Carbon dioxide only causes 1.1°C of warming if it doubles. That’s according to the IPCC. Did you know?
The real game is water.
Researchers made guesses about humidity and clouds in the early 1980s and they built these guesses into their models. We now know they were wrong, not about carbon, but about water in the form of humidity and clouds. Here’s how the models can be right about carbon and wrong about the climate.
Here’s how the models can be right about carbon and wrong about the climate.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it warms the planet. The modellers guessed that as the world warmed, more water would evaporate, and the rising humidity would lock in more heat. Makes sense. Humid nights are warmer than clear nights.
This is called “feedback” — carbon warms us, which lifts humidity, which warms us even more, at least in theory. But water is complex and fickle. Humidity can stay ‘humid’, or turn into low clouds, high clouds, or fall out as rain, hail or snow. And they all have a different effect.
Every prediction over 1.1 degrees relies on “feedback” of some sort. But what if that extra humidity turned into low clouds? What if it just rained out? What if fewer high clouds formed? Any of these would cool the planet.
Without the effects of feedbacks to amplify carbon’s minor warming, there is no disaster, and that’s exactly what the observations tell us. Lindzen found that as the planet warms it gives off more radiation. Spencer found that as the planet warms, we get fewer high clouds. Paltridge found that humidity levels have fallen. The missing hot spot shows the models are wrong. There goes almost all of the warming. The models exaggerate by a factor of six. The 3.3°C scare is really only about half a degree of extra warmth.
Who needs to transform economies to prevent half a degree of warming, most of which has already happened?
Who indeed?
Sources: Feedbacks: (projected) IPCC Assessment Report 4, AR4 Chapter 8. (Measured) Lindzen et al 2009. Clouds: Spencer et al 2007. Humidity, Paltridge et al, 2009.
TURN THE PAGES (Links will become active as pages are published). You are on the page in the Red Square.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 + 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
This is page 6 of The Skeptics Handbook II. 20 page PDF
The “Skeptics Handbook” is a wonderful contribution. Thanks!
31
Clouds and water vapor have the real greenhouse effect. The relative humidity can reach 100%. CO2 is under 400 parts per 1,000,000. Water goes to 1,000,000 parts per 1,000,000
Adding particulates which we call aerosol pollution increases condensation.
Then with increased condensation, we have rain and the air cleaned itself.
The natural system cleans itself.
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it warms the planet”
From above. I prefer saying CO2 decreases radiation and dispersal of heat to a very small extent at the most.
20
Doesn’t this also fit with the amplification theory on sunspots and cosmic rays, magnetic field etc? see co2science.org index under “Cosmic Rays and Climate Change” This summary basically says that more low clouds also causes global cooling. This article also indicates that there is good correlation with cosmic ray activity and the ups and downs of global temperatures over millions of years. sincerely Ray Hull
30
Joanne,
You clearly explain how the alarmist case is substantially based on a demonstrably false assumption in a computer model.
If the press had not refused to cover the cooling period of the last 12 years, they might have thereby allowed the “modelers” to “adjust” their inaccurate models. Last year I mentioned the cooling to a journalist/alarmist, and he said he didn’t know any scientists who were aware of the trend. I guess he should have gotten out more!
Good job.
10
Is there anything left to support global warming evangelism? Not only does the science invalidate it but so does the environment!
10
[…] Dont begrudge the skepticism it can onyl help the debate, one flaw that wipes out the crisis, […]
10
Joanne,
Fantastic information. Many thanks.
Please be very careful about the trend to adopt warmists’ language. Referring to CO2 as ‘carbon’, is a step in the direction of referring to it as ‘pollution’.
10
Twawki (#5)…
“Global warming evalgelism” has primarily been supported by ideological and political standpoints, coupled with the ambitions of those who seek to use it as a platform to riches and power. As far as I know, plenty of all of the above still exist.
10
As the lower atmosphere warms and becomes more humid, the upper atmosphere becomes dryer. This is because the relative difference in temp between the two increases. Space has a constant temperature of 0 K so when the lower atmosphere warms and becomes more humid, cloud formation begins at lower altitude due to the relative difference in temperature between the lower and upper atmosphere causing the upper atmosphere to become dryer. Relativity!
Incidentally CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Only a gas in a greenhouse can be referred to as a greenhouse gas. Heat absorption is just one of the characteristics of CO2 and all other gasses for that matter. To understand how gasses respond to heat we have know what their respective melting points are and also we have to consider convection among other things. The reason the AGW fraudsters have been able to call CO2 a greenhouse gas is because they have ignored convection in their computer models. A greenhouse is designed to prevent warm air from rising. That is the function of a greenhouse. The prevention of convection. If you program a climate model and deliberately leave out convection you create a greenhouse effect.
And don’t try saying that the greenhouse effect is well established science, more than a hundred years old because that is just more lies. If it wasn’t for the fact that AGW fraudsters have been quoting 150 year old pseudo scientist frauds such as John Tyndall who have been debunked and humiliated many times over in the past, perhaps we would not be in this ridiculous and extremely dangerous situation we are in now.
Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
11
Yup, this is pretty much where the game is won and lost. Water Vapor and Clouds.
10
And Carbonhagen here we come – 2 weeks of vested interests, profiteering and fraudulent science – where has the MSM gone?
10
In my view the key to the sensitivity to CO2 (temperature rise for each doubling of atmospheric pCO2) does lie with the role of clouds. However need to remember that the Earth’s climate has been molded by long-evolved biogenic effects which IPCC and the whole AGW bandwagon in their post-modernist foolishness completely ignore.
Several years ago I constructed a small Excel spreadsheet model estimating (and harvesting from the literature) average (and standard deviations) global typical heat fluxes over the maximum possible range of global cloud covers/SW IR albedos. Most of my technical posts on this matter were posted on the Niche Modeling blog. Using this little spreadsheet model I identified that Earth’s global climate system clearly does exert a form of homeostasis (a self-correcting stability) but to do this one needs to consider the critical non-radiative aspects of world’s non-equilibrium thermodynamic system i.e. latent and sensible heat fluxes and their relationship to cloud cover, albedo and hence OLR (Outward Leaving Radiation). These aspects tend to maximize entropy – the Maximum Entropy Production (MEP) principle. There is a quite extensive mainstream science MEP literature – but again largely ignored by the AGW orthodoxy
Thus IMHO the likely answer to what (?) provides a form of long term global climate homeostasis is fairly simple (to those who are prepared to see it ;-):
(1) More CO2 in the atmosphere traps more LW IR – especially in the lower atmosphere where the highest LW IR tau (absorption coefficient) applies. This tau is of course amplified by the resultant increased water vapour i.e. increases Specific Humidity. These effects work to reduce OLR. This is the basis of the classical AGW Theory – the so-called Greenhouse Effect (actually more accurately an ‘Insulation Effect’).
(2) A warmer lower atmosphere = a wetter low atmosphere = a cloudier lower atmosphere. At the same time the increased CO2 and increased Specific Humidity (= increased rainfall) also increases the growth rate of land plants and ocean cyanobacteria (the latter partly nutrient limited because most nutrients ‘rain out’ onto the sea surface). The increased land plant growth and increased oceanic cyanobacterial activity increases the generation rate of biogenic Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN; organic compounds emitted by plants and cyanobacteria), hence the nucleation rate of cloud formation is increased etc., etc. Therefore, at the same time as (1) applies, the increased Specific Humidity increases the rate and extent of low cloud formation.
(3) This in turn increases the albedo (reflection) of global incoming SW IR which decreases the net insolation of the surface/lower atmosphere, thereby cooling the surface (i.e. less LW IR around) and the loop is closed again.
The net effect is that the AGW orthodoxy has grossly overestimated the medium to long term climate sensitivity to CO2 (deg. C increase for a doubling) i.e. system variation or rate of ‘state shift’ is more ‘damped’ than they will admit (pun intended). This is because it only takes very small increases in albedo to offset increases in surface temperature and lower atmosphere heat content.
There is plenty of evidence that all these effects are at work (and increasing in efficacy).
For example, mainstream literature data indicates an increase of lower atmosphere Specific Humidity over the more recent period of increase of CO2 but a decrease of upper atmosphere Specific Humidity. This can only be due to increased cloud production over this period (or an increased cloud density for a fixed cloud cover).
For example there is now strong (mainstream literature) evidence for a steadily increasing greening of the continents.
For example, there has been a long term downward decline in pan evaporation rates on the continent as the evaporative demand decline with increasing efficiency of cloud production.
I have also identified an, as yet unpublished, increasing cyanobacterial productivity over the Great Southern Ocean (SO) simply through the fact that the (negative) offset average pCO2 over the SO (below the global average) is actually increasing in magnitude (according to the official NOAA data) despite an increased anthropogenic CO2 generation rate in the Northern Hemisphere. Why is no one studying/commenting about that?
These are the forgotten secrets behind a de facto low CO2 sensitivity and the fundamental ‘flaws’ in the IPPC ‘model’.
We should keep reminding ourselves that multicellular land plants evolved from single celled oceanic cynanobacteria and that this whole CO2-absorbing/CCN & O2-emitting ‘system’ got going over 2.5 Gy ago. It has had plenty of time to evolve towards a measure of homeostasis in the face of uncontrollable ‘external’ drivers such as volcanism, solar variations, cosmic ray flux variations, meteor impacts etc.
10
Errr, May I beg to differ, or rather agree from a different point of view.
The real error is that there is no greenhouse effect in the first place.
(yes water vapour does slow the escape of heat somewhat but that’s about it.
– since when has anyone EVER basked under the “reflected” heat of a cloud
– come people wake up..)
Think this old joke over, space is NOT cold, it has NO temperature as nothing can have no temperature.
I am amazed at the thermos (vacuum) flask, it is the most amazing thing.
It knows to keep a hot thing hot, and a cold thing cold.
HOW….
Please feel free to discuss,
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2406#2406
10
Meanwhile, California charges full speed toward oblivion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576734,00.html
Our very own greenhouse gas reduction agreement! It’s embarrassing.
Only Fox News has the nerve to cover any of this.
10
America is fast learning that contrary to what emperor al and his merry band of ipcc say, that our earth is curently cooling. Could that be why there seems to be a new buzz word on the block that has been coined by the merchants of panic, perchance to `explain the decline?`
this somewhat timely phenomenom is the `discovery` of Peter J. Webster, a professor at Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and one Judith A. Curry. science or shameless scam?
10
Try again… MODOKI
10
Politicians cost lives (#9)…
It seems your argument is pretty much like saying there’s no such thing as pineapples, because they’re not apples.
True, “greenhouse gas” is in some ways confusing, if you look at it like that. However, to say that it was termed like that in order to deliberately deceive is absurd.
Our language abounds with metaphorical words. You just have to get used to it, and not be totally anal about their derivation.
There is such a thing as a greenhouse gas, and there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. It is a good idea to find out what they mean and how they work (and yes, it has nothing to do with glasshouses). Trying to ignore it, results in a loss of credibility.
Are we trying to establish the truth? Or are we trying to “win”? I don’t think sceptics need to resort to the same tactics as the AGW alarmist brigade, i.e. spuriously making stuff up in order to strengthen our case.
10
Wow, Joanne must be burning the “candle” at both ends!! She’s on a roll and not stopping!!
Check out this article from a Scientist and Engineer who broke down the Hacked Computer Code:
The Proof Behind The CRU ClimateGate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1384.last
Impressive and more to show!!!
10
Denny,
Well, I argued this point back when others were bogged down in how sloppy the code was. A direct comment by the programmer that says, “Hey, look everyone, I’m cheating here,” (paraphrase for emphasis) should be a loud siren going off to anyone. But only a few seem to have picked up on it.
When someone tells you he’s dishonest you should believe it.
10
Censorship? ClimateGate on twitter appears to have been shut down.
10
Roy (#19)…
I agree entirely. However, it’s early days yet. I expect that the implications of the code, and the other documents, will get the attention they deserve in due course.
I find it hard to imagine that the people who wrote the code, and also the whistle-blower, when they are eventually identified, will not be required as key witnesses in the various Climategate-related inquiries.
10
Soory, no its working try this ClimateGate
10
Excellent stuff…. Very clear and concise. Even an AGW fanatic in the mad throws of cooling denial, can follow it….
CO2’s properties have never been under scrutiny by sceptics, just it’s OBSERVED effect on the climate. The Observations have never fitted with the AGW hypothesis’s water vapor feedback scenario, ever.
10
According to my calculations, if a CO2 fire extinguiser is discharged inside a greenhouse that contains 5 gallons of water, the tipping point and positive feedback mechanisms will result in heating to “China Syndrome” temperatures. We’re doomed.
10
Roy Hogue: Post 19,
Roy, no doubt about it! Think they are hearing you now?? I figured this Scientist who knows code would be able to know what is happening here…He did a great job, I think…He really doesn’t have a reason to state anything else by what he stated in the beginning of the article!
10
Jo – your graph at the top suggests GHGs will lead to 1.4 degrees warming by the end of the century, without feedbacks, and you don;t seem to be disagreeing with that.
Now note the IPCC looks at “GHGs” + “feedbacks”, and does not factor in Akasofu’s “recovery fro the LIA” (your/his figure 3 in http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/a-simple-proof-that-global-warming-is-not-manmade/#more-4603).
So if we take your explanations, then there will be 1.4 + 0.7 = 2.1 degrees warming by 2100, which takes us in to dangerous territory don;t you think.
10
There is an even more simple homoeostatic mechanism:
* Warm moist air rises.
* It must continue rising until it cools and condenses.
* Once condensed it must fall again.
* We exist on a spherical geometry so when the tropopause is at a higher altitude, it also gets a larger surface area for radiation. Larger surface area => more total radiation power (even when watt-per-square-meter remains constant).
* Latent heat of water has massive power handling capability.
Thus, the conclusion is that the system will adjust so that the radiation area is whatever happens to be required to get rid of the heat. If someone attempted to warm the oceans, evaporation would increase in a strongly nonlinear negative feedback.
By the way, this also demonstrates that there can never be a “hotspot” in the high troposphere because the hot air merely rises until it cools. Creating a hotspot requires some sort of ceiling to hold the water down and prevent it from rising.
Also, this is fully consistent with the measured altitude of the tropopause being higher in warm areas and lower in cool areas.
10
Hi Jo,
Interesting article on the location and science of measuring CO2 concentrations. Quotes from NOAA “NOAA openly admits to producing a CO2 record which “contains no actual data.” and
“Two of the five NOAA “baseline” stations are downwind from erupting volcanoes. All five are subject to localized or regional CO2 sources.”
Link below:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html
I Wouldn’t mind your thoughts on this. Thanks
Scott
10
A WhosWho of climategate. Check out the special graphic layout.
10
@Mattb:
December 5th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Jo – your graph at the top suggests GHGs will lead to 1.4 degrees warming by the end of the century, without feedbacks, and you don;t seem to be disagreeing with that.
Now note the IPCC looks at “GHGs” + “feedbacks”, and does not factor in Akasofu’s “recovery fro the LIA” (your/his figure 3 in http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/a-simple-proof-that-global-warming-is-not-manmade/#more-4603).
So if we take your explanations, then there will be 1.4 + 0.7 = 2.1 degrees warming by 2100, which takes us in to dangerous territory don;t you think.
Matt,
The claim for a 1.4 degrees is the IPCC’c, not Jo Nova’s. The reality is that CO2 has a logarithmic effect. The first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the other approximately 367 ppm combined. If you paint a white wall black and you can still see a slight shade you apply a second coat. After that, you can apply as much paint as you want and it won’t make a bit of difference. Perhaps you can cite one piece of irrefutable empirical evidence that man is in any meaningful way capable of increasing the earths average mean temperature by emitting CO2? BTW, 387 ppm is the equivalent of the linoleum on the first floor of a 100 story skyscraper. Man’s contribution is akin to scratching the linoleum. There also is no empirical evidence for positive feedbacks! The satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior.
10
Tel,
” Larger surface area => more total radiation power (even when watt-per-square-meter remains constant).”
This is only effective for a solid. As the altitude increases the pressure drops and the density of the atmosphere also drops. Maybe you can do the math and tell us exactly what the radiative relationship is as the number of GHG molecules per cubic inch or foot or whatever drops with pressure/altitude.
Actually the lower density does help the radiation as IR emission at higher altitude is more likely to leave the system with no more absorption emission cycles.
“By the way, this also demonstrates that there can never be a “hotspot” in the high troposphere because the hot air merely rises until it cools. Creating a hotspot requires some sort of ceiling to hold the water down and prevent it from rising.”
The tropopause where the temps invert IS close to a vapor barrier. Without a strong thunderstorm or other large activity to carry it, water vapor is limited to the troposphere below the tropopause.
I would also mention that humidity appears to be decreasing with the CO2 increase. This is probably basic gas physics where more CO2 makes it harder for water vapor to be supported. (if all other conditions are the same)
10
@JS,
Thanks for the link. I got a kick out of the comment about Michael Mann going from Penn State to the State Pen!
10
OH No,
Global warming is back again!. It will be proven next week!
The BBC is reporting that the British Met office will next week release the RAW weather records for the last 160 years for 1000 weather stations which will finally prove the existence of GlobalWarming beyond any doubt. The one week delay is just to get permission from 188 countries to publish the data. Gee you don’t even need any models now to prove it – just the raw data.
These weather stations will no doubt have been specially selected to “prove” global warming.
That cuts Adelaide out, then as I believe there hasn’t been a temperature increase there since 1880.
10
MattB,
I can’t see the graph, but, the text says 1.1C for CO2.
That reduces your number to 1.8C. Of course, when the IPCC got rid of the MWP they also got rid of the LIA and can not use reccovery from it as part of anything.
2.1C sounds awful good to me though. With about 1000ppm CO2 we could take back a lot of desert and greatly increase crop yields!! Keep seeing new research debunking negative effects of less alkaline ocean also!!
You haven’t been listening to those alarmists again have you??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
10
kuhnkat yeah the graph disappeared for me to. 1.1 per doubling, translated as 1.4 by 2100… so I assume the emissions projections are for more than a doubling by 2100. I think the graph is there ont he home page, but when you go in to the article it just shows a little figure error bon (a question mark on my mac).
Eddy… I’ll leave it to Jo to explain why she is not choosing to question the basic 1.1 degree per doubling… I don;t think you’d listen to me.
10
“I would also mention that humidity appears to be decreasing with the CO2 increase. This is probably basic gas physics where more CO2 makes it harder for water vapor to be supported. (if all other conditions are the same)”
Well, actually Specific Humidity appears to be increasing in the lower atmosphere and decreasing in the upper troposphere. I am not sure whether this means there has been an overall average Specific Humidity decrease over all altitudes but in any case such a concept (of an overall decrease) is meaningless unless it is normalized against the same total atmospheric water content and even then is of marginal utility.
Of very much more interest is the apparent consistent long term decline in continental Class A pan evaporation (on all continents) and hence in evaporative demand (refer Farquhar et al.). We have no way of knowing whether this is also occurring over the oceans (e.g. no shipboard records of pan evaporation).
There is a lot of very weak understanding of Specific and Relative Humidities, Evaporation and Evapotranspiration out there and this make for a clear understanding of where and how the atmospheric water cycle is volving with increasing CO2.
Too much dogma on the LW IR emissivity of clouds and the upper atmosphere is also a mistake IMHO until we have had much more monitoring and hence more understanding of that. One need only to look at the response to Lindzen’s ‘iris effect’ paper or the short term sceptical debacle that was the meaningless Miskolczi distraction.
All we can really say is essentially what I said above in Post #12. I’m with Jeffrey Glassman – the SW IR albedo tuning effect is a much more sensitive, straightforward and more powerful mechanism for a conditional homeostasis.
10
Hi guys,
Just dropped back into the clubhouse for a giggle and what do I find? Naughty Jo, playing the water vapor “trick”!
Here’s how it works: you select three authors who agree with you – one of whom (Lindzen) is a contrarian who also happens to deny the link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer; and another (Spencer) whose satellite observations confirm the world has indeed warmed 0.5 C since records began in the 1970s, and who also happens to deny evolution (yes, he’s a convert to Intelligent Design)and voila, your magic wand whisks away the nasty water vapour problem and takes the “disaster” with it. Phew, that’s a relief!
You’re free to argue whatever and believe whoever you want but you really do need to address the material below to substantiate your claim . . .
Well no, they don’t.
Let me quote (selectively, yes – if only to raise conspiracy doubts) from Science 20 February 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5917, pp. 1020 – 1021 Dressler and Sherwood
The water vapor feedback is the process whereby an initial warming of the planet, caused, for example, by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, leads to an increase in the humidity of the atmosphere. Because water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this increase in humidity causes additional warming. The water vapor feedback has long been expected to strongly amplify climate changes because of the expectation that the atmosphere’s relative humidity would remain roughly constant–meaning that the specific humidity would increase at the rate of the equilibrium vapor pressure, which rises rapidly with temperature. However, observational evidence has been harder to come by, and the effect has been controversial. Much of that controversy can now be laid to rest, thanks to new observations and better theoretical understanding.In the 1990s, there was little observational or theoretical understanding of atmospheric humidity and how it varied with global climate. As a result, debate raged over whether the water vapor feedback would really occur, with some very influential proposals that it would not (1). In particular, many believed that atmospheric humidity and the water vapor feedback were controlled by processes–such as the details of cloud dynamics and microphysical processes–that are not sufficiently well understood and inadequately represented in climate models.
However, recent advances have placed the traditional view of the water vapor feedback on a stronger footing than is widely appreciated.
Despite these advances, observational evidence is crucial to determine whether models really capture the important aspects of the water vapor feedback. Such evidence is now available from satellite observations of the response of atmospheric humidity (and its impacts on planetary radiation) to a number of climate variations. Observations during the seasonal cycle, the El Niño cycle, the sudden cooling after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, and the gradual warming over recent decades all show atmospheric humidity changing in ways consistent with those predicted by global climate models, implying a strong and positive water vapor feedback. A strong and positive water vapor feedback is also necessary for models to explain the magnitude of past natural climate variations.
Thus, although there continues to be some uncertainty about its exact magnitude, the water vapor feedback is virtually certain to be strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur. To date, observational records are too short to pin down the exact size of the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, it seems unlikely that the water vapor feedback in response to long-term warming would behave differently from that observed in response to shorter-time scale climate variations. There remain many uncertainties in our simulations of the climate, but evidence for the water vapor feedback–and the large future climate warming it implies–is now strong.
20
Oh dear, which rotten old bit of floorboard did this little white ant crawl out of? First a good spray of ad hom spittle in all directions and then some whining on about the ‘water vapor feedback’ hobby horse – the shonkiest sideshow since Barnum and Bailey.
Uh huh – now just why should we get excited about a water vapor feedback of 1.5 – 2.0 W/m^2/K when Earth’s average global albedo at any one time is about 30% plus or minus 3% to 4%, and IS DEPENDENT ON SURFACE TEMPERATURE?
Earth filters TSI to create solar insolation, S, (nominally about 168 W/m^2). The AGW believers are appropriately interested in the change in TSI, but NOT AT ALL in the change in S because that parameter thoroughly disrupts their AGW model. However, ΔS = αΔTSI + TSIΔα.
The believers treat the total albedo α as a constant, i.e., Δα=0, instead of as the dominating negative climate feedback that it is, i.e. A MULTIPLIER OF THE HUGE TSI.
Ergo a water vapor feedback of 1.5 – 2.0 W/m^2/K is easily lost in the ‘noise’ created by a 20 to 27 W/m^2 variation as albedo varies in compensation.
End of your story, little white ant.
11
Why thank you Steve for the vituperation – you’re so tough! Mwah!
This is such a great site to come to for personal abuse – really lifts the tone, I think.
And thanks too for the perceptive reference to my favourite little social insects, whose role in recycling dead wood and emitting methane you are apparently all to familiar with.
But enough of this sport, off to play with adults again.
Bye!
10
Oops, nearly forgot.
If another 1.1 degrees is no problem – look at what is happening already to the world’s trees. Google “mass mortality” trees + global warming.
Miss Mourdre xxx
10
Oops, trips over tiny little proboscis….
Fifth of world carbon emissions soaked up by extra forest growth, scientists find.
Trees in the tropics are getting bigger, which means they are soaking up an extra 5bn tonnes of CO2 a year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/18/trees-tropics-climate-change
10
Mr Methane!
Brawn and brains, what a guy.
For you, so easy to crush a wee lady insect.
If only it were all as simple as you.
A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals
emerging climate change risks for forests
Craig D. Allen a,*, Alison K. Macalady b, Haroun Chenchouni c, Dominique Bachelet d, Nate McDowell e,
Michel Vennetier f, Thomas Kitzberger g, Andreas Rigling h, David D. Breshears i, E.H. (Ted) Hogg j,
Patrick Gonzalez k, Rod Fensham l, Zhen Zhangm, Jorge Castro n, Natalia Demidova o,
Jong-Hwan Lim p, Gillian Allard q, Steven W. Running r, Akkin Semerci s, Neil Cobb t
a U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Jemez Mountains Field Station, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA
b School of Geography and Development and Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
c Department of Biology, University of Batna, 05000 Batna, Algeria
d Department of Biological and Ecological Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvalllis, OR 97330, USA
e Earth and Environmental Sciences, MS J495, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544,USA
f CEMAGREF, ECCOREV FR 3098, Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France
g Laboratorio Ecotono, INIBIOMA-CONICET and Univ. Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250, 8400 Bariloche, Argentina
h Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zurcherstr. 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
i School of Natural Resources and the Environment, and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
j Northern Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, 5320-122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5, Canada
k Center for Forestry, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
l Queensland Herbarium, Environmental Protection Agency, Mt Coot-tha Road, Toowong, Queensland 4066, Australia
mResearch Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry,
Key Laboratory of Forest Protection of State Forestry Administration, Beijing 100091, China
n Grupo de Ecologı´a Terrestre, Departamento de Ecologı´a, Universidad de Granada, Granada E-18071, Spain
o Northern Research Institute of Forestry, Nikitov St., 13, Arkhangelsk 163062, Russian Federation
p Division of Forest Ecology, Department of Forest Conservation, Korea Forest Research Institute #57, Hoegi-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-712, Republic of Korea
q Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy
r Numerical Terradynamics Simulation Group, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
s Central Anatolia Forestry Research Institute, P.K. 24, 06501 Bahcelievler-Ankara, Turkey
t Department of Biological Sciences and Merriam Powell Center for Environmental Research, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
The effects of climate change on forests include both
positive (e.g. increases in forest vigor and growth from CO2
fertilization, increased water use efficiency, and longer growing
seasons) and negative effects (e.g. reduced growth and increases in
stress and mortality due to the combined impacts of climate
change and climate-driven changes in the dynamics of forest
insects and pathogens) (Ayres and Lombardero, 2000; Bachelet
et al., 2003; Lucht et al., 2006; Scholze et al., 2006; Lloyd and Bunn,
2007). Furthermore, forests are subject to many other human
influences such as increased ground-level ozone and deposition
(Fowler et al., 1999; Karnosky et al., 2005; Ollinger et al., 2008).
Considerable uncertainty remains in modeling how these and
other relevant processes will affect the risk of future tree die-off
events, referred to hereafter as ‘forest mortality’, under a changing
climate (Loehle and LeBlanc, 1996; Hanson and Weltzin, 2000;
Bugmann et al., 2001). Although a range of responses can and
should be expected, recent cases of increased tree mortality and
die-offs triggered by drought and/or high temperatures raise the
possibility that amplified forest mortalitymay already be occurring
in some locations in response to global climate change. Examples of
recent die-offs are particularly well documented for southern parts
of Europe (Pen˜uelas et al., 2001; Breda et al., 2006; Bigler et al., 2006)
and for temperate and boreal forests of western North America,
where background mortality rates have increased rapidly in recent
decades (van Mantgem et al., 2009) and widespread death of many
tree species inmultiple forest types has affectedwell over 10 million
ha since 1997 (Raffa et al., 2008). The common implicated causal
factor in these examples is elevated temperatures and/or water
stress, raising the possibility that the world’s forests are increasingly
responding to ongoing warming and drying.
More than 150 references that document 88 examples of forest
mortality met our criteria of events that were driven by climatic
water/heat stress since 1970. The examples range from modest but
significant local increases in background tree mortality rates to
climate-driven episodes of regional-scale forest die-off. We found
examples from each of the wooded continents that collectively
span diverse forest types and climatic zones (Figs. 1–8 and
Tables A1–A6). Despite our collective efforts to secure references
from non-English language sources, this review is clearly more
comprehensive for North America, Europe, and Australia, and
obviously incomplete particularly for some regions, including
mainland Asia and Russia.
Our searches also reveal that published reports of climate-related
forest mortality in the scientific literature have increased
markedly in recent decades.
10
“For you, so easy to crush a wee lady insect” Why Rumble, what’s this? When you can’t handle the pressure, you cry “defenseless female”? Tsk, tsk, you can’t have it both ways in this age of equality. Toughen up, girl!
Anyway, I thought you’d gone out to play with “the grownups”, what are you still doing here?
To the clear thinkers around here: Good news, although perhaps expected: Kelly O’Dwyer (Lib) claims victory in the Higgins by-election, so now the Public Intellectual blow-in candidate for the Greens (proxy candidate for Labor) can naff off back to Canberra. Good riddance!
10
Anne-Kit,
I know, I know. My delight in playing with children makes me so horribly suspect – in a purely intellectual way, of course! That is my cross and I shall bear it (in a purely Intelligent Design/Tobacco Lobby/Asbestos Lobby sort of way, of course).
Although I try to be strong I truly believe we sisters should stand shoulder to shoulder against big nasty brutes like Steve and thieves, yet I DO understand dahling, that your interest in conspiracy politics subsumes your interest in the science – and that IS the ture purpose of this site isn’t it, my muddle-headed wombat?
Mr Methane: that rotten floorboard? You’re standing on it.
With a sigh, I leave you again – this time for browner pastures.
10
Mrs. Mourde,
Thanks for the Ad Homs on respected scientists. That is pretty much all we need to know about you and what you know. PROPAGANDA!!!
“Thus, although there continues to be some uncertainty about its exact magnitude, the water vapor feedback is virtually certain to be strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.”
So that will double our fake 1c to a fake 2c/100 years??
Why is humidity dropping if there is such a big feedback? Where are the temp increases?? Not happenin’.
All those tree mortalities have NOTHING to do with any kind of temperature increase and a LOT to do with modern stupidity of hands off forest management. Either you have to let the fires burn or you have to do a little gardening. What’ll it be??
By the way, when you write too much it gets ignored, especially papers we have no access to and don’t support what they claim.
10
Here’s the website of Jo’s “authorative Intelligent Designer, Dr Roy Spencer (“Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as ‘fact,’ I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . ):http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
He says 0.5C since 1979.
That’s such a SOLID and well-reasoned argument – data/evidence?
Sorry about the inconvenient detail – it’s the devil isn’t it?
Now, now dear silly kuhnkat: if you have no access to these papers, how can you judge what they do or don’t support? In the words of Ian Plimer, your mind is like a parachute: it’s not working unless it’s open. Or perhaps your mind is like a kiddies’ wading pool – shallow at both ends?
Anyway, back to the propaganda campaign. Wonder what Exxon are up to these days – think I’ll mosey on over there and see which PR company they’re paying these days to fool around with our heads. No-one’s pulling my strings – conspiracy indeed!
10
Rumble
All your quotes on the scientific research on tree mortality. Your scientists are on the Global Warming bandwagon linking any research to global warming to get the grant money. As the Duke of Hanover said you can buy these professors like whores.
10
Hey Rumble Mourdre, I’ve never met you before, but I’ve been reading your posts and I really like you. People like you are the best thing that ever happened to climate scepticism. Your overweening arrogance and ad hom attacks on all and sundry exemplify everything that is wrong with the AGW camp. Why don’t you go on over to RC and have a good old chinwag with the other 3 people left there about how stupid the rest of humanity is. You may be wrong, but at least you’ll feel better.
BTW, before you leave us – your initial post at 37 above is a bit disingenuous by not metioning Paltridge et al’s recent publication which post-dates your pasted quote from Science, no? If you do want to stick around – and your plentiful posts suggest you do – why not try a little argument as opposed to insults? (Let’s face it – anyone can do insults – look at this post.) Tell us why Paltridge got it wrong… there are plenty of caveats in his paper, I’m sure you could have a go at it.
Anyway, gotta go, as an AGW sceptic I am apparently (according to you) also prone to Sudden-Onset-Intelligent-Design-Fanaticism, so I suddenly have an irresistible urge to go look for Noah’s Ark first thing tomorrow. Keep those posts coming – you are to climate scepticism what Vista was to Apple.
10
Len, not you too? Say it isn’t so! Oh dear. Is there no-one left we can trust, except Jo and our good friends here in the clubhouse?
No – the conspirators have taken over the world: the aliens have landed; the crop circles; the smell of saltpetre; the Moon landing was faked; the CIA killed Kennedy (both of them); the US government was responsible for 9/11.
Well at least we don’t have bother reading scientific papers anymore.
OH MY GOD!!! Can it be?? (and thanks kuhnkat for the triple exclamation mark/double question mark device) I’ve just realised: who stands to gain most?? The oil industry!!! Who’d like to see the West in turmoil?? Al Qaeda!!! OH MY GOD!!! It can’t be the communist/vegetarian puppet-masters behind this massive global climate fraud – because they’re poorer than church mice and can’t afford the massive gravy train science grants. Only one person has rivers of oil money to splash around – Osama bin Laden!!! That explains everything – quick – cross-post on all the other blogs, we’ve got to spread the word NOW – we’ve been conned!!! We knew there was a conspiracy, we just got it back-to-front!!!
10
BBC report now blaming Harry the programmer; shows code for
FudgeFactor says -UM- not clear, what is he is doing?
BBC Obviously spooked by the keen interest in this code and trying to spin it as an inadvertent “bug”.
10
Hi Skut, thanks – love you too. Gee, I never thought of myself as overweeningly arrogant: Rude? Yes. Provocative, sure? And I am proud – and just a little bit humble -to exemplify everything that is wrong with the AGW camp. We bought the wrong tents, see, and pitched them in the wrong place – as I’m sure you’d agree. I’ve tried arguments but I keep getting people telling me that I’m a white ant or an agent provocatuer or that I’m a court jester and have no sense of sacred self or something. It’s wearying I can tell you.
As for Paltridge I haven’t read it yet – but I don;t have to because I’m darned sure whatever claims he makes are not supported and anyway he’s a whore bought by Exxon so I don’t have to bother. He’s probably part of the Osama bin Laden conspiracy. He is to truth like Beta was to VHS.
And no, I don’t want to stick around.
The trees are dying.
10
Thankyou for another informative piece Jo. (god knows when i might get some sleep)
Please help me out with this connundrum.
Both sides agree CO2 and WVapour contribute, but nobody seems to now exactly how much because of the interaction btwn the two. Trying to find out whats causing an allergy, we weed out suspected culprits one at a time, but we can’t weed out CO2 or WVapour from the atmosphere…or can we?
CO2 mixes readily in the Atmoph, it is found uniformly around the globe, but Wvapour is variable, so is it possible to measure high low temps at say the tropics (high WV) and compare to high low temps at a desert location where WV is minimal. Then the diff btween Highs and Lows at both sites should give us an idea of the contribution WV makes to warmth as CO2 is constant at both sites.
Am I barking up the wrong tree here?
And if CO2 is contributing as much as warmists say, shouldn’t the diff in Highs and Lows at any one location be narrowing? (assuming WV is constant at measurement times)
10
Rumble Mourdre, with due respect, I get a little concerned whenever big oil or big anything is mentioned. My personal opinion is this. Whatever big oil or big anything is paying skeptics, scientists or pr people, they (big oil) are risking their own money, out of their own pockets so to speak. But the IPCC, the scientists, the pr people and the beurocrats attached to the above, all get their money FROM THE PUBLIC PURSE, OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. None of them, not one, zip, zilch have risked THEIR OWN, they have used MINE and YOURS.
So you see, I get just a tad skeptical when people/organizations get big with MY MONEY and keep demanding more, and warn if I don’t give more, my kids will die.
Due to the above example, just this one time, I BACK BIG FRIGGING OIL
10
In my work-a-day world the important considerations are signal and noise. You want a signal to noise ratio as high as you can get it.
With Dear Rumble providing the noise it looks like the signal to noise ratio here is hundreds of dB, simply astronomical.
10
@Baa Humbug #53: Hear, hear!! You are right on track about public money.
10
Roy Hogue: Post 54,
Roy, yes, I agree! Rumble is even putting MattB to shame or is MattB coming to his “Senses”?? 🙂 What ever happened to the Alarmist person who visited here and had all of the answers?? What’s his name,oh yes, Robin!!! You don’t see him anymore nor Damien McCormick! Two others that have given up??? 🙂
10
Rumble Mourdre wrote: “As for Paltridge I haven’t read it yet – but I don;t have to because I’m darned sure whatever claims he makes are not supported and anyway he’s a whore bought by Exxon so I don’t have to bother. He’s probably part of the Osama bin Laden conspiracy. He is to truth like Beta was to VHS.”
Your psychic powers amaze me 🙂 I never imagined that WMO data are funded by Exxon. Thanks to your revelation I’m sure I will never believe anything from WMO and its daughter organisations ever again!
BTW, you forgot to mention that Garth’s collaborator, Mike Pook, is a donkey breeder and his farm is organic. Shocking! Truly shocking! What ever is the world coming to?
10
Hi Rumble,
Is this the paper you were referring to? http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~stevensherwood/DesslerS09.pdf
So what this paper is saying is the 2CO2 is 2C and not the 3C that the IPCC is claiming?
Also should we have confidence in this paper if it hasn’t been peer reviewed? It seems to basically be an opinion piece. I hate to pull that one out but it’s been used so many times on me so I only thought it was fair.
Cheers
Steve
10
Sorry that should have been the climate’s response to a doubling of CO2 is a 2C rise in the global atmospheric temperature anomaly and not the 3C that the IPCC have “settled” for.
10
Makes one wonder if CO2 is a greenhouse gas at all,since it seems difficult to find any warming powers from it beyond mathematics and models.
Where does it convincingly show that it actually warms up the atmosphere,beyond guesses and estimations?
The lack of a CO2 predicted hotspot certainly fails to help.The near saturation levels in it’s IR absorption bands and the immediate emission of IR at a lower wavelength,does not help it either.
10
The latest today: Scientists Behaving Badly
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1399.last
A good one from Jim O’Neill: How Much Longer Before ClimateGate Explodes?
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1398.last
This one from George F. Will, He always presents a great article!: The Climate Change Travesty
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1400.last
10
Sorry, just popped back to get my handbag – left it in the clubhouse cloakroom. I must apologise for being insufferably rude earlier on – you must be aghast. My therapist says I lack a mothering instinct. I DO hope we can all be friends again one day.
While I’m here, though, thought you might be amused that someone’s gone to all the trouble of organising the club’s genealogy:
http://frankbi.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/agw-conspiracy-20090606.png
And why not try a ranking for your theory according to these excellent criteria?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
(P.S. Pompous Git: Truly shocked to hear about Pook and his organic donkey whatsit – erggh! Still, if we’re going to have full disclosure, that sort dirty laundry must be hung out for all to see. Kisses – I’m off to submit my FOI on Ian Plimer’s e-mails and attend the next LobbyGate hearings. The media are keeping ominously quiet about this one!)
10
Why is it so?
I found a very simple explanation of exactly where and why the IPCC models are wrong on this point.
The IPCC models all assume that relative humidity is a constant independent of CO2 levels.
There is no physics to support this arbitrary assumption and if this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the entire expected response of the temperature to CO2 increases.
This assumption directly implies that global temperature would be dangerously unstable in contradiction to observation. The earth has a huge potential supply of water to turn into water vapour. Thought experiment : if an increase in global temperature (by any reason) lead to more water vapour which lead to higher temperature, which lead to more water vapour, etc, why doesn’t the temperature keep increasing until the humidity is 100% ? Some mechanism must limit it.
However, we know that sudden temperature increases such as due to the 1998 El Nino are quickly damped within a year.
The Miskolcski greenhouse theory predicts from first principles of energy balance that there is a maximum equilibrium level for total Greenhouse gases ( CO2 plus Water vapour) so that any increase in Co2 will result in a corresponding decrease in relative humidity. The excess greenhouse gas in simply “rained out”. The observed increases in temperature then, must be due to “natural” forces, not CO2.
10
Here’s the “Crank of the Week”! A very interesting perspective by our Friends from PETA!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1402.0
Well, they are NOT my friends…that’s for sure!!!!
10
@Denny
Thanks very much for the link. I found a referred link there to NYT’s Friedman arguing that we need to act now on global warming, even if the risk is 50%, rather than IPCC’s 90% and regardless of the cost. Very woolly thinking indeed. If the warmists start arguing like this, the public will see right through them.
10
It seems there is hope out there. Read all the comments on the Copenhagen KoolAid Club Meeting following the fish wrapper story by the AP on MSNBC page………..
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/05/3594271-promises-but-no-treaty-likely-at-climate-summit?threadId=739514#c11055608
10
Rumble and more Rumble! Others may find some value in arguing with you but I do not. I’ve seen your ilk before and I might as well argue with the nearest fence post. The result would be the same. So take your nonsense and as the saying goes, “Shove it.”
10
Btw, the following is my contribution to the MSNBC blog……
That article has got to be the most subjective piece of crap I have ever seen written about the hoax called Anthropogenic Global Warming. From the first sentence to the last it was nothing but unsubstaniated nonsense and is typical of the hype behind the junk science and fraud of the IPCC. The media has not only surrendered it’s objectivity, it has embraced the cause of the One World Government nut cases that want to turn the human race into the societal equivalent of a Meerkat Colony.
Journalism has become nothing more than a bunch of hacks that resemble aging hookers walking around with a bag full of quarters!
10
JS: Post 65,
Happy to help JS! Oh yes, Friedman..A True Alarmists from the “Biased Media”. Surely you don’t expect anything different, Right??
Appreciate your comment! Keep checking there is more to come!!!
10
Sorry JS #63; Miskolczi Theory is simply total BS. Where have you been all this time?
If Miskolczi’s ‘Theory’ (= lots of bad math and numerology actually) had any scientific validity then:
(1) it would have been understood, agreed-with and endorsed by the leading sceptic scientists like, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc., and
(2) M would have been invited back, year after year to the annual Heartland Conference in New York; and
(3) M Thoery would have gone from strength to strength.
None of the above occurred. Strangley, you seem to have completely missed all the intense sceptical scientific blog discussion about M Theory over several years which resulted in it dying the death of numerous logical flaws. Miskolczi himself turned out to be an arrogant, angry, eccentric loner and his offsider Zagoni a globe trotting, dissembling lightweight huckster sucking hotel and appearance fees out of numerous gullible sceptical groups.
Let’s not go there again – please!
There is plenty of good hard science refuting the AGW bandwagon. We don’t need mumbo jumbo.
10
Roy Hogue: Post 67,
Roy! Roy! Joanne doesn’t run a “Dictatorship” here and maybe your having a bad day….As long as it’s “Civil” you are allowed to post…Try doing your post 67 on RealClimate.com and I guarantee you it will be CENSORED and not posted if it’s against them. Same with ClimateProgress..Guess what Roy, I guarantee you Post 67 will STILL be here tomorrow and the next day…
May I make a suggest and do what I do..Take your anger on the “Dislike Button” like I do..Or when Obama comes on the TV, I turn the Channel. If He is on ALL Channels, guess what?? I shut the TV off.. Roy, we ALL have options in Life except for Alarmists and Environmentalist’s that want to “control” your Life, Our Lives..Then you need to take it upon yourself and let it be known to those who are in the need to know and the Politicians who have to know your stance on this issue..Yes, you are “one” person but like I have stated before…A Snow Storm Always starts with ONE Snow Flake!!!!
Just respect People for the Freedom to Speak. As a Veteran, a lot of Blood has been shed to have this “Previledge”….for you, me and all of Us…:)
20
Steve Short (#70): “Zagoni a globe trotting, dissembling lightweight huckster sucking hotel and appearance fees out of numerous gullible sceptical groups”.
I shall not get into a discussion here about the merits of Miskolczi’s work.
However, I feel compelled to defend the reputation of Dr Zagoni against your nasty attack.
I hosted Miklos Zagoni when he visited New Zealand earlier this year. His trip was entirely self-funded, including his airfares. I arranged his hotels, but he paid for them out of his own pocket. He wouldn’t even let me shout him a coffee. The central purpose of his visit was to testify to the Select Committee of the New Zealand Parliament about the proposed ETS legislation. His sole motivation in doing so was the strength of his conviction regarding the falsehood of the CAGW hypothesis.
While he was here, I was present at discussions between Dr Zagoni and a number of other prominent and respected sceptics, where Miskolczi’s ideas were being discussed. It would probably be improper for me to mention names, but these would be people that I am sure you would have heard of. I noticed no disparaging of the maths and logic.
While he was here, Dr Zagoni also addressed a public meeting, which I organised. I paid for the venue hire. There was no suggestion or hint about any “appearance fees”.
I know that both before and after his visit to New Zealand, Dr Zagoni spoke at a number of meetings in Australia. Most of these were organised by the Climate Sceptics Party. He stayed as the guest of a close relative in Melbourne, and in other parts of Autralia he was also billeted with sceptic supporters. I do not have direct knowledge, but again I am sure there were no speakers fees involved.
He is a very nice guy, a very knowledgeable physicist, and a great ally of the sceptics cause.
To be honest, I was offended by your comments.
10
I suspect that largely the two effects you mention cancel each other out. My proof is a bit hand waving but suppose you are well above the Earth looking down from a great height, and further suppose the whole earth is a sphere with the tropopause also a sphere (idealised example). For convenience pretend there are no temperature variations (also idealised).
From such a great height, the amorphous radiator is the same as a hard-shell radiator of some effective radius. Even though, looking down at the Earth you may be looking into the optical depth of the gas, it is impossible to actually identify any bit of radiation as coming from any particular layer of gas — all you can identify from a very high altitude is the effective radius of the radiator element, and the total effective surface area of the radiator.
Let’s take a step further and suppose that the tropopause radius increases, what does the high altitude observer see? Well, the optical depth is larger, but the observer from space can’t detect this, all they can see is the effective radius and the effective area. It is very difficult to believe that the rising gas would cause the effective area of the radiator to appear smaller from an outside observer’s point of view. My argument is that the new position of the system has all the same gas radiating from the previous position plus some additional gas radiating from a higher altitude. The outside observer will conclude that the disc of the Earth (from an optical infra-red point of view) has become larger.
My other argument is that water vapour is lighter than air. It has to rise until it either condenses (and gets heavy again) or boils off into outer space. But we know that it does not boil off into outer space, leaving only one remaining option.
10
@Steve Short
Sorry, Fair point. I would not claim that Miskolczi is correct.
His model does seem to have a number of logical errors in the math.
However, even accepting it is BS, it still fits the data better than the GCM models.
The GCM models assumptions are just written into the model without justification,
that was the point I was trying to make.
10
Steve Schapel #72
Steve, I am sorry that I have offended you and accept your comments as genuine.
However, that was my honest interpretation of Zagoni’s activities based on a close observation of them here in Australia.
Moreover, Zagoni was invited by his (then) host – a prominent Australian sceptic, and openly agreed, to answer a small number of specific technical questions relating to the meaning and interpretation of the Miskolczi tau (following his Newcastle presentation) on the popular sceptic Niche Modeling blog operated by David Stockwell. I am sure you know it well. After one relatively devious and dissembling reply which singularly failed to answer the specific points he had agreed to address he then pointedly avoided answering any further requests to address the remainder and was not heard from sceptics again (ever) on certain crucial mathematical/physical matters at the core of Miskolczi Theory.
Initially and for a long period (in excess of one year) I had a great deal of sympathy for Miskolczi and his Theory and for Zagoni and tried hard to get Miskolczi to clarify and refine and/or his approach as did many others in NZ, Austrlaia and the US with solid quantitative science training (ranging in views from sceptic to mildly orthodox). FYI I have PhD in thermodynamics myself.
WE ALL FAILED despite the fact that Miskolczi is a scientist and knows that is how science is meant to progress. He turned out to be rigidly arrogant and unyielding, invariably falling back on an angry and resentful paranoia no matter how sympathetic the approach. It became increasingly clear why his brief association with NASA was such an unhappy one. It obviously had nothing to do with the actions of the AGW clique and everything to do with Miskolczi’ own personality traits.
My points 1, 2 and 3 above are matters of fact.
Furthermore, I now feel strongly that we can now say in retrospect that the 2 year dalliance with Miskolczi and his theory did the sceptical cause absolutely no good and maybe some harm. Most importantly, it did absolutely nothing to contribute to what I would call ‘good sceptical science’. It also did not convert any significant number from ‘the other side’. All it did was to get some well meaning people on the sceptical side who perhaps lacked a solid scientific training even more confused by what was, in reality not actually good science (or math) and hence less able to accurately enunciate a scientifically sound sceptical view.
We cannot (and should never) fight faulty science (by the AGW bandwagon) with more faulty (or false) science! It might give a few lay sceptics a temporary ‘warm and fuzzy feeling’ but in the long haul it does us no good. As a working scientist (35 years, ~100 peer reviewed papers and book chapters) I know of no one on the sceptical side with good science credentials who can claim to have been permanently technically enlightened by Miskolczi and Zagoni and thus made more able to refute the ‘paradigms’ of AGW orthodoxy thereby.
I can see no reason for perpetuating a canard that it was otherwise.
10
Observation: The IPCC computer model predicts a large hot-spot sitting high above the tropics. Measurements demonstrate that no such hot-spot exists.
Theory #1: The IPCC computer model is a poor predictor of global climate, and they screwed up and got it wrong. Better luck next time round.
Alternative theory #2: Lindzen is in the pay of the tobacco lobby and somehow asbestos is also involved. Oh yeah! Asbestos is the problem.
But which theory to choose?
10
A bit off topic – maybe it’s just me, but strangely “The Air Vent”, “Watts Up with That” and “Climate Audit” are all of the air. Hmm – Climate Audit just gave a 504 error after 5 mintes of nothing.
10
Steve Short at 7:59am
Boy that was a long difficult read for me, I’m just a layman trying to cram all the science in just like I did at high school.
If I understand you correctly, the “system” is essentially a self correcting one. There is no “tipping” point of no return and unless the sun decides to get hotter, (bit like turning up the knob on the stove) the system will keep cycling over like it has for millenia.
Well why didn’t you just say so lol
10
Mourde,
Your papers are as worthless as Gores claims that warming will cause mosquitoes to migrate to Canada and Siberia causing a huge increase in Malarial deaths. you might be surprised that these areas already have large populations of mosquitoes in the summer!!!
You have anything better that your flowery ad homs about my ability to have an open mind??
How about you meet me in one of these alledged Warming damaged forests in the Western US and we personally do some investigating as to whether the temp change has anything at all to do with insect infestations and plant disease?? By the way, what temp change??
To accept the hypothesis that warming has contributed to these issues you have to buy into the idea that there has been a warming that could actually have an effect. With so few thermometers in the network, few within hiking distance of the areas in question, you will have a little problem showing any warming!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
10
Mourde,
Empirical measurements show that the humidity is dropping. The water vapor feedback is not happenin’ dude!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
10
Tel: Post 76,
I would take Lindzen in a “Heart Beat”! I’ve heard Him talk on Climate Change and what Alarmists are trying not to do….Let “True Science” work towards the benefit of Science…not Consensus!!!
Tel, you talk about “Tobacco Money” well here in the U.S. where Phillip Morris’s is based at, they decided to pay the suit against them, back in the early 90’s, on the pretense that the Money would go towards educating the Public about Cancer and Tobacco use AND towards People in need of Medical Help in fighting Lung cancer and other related cancer’s.
Well, the Legal Establishment decided Billions wouldn’t be missed becaused the Lawyers saw an outlet of monies towards other issues like the funding of new Schools and heaven knows what else….Now don’t take me wrong on this! I’m for Schools. My last job I held was helping with HVAC equipment installation and start up and troubleshooting.. It helped me make a living. Every District that needed a new school was approached ONCE with this money. The State says you take it now or LOOSE it! We are talking Millions towards these schools. Yes, they jam it down the Taxpayers throats…
Well Our Local school was up and was voted on last month. The Vote was no! Mainly because of the Economy and most of my area is agriculture..Car based industry has been hit hard and a big player amoung producing jobs. I’m feeling the effects big time…Never in my Life have I seen the Jobless in these numbers…Anyway, My point is bureaucrats took control of Billions and now here we go again but this time it affects EVERYONE who lives on this planet!!
The funny thing is, Phillip Morris had another market in the makings…China!! Did you know that 3 people out of 5 smoke in China..Phillip Morris was happy to pay that suite. Didn’t even put a dent into the Company. They have recovered all that money in other Countries plus a lot more. Cigarret sales in the U.S. go 4.50 to 6.00 a pack in large cities..
10
Mourde,
“And why not try a ranking for your theory according to these excellent criteria?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html”
Shame on you. I thought you were all about reasoned dialogue and Peer reviewed Climate Science Papers. (smirk) And you just can’t resist the ad homs. All you are doing is demonstrating that you are a real troll and have no interest in anything except trying to show the bumpkins how wonderful you are!!
Well, giver er another shot then!!
10
asmilwho: Post 77,
Hey, I just tried WUWT thru GWH.com and had no problem getting there! Just thought you should know..Haven’t tried the other sites mentioned!! Will do so!
10
@Steve Short,
Look, the truth is that nobody really knows what causes the climate to change sufficiently well to publish a rigorous description with predictive power. We should not delude ourselves that anyone does. But that is surely not required here.
It is just that the AGW lobby claim their model is “probably” correct, and they have lots of money to do the research, but their problem is that they are politically required to assume that the only determinant of climate is CO2 + positive feedback (from water vapor). If you put enough positive feedback in your predictive model, you can predict any scary result in 100 years, hell you can get away without any input data, just running on the noise.
Its just that you cant predict 10 years of cooling from such a model. So they have to claim that this is a “temporary” natural variation from an unknown source which they assume to be cyclical and limited in scope. { Hey, it may be cooling now, but we will make it up again on the upswing] This deprives them of any basis for calibrating their models so then they go with averages of ensembles of models and assume that the real result is somewhere close to the mean of the models, which are individually not required to be physically realistic.
Then … well I ask you, would you fly in a plane designed using such an ensemble model?
If the public really understood how the IPCC constructed their forecasts or the were able to read the IPCC reports critically they would give them far less credibility than Weather forecasts ( which they quite understand are often wrong )
But they don’t, so the politicians can just use appeal to authority and branding of any dissent as heresy to make their case.
10
From my previous post, the author has a Part 2 today: The Proof Behind The CRU ClimateGate Debacle: Part 2 http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1406.last He has more interesting comments!
10
Denny, post 71,
Jo’s very willingness to allow all comers is one reason I look here frequently. The other is to learn from all of you. You perhaps missed that my post 54 that you agreed with in 56 was an insult to Rumble, but she didn’t. We both got a thumbs down that could only have come from her. I see a lot of give and take among those posting here, but none from Rumble Mourdre.
I understand your point. But I’m not having a bad day, I’m setting a limit. I can’t stop Rumble and wouldn’t if I could, neither have I suggested that Jo should censor her. Such people need to hear that someone takes exception to their behavior. Others have said it more politely and it made no impression. I finally said it in direct unequivocal terms.
I thought from the beginning that it would have been best to ignore her. Others disagreed as they have the right to do. So now she has been encouraged by being engaged in debate that she has no intention of considering honestly. As I said, I’ve seen this before. These are self-appointed guardians of their own opinion. She has an arsenal of “authorities” she’ll use to beat others over the head so she can feel good about herself. We should not let her do it at our expense.
If you were offended I apologize. That was not my intent.
10
Steve Short (#75)…
Thank you for your reply. My previous post was in reaction to the name-calling you directed at Miklos Zagoni. I appreciate your apology.
I do not have the skills or knowledge to myself evaluate Miskolczi’s work, nor to understand technical discussions about it. (Ironically, in my undergraduate degree I majored in Political Science, so I do have a science background LOL! But I think the term “political science” has taken on new nuances of meaning lately!)
However, I was unaware of efforts, such as those that you have described, to engage Miskolczi and Zagoni in dialogue about the technicalities, and it is disquieting to hear that such efforts were obstructed. If that is true, then I am very sorry to hear it.
The impression I had was that Miskolczi did not claim to have an explanation for the phenomena that he described, and certainly Zagoni’s presentation of it went no further than to say that the empirical observations and measurements did indeed describe certain patterns and relationships.
But anyway, as I said, I am in no position to discuss these findings in depth. Maybe we should ask Baa Humbug (#78) to provide a layman’s summary. 😉
10
Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091204092445.htm
10
[…] The One (but not only) Flaw That Wipes Out the Crisis […]
10
Steve Schapel (17)
Firstly, you are confusing, or rather mixing, names with descriptions. A pineapple is not a description as you well know, it is a name so why do you use such an absurd and fallacious argument to try and discredit my post?
Secondly, your use of semantics is a typical trick used by AGW fraudsters to confuse the unsuspecting minds of less well versed bullshit detectors than myself. This tool, which has been extremely over used by those responsible for the AGW fraud is called Sophistry: fallacious argument with the intent to deceive. Sophistry is the very technique employed to imply a “greenhouse effect” exists in our atmosphere but as I have explained and will now elaborate once more, there is no greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.
The ground on which we all tread is perceived as the Earths surface. But the true surface of the Earth is the top of the atmosphere as far as infrared energy is concerned. It is here that infrared is emitted into space, therefore the upper atmosphere is the true surface of the Earth. In-fact when you measure the Earths average temperature from space it is the same as the Moon which has no atmosphere, -18º C. The warming we experience from sunlight or the extra 33º C attributed to the “greenhouse effect” is simply the result of surface warming. We exist below the true surface of Earth and so we benefit from this surface warming. But it is not a greenhouse effect. A surface may absorb, reflect and emit heat but it cannot trap heat. THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE THAT TRAPS HEAT. The largest portion of energy we receive from the sun is actually infrared heat. Thankfully the atmosphere reflects much of it straight back into space, this is referred to by some as albedo but it is an over simplification of what is really happening. All my posts include a link to my book, CO2 The Debate Is Not Over, which explains these concepts and more, and above all it is free to download.
“Greenhouse gasses” get their name from the “greenhouse effect”. Just for you benefit let me explain something. The glass in a greenhouse plays no part in the overall effect other than to prevent convection. Once the air inside a greenhouse has absorbed enough heat it will expand and rise. The purpose of the glass is simply to prevent this from happening. It is not the heat which gets trapped but the warmed air. So prevention of convection is the effect of a greenhouse. To imply that this happens in the atmosphere is not only a deception but it is the deception responsible for AGW fraud. As I said in my first post the fact that the computer models used by the pseudo-scientists at the CRU etc. completely ignore convection in their calculations is the reason they have been able to model the “greenhouse effect”.
If you would like to counter me on this you need to show that these models do in-fact include convection in their calculations, and leave the semantics and the sophistry to the con-artists!
I may have been born at night but it wasn’t last night!
Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, know it!
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
10
Politicians cost lives (#90)…
Please get off the greenhouse confusion already. I am aware of how greenhouses work. I am aware also of how the “greenhouse effect” works. They are two completely separate concepts. Naming the “greenhouse effect” as applied to atmospheric physics is metaphorical. It is like a computer virus, which nobody ever intends to deceive you into thinking it works the same way as a biological virus. There is no intention to imply that the greenhouse effect operates in the same way as a horticultural greenhouse, and I have never seen anybody claim otherwise. Drop it, my friend, you are making a fool of yourself.
10
Steve,
You are shifting arguments. Its called equivocation. When a word is used in one way and can’t support one’s argument, a claim is made that what was said was not meant and that what was meant was not said. To be successful at this, you must drop a huge amount of context and play let’s pretend that what was said was not actually said.
There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect by ANY definition including a metaphorical one. For there to be one, the Second Law of Thermodynamics would have to be violated and a perpetual motion machine would have to be possible (same things).
See, read, and understand: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
There has been an intention from the get go that the atmosphere works like an actual greenhouse. This is compounded by the proposed mechanism being in violation of basic well known physical law. This is true up to and including the modern fraud known as AGW aka Climate Change. The claim is bogus from the ground up.
10
Another enlightening article:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/extinction-climate-change-modeling-mayhem
The same model predicts survival or extinction of ALL species by simply changing the computational grid size. Hence, predictions of global climatic catastrophe is the result of a computer rounding error and not anything having to do with the real world outside the confines of the computer.
Chicken Little was a rational scientist by comparison. At least she had the evidence of an acorn falling on her head to support her claim “The sky is falling.” The so called AGW Climate Scientists only have a very inexact mathematical approximation of their fantasy that Man is evil, his sin is his use of energy, and his redemption is to return to a state of nature before Adam and Eve.
10
Politicians cost lives @ #90:
“As I said in my first post the fact that the computer models used by the pseudo-scientists at the CRU etc. completely ignore convection in their calculations is the reason they have been able to model the “greenhouse effect”.”
As a middle aged scientist and experienced thermodynamicist I can state categorically that this is a completely untrue statement. While it is certainly possible to debate (at an in-depth technical level) the efficacy and accuracy of the convectional terms and modules of GCMs at a detailed technical level it is not true that those models do not thoroughly take account of convective effects both dry thermals (sensible heat transport) and wet thermals (latent heat transport).
No one who calls themselves a climate scientist would be so crudely naive. Ergo the assertion is crudely naive and non-scientific and simply betrays the gross ignorance of the poster.
The fault dear Brutus lies in yourself and not in the stars.
10
Lionell (#92)…
I usually agree with most of what you say here, Lionell. On this occasion, I can’t. We must have had very different experiences on this. I have never seen anyone, even the most rabid AGW alarmist, say anything whatsoever to imply that they thought the atmospheric greenhouse effect behaves anything like a horticultural greenhouse. All explanations of the greenhouse effect that I have ever seen make it clear that it is a completely different mechanism. Therefore I plead not guilty to your charge of equivocation… it’s just that I have never seen the same foolish information that you apparently have.
“There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect by ANY definition including a metaphorical one.”
I would be very interested to see a statement from any of the key sceptic scientists, e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Gray, Carter, Soon, etc, etc, to the efeect that they support this contention.
I have discussed this question with Dr Vincent Gray, in fact. His argument is simple. Get two bottles, one partly filled with water, and one filled to the same level with coca-cola. Put them in front of an electric radiator. After a while, put a thermometer in, and you will see that the air with the higher CO2 is warmer. His statement to me was “Anyone who says the greenhouse effect does not exist is wrong, end of story.”
Anyway, we can agree to disagree. Luckily it is inconsequential to the CAGW debate. The AGW hypothesis is that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are causing, or will cause, dangerous global warming. This assumes that atmospheric CO2 is a dominant driver of climate, relative to other influences. It assumes that change will be detrimental. It assumes that any global warming will have certain consequences, all the way from the proverbial sea level rises, to the flourishing of Danish prostitution. All of these can be argued based on the empirical evidence, and the empirical evidence does not appear to support those assumptions (well, except the prostitution). So let’s not get too hung up on the greenhouse effect, nor what to call it.
10
Roy Hogue: Post 86,
You perhaps missed that my post 54 that you agreed with in 56 was an insult to Rumble, but she didn’t.
Roy, thanks for your reply. No, I didn’t think so by my response in post 56! Roy, everybody has different “thresholds” in responding to Human Emotions..Some day are worse than others..It’s always trying to find the “thin line” to hold so to speak..There are People like Rumble that like to “push”. This is their way of “feeling” there way into a crowd..learn about them so to speak..I think these kind of people thrive on this at times..you know getting underneath someone’s skin. That’s how they have “fun”. Sure, it’s can get out of hand but this is knowing where to stop and ignore..I know, it’s hard..I catch myself with comments over at GWH.com..And yes if you check the “Chat Box History” you’ll see I’ve had some “outspoken” moments…Later I feel bad about it..It’s not my nature to be this way…
Yes, Roy, and how did you feel, good?? How about later??? We all have to deal with this somehow…
Roy, you quote above is probably correct. It was INCORRECT to tell Rumble to “Shove It” though in my opinon..I wouldn’t have said anything if this wasn’t printed by you..But I did and you took notice! This is good and I respect you very much for doing so…I feel this is what Most of Us want here and thru out the Internet..Civil obedience…Is it possible? No, but we can try, Right Roy!
Roy, no, you didn’t offend me. Maybe Rumble?? I would accept your apology but can’t for it’s not my place..it’s Joanne and Rumble you need to apologize to! Joanne runs this Site, but she does need help..that’s another reason I stepped in..Rumble, well because She’s “Human”! We all make mistakes, Roy..Forgive and Forget??? It’s up to you!!
Thanks again for you comment on post 86, it tells me alot about you…and towards others! 🙂
10
Denny,
I didn’t enjoy it. However I don’t feel bad about it as I think it was necessary to say the thing in unequivocal terms. This is the first time I’ve done this. And I hope it will be the last. I wish she’d gotten the message sooner, but she didn’t.
If Jo is offended she has only to say so and I’ll apologize post haste. If there’s any apology regarding Rumble herself it’s she to us, not the other way around. She subjected us all to really spiteful behavior. Others, as I pointed out, tried to get the message across, I did too, but it didn’t work. There’s a line where civility ends and she crossed it regularly. Lionell, by the way, gave her a scathing critique.
As for anything between you and me, you’ve done nothing needing an apology to me. So let’s make this the end of it.
10
Steve @ 95,
We differ on another point as well. Words matter in that they are tools of thought as well as communication. If you wish to think about reality and communicate about reality, your words MUST refer to reality and not some mushy approximate “you know” kind of foggy internal intent.
Hence, I take Greenhouse Effect to MEAN Greenhouse Effect in ALL of its uses: realistic as well as metaphoric. The base reference IS the way a horticultural greenhouse functions. Any metaphorical use must have a substantial correspondence to that or its a misapplied term and leads to faulty thinking and communication.
See, read, and understand: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
If you read and understand the reference I give above, you will see the functioning of the earth/atmosphere/sun system is vastly different from that of an actual greenhouse. An actual greenhouse maintains a higher temperature BECAUSE it prohibits convection with the outside atmosphere. There is NO such layer of glass or metaphorical glass to do the same outside of the greenhouse. This MEANS that the use of the Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gasses is a gross error in terminology.
Such usage is either the result of sloppiness in thought and communication or a willful intent to commit fraud. For example, the switch from AGW to Climate Change where Climate Change is redefined from simple variations in weather to Changes in Climate Caused by Man and in particular because of his use of fossil fuels. There is not even a metaphorical connection between the two uses and the later use is intended to support committing fraud and theft on a monumentally grand scale.
THIS is why I object to the use of the words “Greenhouse Effect” for anything other than an actual GREENHOUSE.
10
Dear Roy,
No offence taken and, obviously, no apology needed. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You’re human, I’m human. I have many bad days. Today is a good day.
And because now I’ve been told to “shove it”, and someone else has told me I have no soul, and someone else has told me I am overweeningly arrogant and someone else actually laughed at something funny I wrote and someone gave a thoughtful response and someone told me that all the science I cite is worthless and someone else tried to debate it . . . well, I feel I have found a place here: not among friends, certainly, but Denny’s intervention has told me that at least we know where we stand. Think of it as a kind of inverse to Groucho Marx’s wisecrack that he wouldn’t join any club that would have him as a member.
Dear Denny,
Thank you for your kindness and tolerance. You set a good and wise example for others here to follow. Perhaps a little more tolerance and a little less vitriol on all sides might us all make some progress on this most important of questions.
There is indeed and element of truth in your general observation that There are People like Rumble that like to “push”. This is their way of “feeling” there way into a crowd..learn about them so to speak..I think these kind of people thrive on this at times..you know getting underneath someone’s skin. But getting under the skin is a means, not an end. I will cease poking with my pointed stick.
I came here to learn more, in my own insufferable and unconventional way, about why so many good and bad people are spending so much of their time, energy and passion trying to tear each other to shreds over this issue.
(PLEASE don’t feed me back mad stuff about UN world domination etc -I know about that only too well and I cannot take seriously or give the slightest credence anyone who believes that, nor Creationism.)
Don’t you ever wonder – sometimes in a quiet moment – whether all the warmists, coolists,alarmists, denialists, conspiracists etc have something in common: that to many varying degrees, in many varying guises and for many varying reasons, they all want to “SAVE THE WORLD”? Or at least, the world as they know it, or their own world, or whatever. That’s putting it outrageously simply, but I think you know what I mean.
If that is Joanne’s goal, for example, I find it very strange indeed that there is no overarching philosophy or outline of basic principles or statement of intent overtly placed on this site. There is a “Rules and Legal” page, for example.
It is obvious to any visitor that this is a sceptics site, that climate science is its broad currency of exchange and that its purpose is political. But where is the manifesto? Perhaps you’ve all been through this before, but the result is nowehere apparent.
Perhaps, then, I could ask politely for such a statement – or perhaps you could make suggestions. E.g. (for argument’s sake and in no particular order)
1 I accept that a global economy based on a belief that it is possible to have an ever-growing utilisation of finite natural resources is inherently unstable and self-contradictory.
2. I accept that human activity can and does have a significant impact on the biosphere (e.g. over-fishing, damming rivers, clearing forests etc.).
3. I accept that human activity can have a potentially deleterious impact on the atmosphere and that by altering our behaviour we can reduce that impact (e.g. emissions of CFCs thinning the ozone layer, Montreal).
4. I believe the science of AGW is fundamentally flawed and is an inadequate basis on which to make any significant political and economic decisions.
5. I accept that accumulated satellite and other observations and measurements confirm that the surface temperature of the atmosphere and the temperature of the oceans rose to a statistically significant degree during the 20th Century and that 30-year trend lines suggest this process is continuing.
etc etc.
I hasten to add that I am not offering any of these as my own views. A girl has to keep something up her sleeve.
Kisses.
10
Interestingly I specifically remember year 10 or 11 science where we drew a greenhouse and the SW radiation went in, was emitted as longer wave radiation, and the greenhouse kept that radiation inside. And it was drawn as a direct analogy to the earth’s atmosphere. Note there was no reference to AGW at this time, it was just about how the earth keeps warm.
10
Roy Hogue: Post 97,
Roy, I’ve some how missed Lionell’s critique! Is it on this article??
Roy, and so shall it be…Did you notice what Rumble stated above??? Good to see you here Roy and keep up the good commitment you are doing here…We do need people like you here!!! 🙂
10
Rumble@99,
I have a question for you. If you could just bear with me here. Let’s just hypothesize that AGW does exist but is not due to Man Made C02 (the former is not my view, BTW).
Copenhagen, cap and Trade and everything else that is lined up for us mere mortals, wouldn’t that be a gross waste of resources? Wouldn’t it be better to target some of the real nasties out there?
I doubt if I am the first to admit that some good has come out of the AGW “Debate” – and yes, I am using the word debate extremely loosely (so loosly that it breaks the definition here). People have started to think about the amount of stuff that goes into the crap the consume. This is, IMO, a good thing.
However, the issue at hand that I have is that there has been no public debate (at least in Australia there hasn’t, anyways). There has been scientists saying “we think this” and “we think that” which the politicians have turned into “we now know this” and “we now know that” and “the science is settled”.
This is, of course in a time where they can’t predict next months temperatures and they’re telling me what the temperatures are going to be in 100 years time?
And it seems that every time someone asked a question about it or came up with a different view they were crushed by either the Mainstream media or even scientific colleagues who obviously believe the end justifies the means. Average people have been aware of this and have gotten very tired of being warned of the Arctic disappearing this summer each year, when it doesn’t.
I do agree with you regarding the conspiracy theories out there, I find it too extreme also, however, I have become very aware of the blatant censorship on this issue here in australia which has become even more blatantly apparent with climategate. I do feel the need to mention here that there has been some gross profiteering by people on the AGW side of the fence, which surely you must agree has been the case.
Now you may suggest (as have others) that “But what if you’re wrong madJak?”, or “But even if C02 is not the cause, at least we’re doing something”. To this I say Bunkum. To prevent a problem that hasn’t been proven to exist is, IMO just as bad as not doing anything unless everyone is 100% convinced, IMO.
Oh, and Mattb, I’m sorry to not include you on this one, but I have ignored your postings since I read something about private emails being stolen. Are you suggesting that these scientists should be taken to court for using UK Government resources for private use?
10
Denny,
Lionell’s critique is back 3 or 4 threads maybe more, I’ve forgotten which one. But you should be able to find it.
10
Nothing new under the sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg&feature=player_embedded
10
Rumble Mourdre: Post 99,
Rumble, you are so very welcome and thank you for these kind words. I try to set an example but at times my temper gets the best of me. I like to think Humans do have fallacies no matter how one tries to get around them. [That is if self-realization has occured in this matter] I feel the main issue on the Whole is “what we want to be “right” for ourselves first and then for others..Of course, this “should be” the other way around for good that you put into Life does eventually come back to oneself..Hoping one will see it happen before Themselves is another issue..
Rumble, I’m not here to preach to you…Sure I could do this but I won’t! You are not ready for what I would like to state anyway..nor if you ever will be! [Set in one’s ways?] I know I am!! As the Human condition gets older, we get set in our ways to some degree..We resist change…I feel this is an underlining in this Issue before US. I’ve seen both sides of this issue..Recognized the incompleteness in the science. Of course this is on “Both” sides”. On the Realist’s side there’s more True Science going on. Not totally relying on Computer Models for results. I know this because of my interest in Science since I was small..say 6 years old..Reason and Logic has ALWAYS followed me…
Rumble, sure there’s a “common” cause! I see both sides concerned about the Planet overall..I do not see people blatently outcasting the Environment..What I DO see is something that Should be presented in a “REAL” and FAIR way towards the People of this Earth..After all we are all in this together…Just don’t jam something down Civilizations throats if it isn’t going to make a difference..Joanne has given Us this insight..That is why Realists come here..To talk, listen, participate and most of all,”Learn”….Learn the latest that’s being held back by a select few in Science..Rumble, of all people, you should know “Science is NOT Consensus and that Consensus in the Scientific Community isn’t Science!!!! If you don’t, I feel sorry for you..
It’s ONLY political because the “select few” scientists and the politicans completed their cause..Promised them continuing monies towards there Universities…Joanne has the rest…If you haven’t read Her earlier articles, I would highly recommend that you do..Rumble, I’ve given the Alarmists side a chance to come up with real research to help towards my decision on this issue…Guess what, They have failed miseably!!! The CRU Hacking proves it…
I’ve said enough for now…I will consider remarking on your 5 points in the near future…Thanks for responding to my response..this is always a good start!! 🙂
10
Roy Hogue: Post 103,
Thanks Roy, I appreciate it…yes, a lot of posting all over!! Have a great day!!!
10
Denny,
I believe it was post 169 of The Global Gravy Train thread.
10
Lionell Griffith: Post 107,
Lionell, have you used any “Schartuse” words in this comment??? Please point out for me!!
10
Denny,
Your reference to “Schartuse” escapes me. Care to elaborate?
The only thing that comes to mind is “chartreuse”, a yellow-green color. While my comment was intense and biting, I don’t think it had any yellow-green words.
10
I have a question for you. If you could just bear with me here. Let’s just hypothesize that AGW does exist but is not due to Man Made C02 (the former is not my view, BTW).
Copenhagen, cap and Trade and everything else that is lined up for us mere mortals, wouldn’t that be a gross waste of resources? Wouldn’t it be better to target some of the real nasties out there?
Madjak,
I don’t know how to answer your question. I know of no credible alternative AGW hypothesis that does not involve C02/methane/etc.
If you’re asking whether any good could possibly can from placing an upper limit on the use of fossil fuel through a cap and trade system: well, yes, I have no problem conceiving that it could have many positive outcomes.
Australia gets most of its electricty from burning coal. If anything is a “gross waste of resources” it is the way we use coal now.
Coal is cheap because we’ve got lots of it (so we price it under the pretence that it’s not a finite resource, or without considering that we might find even better industrial uses for it in the future)and because the environmental/social cost of disposing of its “waste” is not factored into the market price.
As well, because we’ve got lots of coal far too little effort has been put into making more efficient the chain of extraction, distribution and consumption of energy produced it.
Someone will correct me, I’m sure, but as I recall only about a third of the energy in any given lump of coal actually ends up being used to power something electrically. 15% can be lost from transmission lines alone. 40% of the energy used to heat your dometic hot water sevice simply can radiate off an uninsulated tank.
A cap and trade system would put up the market price of coal – that’s the general idea. Consumers would then have an incentive to use less. Producers would then have an incentive to be more efficent. “Cleaner” and less finite energy sources – say, gas and solar – would become more attractive economically. Landholders would have more incentive to revegetate cleared land etc etc. We’d be less dependant on a single energy source(and so less vulnerable to, say, terrorism) and we would have more prudently husbanded our coal for future generations.
The other side of the ledger is that the Government – i.e. the public – gets to sell off the emissions permits. What we do with the considerable sums raised in this way is up to us. We could, for example, use them to deal with your “real nasties out there”, or to build sea walls or child-care centres or even a University of Sceptical Science.
So, back to your hypothetical future moment of forehead-slapping where science says – whoops! Sorry about that, we got the science wrong – it wasn’t CO2 after all. Well, we can give the silly things a smack and say that at least we have something good to show for it. Those are hardly odious outcomes that warrant dying in a ditch.
I notice the Dutch are moving on without on much rancour:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-deluge-of-dutch-courage-20091204-kb3f.html
10
There are two thing which regularly contaminate good science: (i) ideology and (ii) commerce. Ideology, in the form of religiosity, compromised science with geocentricity and flat earth – until Galileo et al won out. Commerce has compromised science in the form of peptic ulcer treatment (Warren and Marshall), diabetes treatment (Richard Stubbs), and more recently depression treatment (Kirsch et al) where billions in profits were earned on very dodgy (now discredited) science.
I’m no climatologist, but it seems odd to me that all of these environmental initiatives are based on evidence from modelling, and that modelling seems not take into account the fact that we humans have effectively removed most of the vegetation from the earth’s surface, then acted surprised (and blamed Carbon) for the fact that things seem a bit warmer.
It would not surprise me at all to see, in only a few years, that the ‘science’ on which we’ve based these models and political solutions, will prove to have just as dodgy as those above, and that it greatly benefited someone: either ideologically or financially (or all of the above).
The ultimate maxim of scientific enquiry: cui bono – Latin for “For whom the benefit?”.
10
Very nicely put indeed!
I especially liked the last sentence: “Reality has and will always have the last laugh.” in the following context:
Looking back at the last ten solar minima (not including the ongoing minimum), we can count the total number of (cumulative) spotless days in each and calculate an average: 485 spotless days. The average exceeds the number of days in a year because solar minima last much longer than one year. The fact that the ongoing solar minimum has already racked up 762 cumulative spotless days with no end in sight tells us that it is very much deeper and longer than average.
Funny how this period has also coincided with a dip in world temperatures (hide the decline, hide the decline, hide the….).
For 11 months, from November 2008 to September 2009, the Ap index had been hovering near rock bottom with reading of 4’s and 5’s. But the last two months, October and November, broke through the glass floor and spawned the lowest AP monthly index value in the past 77 years with values of “3”.
This suggest that the solar minimum will extend well into 2010.
It is now clear the years 2008 and 2009 will match and may possibly just exceed the previous highest total number of cumulative spotless days over any two year period in the last 100 years being 1912 and 1913. The 100-year record for total spotless days in an entire multi-year minimum is 1019 spotless days in those years around 1913.
The 11 – 12 year solar cycle ending in 1913 was the coldest of the last 130 years i.e. since 1879 i.e. colder than the 3 previous cycles – despite rising atmospheric CO2.
If the current situation goes beyond (say) 1020 cumulative spotless days over ONLY the first 3 months of 2010 then we are heading firmly into Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age territory.
I strongly suspect the rising hysteria and impatience of the countless foot soldiers of the global AGW movement is more closely linked to the rising nervousness of it’s leading scientists on this very aspect of Reality than nervousness over any impending AGW-related ‘catastrophe’ or ‘tipping point’.
That old Cosmic Joker may simply be ‘inhaling’ for (yet another) last laugh…
10
Ms Maude,
Thanks (I think) for your response. Obviously you didn’t want to play with teh ypothesis, however, your response shows an interesting insight into why you believe Cap and trade will work. It’s interesting your comments about the huge government revenue gleaned off this.
Taxes are the answer you say? Taxes are almost never the answer. All that happens is the smart money moves around the taxes and the middle class get done over again.
So how will this help people on a lower income or the pensioners heading into retirement? If NZ is anything to go by, they will freeze to death in their homes for fear of turning on the heater. Are you really prepared for the consequences of this?
As for the argument that at least something good will come out of it when people discover C02 is not the bad guy, well might I suggest that any Cap N trade revenue should go into my back pocket because I’m bound to do something good with some of the money (oh, wait, someone else has that scheme allready tied up, bugger).
I am totally unconvinvcd that anything good will come of Cap N trade – AGW or no AGW. It’s just another artificial market open to exploitation and greed. They can’t even run simple mortgages properly – and now you want to give them the obscurity of science to hide behind as well?
I’ve tried to find some common ground here, but as you said, you’re from another planet. I, of course, live here in the real world.
10
Lionell Griffith: Post 109,
Lionell, what I meant was a “sharp” word or attack?? You are correct in the spelling. My Bad! Didn’t take time to look it up…Of course, if you seen those two colors blended, it is eye catching isn’t it!!
Yes, in the above post by you, I didn’t see anything that you’ve stated that equalled Mr. Hogue’s comment towards, Rumble!
10
So how will this help people on a lower income or the pensioners heading into retirement? If NZ is anything to go by, they will freeze to death in their homes for fear of turning on the heater. Are you really prepared for the consequences of this?
Oh Madjak, this one simply does not obey Jo’s “laws” of logic and reason. As I said, the revenue from Cap and Trade schemes goes into the public kitty, to be spent how we the public decide. I admit I am assuming – rashly perhaps – that Australia will continue to be a democracy. My second equally rash assumption is that any Government that would let pensioners freeze to death in, um, Mount Perisher would be somewhat politically compromised and suffer the electoral consequences accordingly. At least, that’s how it happens on my planet.
I am trying VERRRY hard to be gracious, so let’s agree to disagree: you are free to remain totally unconvinced that such a scheme has any merit whatsoever and I am free to conceive that it is possible and that at least some pensioners may survive the ordeal.
10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Another viewpoint on “ClimateBeatUp”
10
Ms Maurdre,
I agree that we disagree. So at last we have agreement on something.
I don’t think Big Governments distributing resources is efficient, and others hold onto the ideal that this is worth yet another try.
10
Lionell (#98)…
Sorry, Mate, you’ve completely lost me now. You didn’t respond at all to what I wrote, and at the same time arguing as if I said something that I didn’t.
For what it’s worth, like you I also get upset about words’ meanings getting reinterpreted during the course of a process. We have the classic examples of “carbon” being used to refer to carbon dioxide, and “global warming” being used to refer to anthropogenic global warming, etc.
But in addition to that, I guess I will try to be ever vigilant around you, to avoid using terms such as heart attack, polar ice caps, kidney beans, mouse (computer), leaked emails, and laughing kookaburra, lest you think I am trying to deceive or defraud.
10
Steve,
From your post @ 95:
Me: “There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect by ANY definition including a metaphorical one.”
You: “I would be very interested to see a statement from any of the key sceptic scientists, e.g. Lindzen, Spencer, Gray, Carter, Soon, etc, etc, to the efeect that they support this contention.”
I responded EXACTLY to your comment about Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere. There is no Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere so its VERY incorrect to use the term – even metaphorically. You might as well say Cabbage Leaf Effect for all the connection to what actually is the case.
You wanted a scientist who says as much, I gave you a URL to a very extensive paper on exactly that subject. Like I said, read it and understand.
Carbon is at least closely related to Carbon Dioxide and even Global Warming is much more closely related to Anthropogenic Global Warming than is Greenhouse Effect to the operation of the atmosphere/earth/sun system which has no relationship.
Words matter. When you are discussing the justification being used to take over the world’s economies and the total enslavement of the population of the earth you damn better get your words right! If you are talking about buying a pair of shoes, who gives a damn but you? Call them corn cobs for all I care.
10
How about the following effect of using “metaphorical” words?
Weather Cooking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M
Sound familiar? Very much like AGW/Climate-Change/Green House Gasses.
10
Rumble #110 and #115
I enjoy reading the back and forth discourse. If I may be allowed to “butt in” for a moment.
Yes we are a democracy, but we (the people) rarely get a say in how our taxes are spent. eg we’d like ALL our petrol taxes returned via better roads, better traffic light syncronization and incentives for more fuel efficient vehicles. Instead these taxes usually end up in general revenue. Same with alcohol and tobacco taxes.
Increasing cost of “cheap” energy is fine only if you happen to live in an affluent society. What happens to the billions who to this day barely have electricity for basics let alone luxuries like hot water heaters etc. How will they be helped with higher costs of energy. Side show power generation like wind and solar won’t cut it (yet). We can’t live off those nor can we expect poorer nations to lift their standards by those.
And IF AGW is a crock but we go ahead with reducing CO2 by taxing it to the shi*house, there is a very very good chance crop yields will fall back to their pre industrial levels. How will we feed the masses then?
I’m having trouble thinking of a precedent when taxing anything led to efficiencies or improvements, but I may be wrong, others may help me with that. This may be a tired example but the motor car wasn’t developed because govts. taxed horse and carts.
If however we are talking about “trading” in CO2, same way as we trade in other “real” commodities, wouldn’t the focus be on maximising money (paper) profits rather than any reduction in CO2. eg scandals already in Europe about fraud in carbon trading. The darn thing has hardly got off the ground, imagine the billions upon billions involved if USA China and India get involved. “Waste” in the form of paper profits will be huge.
All of the above tauted by the UN has the purpose (purported) of wealth sharing (rich polluters pay and transfer technology)
But this doesn’t add up mathematically, ie
Assume (generously) that one third of the 6 billion of us is affluent, how do we level the playing ground? Are we supposed to cut our standards by two thirds? It doesn’t add up, it can’t work…..in my humble opinion.
10
Read the post here
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=327#more-327
from Richard Courtney and weep at the creative use of the MGT (Mean Global Temperature) ‘Catch 22’ by the evil AGW clique.
Absolute dynamite!
10
They taxed smoking and alcohol but then forgot to give that money to health care. Can I claim half a point?
10
They taxed gambling and forgot to put that money into mathematics education.
Two halves make a whole?
10
No you are not.
You come to a blog with the clear intent to stir up people who disagree with you, then ponce around calling other people “children” when they fail to be awestruck. After which you have a go at playing the hard pressed victim card and ham it up with a bit of theatrical weeping.
I would say “lame” except for the guilt of offending genuinely lame people who make a genuine effort. You keep promising to leave, then break your oath and keep coming back. I’ll stop being subtle and come to the point at last: pull finger and deliver a genuine contribution, please!
Let us start with, err… the topic of this particular thread — AGW climate models predict that the top of the troposphere will show a hotspot above the tropics, atmospheric measurement indicates that such an event has not happened. We both agree that rational theory should be sufficient to explain the world, so explain it.
10
hehhe he I like your humour Tel. (I really do, not a sarcasm). 🙂
10
Denny,
See post 193 in, “The Global Gravy Train…” thread.
You need not reply to me. Lionell was responding to one of my earlier posts so I know exactly what he said.
10
Lionell (#119)…
I call shoes “shoes”, I call corn cobs “corn cobs”, and I call greenhouse gases “greenhouse gases”. I do this because it is the commonly accepted terminology to refer to these items.
If you are going to deny that water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range, then you don’t need to concern yourself with them, nor with what words other people use to name them. Otherwise, to refer to them collectively, you might as well use the commonly accepted term.
Now, let’s lay this little distraction aside, and turn back to the topic of evaluating the evidence relevant to the claims of the CAGW hypothesis, and the social and political consequences thereof.
10
Steve,
I hope the taste of the KoolAid you are drinking will be worth the price. I seriously doubt it. You may live in Humpty Dumpty’s world but I don’t.
All gasses absorb radiation according to their absorption spectra. Their temperature is determined by the specific heat of the volume within which they reside. They also immediately unload any “excess” heat to their neighboring gas particles fully and completely consistent with thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, phase change, and nearly every other physical dynamic you can name. They DO NOT trap heat, never have, and never will. Therefore they are NOT Greenhouse Gasses. I don’t give a damn how many people say the words. They are simply atmospheric gasses – nothing more and nothing less. When the “commonly accepted term” is misleading, the term MUST be questioned and replaced.
When the language is corrupted, thought and communication is corrupted. When that happens, truth and science as a supporting part of human experience turns into a destructive force. When you are at war with reality, you WILL lose. You don’t have a choice about that but you do have a choice what to do about it. Choose carefully because your life depends upon it.
10
Folks, am I right in thinking that since Rumble appeared Lea is MIA?
10
Lionell Griffith,
I do not see anything here that would be a cause of “Strong” language, do you Lionell??? I don’t think being called a “Troll” is strong in it’s implication…Anyway…Hopefully “Peace” will Prevail!
10
Rumble Mourdre: Post 115,
Rumble, do me a favor and show the implied statement in paper form for Us please..Even if you are correct, I doubt very much that the “Public” will have “any” say in where the Taxes will be spent…I’m sure in the U.S., the Taxes are suppose to go towards renewal jobs and research. Yeah, right!!!!!! And think about this one, Rumble, the Public will paying for “Double Taxation”. Taxes normally payed and distributed for Subsidized Green projects [Like Wind,Solar and Ethanol]. Then we have to pay again for purchasing anything from these! I don’t trust my Government anymore than I can trust the AGW Scientists giving Us a straight up answer to CO2 causing Global Warming…..You know what they say about Wisdom, Rumble!! “Wisdom Comes With Age,But sometimes Age Comes Alone”! 🙂
10
Dear Tel,
I note your crisp analysis of the nature of my arrival in this clubhouse. It tells me so much about you.
Now,
Let us start with, err… the topic of this particular thread — AGW climate models predict that the top of the troposphere will show a hotspot above the tropics, atmospheric measurement indicates that such an event has not happened. We both agree that rational theory should be sufficient to explain the world, so explain it.
I have absolutely no expertise in this subject. I can surmise that you have the better of me on this score, otherwise you would not have so keenly sought to contest this point with me. You smell blood.
So I will try VERRRY hard to the best of my limited ability to engage as a layperson with your artfully loaded question. I’m sure you’re going helpfully point out the many errors of my ways.
First, by my reading, going back some decades climate theorists have predicted a tropospheric hotspot as a consequence of warming, per se, not specifically as a result of anthropogenic GHG emissions. They also predict a similar hotspot would occur if more solar energy reached the Earth. Neither AGW theory nor climate science falls apart if there is no hotspot, any more than it is proved rock solid if there is one. The existence or otherwise of a hotspot gives you more or less confidence in the validity of the theory, the models or the technology used to measure what’s really going on up there and its intepretation, that’s all: one piece more or less of corroboration/correllation.
Second, you confidently assert that “atmospheric measurement indicates that such an event has not happened”. By my reading, I see climate science generally – as opposed to some individual scientists – having none of your certainty. I see scientists stating openly that they cannot be sure what is going on the troposphere due to pragmatic and technical difficulties in getting reliable temperature measurements there: i.e. they don’t have confidence in the observational data. I see scientists stating openly that radiosonde measurements have had gremlins in the past. I see scientists leaving open the possibility that the models may have some flaws in this respect.
That said, I also see some evidence of a lower tropospheric warming trend documented here, with all the usual confounding wobbles and wiggles from volvanoes, El Nino etc, with the usual provisos that we lack genuinely long-term data from which to draw any conclusions about which we can be confident.
Third, by my reading, it seems that Jo’s simple diagrams above are not only too simple but also misrepresent the prediction.
I see that the hotspot isn’t just expected to appear by itself up there in the troposhere while the rest of the atmopshere warms uniformly around it. The surface should get hotter too. And if the AGW theory is correct, the presence of CO2 should result in the lower stratosphere getting cooler above the tropospheric hotspot – which would distinguish it as GHG-rleated and provide one more or less piece of corroboration/correlation.
I see as well that measuring temperature in the stratosphere is even more fraught with difficulty.
Yet the data we do have, reliable or not, show that yes, indeed, there is a significant cooling trend in the lower stratosphere since 1960.
To sum up: on present evidence, having confidence that the hotspot does not exist is neither reasonable nor rational.
10
Thank you for your reply Rumble, thank you for learning so much about me, and for tailoring your style of reply to suit my taste. I think it makes things a bit easier.
Be assured that I have no desire to bleed you, my selection of topic is primarily driven by the topic at the top of this page (i.e. behaviour of water vapour). Although I do wander off topic from time to time myself, such excursions are aberrations that one should rightly apologise for. Staying on topic needs no apology.
This is also my understanding of the current state of modelling, on this matter I agree with you completely. I disagree with those models because there is no part of physics that suggests a hotspot would be the consequence of any warming. Whilst I do not personally blame you for those models (you did not create them), I would like to warn you away from taking the output of those models too seriously.
I am a confirmed skeptic and I’m skeptical of everything including measurements. Doubly so of measurements I did not make myself. However, such observational data as we do have, is the best that we have, so it makes sense to study it for what it’s worth. Building a theory that fits observations has more chance of success than searching for observations to fit a theory. I’ll be more than happy to refine my ideas when newer and better observations are available. I am a great advocate of raw data being made available to the public wherever possible, especially when my taxes paid for the measurement in the first place.
Would you accept the simple observation that warm moist air rises? Boil a kettle and watch where the steam goes… up.
How about a first principles approach? Atomic weight of H2O is 18 but atomic weight of Nitrogen is 28 and atomic weight of Oxygen is 32 so the water is lighter than air. Should go up.
Seems reasonable to believe that if a hot spot did exist, it should merely rise upwards until it lost the heat. Since observation has so far confirmed this, I should rationally maintain a theory that is simple, efficient and follows both observation and basic physics. I do this not out of great confidence, but because it is the best explanation I have for the time being.
10
So, to stay right on topic:
Jo’s opening bald and emotionally appealing assertion that . . .
there is no disaster, and that’s exactly what the observations tell us
. . . is self-evidently insupportable, since there are no convincing data, no observations, no instrumentation and no measurements about which anyone can be genuinely confident, including you -merely a leaning towards one explanatory theory or another.
Whatever theory you favour, Jo’s core claim in this case cannot be given credence by anyone who is, as you say, “a confirmed skeptic and . . . skeptical of everything”.
It is therefore inescapable that what we are offered at the top of this page not only misrepresents the scientific predictions but draws an unequivocal conclusion that is self-evidently NOT supported by observation – in short, to be ungracious but plain-speaking, she’s either ignorant, lying, obfuscating, playing politics or indulging in wishful thinking.
10
Drivel.
10
Thank you for your considered reply Steve. I bow to the fierce intellectual rigour you have applied to the points I have raised and to the persuasive counter-arguments you have mustered. Happily, I am having another good day, so I can be candid and admit somewhat sheepishly that on this point I still find myself locked into a flawed and regressive belief system that inescapably leads me to the conclusion what Jo is feeding us here is just the same-old same-old bullshit you all complain about from the “alarmists”.
10
Rumble Mourdre:
December 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
“I have absolutely no expertise in this subject.”
Yes.
If you go back through his site’s archives you’ll find a thread on this complete with IPCC diagrams. Ignorance is remediable.
Tel,
Your explanation of the hot spot is wrong. The reason for the greater warming high in the tropical troposphere is that with some surface warming the near surface air can hold more water vapour and does, as that air is not far from saturation much of the time. When convection occurs and convective cloud forms the reason that the lapse rate inside the cloud is smaller than dry adiabatic is due to release of latent heat of condensation. If there is more vapour the saturated adiabatic lapse rate is even smaller. You can see this at high altitudes(cold) where the SALR almost parallels the DALR(dry adiabatic lapse rate). The smaller SALR means that the temperature is higher than it otherwise would be when the air arrives in the middle to high troposphere in the tropics where convection occurs everyday. This is what causes the “hotspot”.
Yeah I think that’s somewhat dodgy too, but they are the assumptions programmed into the models.
So far there doesn’t appear to be any observational evidence for the hot spot and stratospheric temperatures depend on other things than CO2. Mainly absorption of UV from the sun and the UV varies much more than visible and infrared. Assigning stratospheric cooling to CO2 is quite a reach and I believe it stopped in 1995 or so while CO2 continues to increase.
The molecular weights of H2O vapour , oxygen/nitrogen and CO2 differ greatly but molecular diffusion appears to be so strong that they remain well? mixed even in a one g gravity field over 30 Km or so and the upper 15km doesn’t have any strong bulk transfer or mixing due to convection.
I’d still like to see some real CO2 measurements at 70,000 feet or so.
10
So, Mike, in lay terms you’re saying that there’s so much water vapour near the surface in the tropics that the surface cannot readily cool by thermal radiation, with the result that the heat is carried up in those massive tropical cumulo-nimbus clouds into the troposphere (the hotspot) before being carried polewards, where it can escape as thermal radiation?
10
“So far there doesn’t appear to be any observational evidence for the hot spot and stratospheric temperatures depend on other things than CO2.”
Well if you followed the long discussion on this topic last year at Real Climate you’d have to agree that it was at least arguable that the hot spot doe exists. I don’t agree with those sceptics who dismiss it out of hand.
“Mainly absorption of UV from the sun and the UV varies much more than visible and infrared. Assigning stratospheric cooling to CO2 is quite a reach and I believe it stopped in 1995 or so while CO2 continues to increase.
The molecular weights of H2O vapour , oxygen/nitrogen and CO2 differ greatly but molecular diffusion appears to be so strong that they remain well? mixed even in a one g gravity field over 30 Km or so and the upper 15km doesn’t have any strong bulk transfer or mixing due to convection.”
Partly agree. But this ignores the many possible consequences of the fact that large tropical cumulo-nimbus systems often ‘overshoot’ to well above the tropopause. It is again arguable how much latent heat is released that high either above the tropics or in the polewards drift plumes (it is all ice by that point)to contribute to OLR (Lindzen’s iris effect),
However, there is also a significantly efficient contribution to albedo because the incoming SW IR is maximal at those high altitudes (less absorbed) and because SW IR takes part in photolytic reactions at the (top) surface of ice grains converting it to re-radiated LW IR. It is possible to show high altitude cloud can be nearly as efficient in terms of albedo as surface snow and ice. Yet another source of homeostasis (i.e. a negative feedback).
“I’d still like to see some real CO2 measurements at 70,000 feet or so.”
Agreed.
10
Runmble #135
Actually you make a fairly good point Rumble, thats if I understand you correctly.
I must compliment you on the tenacity you display, especially in view of the overwhelming numbers against you on this blog.
My respects to you. However I also think the last couple of lines at#135 are regrettable. So now the discussion at hand…
You are saying because there are no observations, no conclusions can be made either way. Sounds reasonable; bit like we can’t observe God so we can’t conclude either way s/he exists.
If I may ask you to consider the following…
A skeptic, a la Jo, is not a “competing” institution racing to prove something, afterall, all us skeptics would have continued with our daily lives as per usual if the IPCC hadn’t announced the planet was in danger. This is where skepticism kicks in. We ask wheres your proof? they say here it is. We analyse THAT “proof” and point out it’s flaws. There is NO onus on a skeptic to show counter proof, debunking the original proof is sufficient, afterall, skeptics aren’t the ones running around proclaiming disasters are upon us. I refer you to this article http://www.john-daly.com/wojick.htm
Regards your comment “Whatever theory you favour, Jo’s core claim in this case cannot be given credence by anyone who is, as you say, “a confirmed skeptic and . . . skeptical of everything”.
I’m afraid you are creating something akin to a positive feedback there, eg A is skeptical of B who is skeptical of C who is skeptical of A. If thats correct, only those who nod their heads and agree with what they’re told need enter into discussions, all others can take a vacation. Yes I am skeptical of what Jo, McIntyre or Daly et al say, but it just so happens – TO ME – what they say makes more sense, I tend to believe them. To pigheadedly argue just for the sake of being perpetually skeptical is…well..just pigheadd.
Keep up the fight for your “side”, it’s admirable 🙂
10
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/
10
Baa Humbug:
\
We see a car stalled on a railway track with a family inside. I put my ear to the ground
and say: “I hear rumbling, I’m pretty sure a train is coming. Let’s warn the family.”
You say: “It could be seismic activity; it could be the wind; and anyway how do I know your hearing isn’t dodgey? Prove it.”
I say: “Well look, I’ve got a rumbleometer here and it’s registering strong signals.”
You say: “When did you last have it calibrated? How do I know it’s not malfunctioning? Don’t you know some scientists have questioned whether rumbleometer theory has any validity? How many times have you validated your readings in this place and against an independently claibrated rumbleometer?”
You get the point.
If I’m wrong, hey, sorry about that.
If you’re wrong, well . . . .
10
Hi Rumble, not a bad analogy, I ticked the “like” box.
But surely you can’t equate a car on a train line (walking over and telling the occupants a train “MAY” be coming is costless, has no consequences) with predictions of earthly dire cosequences, immense costs and global economic shifts, not to mention the scenarios told to our kids (did you see the ABC Drum website “a letter to your father” by Clive Hamilton?) The two are poles apart. (one melting one freezing lol) by the way, did you read article on the link I provided?
regards
10
Rumble,
Your analogy is flawed. Trains are known to go through that grade crossing on a regular basis. You don’t need to know that a train is approaching at that particular time. You get the family out of the car because you know that trains will come.
The flaw is that CO2 is not known to cause any problem. In fact it has been convincingly shown that it can’t cause any problem. Therefore taking action to mitigate it is what we call, “a fool’s errand.”
This whole thing is about as sensible as cutting off your hand to cure a hangnail.
10
Very nice Roy, so simple. U got a tick as well lol
10
Wouldn’t the analogy be closer if we described it thus:
There’s a car stalled in a field. On putting my ear to the ground, I hear a rumble. I suggest to the family this means a train is coming and we’d better get them out of there, ASAP! But we’ll need them to pay us a lot of money to do that because we’re gonna need some pretty major reworking of their car, just so’s we can get them out safely before that train hits…
By the way, Rumble, keep it up. You have the wittiest style I think I’ve yet seen on all these website.
10
We are standing in the Australian bush with an old, old man.
I put my ear to the ground and say: “I hear rumbling: I think a herd of wild elephants is coming.”
You say: “Don’t be an idiot, there’s never been wild elephants in Australia and no known reason for them to be here now.”
I say: “Well, what’s that rumbling then? My rumbleometer tells me it’s not an earthquake.”
You say: “Old man – ever seen any elephants here?”
Old man says: “No, mate, are you some kind of drongo? No elephants in Australia. Could be a big mob of kanga-bloody-roos. There’s always been kangaroos in Australia and they come and go through these parts. Don’t worry, they’re natural. They don’t hurt anyone. That new-fangled machine of yours is useless.”
I say: “Well, something’s heading this way and whatever it is, it’s REALLY big. Look, the leaves are shaking on the trees, the birds have gone quiet and the rumbleometer needle’s going crazy. You may be right old man but I’m getting out of the way and I think you should too.”
I retreat to a nearby hill and watch as you and the old man engage in animated debate about your objections to my elephant hypothesis and the merits of the more plausible ‘roo theory. But the rumbling suddenly gets louder and splat! A runaway train cleans both of you up.
10
Naaaah. No rumbling.
No elephants. No kang-bloody-roos. No train.
Lotsa naughty boys though.
http://thedogatemydata.blogspot.com/2009/12/raw-v-adjusted-ghcn-data.html
A very naughty girl should feel right at home.
10
Nice!
A shame though that your hypothesis was so far out. If’n you and your rumbleometer knew just a little more about the likely cause of rumbling in the Aussie bush, you might have persuaded us with a plausible theory. Not only might we have been saved, but we may have been able to all agree on an effective way of dealing with that runaway train…
10
Steve, that link is very interesting and follows up on the Willis post nicely. Without knowing much at all about the various adjustments needed to the raw data, I am curious as to why the raw data so often shows a downward trend, and the adjusted data an upward trend. Surely if there are changes in the environment that affect the measurement stations, one could resonably expect a more diverse range of effects, that is, some up, some down, some quite flat, all dispersed across the timeline.
Of course I haven’t seen ALL the data, I am only going from a few blog posts. But still, if many many raw data plots show a downward trend overall, doesn’t this point to a real effect?
Or, is this cherrypicking in that the data being referred to on the blogs is only that which has a downward trend? Perhaps I need to go read in detail EM Smith’s stuff about the March of Thermometers…
10
Hi Geemac
Of course there are numerous sites which show an upward trend – especially after as late as WWII when Stevenson Screens were finally universally implemented across Australia. Some Screens were adopted as early as 1910 as Thomas Stevenson himself (father of Robert Louis Stevenson) died in 1887.
However, there seems to be about an equivalent number of stations at least all around Australia which show a downward trend even being conservative (cautious) and only considering records after (say) 1950. Warwick Huges post about this some time back on WUWT.
This is what I find so striking.
As has been pointed out recently on a number of blogs – if you accept that the 20th Century ‘apparent warming trend’ was about 0.6 C, it comes as quite a shock to find that, at many stations, much of that (typically ~0.45 C) can typically be accounted-for by the (GHCN/GISS/CRU) adjustments (‘homogenization’) applied mostly to post-WWII data.
The Brisbane Airport just happens to be an outstanding clear cut case. Anyone familiar with the location and history of the Eagle Farm Airport would find it absolutely astonishing that anyone could consider there was a case for any sort of post-1950 ‘adjustment’ at all.
As a 61-year old PhD scientist with fairly strong math/stats skills I can only say that IMHO there really does have to be an international investigation into all this with open, transparent, impartial (dare I say it) peer reviewing.
10
S. Short (94)
Leaving aside the insults and half baked attempts to silence this poster through humiliation, let me repeat my point. You need to show GCM’s DO actually include convection. Since the total amount of convection in the atmosphere is chaotic, unpredictably variable and thus unquantifiable, it follows that it is impossible to correctly model. Therefore it is unlikely that you can do anything but make unsubstantiated claims (categorical statements) to the contrary. Also in view of the fact that the so called “climate scientists” refuse to allow anyone, particularly independent scientists, to even look at, let alone test their data, I should think it even less likely that you can show that they have used convection in their models (even at an in-depth technical level). Incidentally I think you’ll find that OLR stands for Out-going Long-wave Radiation, not “Outward Leaving Radiation”. Just a small in-depth technical point that I would expect a middle aged scientist and experienced “thermodynamicist” (no such word) to be aware of. Still thats just the opinion of one middle aged expert thermo bovine excrement detector.
S. Schapel (95)
The experiment with the bottles does not prove the existence of a “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere. All it proves is that if you trap a gas so that it is unable to convect when you apply heat, that gas will absorb more heat and increase in temperature. This is not news. The effect can be observed simply by blowing into you hands on a cold day. Besides water vapour, according to “greenhouse gas” theory, is supposed to be a more powerful “greenhouse gas” than CO2. So it might be helpful if pseudo-scientist like Gray could at least show some degree of consistency in their sophistry, as this may help with credibility issues. The more likely culprit in the coca-cola bottle for the heat bias will be the sugar. So the correct scientific test would be to compare two bottles of water one of which would be carbonated. In fact I have just done this experiment with three clear plastic bottles:
Bottle one was half filled with tap water and sealed.
Bottle two was half filled with carbonated water, vigorously shaken when sealed in order to ensure maximum carbon dioxide in the cavity.
Bottle three was an empty bottle containing only ambient room air and sealed.
I have video taped the experiment and will soon upload the film to my web site. The results are no surprise to me but will be shocking to many AGW believers. The experiment was carried out twice in succession and the bottle containing almost pure CO2 cooled faster than the other two bottles consistently on both occasions. Proving that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and also proving that ordinary air holds on to heat longer than pure CO2.
All gasses absorb and emit IR. The temperature at which a substance becomes a liquid or gas, is what really determines how sensitive it is to absorbing heat. Oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere and has a melting point of 54.36 K. Nitrogen is 79% of the atmosphere and has a melting point of 63.15 K. CO2 is 0.03811% of the atmosphere and has a melting point of 194.65 K. So which of these three gasses is having least effect on atmospheric temperature?
The experiment is consistent with the fact that CO2 is the least sensitive to heat as attested to by its relative melting/freezing point of 194.65 K.
The science of AGW and Greenhouse effect is a 150 year old fraud.
Don’t believe AGW is a fraud, Know it!
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
10
May I suggest that, if possible, you Google the terms:
convective parameterization
and
convective super-parameterization
Other than that I have no time to help you grow up. It appears to be an insurmountable task….
10
S. Short (154)
Thanks for the suggestion!
http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/metr452/models/2001/convection.html
“One of the more difficult aspects of forecasting is convection. This is especially true with computer model forecasts. Efforts have been made to model convective outbreaks. However, the great number of variables required to simulate convection, and the fact that it often occurs on scales too small to be tracked well by models, mean simulation of this process is virtually impossible. Actions and motions at this scale have proved to be better handled through parameterization. Parameterization is a way to, out of mathematical convenience and necessity, represent the physical effects of a process (in this case convection) in terms of simplified parameters, rather than actually resolving the process itself. Thus, if the parameters satisfy certain conditions, convection is forecasted by the model.”
I rest my case! It would appear that I was correct, it is impossible to accurately model convection so instead, like temperature (see CRU leak) it is being fudged. Guessing is not exactly how you define science, unless science has now become the art of making up data to fit the theory. And as I pointed out earlier if you do not fully recreate the effect of convection in a computer model, you will in actual fact be modeling a greenhouse because that what a greenhouse is for, the prevention of convection.
Or perhaps I’m just being immature again.
While I’m on the subject of being childish maybe you would like check out this video I’ve just uploaded to my website http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html where you can watch me perform an experiment which an eight year old could do. It proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and debunks AGW for less than £5.00.
I hope that at least some of the posters on this forum will realise the gravity and the implications of this video.
10
Jo you should watch the video in #155 as it is sure easier than haggling over a hotspot. Your crystal clear irrefutable proof that CO2 is not a GHG…. for $5.00. lol.
10
Politicians cost lives @ 155: …that what a greenhouse is for, the prevention of convection.
You have nailed a fundamental flaw in the so called AGW theory. The so called theory starts with the presumption that CO2 traps heat and that causes the atmosphere to act like an actual greenhouse. It often implies that human caused CO2 emission is many times more effective in trapping heat than natural CO2 by some unidentified “amplification” mechanism. The simple fact remains that no matter how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, it cannot trap heat because of the operation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: unconstrained unbalanced energy systems move to a state of energy equilibrium – meaning high temperature regions transfer their excess energy to low temperature regions.
Heat energy CANNOT flow from cold to hot. A cold gas in the upper atmosphere CANNOT heat a hotter ground. Yet, one of the important ways that CO2 is supposed to heat the globe is that as the globe radiates heat, the CO2 above it absorbs the radiation and re-radiates it back to the ground. Again by the second law, the CO2 cannot become hotter than the ground and thus cannot transfer its heat back to the ground. If it did, it would not only violate the second law, it would violate the first: namely energy is conserved. We could have abundant free energy without having to burn fossil fuel. It would be perpetual motion machines forever. This is simply, flat out impossible.
In the free atmosphere, the primary mechanism of that energy transfer is convection. As you point out, the reason actual greenhouses get hot on the inside is that the transparent/translucent roof PROHIBITS the convection of heat energy from the inside constrained atmosphere to outside unconstrained atmosphere. To be sure, the paths of conduction and radiation are still operative to a degree and an actual greenhouse will cool when the sun is not shining. However, convection still remains constrained.
This fact is sufficient to blow away the AGW house of cards that is held together by faith, whim, and fraud. It makes no difference how many PhD’s say otherwise, how many peer reviewed papers have been published holding otherwise, or how many petty politicians are trying to scam the public of their freedom and well earned wealth. There are no greenhouse gasses because there is no greenhouse effect in the free atmosphere.
Reality rules. Fight with reality, and you will lose. You have no choice in the matter.
10
SO Lionell do you disagree with this description of how a greenhouse works? http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/C.Levit/web%20page.html
10
And further to that… this link http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html backs you up in that greenhouses just stop convection and heat escaping rather than the IR being blocked (noting that poly tunnels work but they let IR out)… but incredibly includes this quote:
“Ironically, the notorious “greenhouse effect” really does work the way a gardener’s greenhouse was (inaccurately) thought to operate: carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and other such gasses in the atmosphere let the solar radiation pass to the earth’s surface but impede the reradiation of thermal infrared wavelengths back to space.”
Ahh yes I see the problem she is another pesky PhD…
10
Politicians cost lives @ 155:
I may have to agree with Mattb that you are a crackpot! I don’t like it but what is, is.
I was with you until you came up with this piece of total bullshit. This all but undercut your argument. Wha I advise you to check your premises. Some of them are from an alternate universe.
There is NO such thing as FREE energy – no way, no how, no where, no when. Hydrogen from water is about the least free energy there is. There is no possible advance of technology that can make it happen. It might be slightly possible that using Hydrogen as an energy storage media might some day be economically feasible but it will never ever be free. It takes more energy to get Hydrogen out of water than you get from turning it back into water. See the Three Laws of Thermodynamics for instructive detail.
10
Mattb: SO Lionell do you disagree with this description of how a greenhouse works?
Yes! The major effect in a greenhouse is containing convection. Replace the glass or plastic with NaCl windows (transparent to long wave radiation) and the results are substantially the same. The radiation effects are minuscule by comparison to the effect of convection. Otherwise, a greenhouse would not work.
Look it up yourself. I don’t have the interest nor time to deal with you any more.
10
Lionell
There are many technologies that have been kept hidden for commercial reasons. You cannot monopolize a substance that falls from the sky. We are told that cold fusion is not reproducible. But the fact is , if it occurs naturally then humans can reproduce it.
There are thousands of technologies that have been suppressed over the years for very obvious reasons, but that is another subject all together, though you are wrong about hydrogen. You are also wrong about free energy. How much do you pay for your Sun light? Or what about the heat generated by rotting grass cuttings and compost, isn’t that free? Just because we are too lazy to harness something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I am surprised that I would need to point that out to you. The point I was making in the pdf you refer to is about how and why we are continually lied to and manipulated in the pursuit financial gain and power. Why you would want to quote me out of context and then call me a crackpot is not really of any interest to me. I am only here to spread the truth about AGW.
The movie on my site, of a simple experiment which proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proves that pure CO2 traps less heat than ordinary air can be reproduced by anyone. So don’t be lazy, go and test it for yourselves.
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
10
Politicians cost lives: There are thousands of technologies that have been suppressed over the years …
1. There are thousands of crackpot technologies that could not be made to work so were not developed. The one’s that could have worked were poorly developed, poorly documented, poorly protected, and poorly marketed. Stop blaming the other guy for not spending his wealth on your crackpot ideas. That is his free choice.
2. If cold fusion is such a fantastically great new technology, why don’t YOU develop it, sell it, and make a stupendous fortune? Stop blaming Big oil or Big coal, Mean Evil Bankers, or some such for sitting on your ass and not doing a damn thing about it. Shut up and do it. Then come back and convince me by giving me an actual demonstration of something that works. Verbal bullshit and bombastic assertions don’t cut it.
3. Name three technologies that could have been economically viable and would have made a real contribution to the economy. Then PROVE that they were stopped by Big oil or Big coal, Mean Evil Bankers or some such rather than the so called inventors were frauds and crackpots.
10
[…] do not show carbon has a major role. When we talk about the “Major Role”, we’re talking about Feedbacks. Nobody who is anybody believes doubling carbon on it’s own will warm us by much more than one […]
10
George Nixon
Earlier on in the JoNova blog, I posted a request for any interested physicist to evaluate and comment on my work which has an ability to explain the warming and cooling of the Earth’s interior that does not result from the Sun’s radiation or nuclear fission. There have been no acceptors of my invitation. Yes “sucked in” you are correct when you emphasize the importance of “a peer review” but when you have no peers, what then. The Earth will undergo the bulk of its warming and cooling despite mankind’s input.
I am 87 years old and have studied physics for most of my life but have no academic qualifications. My work on the subject ranges from an attempt to define the dynamic realities of a “Unit of basic energy” and then onward from a postulated bases for physics to all facets of physics, and ending with an attempt to define the conditions (no black hole despite the present belief) at the centre of our galaxy. For instance, the work demands that all acceleration, including acceleration due to gravitation requires an unbalanced force to be acting. I find that gravitation is responsible for the warping of “that” we call space and not the other way around as now believed by the use of the General Theory of Relativity. I originally thought that a scientist would have been at least prepared to read about an attempt to provide a conceptual description of the fundamental dynamic nature of matter, but no, over many years there have been no replies to my many requests for an evaluation.
Presently science hasn’t got an explanation as to why the Pioneer vehicles received an unexpected extra boost when passing a planet, and why they are slowing down unexpectedly. My work not only explains those so-called anomalies, they are demanded by the principles on which it is based. Yes science is correct in the belief that somehow mass is involved. However, the postulation of Dark Matter is indicative of the lack of knowledge concerning matter. With regards to the heating and cooling of our planet as referred to above, the fundamental nature of evaporation and condensation, also freezing and thawing involve phase changes of state, are the major thermostats controlling the condition of our atmosphere and have been widely researched but remain vaguely understood.
Again I will request that if a retired or still active physicist is prepared to read and comment on my work , I would be pleased to supply him or her with a copy. The email address is [email protected]
10
Hey PCL – the earth exists… why don’t you reproduce it?
10
Every family tree has some sap in it.
10
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-one-flaw-that-wipes-out-the-crisis – The one flaw that wipes out the crisis « JoNova…We focus on the most desirable vacation times, which include Christmas season in the Rockies, spring training time in Arizona, and summer along the Pacific Coast.Bookmarked and Pinged by http://www.westweeks.com/ […]
10
Hey Rumble,
There is one major, major, major flaw in your analogy:
The prophecy of impending, fertilizer caused apocalypse has itself many, many consequences, and plenty more if we pay any heed to it. For one, billions of dollars will go into a black hole project should said prophecy turn out to have not a whole ton of basis, billions of dollars which could have gone to projects that would save thousands, even millions of lives, such as charities that could send food and drink to Africa (charities which don’t work because of bad government policy (the local governments let it rot in harbor so they can eat it all themselves)), or which could have stayed in their pockets of the taxpayer. On top of that, the gears of scientific war set in motion by the prophets have steamrolled their way over the scientific community, leaving a barren wasteland whose only inhabitants are hypocritical tyrants who have ceased to understand the scientific heritage, and ceased to understand at all the school of thought they claim to serve.
Summed up, the costs of “telling the family in the car a train is coming” are these:
Poverty
Tyranny
Rationality
And the odds are low, VERY low, that global warming is at all a threat. And the odds are even lower that its a threat worth notice. And the odds are yet even lower that we have the means to fight such a grand, sublime tide of death foretold by the likes of our father Al Gore in heaven. And the odds are even lower that even if you succeed, you will avoid the said costs, which would already be the cost of Al Gore being a Cassandra.
Remember the story of King Canute?
He was the king who went to the edges of the sea, told by his advisers that he had the power to dictate the rhythm of the tides, and commanded the incoming waves to recede.
Now who does that sound like?
“This is the day the day that jobs were provided for the jobless, the oceans began to recede, and the earth began to heal.” (I am unsure if this quote is fully accurate.) Notice the second part, the one about the oceans.
Now that is an analogy that works.
On another note:
Even if we are committing the greatest mass extinction ever, the fossil record highly suggests that “species diversity” (a word with no meaning, given we can’t properly define “species” (indeed, a species does not exist)) is like a plant, it grows best from its own ashes. You are here BECAUSE of mass extinction. As are plants, animals, every other form of eukaryote, cyanobacteria, and a majority of bacterial species. Indeed, only one species would be around if not for extinction. Life may have a 100% mortality rate, but mortality has a 200% birth rate.
10
Sorry. Double post not intentional.
“There are thousands of technologies that have been suppressed over the years for very obvious reasons, but that is another subject all together, though you are wrong about hydrogen. You are also wrong about free energy. How much do you pay for your Sun light? Or what about the heat generated by rotting grass cuttings and compost, isn’t that free? Just because we are too lazy to harness something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I am surprised that I would need to point that out to you. The point I was making in the pdf you refer to is about how and why we are continually lied to and manipulated in the pursuit financial gain and power. Why you would want to quote me out of context and then call me a crackpot is not really of any interest to me. I am only here to spread the truth about AGW. ”
While a substance may be free to acquire, the power to harness it is not. Not by a long shot. The engine that burns fuel is a separate entity, and requires its own costs (a car is, after all, not cheap.) Same to with any engine. Saying “sunlight is free” doesn’t mean solar panels are, too. And also keep in mind: the ability to control the weather is not free, either. You have no guarantee that there will be sunlight tomorrow. You have no guarantee that your grass won’t shrivel up and die. It just so happens fuel is easy to pump up (if you discount the fact that environmentalist agenda has made it illegal to pump fuel up where its easy (which is the cause of the spill)), and easier still to harness. Sunlight is not. Plants only do as good as they do because they have had billions of years of innovation on their side, as well as plenty of other kinds of fuel. And you don’t see them going down the highway at 60 miles per hour. Even we go faster sitting, and we run on what? Oxygen and carbon. Which is what government wants to limit, ironically. Socialism is slavery, slavery is death.
10
[…] upon a time, the missing hot spot and the water vapor amplification was virtually unknown. In Jan 2009 Tony Kelly from the Royal Society, met David and I privately in […]
10
[…] climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor
10
[…] interesting how the message is spreading. David and I have been arguing for 2 or 3 years that the feedbacks are the key gaping flaw, the critical point in the skeptic’s case. (And see this post last week.) It’s the […]
10
[…] […]
10