 1,000 AD) was longer in time and similar in amplitude.”
Further north, Hiller et al. (2001)3 analyzed subfossil wood samples from the Khibiny mountains on the Kola Peninsula of Russia (67-68°N, 33-34°E) in an effort to reconstruct that region’s climate history over the past 1500 years. In so doing, they determined that between AD 1000 and 1300 the tree-line was located at least 100-140 m above its current elevation, which observation, in their words, suggests that mean summer temperatures during this “Medieval climatic optimum” were “at least 0.8°C higher than today,” and that “the Medieval optimum was the most pronounced warm climate phase on the Kola Peninsula during the last 1500 years.”
Your confidence appears questionable, if not completely misplaced, Tristan.
56
As far as the early Holocene is concerned, and the run up to its peak, when you make the statement that temperatures were similar to today that is an utterly baseless assertion on your part, opinion at best rather than evidence. According to the recent study by Rosenthal et al. ( 2013) within the early Holocene period the world’s oceans were probably up to 0.7°C warmer on average than today 8,000 Before Present (BP), and more regionally, Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures between 9,000 BP and 7,000 BP were likely around 2.5°C+/-0.4°C warmer than the late 20th Century. This discrepancy compared to current ocean temperatures carries with it implications that atmospheric temperatures were likely much higher than today, given the undoubted link between the two. Mayewski et al (2004) showed that there were also very clear and quite rapid swings in temperature with periods with cooling of the poles, increased tropical aridity and major atmospheric circulation changes notable during the periods 9,000 to 8,000, 6,000 to 5,000, and 4,200 to 3,800 BP (Mayewski, et al.- Quaternary Research 62 (2004) 243-255). More recently, as you well know, there were very clear peaks coinciding with the so called Minoan Warming Period (3,300-3,100 yrs BP) -an era likely much in excess of today’s temperatures, the later Roman Warming Period (2,150-2,000 yrs BP) which was probably similar to today, and finally the Medieval Warming Period (1,100 -1,000 yrs BP) which I noted above may well have exceeded the current warming in both amplitude and longevity. Some papers I’ve read assert that the peak of the Holocene optimum may have been between 2-6 degrees F higher than today.
Don’t forget that during this period it was warm enough to maintain what is now the Sahara Desert as large tracts of savannah and forests due to expansion of the tropics, with subsequent cooling episodes the trigger for its eventually slide into an expanding, barren desert landscape that is evident today, when the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) moved south of the Sahel taking monsoons and precipitation with it. In China, about 10,000yrs BP, the ITCZ was centred over Northern China and it then gradually moved south over the Holocene optimum as temperatures cooled till about 3,000yrs BP where it centred more over southern China, where it remains today. Once again evidence that climate was likely warmer at various times during the Holocene optimum and we have been on a gradual overall cooling trend since then, with peaks and troughs intervening with periodicity along the way.
85
No, that’s not a summary of my position.
My position is:
A) We have numerous paleoclimate reconstructions looking at the relationship between sun, CO2 and temperature. These reconstructions can be for relatively recent time periods (going back 300 years or so) or relatively distant time periods (going back 500MA or so).
B) These reconstructions all point to the same thing – most of the long-term variance in temps can be explained by variance in sun and CO2 levels.
C) We can compare the findings from these reconstructions to present day measurements, and there’s an ok fit, but it doesn’t capture all the short-term wiggles. To explain the short-term wiggles we need to add more terms to the model: particularly changes in aerosols (another human contribution), and short-term impacts like large eruptions and ENSO fluctuations. When we do this, we have a lot of explanatory power for temps.
A) 1000 years ago, the northern tree-line in Siberia was further north than today, and at higher altitude than found today –
Different regions experience different temperature histories. If you’re going to tell me that global temps were as high 1000 years ago, you need a global reconstruction, not a list of places that were warmer.
According to the recent study by Rosenthal et al. ( 2013) within the early Holocene period the world’s oceans were probably up to 0.7°C warmer on average than today
Well, they were talking specifically about specific mid-depth water masses in the Pacific. That’s not the same thing as surface temps – so lets stick to comparing apples to apples.
(Mayewski, et al.- Quaternary Research 62 (2004) 243-255)
The RCCs described by Mayewski are not of the 0.17C/decade variety. The paper itself doesn’t put numbers on them though.
I’m wondering though Winston, by citing papers by Rosenthal and Mayewski, does that mean you consider the authors of those papers credible experts?
Your confidence appears questionable, if not completely misplaced, Tristan // that is an utterly baseless assertion on your part, opinion at best rather than evidence.
I’m disinclined respond to further posts featuring this sort of silly rhetoric. It bores me. Let’s stick to the science.
69
First,
I wrote:
To which you responded
That is, in fact, circular logic. It presumes mankind’s influence is not only significant, but that it is the only reason for climate change to be rapid, and uses that belief as evidence to reinforce that belief, plus the argument from ignorance that you don’t know of anything else that could explain it. Clear logic fail.
Second,
I asserted that proxies cannot give the temporal resolution to act as evidence that climate change in the distant past was more or less rapid than now- it is comparing apples with oranges. There simply is no way of telling that with the information at hand. You have said nothing remotely convincing that dissuades me, or anyone else for that matter, from that fact. The current warming since 1980, the only time frame we have any consistent measurement standard (i.e satellites) shows about 0.45 deg C of warming since 1979, a period of 35 years or ~0.12 per decade, yet 1979 was the end of a cold decade, so the trend is likely over estimated in the short term. This would be completely lost if we were looking back from 1000 years from now to ascertain current temperatures using proxies and reconstructions to estimate the climate as it exists now. The noise in the modern data is significantly greater and the resolution is incredibly high, so small fluctuations are weighted at far greater significance than those 1000, or 2000 or 10,000 years ago.
Third,
Mayewski and Rosenthal are no more or less expert than anyone else. Since you won’t accept anything other than peer reviewed paleo-climate studies, it is entirely legitimate for me to use those studies which give lie to your particular version of the past. That they don’t put numbers on them, as you put it, does them credit, since to do so would be like using tea leaves as though they were a precision implement.
In the paper by Krenke, A.N. and Chernavskaya, M.M. 2002. “Climate changes in the preinstrumental period of the last millennium and their manifestations over the Russian Plain”. ( Isvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 38: S59-S79)- the authors note that “the northern margin of boreal forests in Canada was shifted by 55 km [north] during the MWP, and the tree line in the Rocky Mountains in the southern United States and in the Krkonose Mountains was higher by 100-200 m than that observed at the present time.” So, the vast northern coastline of Russia is hardly a localised area given that it covers half the arctic circle, Greenland has Norse settlements that remain under permafrost to this day and the treelike in Canada showed similar effects to that of Northern Russia. If you want to knock yourself out, there are over 1200 peer reviewed studies at Craig Idos’s site “CO2 Science” to look at – the MWP was global, yet alarmists hang on like grim death to Mann’s bristlecone reconstructions that have been showed repeatedly to be flawed in their methodology, and I can give you quotes from his peers that reinforce that if you would like but that would unnecessarily digress from the points made.
The null hypothesis stands. There is nothing that shows definitively that todays climate is anything out of the ordinary. Weather, if anything has been historically benign and stable compared to the early Holocene, and a marked improvement on the experiences of those in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and even the 19th centuries.We just have more forensic analysis of weather events and obsess over them in the absence of context- example- Australia’s millennium drought seems bad until you compare it to the Federation drought, and the 5 more severe droughts in the last 500 years. The recent drought in California seems bad, until you compare it to the 200year+ drought that coincided with the MWP.
Finally, alarm being raised in the absence of good accurate knowledge is irresponsible and is potentially extremely harmful. Running around in a blind panic gets people killed. The models run hot- all 145 of them. To rely on them is the ultimate folly.
145
Winston,
A green thumbs up could not possibly do justice to the trouncing you’ve given to Tristan’s feeble (i.e. failed) attempts at putting forth a credible argument. But you got one anyway. 😉
Rational discourse is not one of Tristan’s strong suits as you’ve shown by revealing his not so clever use of logical fallacies.
This article at NoTricksZone, New Comprehensive Map By Scientists Confirms Medieval Warm Period Was Real And Global, Climate Models Faulty, is also informative. If you click on the map you get a view of the whole world. ( H/T to AndyG55 for the link ).
BTW, wasn’t there a Mann that tried to erase the MWP by using a hockey stick?
Cheers,
Abe
105
I’ll just address one point at a time, to avoid a thread that devolves into 20 different points of contention.
A) Paleoclimate reconstructions over various different eras demonstrate that most global temperature change can be described via the interaction between sun and CO2. Hence CO2 is important. Nothing circular going on. This doesn’t require any priors.
B) We also know the approximate constraints for the rates of change in solar energy and CO2 prevalence for those periods, hence we know the constraints in rates of change in temps. Exceptions to this are instances of rapid deglaciation and massive volcanism, but given we’re discussing the period of the last interglacial, we’ve neatly avoided these.
Nothing circular. It’s just saying we know the formula (roughly) and we know the values that go into the formula (roughly) therefore we can be confident about certain historical properties of climate. We can completely ignore the past 150 years and the above doesn’t change.
57
So, Tristan,
You are almost certainly incorrect in that assertion. If that were so, then models that we have now (you have a 145 or more to choose from, don’t forget) should be able to hind cast and thus “predict” the climate of the early to mid Holocene, but even alarmist scientists do not have the chutzpah to try to claim that as being the case. They may theorise using fudge factors of aerosols and volcanism and tweaking the knobs up and down to make the curves “fit” roughly, but essentially there are possibly several other factors that are not fully understood or quantified that have significant impact on climate.
Evidence from, for example, the paper by Hargreaves et al. (2013), where the authors state
(My bold)
Hargreaves, J. C., Annan, J. D., Ohgaito, R., Paul, A., and Abe-Ouchi, A.: Skill and reliability of climate model ensembles at the Last Glacial Maximum and mid-Holocene, Clim. Past, 9, 811-823, doi:10.5194/cp-9-811-2013, 2013.
I would, if I were provocative enough, suggest an alternative hypothesis to Messrs Hargreaves et al for the “skill” in hind casting the last glacial maximum- i.e that the GCMs all over-represent the influence of CO2 on climate, with CO2 being correlated with temperature (not the other way around) and rapidly expanding glaciation sequestering huge amounts of CO2 plus reducing the amount of plant life on the planetary land masses available for generating sufficient CO2, plus the colder temperatures causing greater CO2 uptake in the oceans via Henry’s Law, it is hardly surprising that the correlation becomes strongest at the peak glaciation. That is because of effect of glaciation on CO2 reduction, not that CO2 reduction caused or influenced the glaciation. But, hey, who am I to tell them their business, right?
We know that there are sundry other influences on climate that are not considered in the GCMs, for example, the ITCZ (Inter-topical convergence zone) migrates with the precession cycle of the earth, and that this has profound effects on location of arid versus tropical zones in the mid latitudes, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2. We know that Extreme UV interacts with ozone, with fluctuations in EUV leading to warming and cooling effects, and we know that fluctuations in the sun’s magnetosphere influence cosmic rays that likely influence global cloudiness and its distribution. ENSO fluctuations being totally unrelated to CO2 but are influenced by the sun primarily, but in ways we are not yet fully understanding from a mechanistic point of view, while lunar tidal effects on such things as plate tectonics and the Earth’s speed of rotation and torque effects, the large planet’s effects on the solar barycentre and possibly upon the speed of rotation of the Earth’s mantle and therefore the Earth’s own magnetic field, etc etc are as yet of uncertain influence and significance.
Climate is clearly extremely complex, it is essentially unpredictable, and we know so little that to pretend otherwise is hubristic nonsense, while to suggest that we have even the faintest idea of how CO2 was responsible for the climate variability seen across the last 12,000 years when CO2 remained largely stable until 1880 or so, is some feat of imagination on your part. Again a product of low resolution proxies, guesstimates, averages, approximations and more than a modicum of suspension of disbelief.
94
So let me get this straight.
You cite a scientific opinion to back up your claim, but then dismiss the parts of that opinion that don’t fit your beliefs? I don’t want to use everyone’s (on both sides) favourite term – but it sure is a great example of that.
Anyway, it sounds like you have more than enough content for a paper of your own. I look forward to its publication.
57
I do not buy the warmists’ alarmist technobabble but I don’t understand how people can say that ‘there is absolutely no correlation between temperature and CO2’ when both the instrumental record and paleo ice-core record show decent enough correlations. Since the 50’s the correlation between CO2 and temperature has been pretty good (see here http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958). Of course, both the instrumental record and paleo-record show that CO2 lags temperature and this can be readily explained by the fact that the oceans outgas CO2 when they warm and absorb CO2 from the atmosphere when they cool. The warming over the last 30-40 or so years can be adequately explained by a decrease in cloud cover. There are at least 20 studies I’ve seen (compiled by Kenneth Richard) showing significant increases in absorbed radiation from decreased cloud cover over the last 30 to 40 years. The increased radiation from the decrease in clouds is sufficient by itself to explain the warming without invoking a trace-gas that constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere.
61
Tristan,
Wrong. Winston cites a paper that evaluates the Skill and reliability of climate model ensembles at the Last Glacial Maximum and mid-Holocene. The authors of that paper report that they found a lack of skill in certain aspects of those climate model ensembles. This is called the data. The reporting of facts.
IOW, the lack of skill in these model ensembles is why Winston cited the paper.
The authors then propose what they believe to be the cause of the lack of skill that they discovered and reported on. Since they don’t know the root cause of this flaw in the models, their proposals of what the possible causes of these flaws might be are only conjectures.
It is these conjectures that Winston objects to. His objection and alternate proposals are based on solid evidence and give us a simpler and more likely explanation of why the reported flaws in the models exist.
This is not cherry picking.
Rational thought, Tristan, rational thought. 😉
Abe
70
Thanks Abe,
Merely putting forth an alternate explanation for what the data is telling us that I suspect the authors wouldn’t be game to say in the current environment of what I like to refer to as The Scientific Inquisition.
60
The authors of that paper report that they found a lack of skill in certain aspects of those climate model ensembles. This is called the data. The reporting of facts.
And they also reported that their results were “predominantly positive for the Last Glacial Maximum”. Presumably this is also, by your definition ‘data’ and ‘reporting of facts’.
However, Winston hand-waves that half of the results away as ‘the models are wrong, they just happened to give that correct output in that scenario’ but accepts the half of the results that conform with his opinions.
In any case, I’m not expert on paleoclimate reconstructions and can’t answer Winston’s technical objections. There are those who can though. Will Winston ask them? I don’t think so. It would require leaving the safe space.
26
Tristan,
It is plainly evident to anyone reading this thread between us that:
a) you are determined to have the last word no matter what,
b) you are equally determined to sidestep any issue I might raise by shifting focus onto my motivations, or my needing an echo chamber or a “safe space” (what a laugh that is- I’ve actively sought to be the contrarian my whole life- wouldn’t know a safe space if I tripped over it- I’m the guy that at age 8 years old told my scripture teacher that I rejected God because he expected us to be like sheep, and that any higher power would have far greater ambitions for his creations than mere blind faith- got me 6 of the best from the principal for disrespecting a man of the cloth, but it was the principle I was more concerned with),
c) erecting strawmen to put words in my mouth (i.e:‘the models are wrong, they just happened to give that correct output in that scenario’- which I never said but you quote me as though your interpretation is what I actually said)- just as an aside, Tristan, you will note that they don’t say they accurately model the entirety of the 90,000 year long glacial period, just the Glacial Maximum, which in itself is interesting for enquiring minds to ponder, given a 90,000 year window is a fairly wide goal mouth to kick a goal through, wouldn’t you say? Even a broken watch is right twice a day Tristan- I would have been surprised, for the reasons I stated above that the models couldn’t get at least that right. For the science to be correct, the models that are based upon the basic tenets of that science need to be correct to within a small margin over a long time interval, and clearly they are not, therefore the parameters are not accurately quantified, and/or all the parameters are not understood. Until they are, nothing, including the exact quantification of the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperature, is certain, or even remotely close to being known with any degree of confidence.
d) you will never accede to any acknowledgement that “the science” (as you all like to refer to it), has enormous gaps in the data, considerable uncertainties in the indirect methods of trying to quantify the past in relation to the present, and enormous difficulties reconciling these issues to give an accurate representation of the truth, rather than just reinforcing the current paradigm of generally held beliefs.
That being said, I would like to sign off from this discussion and offer a small compliment.
Tristan, you at least engaged on some level with what I wrote, you seem to have read it, mulled over it at least a bit, and attempted to respond to some (but not all) aspects of it, and you were generally polite (if not exactly respectful), and for that you deserve some credit, since when I ask direct questions of most alarmists they do everything possible not to reply to what is asked, and diverge into attacking me for the temerity of holding differing opinions to their own, often when they have applied little or no thought of their own to the issue at hand.
72
Red thumb for an honest question. Please explain. I’m intrigued.
84
Didn’t come from me. I rarely issue either thumb.
Your post wasn’t antagonistic or pedantic, even if your ‘please enlighten me’ comment was spurious.
78
Winston,
The green thumb represents agreement and so it doesn’t really require a comment, unless the person giving you one has something they find important enough to add.
The red thumb represents disagreement and so it really does require a comment that explains where/why/how your comment is mistaken. (At least from the point of view of the person voting red.)
That said, we all know that there are people in the world who are influenced by popularity, The Consensus Effect ©. * These people believe that if a large number of other people agree or disagree with some statement or that a large number of people hold a certain position, then that statement or that position must be correct. They believe this not because of the content of the statement or the position, but simply because of it’s popularity. This is similar to what’s been called The Herd Mentality, and statements like, “Just go with flow!”, and “Why make waves?”
Knowing from my experience, and the experience of so many others here, the well known reaction by those that believe CAGW ™ and Global Warming ™ are real, to the effect that, “I don’t want to discuss it!”, together with The Consensus Effect ©, sheds some light on those red thumbs.
If you look at Jo’s page at whos.amung.us, you’ll see that, at any given moment, there’s more than thirty people reading what’s written here. If you click on the word Readers…, and watch the top of the list that appears on your screen for a minute or two, you’ll see that there’s a steady flow of people coming in.
The Red Thumb Bandits know this.
They also know that among those people reading the articles and comments here, there will invariably be some people who use The Consensus Effect © to form their opinions.
The Red Thumbers don’t need to reply and explain themselves because all they’re looking for is the influence that they perceive will be achieved by their vote.
Conclusion
The most important service that web-sites like Jo’s provide to the public at large is the promotion of the use of these three things:
1.) rational thought,
2.) logical arguments, and
3.) the correct usage of the scientific method.
Yes, the facts are presented, and yes, the BS is called out, but as the casual reader goes through the content of both the articles and the comments, they’re exposed to those three things listed above.
This exposure works. The Red Thumbers know it works. If they were to post a comment, the casual reader would then be further exposed to the three items on the list, and that would be counter-productive to their cause!
That’s why they vote red without a comment. Hit, and Run, and Hope for the best.
Abe
* I just coined that phrase which is why there’s a copyright sign next to it. 😉
55
Should take your own advice !
One day , your world will come crashing down when you realize the truth and simplicity of this ‘climate equation of everything’ >> CAGW = BS + AGW = SFA
66
Harry Twinnutter – you should see the warmist attack dogs on Whirlpool forums. It is an echo chamber of maybe half a dozen voices – assuming they aren’t all sock puppets of the same guy.
61
Bulldust.
Name-calling. But with a handle like Bulldust, I probably should not be surprised.
26
Tristan,
This defection must really be irritating to the CAGW ™ cultists if you’ve come back here for another trouncing.
The trolls only ever come here to make comments when a significant article is posted. I.e. one that has obvious, negative repercussions for the true believers. 😉
Abe
227
People change their minds all the time. Every day thousands of people switch from one side to the other, and sometimes they even have PhDs. I don’t see how this chap is particularly meaningful.
725
And yet, here you are!
Abe
147
Learning the difference between correlation and causation will also help you understand science.
721
While correlation might only ‘support’ or ‘suggest’ correlation, where does lack of correlation leave you ?
If the theory doesn’t match observation you’re wrong.
202
If you’re going to look for correlation, or lack thereof, between CO2 and temps you should probably control for the other known forcings before slapping them on a graph. You should probably also instead use the log of CO2, because the relationship is not linear, but loglinear. But if you just want to draw a picture and say Q.E.D. go for it, hey, I’m not gonna stop you.
723
You’ll also need a lag term consistent with the expectations of atmospheric physics.
If you do all of those things, and temps and CO2 still bear little relationship, then bingo, you’ve disproved GHG theory. Quite easy really.
721
I notice that Tristan is using his misdirection and thread bombing techniques again. Proof positive that he/she/they are uncomfortable with the way this conversation has been playing out.
He/she/they are trying to change the topic away from the exposure of the apparent withholding of data by NOAA and GISS, and towards the correllation/causation argument.
[The moderators are aware of the tactic – if the thread bombing and comment stacking persists, the perpetrator may end up in the sin-bin] – Fly
187
Attempted change of subject there – not very well done – clumsy in fact.
Do you want to discuss the alleged with-holding of the original data by NOAA and GISS, or would you rather just pontificate on correlation and causation?
165
It’s not skeptics suggesting a correlation though ‘Tristan’. Good luck with that one.
83
The satellites show a step up in temperatures then a long pause. The fudged thermometer record still shows a large rate of warming when human emissions were not significant (1920-40). A log plot is not going to help make the correlation look better.
You can’t argue “look, the temperatures went up as emissions went up”, then when the poor correlation is pointed out come with “have you got a better explanation?” because “we don’t know” actually is a better answer.
145
Responding to someone’s claim about why I am here is neither misdirection nor thread bombing.
98
RB, I haven’t seen a paper on this supposed step-change that passes muster, either from a statistical angle or a physical angle.
Keep in mind that satellites and surface stations measure different things, and the thigns they measure have different expected responses to increased GHGs
710
Excuse me?
Your science is no better than the last time I trounced you. Back for more hey, anyway…. you say
Well surprise, surprise, Tristan is actually right for once, however before you can model the atmosphere you need to take account of not just one but an infinite number of lags representing every physical situation and heat capacity on earth – That’s the vector sum of an infinite number of unknowable lags between cause and effect.
Tristan’s thermogeddon religion pals though claim that this can be modelled in a simple scalar model, that in a complex chaotic system of weather patterns, that the PATH taken from one thermal state to another is irrelevant, that there are no gross non-linearities such as hysteresis or saturation in the climate!
So Tristan give yourself an own goal, in noting that the effects of lags need to be accounted you have established the impossibility of predicting future thermal states of the planet. Good on you.
125
Ok bobl. You keep on trouncing me and I’ll keep on scoring own goals, or however you wish to characterise it.
Meanwhile, the globe will carry on accumulating energy which will continue to be reflected in the surface temperature indices.
At what point will you doubt yourself bobl? How much more warming will it take? Or is your certainty immune to data?
613
Rereke Whakaaro,
‘I notice that Tristan is using his misdirection and thread bombing techniques again.’
Blimey, talk about pot kettle black.
How you can contradict yourself like this and keep a straight face is beyond me.
413
But ironically not the satellite or balloon or argo measurements. Which seem to indicate that your accumulating energy doesn’t amount to a hill of beans over the last 2 decades.
Meanwhile, since 1990 increased CO2 has increased food production by 10 – 25% allowing the human race to largely avoid famine over the last quarter century.
Tristan, if you want a real debate (again) then I’m up to taking you down and showing yet again the misanthropic effects of your favoured so-called action…
85
You’ll need citations for those claims buddy.
59
He has gone to the considerable effort of examining lots of the data for himself, over a long time, and from that perspective reports that the NASA/ NOAA releases just don’t stack up. Not just another PhD.
192
Great, then I’m sure there’s a paper in it, and his blog post was merely satire.
824
There is a paper – that is what we are discussing. Do try and catch up.
208
I see a blog post on a personal website, not a journal paper. if there’s a paper, feel free to link to it.
812
Tristan.
How dare you try the “show me the evidence” argument, shame on you! 🙂
315
Tristan,
bleating about “journal papers” is pointless. Pal-review has nothing to do with the scientific method, it is just part of academic bureaucracy.
The “we’ll keep these papers out, even if we have to redefine what peer-review means” ClimateGate email utterly destroyed the credibility of an CO2 propagandist tying the “but, but, but it wasn’t pal-reviewed by the approved team” whine now and for all time.
715
Journals are businesses. The journal which published “the paper that killed climate change” would be fist-pumping all the way to the bank. Controversial yet scientifically rigorous papers are the golden eggs.
713
.
Tristan:
You said “Journals are businesses”
Sort of like the Climate Spectator?
Why did this fail?
Alan said lack of:
Advertising revenue
Adverse opinions by the editor
ETC
ETC
Strange really
Sort of like Skeptical Science Website!
72
Tristan,
all your reply revealed is that you have no challenge to my factual claim – “Pal-review has nothing to do with the scientific method, it is just part of academic bureaucracy. “
Funny thing, another sceptic once included the build instructions and results of one of my initial climate experiments in a paper that passed pal-review and got published in a journal. I objected. I assisted with the paper’s forced retraction. Quisling lukewarmers may think this harsh. But then lukewarmers never seem to grasp “principle before side”.
Now I work with peer review all the time. Sod science, in engineering it is truly serious. In science passing a crap paper costs you nothing. In engineering, take on peer review on others work and your professional liability is at stake.
My work has passed engineering peer review, and I too have had to assess others. This is a big deal. This means edge of the envelope stuff is going on. Hence the engineering awards and commendations. “Travesty” Trenberth passing “scientific” pal-review? Your “hero” is a worthless lightweight.
Adding radiative gases to a radiatively cooled atmosphere cannot reduce its radiative cooling ability, nor its ability to cool the solar heated surface of our planet. You and yours are reduced to defending a lie to hide the burning shame of the scientifically illiterate left. You cannot sustain the lie forever, and AGW sceptics grow in number by the day. How do you think this is going to work out?
1213
“Pal-review has nothing to do with the scientific method, it is just part of academic bureaucracy.“
Factual claim? What’s the fact exactly? Looks like an opinion to me.
128
Tristan,
You wrote “… every day thousands of people switch from one side to the other”
You are correct, but people are only switching from believer to skeptic.
Do the math…
197
I’m sure it provides comfort to think that, but acceptance rates of the theory/dangers of climate change wobbles up and down with the seasons.
1012
The warmists have made a huge error of judgement in moving the conversation from a warming planet to extreme weather caused by AGW.
113
Tristan,
Name 3 skeptics who have become believers.
76
Firstly, every rational individual starts out skeptical. I was skeptical at one point. I didn’t ever go ‘full skeptic’ with a gish gallop of talking points picked up from internet blogs, but I started out with a raised eyebrow – especially when I first encountered the ‘800-yr lag’ graph (which I think Jo mentioned was a watershed moment for her).
There’s also the well-worn skeptic road from A to D:
A) Unusual climate change is not happening
B) Ok, it is happening, but it’s not us
C) Ok, it is us, but it’s not bad
D) Ok it is us, and is bad, but it’ll cost too much to fix.
But to satisfy the question you wanted to ask, a quick googling reveals Richard Muller, Michael Shermer, Gregg Easterbrook, Stu Ostro and Michael Hanlon.
And here’s a recent quote from Bjorn Lomborg:
“[The COP21 pledges] will solve about one per cent of the global warming problem,” he said.
“The only real way to solve global warming is to make green energy so cheap everyone wants it.
If we want the world to switch we need to dramatically increase investment in research and develoment of green energy.”
911
Tristran,
Still waiting for the answers to my questions? Are you still a misanthropist who is ok with freezing grannies in winter and depriving half of humanity of reliable energy and a chance at a western equivalent lifespan?
138
Ahh the classic ‘Do you still beat your wife?’
Good one bobl!
810
A) The climate is not behaving unnaturally.
B) Climate has always changed and humans had no part to play in the warming of late last century.
C) Post hoc ergo propter hoc
D) Nevertheless the extra small amount of human induced CO2 has been beneficial in greening the planet over the past three decades.
Shame about Lomborg embracing the dark side, along with the pope, the whole thing stinks to high heaven of enlightened self interest.
88
Tristan, It’s not gish gallop when discussion points are in written form. Are you suggesting you were overwhelmed by all the skeptical evidence and it appeared like gish gallop to you? That would explain a lot.
What does your icon represent? Are they dice with a radioactive symbol? Why is the boy smiling?
I am going to have a guess. The dice represent our uncertain future. You are happy because you have all the wisdom and through you (the thrower of the dice) the world will be saved.
Anyone else like to have a guess?
62
The term Gish Gallop originated from oral debates, but has since been used to refer to the strategy of single-post lists of objections that require a lot more time to unpack and rebut than the time taken to write them (Or copy/paste them, as the case may be).
That character is almost always smiling, even when doing something ‘horrible’. It’s an example of humour through incongruity. The nuclear icon on the die refers to the ‘gamble’ of nuclear power, specifically in relation to nuclear war, which in this character’s world, happened. It’s the gambling icon for the Fallout series of post-apocalyptic video games. I have fond memories of that series, the character always amused me, and I like probability.
76
I suggest you identify closely with the character and the video games heavily influenced your world view. The smile is not funny, it either represents enjoyment from inflicting pain or it is a mask to hide fear.
Tristan do you come to this blog just to get enjoyment from inflicting pain or are your here (in utter futility) to influence the roll of apocalyptic dice? The computer game has to end at some point.
Can I suggest there are better models for life, that give hope, than apocalyptic computer games.
God bless you Tristan
52
And to be sure as night follows day,or……never mind.
21
Tristan.
‘People change their minds all the time. Every day thousands of people switch from one side to the other, and sometimes they even have PhDs. I don’t see how this chap is particularly meaningful.”
He isn’t particularly meaningful. I suspect it is a publicity stunt. Anyway I would like to see him in a correctly-moderated debate get up and accuse NOAA and others of ‘cooking the books’.
49
Harry, I’m not sure those sorts of debates are constructive (although we might see them play out in court at some point in the future). If any ‘skeptic’ wants a debate all they need do is trot over to science of doom or openmind or skeptical science and stick around once they start getting bench-pressed. But they don’t want that.
710
Tristan.
‘Harry, I’m not sure those sorts of debates are constructive…’
What they want is an echo-chamber, it is part of the confirmation bias mentality. If they wanted a good-faith discussion yes they can go over to SkS etc, but if they start sloganeering or making factually-incorrect comments, they won’t last long. When a pseudo-skeptic meets real skeptics, it usually is not pretty 🙂
But I do consider these types of debates worthwhile. For every garden-variety attack dog or insulter, there are several bystanders.
410
The old man at Science of Doom has been talking about renewables for an awful long time, no value in that, and Cook’s SS bible doesn’t allow for open debate.
Personally I’m happy to have your company at the barricades, the final battle for the hearts and minds of the masses is drawing near and you can play a pivotal part.
84
Harry,
Interesting you say that. Before even knowing Jo’s site existed, I was introduced to climate science by reading and observing SkS for a good 12 months. I never commented, merely observed the comments and responses. I noted that even the most reasonable contrary questions were greeted with utter disdain, Many of the responses were either misdirections or the manipulative offerings that revolved around the use of circular reasoning, and if I went back to a thread to recheck some previous comments, I’d find whole comment threads had disappeared into thin air or had been altered. So, far from a fair hearing, it was a turkey shoot with regulars there colluding in their responses and ganging up on perfectly reasonable people questioning in what was supposed to be a scientific forum. The truth was secondary to reinforcing each other’s belief system. It converted me to skepticism as a consequence.
137
[…] a tip from JusttheTipHQ. Hat tip: JoNova. Source link jQuery.ajax({url: "http://www.theunitedvoiceofamerica.com/", data: {top_ten_id: […]
10
I would have thought that Numbers would be all over this one… instead we again have this other silly tag team. Must be his day off……
124
Hey, there are 33 comments from the global warming believers on just this topic.
That is equal to the total number of comments they posted to Skeptical Science for 2015.
Something has got them warmies a bit ansy, maybe too much maple syrup, or maybe no one wants to be on their team.
275
another hilarious Fairfax piece.
writer Warden now tells us he had “sort of noticed” no-one in his “famously educated and worldly” Canberran circle ever brought up the CAGW topic, but he only tells us this because he has some Robert Manne gobblegook to explain it!
28 Dec: Canberra Times: Ian Warden: Is climate change a Canberra conversation-stopper?
We think we may have caught glimpses of Canberra and Canberrans while reading in Robert Manne’s essay Diabolical in the new, Summer Issue of The Monthly, of a study of a Norwegian town.
On to this Nordopolis in a moment, after we have made the observation that Canberrans are famously well-educated and well-informed. And so any probing survey of Canberrans’ knowledge of, and belief in, climate change would surely show that (other than a few deniers who show up in the fossil bed that it is this paper’s Letters page) Canberrans believe that scientists are right and that climate change really is happening and really does matter…
And yet, enlightened Canberrans, do you notice that there is precious little everyday discussion of the issue and its potentially planet-menacing, great-grandchildren monstering ramifications? Does it ever crop up as a topic around the barbie, or in any discussions among your workmates and playmates? Do our MPs ever pipe up about it? If the subject never, ever comes up, and this among a people (Canberrans) famously educated and worldly, does this phenomenon strike you as passing strange?.
***This columnist had sort of noticed it but, shy and self-effacing, had thought it might be just me being eccentric…
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-life/is-climate-change-a-canberra-conversationstopper-20151227-glvlz8.html
Dec-Jan Issue: The Monthy: Robert Manne: Diabolical
Why have we failed to address climate change?
Our conscious destruction of a planet friendly to humans and other species is the most significant development in history. In response, in 1988 the international community, under the umbrella of the United Nations, created perhaps the most remarkable co-operative scientific enterprise: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On five occasions – 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007 and 2014 – it has provided policymakers and the world’s publics with comprehensive and conservative summaries of the conclusions of the thousands of climate scientists. Each new report has grown more certain than the last about the gravity of the dangers we are facing. Interestingly, however, social scientists other than economists – sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, students of international relations – have not been invited to contribute to the IPCC reports nor have they participated in the global conversation on climate change. This is seriously strange…
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/december/1448888400/robert-manne/diabolical
don’t fret, Manne. IPCC looks like handing the job over to the social scientists for their next big report. the science isn’t doing the trick.
as for your claim “nor have they participated in the global conversation on climate change” – think Lewandowsky, or Dan Kahan who you include in your piece. if only we’d been spared their CAGW nonsense, which boils down to let us do your thinking for you. a bit like your “diabolical” piece, hey?
31
One of the fallacies in the 97% argument, the ‘mainstream’ of Mr Two Otters, is that Climate Science is utterly dependent on many branches of physics, mathematics, chemistry, mathematical modelling and it is not exclusive. So to ignore advice from tens of thousands of physicists, mathematicians, chemists and geologists, historians, mathematical modellers and those with massively parallel and essential skill sets is to create an exclusive world which is fantasy. It is not the ‘mainstream’ but a fantasy exclusive world.
To ignore all these people is utterly wrong and deceitful. As before, in creating his 97%, two thirds of Cook’s climate papers do not support man made climate change but according to Cook, saying nothing is full justification for exclusion. That is how he comes up with 97%. He even argues that these 2/3 implicitly agree by simply writing on the warming which according to Cook could not exist without humans but he is generous in leaving such people completely out of his result. According to Cook, silence is agreement.
Has he ever considered that there are other reasons to go along with global warming, These include but are not limited to peer pressure, the need for continued funding, the self evident highly political nature of the topic and mortgages and school fees? What sort of madman would hope to keep his job and even get published if he disagreed. Cook only found 46 of these, so he has his 97% of 33% of those who publish on the subject.
Worse, tens of thousands of objections from physicists, chemists, geologists, mathmeticians, engineers, computer modellers and even historians are just ignored. He did what meteorology departments do around the world, he selected his data set carefully to get the result he wanted. That is not science but politics. Disageeing with man made global warming is injurious to your career.
Doesn’t it occur to anyone that 97% consensus cannot be true, even when choosing dessert? What sociologist even would consider that 97% of any group of people having the same opinion is likely? Man made global warming is not factual.
There is no evidence at all to support man made global warming but if your job was dependent on agreeing, how many would have the courage to disagree? How many kept clapping Stalin for half an hour because thy knew the first one to stop clapping was shot.
133
as Maurice Newman wrote in his Australian piece – Chilling climate of UN control (subscription required) – referenced in the comments above from junkscience & the guardian:
“The media, in step with the Green Machine, will bombard us with climate alarmism”
and so it is:
28 Dec: The Atlantic: Hope & Despair: Can the Planet Be Saved?
Experts on ecology, conservation, and climate change offer their reasons for optimism and pessimism going into 2016.
by Rebecca J. Rosen, Adrienne Green, Li Zhou, Alana Semuels, and Bourree Lam
The two words “climate” and “change” are so routinely strung together that just saying them as a pair—“climate change”—seems to somehow obscure the full weight of the phenomenon they describe, to say nothing of its consequences. But in those moments when one pauses to consider the ramifications of human activity on the planet for generations and generations ahead, things can feel beyond bleak…
We reached out to some of the leading scholars of climate change, conservation, and ecology, and asked them what, as the Earth begins yet another trip around the sun, is giving them cause for hope and despair. Below are their answers, lightly edited for length and clarity…
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/hope-despair-climate-change/421794/
61
Self-evident to people actually in the sciences (especially the applied sciences), but goes over the heads of the scientifically illiterate/mathematically innumerate segments of the population:
studying and analysing climate is MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
There exists no “climate scientist” per se; rather, physicists, chemists, geologists, mathmeticians, engineers, computer modellers and even historians have turned their attentions to various aspects of a multi-disciplined, non-linear, chaotic, coupled set of phenomena we label climate
This obvious fact is ignored by the MSM, who almost to a person, have decided by hubristic decree that saving the planet is what they were born for. The sh!t part of this sandwich is that there is no way to alter this, even in the mid-term (ie. 20-30 years), so the beat goes on
I suppose there is some hope, though. We did stop burning witches eventually, albeit after centuries of practice
82
Lots of things are multidisciplinary!
‘Climate Science’ can be a useful moniker for papers related to climatic change, and ‘Climate Scientist’ can be a useful moniker for scientists who publish papers related to climatic change – especially if their collection of published articles is relatively broad in scope.
There may be a few exceptions, but the majority of scientists who publish within the remit of climate science would, as you say, would refer to themselves first as glaciologists, oceanic hydrographers, atmospheric physicists etc.
Science reporting in the media is and always has been terrible.
68
Your speciality is euphimistic statements of the bleeding obvious
And very well you do at it, too, indeed
“Climate scientist” is only a useful “moniker” (your word) for propagandists attempting to belittle or destroy an adverse view from a qualified person. You think I don’t understand you ? …
113
29 Dec: UK Daily Mail: Vanessa Allen: Days when wind farms run at 10% capacity: Union say figures show renewable energy cannot be relied upon and Britain needs nuclear and gas-powered energy plants
Wind turbines produced just 10 per cent of their energy capacity during almost a fortnight of the last three months, it was claimed yesterday…
Britain has invested £1.25billion in wind power, which is now the country’s biggest renewable energy source.
But critics have accused the Government and the National Grid of complacency over the risk of blackouts following the closure of coal-fired power stations.
A wind shortage last month (November) forced the National Grid to use new ‘last resort’ measures to keep the lights on in homes across the country on November 4…
Major industries were asked to down tools to protect energy supplies following high demand, power plant breakdowns and low wind power output.
At one point, wind farms were meeting only 0.5 per cent of the nation’s electricity demand, compared to the average 10 per cent.
But in late November, dozens of wind turbines had to be switched off due to safety concerns when Storm Barney hit Britain.
Gusts of up to 85mph swept across the country, prompting fears they could overload the system or damage turbines…
GMB General Secretary Paul Kenny said: ‘The renewables lobby has to face up to the need for a base load electricity capacity that is reliable and clean on the days that the wind does not blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
‘When your electricity supply has ‘Gone with the Wind’, the response of the renewable energy suppliers that ‘Frankly my dear we don’t give a damn’ is just not acceptable.’
Industry body RenewableUK has insisted that wind power is a ‘success story’ for Britain, and generated 9.5 per cent of the UK’s electricity from July to September, the last period for which figures were available…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3376860/Days-wind-farms-run-10-capacity-Union-say-figures-renewable-energy-relied-Britain-needs-nuclear-gas-powered-energy-plants.html
50
24 Dec: WindAction: SWEDEN: 400-ton turbine has turned over
A Vestas wind turbine fell over during Christmas Eve morning in Lemnhult, Korsberga in Sweden. The model belong to one of the tallest land-based wind turbines with a height of 185 meters …and weighed about 400 tons, according to Stena Renewables CEO Peter Zachrisson…
“We just saw that it had turned over, it’s totally kaput,” says Nathalie Petersson who was in the area.
An alarm was received about two o’clock on Christmas Eve afternoon concerning oil leaking from a wind farm in Lemnhult, Korsberga. There was a risk the pollutants might leak into a lake but following an investigation it was discovered that a larger wind turbine had fallen – and split in two.
High winds were not reported in the area. There was no known explanation for what happened…
An unknown amount of oil from the plant gearboxes has already leaked into the ground. He is in contact with the municipality and Stena Renewable, to prevent further environmental impact…
It belongs to the highest land-based class of wind turbines, they say according to Morgan Miledal…
(Editor’s note: Other sources state that Stena Renewables’ Lemnhult project in Vetlanda municipality consists of 32 Vestas V112 3MW turbines. The project was placed in service in Spring 2013. Translation into English was completed with Google translate.)
http://www.windaction.org/posts/43999-sweden-400-ton-turbine-has-turned-over#.VoH1rJJuncc
24 Dec: RENews: Vestas V112 collapses in Sweden
A Vestas V112 3MW turbine has collapsed at Stena Renewable’s 96MW Lemnhult wind farm in Sweden.
The company said the machine failed during the morning of 24 December and that the wind farm’s other 31 turbines were shut down immediately as a precaution.
No one was injured in the incident, a technical investigation is underway and local authorities and other stakeholders have been briefed.
“It is now currently known how long the investigation will take,” said Stena…
He (Vestas spokesman) added that incidents involving structural integrity are very rare. “We have not experienced a megawatt-class turbine collapsing before. The main priority at this point is to determine the root cause”…
Lemnhult was built staring in 2012 with full operations kicking off in 2013.
A third-party video image (LINK) of the felled turbine has been posted online.
http://renews.biz/101010/vestas-v112-collapses-in-sweden
40
4 Dec: RENews: Vattenfall deconstructs Stengrund
Vattenfall has kicked off decommissioning at the 10MW Yttre Stengrund offshore wind farm in the southern Kalmarsund off Sweden…
Vattenfall said the 15-year-old turbines at Yttre Stengrund are an “obsolete model” and not commercially viable to upgrade.
The final unit was shut down last year following a series of issues including gearbox failures. “In total, only around 50 of these turbines were manufactured and spare parts and no longer available,” said Vattenfall.
The utility will dismantle the turbines and remove offshore cables. Foundations will also be cut off level with the sea bed. The majority of the wind turbines, foundations and cables will be sold or recycled as scrap.
Yttre Stengrund was originally due to be dismantled last year, which would have made it the world’s first offshore wind decommissioning. Eon has since beaten the Swedes to the punch by removing two Vestas V90 turbines at its Robin Rigg wind farm off Scotland
http://renews.biz/100740/vattenfall-deconstructs-stengrund/
14 Dec: Wind Power Monthly: Cracked shaft possible cause of Repower turbine collapse
FRANCE: Preliminary results of an investigation into a turbine collapse in France indicate a fault in the machine’s shaft caused the rotor to fall to the ground
Senvion, which was known as Repower when the turbines were installed, said that it could not comment until the full investigation to identify the exact cause was completed.
The project, comprising seven Repower MD77 turbines, was commissioned in 2007. It was developed by Wpd and built by ABOWind, and is now owned by Eoliennes Suroit SNC, based in Colmar, north-east France…
The remaining six turbines are still out of service, waiting for permission from the French authorities to restart them, Wpd Windmanager said.
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1376880/cracked-shaft-possible-cause-repower-turbine-collapse
50
pat mentions this: (my bolding)
Say, just imagine, when they were installed, the blurb stated they were the state of the art latest technology wind turbines in a plant virtually guaranteed to last 25 years and generate electricity at the modelled 38% Capacity Factor, (and being offshore, the modelling they say can be as high as 45%) and were quoted at that modelled figure to generate a total of 830GWH over their lifetime, not that they ever said that anywhere on any information.
In actual fact, over their life they probably delivered a total of 230GWH, which is about 27% of what was expected from them.
You get excuses that they are now an, umm, obsolete model, and not commercially viable to upgrade.
Note here that it’s not a case of just plonking a new nacelle on top of the tall concrete pole with the same rotating fan out the front. No. The whole shebang has to come down in total. Then if they want to replace it, they need to construct a whole new plant from scratch.
The current average age of every coal fired power plant unit in the US is around 45 years plus, and around 7/8 years back, that average was a tick under 50 years old. That’s not just a few plants, but every single plant in the US.
Same here in Oz. Virtually every existing coal fired power plant is older than this failed wind plant, nearly all of them double the age of this failed wind plant.
When a coal fired plant is new, it operates flat out for years usually. Even with regular maintenance, they still operate at a yearly CF close to 75%.
Once a coal fired plant gets umm, long in the tooth, you know, around 30 to 35 years, they (sometimes) fall back into the category of rotating reserve, spinning reserve, rolling reserve, call it what you will, but they still deliver power when called upon. More often they still get used fully.
There are coal fired plants still in operation at 70 plus years in the U.S. with units still operational as long as they feed in the coal.
Obsolete, certainly. Ready to be upgraded, certainly. Able to be upgraded, why yes. New units on the same site, while the old ones are still operational, and as the new unit comes on line they demolish the old units.
So, one last thing.
This failed wind plant, now obsolete. During its 15 year lifespan, it delivered around 230GWH of power ….. in total ….. across its 15 years.
That’s the same amount of power delivered by Bayswater with all 4 units in operation (which is happening right now at 3.30PM Tuesday 29DEC2015) in, umm, ….. 3 Days and 15 hours.
I don’t care a hoot how cheap they say wind is. They can claim that they can give it away for free. Who bl00dy cares. IT DOESN’T WORK.
Tony.
151
2 Dec: Wind Power Monthly: Siemens investigates turbine collapse
DENMARK: The nacelle and rotor blades of a 13-year-old 2.3MW Bonus turbine at the Samso offshore project in Denmark broke from the tower and fell into the sea on 28 November…
Siemens, which took over Bonus in 2004 and is responsible for the maintenance of the turbines at the 23MW project, commissioned in 2002-03, is investigating the cause of the unit’s sudden collapse.
“As a precautionary measure, the customer initially decided to take the remaining nine turbines out of operation until physical inspections could be conducted,” said a Siemens spokesperson…
http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1375561/siemens-investigates-turbine-collapse
30
van Beizen isn’t the only one to find the data sets altered:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.1iQteqPT.dpbs
83
Christopher Booker on the biggest ever science scandal
122
Rod
I poked the survey.
85% of a considerable number of respondents agree that global warming is exaggerated
91
RS,
All this from someone who also doubts the theory of evolution, passive smoking links to cancer and asbestos links to cancer. Maybe its because he’s just a journo and knows sfa about science ?
[Warning: message may contain boring ad hom – J]
410
You forgot the moon landing one.
70
Jo,
Do you really want to be in the same camp with Chris ?
Also, pointing out the fact he has zero sci credentials is a relevant fact and not an ad hom.
[That question is, in and of itself, an ad hominem – an attack against the man, and not on the truth of the information he shares. Be careful what you wish for Frank] -Fly
[FRANK! this is an ad-hom on top of the ad-hom that Jo reluctantly let through. You are wearing your welcome very thin. If it were only me to decide, you’d already be banned. Tread lightly, even more lightly than your intellect usually is able to support.]ED
49
What are you even saying? You people regularly tell people they can’t post, due to the fact you don’t agree with their scientific analyses. I have seen multiple people complain they have every word deleted simply because they don’t agree that Green House Gas Effect science is basically sound.
You need to support some intellectual credibility yourself, media hack.
31
Frank, that was meant to be a red thumb, not a green one. I’m becoming very bored with your posts; fare ye well, old sport.
72
Rod Stuart.
‘When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.’
This is what is know as ‘poisoning the well’. It is probably ‘begging the question’ as well.
Very very shabby journalism from Christopher Booker.
211
Mods
This post appears to have unnecessarily offensive tone ?
Maybe, in light of some of the stuff I have posted I am not the one to bring this up but the comment has no relationship at all to the debate apart from a nasty intent to offend.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/10-reasons-we-know-global-warming-is-not-man-made-physics-prof-explains-his-switch-to-skepticism/#comment-1774378
21
(SNIPPED,off topic. It has been dealt with by a mod no need to continue to talk about it here) CTS
14
Very simply put, if you fit a trendline to both graphs the unadjusted data has a downward slope, meaning the temperatures are falling, whilst the adjusted data has a upward slope, meaning the temperatures are rising. “Adjusting” data in such a way that it proves the exact opposite is [snip].
[edited by request and snipped by rule. The “F” word must be used carefully.]ED
21
Liz,
not necessarily true.
The downward slope may be due to a cooling bias in the measurement, not a cooling trend in the measured temperature. Take for example the case where a Stephenson Screen is relocated from a town out to an airport with an exposed location, but retains the same station number.
Careful analysis can show where a cooling bias has occurred, and it can be adjusted to restore the true trend in the measured temperature. Ditto for a warming bias.
13
No one who ever seriously took pause to analyze the atmosphere in relation to the earth, who was a practicing working thermodynamicist in – any field – where gas and energy meet
believed the gases of the atmospheric envelope can do anything but cool the object immersed within it.
Anyone who sat at their kitchen table and considered a sphere rotating in vacuum with light illuminating it,
and pondered conditions before an atmosphere – 100% energy in, single mode energy gain, – radiant gain – and single mode energy loss – radiant loss
understanding step by step process of thermodynamics knows there can’t be a source of energy gain from the substances creating multi-mode energy loss.
You have to be an authority worshipper to be forced to say you think a frigid self refrigerated bath possesses a heating component.
Immediately upon suspension of an atmosphere around the planet diffraction loss mode cooling is instituted.
Oxygen kicks out a small amount of light creating blue skies.
Oxhygen’s kickout also is seen from outside the atmosphere as the thin blue haze of atmosphere.
Oxygen however only diffraction cools a small amount.
By far the vast majority of diffraction mode cooling is caused by virtue of existence of the green house gas coolants.
They currently reduce energy to the surface of the globe 20%.
If more were added until they reduced energy to the surface of the globe by 21% that is amplification of diffraction cooling.
Only brain dead authority worshippers refuse to meet and acknowledge that truth.
When diffraction mode cooling is accounted for the atmospheric envelope is still many degrees colder than the surface of the sphere.
This gives rise to the second distinctly described and defined, named mode of energy loss or cooling created by virtue of existence of the atmosphere: conduction.
Green house gas coolant water leads the pack in cooling per molecule. Not as a magical heater as coolant engaged in thermodynamic energy reduction process.
There is a third mode of energy reduction created by virtue of existence of the atmosphere and this is an acceleration of the second mode.
Convection is associated with the rise in accordance with gravity of energized molecules, making room for others to take their place and cool the surface as they setttle against it.
Green house gas species water is alone and solely responsible for the unique acceleration of this mode caused by it’s changing phase.
Green house gas water cools the surface in evaporation and rising as other gases do it eventually emits energy to lower-energy regimes.
Upon this energy dump green house gas water contracts to solid changing phase for the second time, returning to earth faster than if it remained gas.
The green house gases create three separate, uniquely described and defined energy reduction process in regard to the earth.
The atmosphere creates three separately described, defined, mathematically bounded modes of cooling of the earth.
There is no such thing as any frigid self refrigerating bath warming sensors immersed into it.
Placing more of the substances creating 1% energy loss in diffraction cooling, then 10% energy loss in diffraction cooling, then 20% loss in cooling,
till there is 21% loss of energy in, does not create warming simply because you point and say ‘warming occurred.’
No one
who believes in the concept of green house gases as heaters for the planet, wishes to see anyone else discuss simple, block diagram thermodynamics regarding a frigid refrigerated bath and an object immersed in it.
Because it is all fake they have been forced to bark they believe in or government scammers said they would’t spit in the non believers’s face.
The good guys blinked and exclaimed ”ok the atmosphere can heat the planet.”
AT that point the good guys lost the war.
There has never been in any literature a freezing cold bath that made objects immersed in them warmer than if there were no cold bath.
The very definition of how to keep something from cooling best is to suspend it in vacuum.
No one
who is a real thermodynamicist
believes in green house gas warming and will show up and defend it: because it’s utterly indefensible as soon as someone just grabs a pen and says ”let’s see if you understand the difference between more and less energy falling on a thermometer.
43
Sadly in Point 10 the good professor still appears to agree with the fictitious fiddled physics pertaining to radiation. Yes CO2 may absorb some radiation, but that absorption bears no relationship whatsoever to the surface temperature, and never can. The surface temperature is not determined primarily by radiation in the first place, because back radiation cannot be added to solar radiation and the total used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. A totally different paradigm based on entropy maximization is what determines planetary temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantle and cores. I suggest reading my comments starting with those towards the end of the next Unthreaded post.
04
You see, this is where we can ascertain that Prof Mike Van Biezen is not really onto what is happening in atmospheric physics. He scoffs at those who say “the atmosphere can heat the planet” (and that is indeed not true of radiation from a colder atmosphere) but he has no alternative correct explanation as to why the mean surface temperature is what it is, and how the surface does actually get the required thermal energy. The direct mean radiation from the Sun is less than 170W/m^2 and that is like the radiation from a nearby iceberg at around 40 degrees below freezing point. So, when we rule out the impossible, what is left must be possible – energy received from the atmosphere by non-radiative processes. I have challenged Mike to consider what I have explained, but we’ll see.
03