.
by Garth Paltridge
The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise. The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate. The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse.
Attempts to resolve the arguments are plagued with problems, a lot of which are inherently insoluble. There are many aspects of the behaviour of the natural climate system and of human society that are unpredictable in principle, let alone in practice. But perhaps the biggest of the underlying problems, and it is common to both arguments since it inevitably exists when there is large unpredictability and uncertainty, is the presence of strong forces encouraging public overstatement and a belief in worst-case scenarios.
From the social and economic side of things, one might take much more notice of the global warming scare campaign if it were not so obvious that many of its most vociferous supporters have other agendas. There are those, for instance, who are concerned with preservation of the world’s resources of coal and oil for the benefit of future generations. There are those who, like the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, speaking at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, look with favour on the possibility of an international decarbonisation regime because it would be a first step to global governance (the president’s actual words were “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance”.) There are those who, like the socialists of the 20th century, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between the individual nations. There are those who regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of influence which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.
Of course there is nothing wrong, or at least not much that is wrong, with the ideals behind any of the above agendas except perhaps the last couple on the list. But the battles over them should be fought in the open and on their own merits rather than on the basis of a global warming crusade whose legitimacy is founded on still-doubtful science and on massive slabs of politically correct propaganda.
It is generally assumed that climate scientists themselves are more or less united on the matter and are not pushing a global warming barrow because of their interest in some other agenda. Certainly this is the story the activists would have us believe.
To the extent that there is such a thing as normal science, it relies upon accurate observations to verify its theories. Accurate is the operative word here. Climate research has to rely on spectacularly inaccurate data from information on Earth’s past climate. Even though there are vast amounts of atmospheric and oceanographic data to play with, together with lots of proxy information from tree rings and ice cores and corals and so on, abstracting a coherent story from it all is something of a statistical nightmare. It gives a whole new meaning to the old saying “lies, damn lies and statistics”.
Suffice it to say that climate science is an example of what Canadian educator Sue McGregor calls “post-normal science”, in which “the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent”. In such circumstances it is virtually impossible to avoid subconscious cherry-picking of data to suit the popular theory of the time. Even Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not immune from the problem. In their case they were of sufficient genius (and were sufficiently lucky!) for their theories ultimately to trump the inaccuracy of the observations they had selected. Other scientists are rarely so prescient or so lucky. In the modern era, the problem is compounded by the existence of vastly complex computer models that can be tuned, again more-or-less subconsciously, to yield the desired result. From theory to observation and back again – if we are not careful, the cherry-picking can go round and round in an endless, misleading loop.
But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.
JC note: note the difference here between postnormal and postmodern science.
There is little doubt that some players in the climate game – not a lot, but enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in general – have stepped across the boundary into postmodern science. The Climategate scandal of 2009, wherein thousands of emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, showed that certain senior members of the research community were, and presumably still are, quite capable of deliberately selecting data in order to overstate the evidence for dangerous climate change. The emails showed as well that these senior members were quite happy to discuss ways and means of controlling the research journals so as to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma. The ways and means included the sacking of recalcitrant editors.
Whatever the reason, it is indeed vastly more difficult to publish results in climate research journals if they run against the tide of politically correct opinion. Which is why most of the sceptic literature on the subject has been forced onto the web, and particularly onto web-logs devoted to the sceptic view of things. Which, in turn, is why the more fanatical of the believers in anthropogenic global warming insist that only peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs. They argue that the sceptic web-logs should never be taken seriously by “real” scientists, and certainly should never be quoted. Which is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review.
Climate science has transformed itself from a research backwater a few decades ago into one of the greatest public-good scientific cash cows ever devised. In Australia, for instance, there is a separate federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency specifically devoted to implementing (buying?) the social change required to limit global warming. The livelihood of many of the climate scientists within the CSIRO and elsewhere is now dependent on grants from that department. It is not a situation conducive to sceptical outlook and balanced advice. When a tendency toward postmodern science is mixed with a single, generous and undoubtedly biased source of money, it is not surprising that things can go very wrong very quickly.
This has all come about largely because government laboratories these days are required to earn a goodly fraction of their operating income from external sources – this even when their activity is public-good research for which there is not a private market. The requirement inevitably encourages the emergence of activist-scientists who are not overly concerned about sliding into the realm of postmodern science.
In the particular case of CSIRO for instance, the encouragement starts with a formal mission statement to the effect that CSIRO seeks to achieve “a profound and positive impact on the most significant challenges and opportunities facing Australia and humanity”. Good stirring stuff of course, except that “impact” can get translated to “influence” in the reviews of its scientific programs, and the mission statement can be interpreted as justification for devoting a large fraction of overall scientific resources to the business of creating a market for one’s scientific advice.
As one organisation after another jumps, or is pushed, into producing public assessments of the climate change issue, we see the same small group of activist-scientists in the background. We see them providing briefings to federal and state politicians. We see them as primary advisers to supposedly independent organisations such as the Australian Academy of Science. We see them involved in programs to introduce school children to the dangers of a carbon footprint. Generally we see them in what agricultural science used to call extension activities – although in the case of climate change much of the extension effort is devoted to convincing the various audiences that there is indeed a problem worth doing something about.
No doubt these scientists genuinely believe in their own perception of the climate change story. But why do mainstream scientists go along with the inevitable overstatement associated with the activism business?
One factor is a form of loyalty to colleagues. Another, bearing in mind the singular nature of the funding source, is the need to eat. But mostly it gets back to the uncertainty of the science. The typical climate researcher is reluctant to go public with contrary opinion not backed by something very close to real proof. And there is very little real proof on either side of the climate change story. Contrary opinion in an era where postmodern science is almost respectable can be dangerous to a research career.
The bottom line of all this is that deliberate understatement of the uncertainty of the science allows overstatement of the climate change problem. In the early days of the debate – back in the ’70s and early ’80s, before the whole issue became highly politicised – scientists were quite happy to admit to the uncertainty.
As a consequence, there was a philosophy around the traps at the time to the effect that, if nations really wanted to do something drastic and expensive about global warming, then the sensible course would be to take only those actions which would also be worth doing for other reasons. Improving the efficiency of transport would be sensible for instance. Burying vast quantities of carbon from the smokestacks of power stations would not.
That philosophy soon got lost in the politics. It is mildly encouraging now, perhaps as a result of the Climategate scandal, that we are beginning to see a new generation of climate scientists look again with a properly jaundiced eye at the question of uncertainty and how it might be assessed.
It is not surprising that society’s opinion on what to do about climate change is highly polarised. There are passionate and vocal supporters on both sides of the argument as to whether global warming will be disastrous.
It is a bit surprising that what seems to be a roughly 50/50 split of public opinion is not at all a reflection of the much vaunted consensus of the climate science community. Perhaps this says a lot for the commonsense of the person in the street. In any event, the complexity of the issue, and the vast scale of the resources required to solve the problem (if there is a problem), make it difficult for middle-ground argument to be heard.
All of which makes it very hard for politicians to make sensible decisions on the basis of some reasonable balance of probability. One can but wonder at the prescience of former US president Dwight D Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation in 1961:
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Suffice it to say that there is a need for politicians to have access to a real diversity of advice on the science of climate change. In this country, and in most Western countries, the sources of advice are highly inbred.
It would seem important also that any political and economic action on the matter of global warming should be flexible enough to be changed, or indeed discarded, should there be a significant shift in scientific or public perception. In terms of practical politics, the government of the day needs to give itself future wiggle room by making it clear to everyone that it is indeed making decisions on the basis of a fluid balance of probabilities, rather than on what activists insist is a scientific and economic certainty.
JC note: This article first appeared in The Australian Financial Review. Don Aitkin brought this to my attention, I then invited Garth to do a guest post on this. Garth Paltridge’s bio information can be found in this Wikipedia article.
Well said.
I agree. Especially, with the statement, “But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science . . . , whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied.”
“Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.”
“Postmodern science” emerged in 1946 with publication of two papers [1,2] that a.) Abruptly changed opinions on “nuclear fires” in the cores of the Sun and other stars, and
b.) Were adopted unanimously without discussion or debate [3].
Thanks to Climategate emails and documents released in Nov 2009, three (3) cancerous growths have been identified that had flourished out-of-sight for sixty-four years (2009 – 1945 = 64 yrs) because world leaders – – frightened by the “nuclear fires” ignited by a sudden release of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the cores of uranium atoms and plutonium atoms on 6 Aug 1945 and 9 Aug 1945 to consume Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively – – established the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 to save the world from destruction by “nuclear fires”!
1.) A cancerous growth of deceit has flourished on government science after 1945, nourished by generous awards, grant funds and tenure for compliant scientists.
2.) A cancerous totalitarian government took control of information and advances in electronic surveillance subjugate citizens in the manner George Orwell predicted in a novel written in 1948, “1984″.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
3.) Talented, intellectually honest scientists – like the late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu [4-9] – suffered immense stress [10] and were driven from science.
Dwarka Das Sabu is only one – of many examples that I know – of young scientists whose lives and careers were damaged by adherence to basic principles of science.
Here’s a brief outline of the events that almost destroyed the integrity of science, constitutional government, and the careers and lives of the most creative young scientists since 1945:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-132
References:
01. Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946). http://tinyurl.com/8aal4oy
02. Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946).
http://tinyurl.com/6uhm4xv
03. Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist’s Life, (University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, USA, Published 1 April 1994, 443 pages) pp. 153-154
04. D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, “Superheavy elements: Were they present in meteorites?” Trans. Missouri Acad. Sci. 5, 16-21 (1971).
05. O. K. Manuel, E. W. Hennecke, and D. D. Sabu, “Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240, 99-101 (1972).
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/XenonInCarbonaceousChondrites.pdf
06. O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, “Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements”, Trans. Missouri Acad. Sci. 9, 104-122 (1975).
07. D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, “The xenon record of element synthesis”, Copyright lecture notes for paper no. P58, presented at the 1976 AGU Meeting, Sheraton Hotel, Washington DC, April 14 (1976).
08. D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, “Xenon record of the early solar system,” Nature 262, 28-32 (1976).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v262/n5563/abs/262028a0.html
09. O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, “Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195, 208-209 (1977).
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
10. Dinesh Sabu, Unbroken Glass, a documentary (in progress, 2012)
http://kartemquin.com/films/unbroken-glass
World leaders are held hostage today by unrealistic policies adopted after 1945 on the basis of postmodern science – “a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.”
Reality cannot be denied by conniving, manipulative naked apes living on the watery planet that Copernicus discovered in 1543 to be orbiting a central fountain of energy that sustains life and controls the planets.
Copernicus’s Sol and planets (1543): http://tinyurl.com/7qx7zxs
Social and economic systems are collapsing now because leaders of the scientific community sold world leaders their own inflated opinions of self-importance in 1945. They are now trapped with the rest of us like rats on a sinking ship.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-132
Reality itself is benevolent and in total control of mankind, including world leaders and politicians.
Here’s the outlined of a process that may help world leaders restore contact with Reality and avert more serious social disaster.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-109
The first and most important step requires humility – a trait in short supply, especially among leaders of nations and scientific organizations.
I would appreciate other suggestions for escape from the hostage of unrealistic policies that were adopted after 1945 on the basis of self-deceiving, postmodern science.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
Scientists now want to do some Hawkin’ Hackin real soon…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/stephen-hawking/9352358/Scientists-developing-device-to-hack-into-brain-of-Stephen-Hawking.html
too.
Need I say more, wink, wink,…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPgPyDBmY-k
nudge, nudge.
The simplest expression of this – using my razor, is that this is the unintended consequence of ‘publish or perish’.
“Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind.”
I suppose getting two out of three right isn’t half bad. One of the above is a flametard carpenter with delusions of genius who has a cadre of cheerleaders who uncritically applaud anything contrary to CAGW punditry. Obviously then the author of this piece has no scientific acumen of his own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Paltridge
Note he’s noted for a hypothesis called “maximum entropy production”. I’ve run into that before in the evolution segment of the culture wars. It’s basically a trivial restatement of the second law combined with regard equipartition incorporated within faddish non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It says any system will self-organize to generate the maximum amount of entropy. Duh. That’s simply referred to as “the path of least resistance” by everyone else and is very simple consequence of the 2nd Law and equipartition. It has been used by random universe evolutionists to explain the self-organization of living things. We’re here, you see, because life (and especially humans) are a faster way for the the earth to shatter into a zillion homogenous bits (highest entropy) so, you see, we’re really just a consequence of the universe finding the best way to unravel itself.
Right. That just makes you want to scream CRANK SCIENCE CRANK SCIENCE.
Springer
See papers on maximum entropy climate. Are 24,900 papers all “crank science”? Sift the wheat from the chaff. Maximum entropy provides methods to quantitatively decide between climate alternatives.
Springer is way off in suggesting that maximum entropy is synonymous with “self-organization”. It actually leads to the exact opposite, that of disorganization.
Springer is right that is a “very simple consequence of the 2nd Law and equipartition”, but maximum entropy is the same thing as when you place a couple of drops of dye into a volume of water and watch it disperse to a uniform density. How is that “self-organization”? It’s instead maximum disorganization.
Garth Paltridge actually had an interesting objective in trying to apply entropy techniques to a macroscopic view of the ocean-atmosphere climate system. He was an innovator in the late 70’s early 80’s and was able to model the basic circulation with very little information. As E.T. Jaynes (the mind behind maximum entropy) said, the technique of applying maximum entropy is about using minimal information and not assuming anything more than one has to. One then uses maximum uncertainty estimates of the unknown parameters to fill in the rest. It works very well for many real world problems.
@webbie
For once I have to agree with you. My understanding of maximum entropy agrees entirely with yours.
An alternative and more prosaic view is it is what happens when my g/f – for some unaccountable feminine reason – chucks all the empty wire hangers all over the wardrobe floor. Stuck on the rail they are all nice, separate and organised, in a low entropy state. Thrown on the floor, they get all tangled up and unusable. A high entropy state. And you have to put work in to get them back into their nice ordered way.
Simple thermodynamics really.
Using minimal information and not making any more assumptions than needed. That is the true first law of thermodynamics, K.I.S.S, Keep It Simple Stupid. So you should start with the most significant impact, then work toward the secondary impacts. That is bass ackwards to the CO2 Greenhouse effect procedure. BTW Web, what is the maximum entropy in a stable system?
That’s good that you agree with me because I use the technique of maximum entropy quite often in my own research (both in work and offline).
It helps to simplify the math behind the slow sequestration of excess CO2 out from the carbon cycle.
It also helps to understand the decrease of atmospheric pressure with altitude, i.e. the ideal barometric formula
It also simplifies the math behind the thermal diffusion of excess heat into a high capacity sink such as the ocean.
Those are the kinds of statistical physics approximations that scientists such as Paltridge apply to get a better handle on the macroscopic characteristics and long-term trends. Looking forward to more of this approach from the new generation of scientists taking Paltridge’s role.
Depends on the constraints of the system. Any measure that follows a normal distribution in describing its statistics follows the mechanistic maximum entropy algorithm. One can assume a mean and variance of the measure, and then by the maximum entropy algorithm, the normal Gaussian distribution follows.
The issue is that natural characteristics do not always follow the constraint of a known variance. The variance could actually diverge and then one can get exponential tail, or even fat-tail distributions, which have higher entropy due to the loss of (ordering) constraints.
In practice, the actual maximum value of the entropy is not important. What is often more important is the relative entropy of two competing mechanisms. This is what is referred to am cross-entropy or the Kullback-Leibler divergence .
This approach is entrenched into many areas of statistics and into the information theory field.
@webbie
Basic chemistry too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_process
You can do/explain/predict an awful lot of chemistry with just that one equation.
Correction, as the variance diverges, the fat-tail results. For an exponential, the ignorance on the variance forces it to a maximum entropy value (which is the same as the mean squared).
WebHubTelescope
Please reread Springer: “It has been used by random universe evolutionists to explain the self-organization of living things.”
I believe Springer actually agrees with you that “maximum entropy . . .leads to the exact opposite, that of disorganization. ”
He was criticizing evolutionists who show very little understanding of the 2nd Law or of entropy maximization by appeal to handwaving.
It is actually used to model ecological diversity. One of Paltridge’s followers, Roderick Dewar has used maximum entropy production principles for explaining species diversity. Dewar is now starting to tackle climate science modeling based on his experience.
A caveat is that maximum entropy production is different than the standard maximum entropy principle. Production implies that the path to a maximum entropy state is also maximized. There is a bit more controversy as to the effectiveness of the production approach. The way I work around this is by assuming that the rates have a maximal spread.
What is the maximum entropy of a stable system?
Boy that sounds impressive Web, being a dumb engineer I look at the Earth system and realize that the maximum entropy of a stable open atmospheric system is 50% then select thermodynamic boundary layers that meet that requirement. I think it is the balancing forces thing, you know equal and opposite.
Like the sea surface skin layer. The specific heat of water is 4.2 joules per gram K, the specific heat of dry air is 1.006 Joules per gram per K, At equilibrium, the two would have to equal, meaning the temperature and the moist enthalpy of the air would have to increase to match the surface. 50% of the energy is transferred to the water, 50% to the air. Then you can take that moist air specific heat to a layer were at 50%RH and some temperature you have 4.2 Joules per gram-K. That gives you another thermodynamic boundary layer where Ein has to equal Eout again. Inside of those boundary layers your diffusion equation works like a champ, crossing the boundary layers is the tricky part. Some energy flows through like crap through a goose, some does some work, fun puzzle for a rainy day.
Isn’t maximum entropy also one of the major constituent parts of know theory?
Doc said, “Isn’t maximum entropy also one of the major constituent parts of know theory?” It should be. The discussions I have seen have issues over whether it is maximum entropy or minimum entropy. I have looked at the Max entropy and the 50% estimate of stability provides a good base line or reference to work off of if you assume the system is stable. As long as you are consistent and compare to another 50% reference you are going to be close to the correct system response. The problem is that dang average global temperature. Portions of the surface are below the effective radiant layer temperature so they are outside of the atmosphere effect envelope. So Antarctic winter (NH summer) responds to the stratosphere not the tropopause. Really complicates explaining the energy balance.
David L. Hagen | June 22, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
That’s correct. I forget who made the argument but it was hinged on Prigione’s work involving organization of energy flows into patterns that resulted in maximum entropy generation. Living things, it was pointed out, generate more entropy than they consume thereby increasing total entropy in the earth/sun system. So then the organization inherent in living things is just as natural as a system of river channels that arrange themselves to most efficiently drain a continent i.e. destroying the entropy inherent in water with some altitude above sea level having energy available to do work. I thought it was ridiculous to compare living things to the marginal level of organization in other kinds of self-organizing systems.
Yer way off in your interpretation of what I wrote. We have people who say that any level of self-organization in a sub-system is possible so long as the net result is increasing entropy in the entire system. So there’s low entropy in the earth sun system. Atom bombs, although complex in and of themselves, increase total entropy when they detonate more than the decrease in entropy by the organization in the unexploded bomb. Therefore according to the maximum entropy pundits an atomic bomb is a natural and unavoidable consequence of the earth/sun system arranging itself in a way that maximizes generation of disorder. There are people that actually believe there’s no limit to self-organization so long as the net result of the self-organization is even more efficient disorganization. So living things are no different than the patterns drainage channels assume to drain most efficiently. Reducio ad absurdum if you ask me.
Hagen, you should learn a little more about google searches. Yours lists all papers with the words maximum, climate, and entropy. Only the topmost hits are relevant to Paltridge. The rest just happen to have those three words scattered about in them. Enclosing “maximum entropy” in quotes reduces the hits to 7,000 from 29,000. Duh. And most of those just happen to mention climate. Nobel laureate Illya Prigione is the one who is generating all the scholarly interest in maximum entropy. And I still say maximum entropy is just another way of describing a concept as old as dirt called “the path of least resistance”.
Springer
Thanks for the reminder on quotes.
Dave,
Lighten up. You sound like someone pissed in your corn flakes this morning.
No, it sounds like I pissed on your pom-poms. LOL
Dave Springer: Note he’s noted for a hypothesis called “maximum entropy production”.
So what? Newton devoted his adult life to studying alchemy and believed that he had the proper interpretation of the Revelation of St. John. Einstein was noted for his belief that “God does not play dice.” Everyone is wrong sometimes; according to Francis Crick, true scientists are wrong most of the time. Even if you are correct that it is CRANK SCIENCE, your critique is hardly incisive: at worst, you show that “maximum entropy production” is an intelligent speculation; you have not actually SHOWN that it is “crank science”.
Overall the essay is a good essay, and worthy of actual critiquing, not this silliness.
Professional jealousy, can bring down a nation
And personal invasion, can ruin a man
Not even his family, will understand what’s happening
The price that he’s paying, or even the pain
Professional jealousy, started a rumour
And then it extended, to be more abuse
What started out as just, black propaganda
Was one day seen to be, believed as truth
They say the truth is, stranger than fiction
But a lie is more, deadly than sin
It can make a man very, bitter and angry
When he thinks that there’s someone, is going to win
Professional jealousy makes other people crazy
When they think you’ve got something that, they don’t have
What they don’t understand is it’s, just not easy
To cover it all, and, stand where you stand
Professional jealousy, makes no exception
It can happen to anyone, at any time
The only requirement is, knowing what’s needed
And then delivering, what’s needed on time
The only requirement is to, know what is needed
In doing the best you know how, deliver on time
The only requirement is, to know what is needed
Be best at delivering the, product on time.
— Van Morrison
Springer
Shall we then wait with bated breath for you to show us scientific evaluations of data comparable to or better than those three?
Garth Paltridge wrote: “Willis Eschenbach” “balance and maturity”
This is flat-out wrong and needs to be called firmly.
It’s patently not sensible to think (let alone express) this.
Expression of something so wrong is solid evidence of biased & unacceptable judgement. Poison politics at it’s worst.
Issuing a retraction is your only hope of re-establishing trust after such a serious stumble.
Paul Vaughan
Willis Eschenbach doesn’t contribute “poison politics”, he exposes it. Although I grant this must come across as poisonous to to the poisoners he thus exposes.
Poison politics of Garth, not Willis …for saying Willis provides “balance and maturity”. Have you seen how Willis addresses people?? Why did Garth have to bury that poison pill in the article? No sensible person will swallow it. The issue I’m raising is very specific. I’m not taking issue (here) with the explorations Willis’ pursues. I’m taking blunt issue with Garth for intolerably suggesting we look to Willis as a towering pillar of “balance and maturity”. Willis may make plenty of worthwhile contributions that Mr. Paltridge admires, but suggesting “balance and maturity” is one of them isn’t even remotely sensible, even in the wildest stretch of the imagination. If Garth wants to pay tribute to Mr. Eschenbach without being challenged for accuracy, Garth will have to invest the effort necessary to articulate accurately.
+1
You;d prefer that Mr Eschenbach wrote his excoriations of the papers he dissects with more gravitas?
‘Dear Reader. May I very reverently and with great respect, taking due note of the exalted status and Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the authors and their retinue, point out that their latest paper is a pile of shit’.
I’m sure that will make you all feel better.
Interesting too that your criticisms centre just on his style, not his content. If style is his ‘problem’, then his content must be OK.
boo hoo, Paul. Garth has been called much worse for daring to question the consensus.
Bain just wrote an article calling all scientists who question AGW consensus ‘deniers’.
Gentlemen:
Willis has at times been downright caustic addressing sensible commenters. I’ve seen him being excessively rude towards Dr. Curry.
As for Willis’ subject matter: That’s a separate issue. Occasionally he brings a few worthwhile observations to the discussion table, but overall he’s off-track. (Maybe this will change in the future.)
I can tolerate the subject matter (even though it leaves much to be desired), but not the long-winded, caustic comments, which usually convey 99% personality conflict & 1% substance.
Regards.
@hunter (June 24, 2012 at 8:29 am)
IF Garth Paltridge had said:
(begin hypothetical)
“Willis Eschenbach is effective at firing up simple, common folks at the grass roots of the climate skeptic movement.”
(/end hypothetical)
THEN sensible, politically-neutral onlookers would have been willing to acknowledge THAT statement as true.
“balance and maturity” (what Garth actually said) is the OPPOSITE of what Willis’ core (political red meat) target-audience craves.
There’s no sensible reason for a politically-neutral party to go along with the false statement Garth actually made.
Suggestion for how to get a politically-neutral party to consider going along with such a deceptive, untrue, politically-motivated statement:
Offer long-term generous pay & a guaranteed-secure pension, pegged to local housing & food inflation.
(Clearly the true, hypothetical statement – which would have also achieved Garth’s intended Willis tribute – would have been more cost-effective.)
Dave Springer: One of the above is a flametard carpenter with delusions of genius who has a cadre of cheerleaders who uncritically applaud anything contrary to CAGW punditry.
Oh, cut that out! Willis Eschenbach does some insightful data analyses and writes some intelligent critiques of published articles. He may have a cadre of cheerleaders (a tamer group than James Hansen’s cadre of cheerleaders), but his posts also elicit pertinent criticisms.
I agree. He can be somewhat inflammatory in his manner, and he does have some obsequious followers, but he does a great job of re-examining and critiquing. He makes some extremely interesting points.
Willis most certainly does not “provide a balance and maturity” (Garth Paltridge’s hilariously comical over-the-top patently-false claim).
Agnostic, you are certainly correct to point out that Willis “does have some obsequious followers” (Garth Paltridge clearly being one of them).
+1 again
Aw c’mon, read the sailboat saga.
========
Ok, you make a fair point. But I was agreeing with mattstat who was objecting to “flametard carpenter with delusions of genius”. The broad thrust of Garth Paltridges point is that he and a few others make worthwhile contributions. That he can be caustic and rude at times is a symptom of frustration with some of the less than optimal science he criticises. Taking issue with the way the article characterises Willis is rather missing the point, don’t you think?
“Willis most certainly does not “provide a balance and maturity” (Garth Paltridge’s hilariously comical over-the-top patently-false claim).”
It seems to me a part of maturity is not being threatened by different points of view.
Therefore an obvious example of immaturity would be President Obama.
As I wrote above…
IF Garth Paltridge had said:
(begin hypothetical)
“Willis Eschenbach is effective at firing up simple, common folks at the grass roots of the climate skeptic movement.”
(/end hypothetical)
THEN sensible, politically-neutral onlookers would have been willing to acknowledge THAT statement as true.
“balance and maturity” (what Garth actually said) is the OPPOSITE of what Willis’ core (political red meat) target-audience craves.
Regards.
—
shifting gears….
a. http://i46.tinypic.com/2yw7711.png
b. http://i45.tinypic.com/2nbc3dw.png
maybe special kim can steer dear willis
corbyn-ward (b) & courtillot-ward (a)
…or maybe that’s not his role.
We each have a different role.
Cheers to All.
As God is my witness, Steve is my rudder, moshe the speaking tubes to the engine room.
=============
Hey folks!
Before bashing Garth Paltridge for the opinion about Willis Eschenbach, let’s look at what Paltridge actually wrote:
The first sentence is accurate without any doubt. While Judith might not label herself as a “sceptic”, there is no doubt that she, as well as the other two who are mentioned, have been ”extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned”.
Have all three collectively provided ” a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame” and has, ”as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public” been ”highly effective” ?
That all three have collectively had a ”highly effective outreach to the scientifically inclined general public” is also beyond question.
So we’re left with the ”balance and maturity in public discussion” opinion.
Again, I would argue that, on balance the three named individuals have collectively provided exactly that.
So Paltridge’s opinion makes sense to me.
Now let’s argue about whether or not Willis Eschenbach, as an individual, sometimes reveals his emotions in public discussion, thereby appearing overly critical even of those who might agree with him, in a fashion that some might find less than “balanced and mature”.
Whaddaboudit?
Max
@manacker
Suggestion for how to get a politically-neutral party to consider going along with such a deceptive, untrue, politically-motivated statement:
Offer long-term generous pay & a guaranteed-secure pension, pegged to local housing & food inflation.
Paul –
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Why “balance” and “maturity” are precisely the attributes that first spring to mind when I read one of Willis’ rants; for example the one where he repeatedly impugned Richard Muller’s integrity and character.
Nothing says “balance” and “maturity” like paragraphs of insults.
Do you realise that the IPCC Energy Budget exaggerates IR energy input to the atmosphere by ~400%. The evidence is here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
See equation 17 where the author of this APS piece solves for the lower atmosphere emissivity needed to balance the energy flows. The revised value of 0.76 means that the IPCC claims extra energy from nowhere of 333.[1-0.76] = 80 W/m^2.
This is 50 times higher than the claimed 1.6 W/m^2 AGW. What other discipline would start with an error 50 times higher than the final claimed result? This is incompetence on an heroic scale! no IPCC model prediction can be trusted.
I’d have a lot more confidence that it was ‘just a few’ players who had overstepped the mark if I had ever heard even the slightest hint of criticism form the remaining big majority. Just last week one prissily asserted on this blog that he wasn’t even going to look at anything that came out of Climategate.
Their silence is strong circumstantial evidence is that the only difference between them and the Climategate guys was that the CG guys got caught.
Latimer,
For me, it is a question of whether the ends justify the means.
My moral stand is that they never do, the means must be honorable in and of themselves.
If you call that prissy, well go right ahead.
Anyway, you are trying to tarnish the whole of climate science based on the alleged actions, documented from the fruit of the poison tree, of a few.
@bob droege
Careful you don’t fall off that moral high horse Bob…it’s a long long way down from those superior heights. And when you fall it’ll hurt a lot.
But I am not trying to ‘tarnish the whole of climate science’.
Just observing that there has been a deafening lack of criticism of the wrongdoers actions by the rest of the ‘climate scientists’. Not even an eyebrow raised in surprise. A team of guys central to the very essence of climatology – that run the blog that supposedly brings ‘real climate science from real climate scientists – that are very important authors of IPCC reports – have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and the ‘establishment’ response has been to look the other way. To pretend it never happened…or to cover their eyes and say ‘nah nah I can’t see it’.
This response is – as ever – that of the playground. But I long ago stopped expecting much better. The guys working on supposedly ‘the most important problem humanity has ever faced’ show the collective maturity of a bunch of 13 year olds and all the spine of a jellyfish.
The only mainstream scientist to speak out has been our hostess here…for which she deserves enormous credit. If any other had the courage to join her, they’d be welcome. But I don’t imagine they will.
Get the smelling salts!
Get the roach repellent!
… for underneath the fainting couch.
So we will just round them all up and hang them from the nearest tree without the benefit of a trial.
I do believe there were investigations into the matters surfaced by climategate, but if you say whitewash, I am going to scream.
Can we just move on from Climategate?
I guess not.
See what I did there.
Now, as the posted article, which journal editor got sacked again.
Memory doesn’t serve me.
@bob droege
By your own admission you refuse to look at the evidence. Any submissions from you about Climategate are worthless.
I’ve got cotton in my ears. Whitewash! No, just an institutional mandate to limit the areas of investigation.
Poor bob:
Self-inflicted ignorance on uncomfortable issues is a typical tool fo the faith-based extremist.
bob,
Do you believe it to be impossible for an investigation to be cursory or performed primarily for form’s sake?
Didn’t Penn State investigate Jerry Sandusky and clear him?
Sorry guys,
I am not condoning the actions of those whose emails were stolen, I am just insisting on due process, and supporting the right to be free from unlawful siezure as guaranteed to US citizens, even though I am extending that to lime sucking Brits. Go ahead and trash the constitution cause the ends justify the means.
And if I fall off of my high moral horse, at least I’ll have plenty of company, liars thieves, and degenerates sure know how to party.
Didn’t McShane and Werner get all of Mann’s data and code?
Or maybe I shouldn’t comment on some of the changes that are occurring since Climategate that are improving the state of the science.
And I think Jerry Sandusky is sweating big time right now, he’s been cleared of at least three charges but still has 48 that he’s on the hook for.
Papa Joe didn’t pursue an investigation, lost his job, and several high ranking Penn State officials got the sack and face criminal charges.
bob droege: So we will just round them all up and hang them from the nearest tree without the benefit of a trial.
Definitely not! We want them tried in a court of law, and we want all their records examined for compliance with the contractual terms implicit and sometimes explicit in their government grants. We want all of their communications, and their data and methods, made public, because there is a prima facie case that they have been dishonest while on the public payroll.
For some definition of “we” and “them”; probably not “all”.
bob droege: I am just insisting on due process, and supporting the right to be free from unlawful siezure as guaranteed to US citizens,
We are all insisting on due process, but I think some of us are more insistent than you are. The parties were funded by government contracts, and they had signed terms of computer use agreements with government-endowed state universities. No one is advocating the invasion of homes or the seizure of private property. We are advocating that all of these publicly funded documents and communications be made public. It’s the government agencies and agents defending their right of secrecy from the public.
“Whitewash”? An organization superficially investigated one of its rain makers and found him unblemished. In what other venue of government would you accept such a result: police investigating claims of police brutality? the DMV investigating claims of kickbacks in DMV contracts?
‘No one is advocating the invasion of homes or the seizure of private property’. Someone is cackling in Great Britain and I can hear Tallbloke all the way over here..
===================
Sorry bob, the line about unreasonable searches has to do with governments breaking in, not disgusted insiders leaking evidence.
Latimer,
Plenty of people have criticised Gleick for obtaining documents by deception.
Plenty of people have said Phil Jones was wrong to tell people to delete emails.
Plenty of people accept the criticisms of the Muir Russel report regarding UEA’s handling of FoI requests.
The thing is though you are not just insisting that we condemn bad behaviour where we see it, not an unreasonable request in itself, you are insisting that we accept your interpretation of various other events. Well we are not required to and we are not going to, at least given the current available information, so you will have to accept that, and how you deal with it is entirely up to you.
@andrew adams
Good to know that you, at least , do not condone all the bad behaviour of our public servants working as ‘climate scientists’.
But then you suggest that I am
‘insisting that we accept your interpretation of various other events’
If you’d care to remind me which events you have in mind, I’ll do my best to persuade you that my interpretations are correct. And you, no doubt, will attempt to do the opposite. But I see no ‘insisting’.
And If, I may be so bold, your last sentence sounds rather petulant. I can almost hear Violet Elizabeth Bott in the background saying ‘and I’ll thcream and thcream and thcream till I’m sick’ accompanied by the stamping of tiny feet.
Oops…forgot the video
‘http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9fuPCWAl-c
So the most extreme action Andrew Adams is prepared to sanction, is criticism of malpractice-happy postmodern scientists like Jones. Gosh, that’ll really turn things around.
And how we deal with this flat refusal to take effective corrective action, is “entirely up to [us]”. Reminiscent of the kind of justice black people were fobbed off with under apartheid.
aa,
And plenty more, from his employer to major players in AGW promotion, have cheered his fraud.
And, by the climategate is not about fraud. It is about telling the truth that believers do not want to read.
Vassily,
So the most extreme action Andrew Adams is prepared to sanction, is criticism of malpractice-happy postmodern scientists like Jones. Gosh, that’ll really turn things around.
Nope, genuine wrongdoing should be investigated by the relevant authorities. I have said before that if Gleick’s broke the law he has to face the consequences, I have defended the ICO’s rulings against UEA/CRU.
And how we deal with this flat refusal to take effective corrective action, is “entirely up to [us]“. Reminiscent of the kind of justice black people were fobbed off with under apartheid.
Yep, that just about sums up the absurd victim mentality and sense of entitlement of some on the “skeptic” side.
hunter,
Yes, some have argued that Gleick’s arguments were justified by the greater good, just as many “skeptics” have argued that the unlawful release of the emails was similarly justifed. But they are most certainly in the minority, and I’m sure I read many more of the “warmist” blogs than you do.
Latimer,
I chose my words carefully – the point I was making is that the skeptics sometimes act as if they have the right to demand certain actions of those on my side of the argument as if we should be trying to win your approval. Well we’re not and you don’t, this is a hotly contested subject where neither side is going to persuade the other. You are perfectly entitled to argue your point, as are we, but both sides have to accept here will never be any resolution.
If you want an example of the different perspective, in a comment above you have used “climategate” as a pretext to throw mud at Realclimate, but of all the RC contributors only Mann had any involvement in climategate and it has not been shown that he was guilty of any wrong doing.
They are primarily self-tarnished, by their deafening silence and official coverups over Climategate, and their refusal to eject or discipline the offenders. Nothing will “move on” until this happens.
I’m reminded of the defence of Dr. Mann by his own university. It went along these lines
‘We asked Dr. Mann if he was a bad boy. He said no. And given that he brings a lot of grant money to the University, we therefore find him totally innocent and squeaky clean’
This is an excellent article that expresses all the same doubts that I too possess about the climate change debate. Thanks for posting it, Judith.
Very well said, sir!
I wonder if Paul Bains is still around. There’s certainly much he could learn from reading this, don’t you think?!
“To the extent that there is such a thing as normal science, it relies upon accurate observations to verify its theories.”
Normal science is always happening within a paradigm – no challenging or attempting to test the underlying assumptions, unfortunately.
Interestingly, the IPCC is now openly accepted grey literature. Apparently the claims of peer-reviewed only came back and bit them too hard. The other actions concerning greater representation from other parties seems to reinforce the concept of a political global warming conclusion, rather than a scientific global warming. I wonder how much credibility the IPCC will have remaining after their next report.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21940-climate-panel-adopts-controversial-grey-evidence.html
Until we get past the logjam of obstructionism created by scientists more interested in their wallets than knowledge, climate science will continue to be no better than astrology or phrenology.
Skeptics cannot restore the credibility to the field. Only those working in it can do that. And so far, they seem more interested in fattening their wallets than expanding the field of knowledge.
Garth Paltridge
Very well summarized.
Environmentalists seeking to impose their agenda shroud it in cloak of “scientific consensus” to rhetorically persuade politicians to coerce “We the People”. They use equivocation of “mitigating” “climate change” to force actions contrary to moral prohibitions, economic wisdom, the necessity for economic development, and the importance of maintaining representative government accountable to the people. e.g.,
Jesus described as “wicked” those who bury resources out of fear without investing them. Christopher Monckton exposes “mitigation” as cost ineffective”! China and India are rapidly increasing coal powered electricity as the least cost route to economic development. Centralized governments killed 100 million of their own people in the last century.
Meanwhile where is the scientific evaluation that James Hansen’s 1988 global temperature predictions are now 150% above reality?
Where are the sober evaluations that IPCC’s 0.2C/decade mean temperature projection is already 2 sigma above the actual 32 year temperature trend since 1980?
Where is the comprehension that the global optical depth has not significantly changed for the last 61 years? despite an increase of > 30% in CO2?
In “post modern science” can the politically correct equivocation of “real climate change” (aka catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) even be objectively evaluated, let alone compared against alternative theories or be proven false?
Furthermore, where is the realization that global available net oil exports (after China & India’s imports) are already 45% below 2004 business as usual projections? See Jeffrey Brown/Westexas at
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/04/a_ban_on_oil_sp.html
Some may have noticed economic impacts over the last few years were already larger than the projected future impacts of “catastrophic climate change”. Robert Hirsch predicts global fuel shortages within 1-4 years with consequences more severe than those during the 1973 OPEC oil crisis.
Are there any physical limits to earth’s resources? Is there any reality to > 95% of IPCC’s economic projections of increasing CO2?
Can “climate science” be restored to normal objective science with validated models? Or will it be continue to kept hostage?
“The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate”
Wow.
So all those arguments I’ve read here about CO2 not being a greenhouse gas,or there being no real GHE, or that it’s the sun, it’s the PDO, cosmic rays, a global conspriacy etc etc, were just my imagination…….
Histroical revionism in action!
That’s only his opinion.
Exactly.
What we have here is a Trojan Warmist Horse.
He’s simply advancing a different version of ‘the science is settled’;
– we know man is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere
– and we know it will cause warming.
Don’t fall for it Team Skeptic!!!!!!!!!!!
And thanks to you Michael we can also identify the horse’s ass.
Garth also said this:
and
There is some agreement here. AGW is real, and the people concerned about sustainability also have a case.
Web,
I’d say that people concerned with resource depletion have a case. People who talk about sustainability shouldn’t be allowed to hang with the adults.
I don’t like generalization and I realize there are people using the term sustainability in a way that is not unreasonable, but a good deal of what I see, as for example what is coming out of Rio 20, is bullshit. It is people wanting to tell the rest of us how to live, and how much resouces we can be allowed.
If the cost of gas skyrockets because of scarcity, fine. We will have to adjust or fine some other means of dealing with it. But if the cost skyrockets because a select group of people believe we are all better off not driving cars or some other reason and artifically increase the price, well, that is a different kettle of fish.
“we know man is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere
and we know it will cause warming.”
No we don’t. That’s why there’s such a thing as “climate science”.
Andrew
Go Team Andrew!
At least someone is resisting the siren call of the trojan warmista.
I think if Michael could do a dance on a climate blog, he would. ;)
Shine on, you caRZy diamond.
Andrew
MIchael,
Yr: “At least someone is resisting the siren call of the Trojan warmista.”
You know, Michael, my brain’s Greek-mythology allusion processing-center is a little rusty from lack of recent exercise, but weren’t the Sirens some sort of high-maintenance, hot babes of yore noted for their rocky relationships with sailors? And given the context of your use of the word “Trojan”–Trojan Horse–(unless, of course, you’ve changed the subject a bit and you now have some “warmista” from Troy in mind), then isn’t that, Michael, a wooden construction in the shape of a big horsie. In other words, Michael, Sirens and their “siren calls” and Trojans and their Trojan Horses have nothing in common with one another. Right, Michael? So how come you don’t know that, Michael? You know, Michael, I hate to say it, but, I mean, like, once again, we are presented with one of your doofus, screw-up comments! But, hey!, no surprise there–right, Michael? Jeez!
At the same time, in your defense, Michael, we should acknowledge that a commenter with six legs, three body-segments, two feelers, an exo-skeleton, and a healthy fear of roach repellent, probably has difficulty perceiving the differences between fetching bi-peds and Achaean, quadruped knock-offs. I mean, like, they must all seem pretty much the same to you and easy to confuse with one another and all–right, Michael?
Go hive!!!
wow, mike figured out I was being silly…..in less than 500 words!
Go Team mike!!
Michael,
Yr: “…I was being silly…”
So let me get this straight, Michael. Your doofus, screw-up comment was not, in fact, a doofus, screw-up comment because you were just “being silly” in a doffus, screw-up comment sort of way. And that’s your story, Michael? Sure, Michael. Whatever you say, guy.
Go hive!!!
Poor mike.
Have another read;
“Go Team Andrew!
At least someone is resisting the siren call of the trojan warmista.”
Michael,
Yr: “Have another read”
O. K., Michael, I’ll play your “just being silly” little game through one more iteration and that’s it, guy. So, Michael, it seems to me that “the team”, using you in your idiot-bot, booger-eater mode, is testing whether I can be lured into chasing after open-ended, nonsense comments. Nice try, Michael–or should I say, nice try, team.
Though, I do reserve the option, if you happen lob a comment that I think I might hit out of the park, to jump back into the game and take a swing at it. Otherwise, I think I’ve achieved my purpose and neutralized your little troll-raid on this thread, for the moment. So I’ll leave it at that, Michael. Better try, next time my cucaracha compadre.
Go hive!!!!
“Lured” ??????
LOL.
Michael, you’re clueless.
No, I see it clearly.
Judith is trying to make us drink the warmist kool-aid by sugar-coating it with a bit of skeptical sounding fluff.
This guy is one of those who has been drinking from the trough of Big Govt funded ‘research’ for years and he’s telling us the ‘science is settled’.
Resist!!!
MIchael,
Hey, guy, since you’re up and scuttling about this thread, let me hit you up with something that I think you probably have a special insight into:
You know, Michael, as we speak, there’s like this Rio+20, carbon-piggie hypocrite eco-confab underway with dozens of heads-of-state; flash-mobs of randy, brainwashed, spoiled-brat, little-snot kids; whole legions of hand-out-hustlers with an attitude; carefully selected, watched, and cordoned-off troops of colorful, indigenous peoples putting on a show (don’t worry, the bows-and-arrows are just there to give the crowd a cheap thrill–these guys are guaranteed harmless) for the rich, first-world, privileged-white-dork tourist-lefties with a guilt-complex and a nose for a free party-trough; and the usual packs of make-a-buck scamsters and make-a-gulag has-beens in attendance along with the usual freak-show weirdos that always crash these greenshirt-bashes (but no one from the near-by favelas better be caught hanging around the conference venues–‘cuz the scary dudes with the shades and the Uzi’s will nip that sort of bold venture in bud, real-quick like, and with a little exemplary street-justice thrown in for good measure, we can be sure– thank Gaia!).
In other words, Michael, the Rio-deal is the typical, CO2-spew enviro-obscenity, tax-payer rip-off bacchanal we’ve seen in Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, and many another clime and place. But with one big difference, this time–I mean, like, ONE BIG DIFFERENCE! I mean, like, where’s the hive’s big-buzz, this time? I mean, like where’s all the lefty, agit-prop hoopla that is such a traditional part of these boondoggle monstrosities?
I mean, like, Michael, here’s the huff-‘n-puff big-push for “sustainability”, the “green-economy,” the “world we want” doing its thing in Rio, but all we hear about it is… “Crickets”. Crickets!, Michael.
So, Michael, since crickets are sort of like cockroaches, though a lot nicer, I admit–I mean, like, they’re still bugs, and all, of a sort–I thought maybe you can clue us all in, from the hive-perspective, on what’s up with your cricket cousins and Rio+20. Can you be a good sport and do that for us, Michael? Thanks, guy.
Go hive!!!
Michael,
And you are the rear end of that trojan horse.
No, as Michael points out Garth Paltridge is a warmist. He applies the equivalent of mean-valued approximations to suggest that the effect of CO2 causing warming real. He realizes that all the general circulation models eventually turn on the overall external energy forcing.
Just like Roy Spencer is also a warmist because if he wasn’t, then all of his atmospheric measurements would be useless, since to interpret his sensor readings correctly he needs the radiative properties of CO2 to hold.
Most of the scientists think like this because if they don’t, their entire infrastructure of reasoning would fall apart. Science is an edifice built on a huge number of interlocking mechanisms.
WebHubTelescope: Just like Roy Spencer is also a warmist because if he wasn’t, then all of his atmospheric measurements would be useless, since to interpret his sensor readings correctly he needs the radiative properties of CO2 to hold.
It is true that Roy Spencer is a warmist, or at least a luke-warmer, because he has said so. However, the second half of your sentence is non-sequitur. AGW is built on a simplified model of the heat transport in the Earth climate system; it is possible for the radiative properties of CO2 to hold, yet the simplified model be too simple to make the correct prediction. It is in fact possible, on present knowledge, that a CO2 increase, from where it is now, might not produce an increase in global mean temperature.
Writing in the Journal of the American Statistical Association last year, Jan Magnus, Bertrand Melenberg and Chris Muris wrote of the “cavities” in climate science. I cite them to credit them with that nice linguistic usage, not because they are authorities (though the paper is well worth reading.) Climate science has many cavities. If you pick a region on earth, say a square region containing the Hawaiian Islands, and study the energy transport processes in that region, you find that there is not a precise accounting of the energy transport processes in that region. For each such region of the earth, large or small, how a doubling of CO2 will change the energy transport in that region is not known. Yet it is claimed, based on a simple model, that we know the global average will increase, despite the fact that the simple model has not made accurate forecasts to date of the mean change in the temperature.
Politically, AGW promoters have lost influence in the US recently. I would suggest that they will not regain influence until they admit to the existence of the many cavities, and fill them.
It looks as if the Dutch scientists referenced are suggesting that aerosols are the cavities.
WebHubTelescope: suggesting that aerosols are the cavities.
Those are the cavities that are the focus of that paper. The authors do not suggest that they are “the” cavities, only “some of the” cavities.
Web,
Do you have a link to the Dutch paper you referenced?
http://www.knmi.nl/research/colloquia/abstracts/muris_climate.pdf
MIchael,
Yr: “What we have here is a Trojan Warmist Horse.”
Not quite, Michael. Rather, what we have here is a Trojan Greenshirt Cucaracha.
Go hive!!!
Michael,
Actually I have to congratulate you for finding anything in amongst all that verbiage which is substantial enough to actually make an argument against. It’s mainly just a bunch of assertions without any evidence to back them up – the same old stuff we’ve seen a million times before.
People who already believe this stuff will lap it up, the rest of us will give a big yawn, the world will carry on getting warmer, the climate “debate” will carry on as before.
Thanks- it wasn’t easy.
As you said, chock full of assertation, a veritable evidence desert.
But then you have to look were it was published – the AFR. It’s got nothing to say about finance, and it’s pretty deviod of science, so what else could it be but pure opinion.
Michael,
Yr: “…what else could it be…”
Well, Michael, it could be–and is–the bright light of the truth. And you know what they say: Flip on the light-switch and watch the roaches scuttle and scatter! And since you’re into the “classics”, Michael, you might find it interesting that Socrates that was the origin of that saying.
Go hive!!!!
what’s that saying about imitation…….?
Michael,
Yr: “What’s that saying about imitation….?”
Gotta say, Michael, I’m a little baffled by the obscurity of your reply. But, maybe, this saying is the one you’re lookin’ for:
Greenshirts don’t imitate science; they imitate sci-fi, cult-classic B-movies.
Andrew,
Does this mean you do not believe that there are folks in the political and social arena supporting action and policies regarding global warming that have any of the agendas Garth identified?
That it is quite impossible for hundreds of millions of government funding to impact researchers?
Well, whatever. Just keep up with the arrogance and dismissiveness. It’s working so well.
timg56,
OK, let’s look at the agendas he mentioned.
There are those, for instance, who are concerned with preservation of the world’s resources of coal and oil for the benefit of future generations.
No, people on my side of the argument want to stop burning coal and oil as soon as practically possible and for future generations to use alternative sources of energy.
it would be a first step to global governance
There are certainly people who think that some kind of global governence on GHG emissions will be necessary in the sense of a kind of equivalent to the WTO. I think very few want global governence for its own sake, or want a global government.
a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between the individual nations.
There are certainly people who are in favour of this but I think the number of the “climate concerned” who are specifically motivated by this is pretty small. There are others who see this as probably necessary in order that the poorest do not suffer from policies to reduce emissions but it is not their actual motivation for concern about AGW.
a path to the sort of influence which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions.
I really don’t know what he is on about here. Like who?
driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue
No more than on any other high profile issue.
As far as I can see apart from hardcore environmentalists for most of us in the “concerned” camp, even those of an unashamedly liberal/leftist bent, there isn’t really much motivation for us to push “alarmism”, although I accept that our political leanings might influence which particular solutions we prefer.
To answer your other question –
That it is quite impossible for hundreds of millions of government funding to impact researchers?
Of course it’s possible but that doesn’t mean it is happening. For that to be the case there would have to be some reason for governments to want to push them in a particular direction, which I don’t accept is the case, and the onus is on those saying that this is actually happening to provide some evidence.
andrew,
The fact that your reason to limit burning of fossil fuels differs from the stated by Garth does not invalidate his statement. There are people who believe that resources should be rationed so that they last longer. What exactly do you think the sustainability movement is about?
You thinking very few people want a global gocvernment is no different a claim that Garth saying they do. I personally think that in the sense of raw numbers, you are correct. Most people on this planet are unlikely to want it. However most people are not thinking about much other than what is happening to them locally and personally. It does not have to be “most people”. It just has to be enough people in certain positions. You may think very few people in a position of power or able to influence power want this, but there are a sizeable number. A majority – no, but enough to get policy enacted that expands the scope of extra-national organizations.
And if the number of people claiming AGW is a serious problem are not interested in redistribution of wealth, why the $100 billion a year requirement in plan?
Do think it is just small talk when an economist at Rio talks about implimenting a financial transaction tax or currency exchange tax?
I’ll grant that Garth’s last two supposed agendas are rather specious. But that doesn’t invalidate the rest of those he identifies.
Tim,
Yes, there is an overlap between arguments for tackling AGW and arguments on sustainability – both certainly benefit from more efficient use of resources.
Yes, there are some people in positions in power who think we more powerful extra-national organizations may be necessary for specific purposes (for example some see this as a solution to the problems in the Eurozone), others certainly do not want this as they want to preserve as much power locally as possible, and I’m not sure any of them want actual global government. Governments of all stripes signed off on AR4.
The $100 billion a year requirement reflects the view that developing countries will need a lot of assistance in order to improve the welfare of their people and grow their economies whilst limiting their GHG emissions. It’s seen as necessary to reach the desired goal, along with a number of other measures. Yes, some people think that this is a good thing in any case, that doesn’t mean that it is driving their calls for action on AGW.
Regarding the financial transaction tax or currency exchange tax these are ideas which have been very much in vogue in recent years so I’m sure any such discussions are more than just small talk. But these are a means to an end, they are not an end in themselves.
Sorry, I forgot to add the “but” to my first paragraph…
Yes, there is an overlap between arguments for tackling AGW and arguments on sustainability – both certainly benefit from more efficient use of resources. But that’s different from saying that concerns about sustainability are driving concerns about AGW.
andrew,
Sounds like you and I don’t necessarily disagree with the facts, just in how much we may or may not be concerned with them.
For example I am not automatically against spending money to help developing nations. I just want to make sure that the justification for spending it is valid and that it is wisely spent. I happen to have serious doubt on the ability of the UN to spend money wisely and I have as yet not seen sufficient evidence that the justification – climate change – is valid enough, particularly when I know there are actions we could be taking which would have beneficial impact. They just have little or nothing to do with climate.
Andrew A
Your criticisms are deeply flawed:
* There is indeed a group in the CAGW camp whose real motivation is resource depletion.
* Ditto those interested in more and world government, to advance coercive wealth redistribution (probably the greater majority in my view).
* You don’t need government policy to be publicly announced, to have the effect of its scientists producing studies conducive its own interests. All organizations naturally work to advance themselves, including (and especially) the state. The notion that this requires a “conspiracy” is risible.
One Fine day
* There is indeed a group in the CAGW camp whose real motivation is resource depletion.
What exactly do you mean by “resourse depletion” in this context”?
* Ditto those interested in more and world government, to advance coercive wealth redistribution (probably the greater majority in my view).
I think there are certainly a number of people who believe that wealth should be more equally distributed. I’m not sure that they see world government as the way to achieve this – if anything they see trans-national institutions such as the WTO and IMF as being geared towards protecting the interests of the wealthy rather than helping the poor.
* You don’t need government policy to be publicly announced, to have the effect of its scientists producing studies conducive its own interests. All organizations naturally work to advance themselves, including (and especially) the state. The notion that this requires a “conspiracy” is risible.
Sure, people can be influenced to work towards a particular end without there being a conspiracy as such. But that still begs the question – you are assuming that concern about AGW is in the interests of governments.
Andrew Adams: People who already believe this stuff will lap it up, the rest of us will give a big yawn, the world will carry on getting warmer, the climate “debate” will carry on as before.
The point of the debate is to influence the opinions of the undecided. This is a nice article that will probably have a slight influence on the undecided. For an audience that hasn’t read them, it puts a lot of points together. If it is not rebutted in the same publication, a lot of readers will probably conclude that it is non-rebuttable.
That it is not a Science perspective with references for the claims hardly matters.
Matthew,
Sure, the question is whether there are many genuinelyundecided people reading these exchanges. From what I can see climate blogs on both sides are dominated by people who have already made up their minds. And I would still say that open minded people would want a bit more meat to the accusations made by the OP.
Come on Michael, You look at the extremes and imply they are the norm.
CO2 and H2O are both radiant gases, H2O has more surface impact, we live on the surface, therefore CO2 is a secondary consideration.
CO2 restricts out going LWR and incoming LWR, it has no significant energy of its own and must transfer energy collected for some other thermal mass to another other mass to have a significant impact. The thermal mass where CO2 has an impact is much smaller than the region where H2O has an impact. No significant thermal mass, no significant impact.
The GHE would be more properly called the tropopause effect, last I checked, homes in the tropopause were pretty scarce.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/nothere.png
Instead of feeding the trolls and being a troll, try thinking about the real debate.
You’re right, they are the extremes………but the norm here.
Yes, there is a real scientific debate – in the scientific literature.
On blogs, just your typical flame wars.
Or scientifically-sounding word salad, as that which the Captain and the other Captain specialize in.
Actually, I like pondering the theoretical stuff, but my bread and butter was thermodynamics, heat exchange, instrumentation, controls and measurements used in balancing systems used in HVAC. Which is why with a problem like this I start at the beginning, the surface and the largest thermal mass. There are less surprises than starting at variable boundary layer near a temperature inversion and trying to work back in. Thermo is a lot simpler when you start as a solid frame of reference. that’s not scientific talk, that’s real world engineering :)
Perhaps you can explain the ocean atmosphere skin layer issue again? You know the specific heat of water is 4.2Joules/g and that the specific heat of dry air is 1.006 Joules per gram. Infrared radiation is absorbed by but does not penetrate that skin layer. So how does your diffusion equation handle that again?
Why someone would believe that heat is somehow different in that case than in any other material is confounding. So water can evaporate. So what? The infrared radiation will get absorbed by the water and the heat will diffuse away from the surface. It will also evaporate in a manner similar that it has always evaporated, whether or not there is additional incoming IR. The ocean is a heat sink and that extra IR is an additional level of heat that it will tend to dissipate. It’s not some magical situation.
Web, the ocean is a heat reservoir. It is not an infinite heat sink or an infinite heat source. It controls the situation because water exists in all three states at the surface temperature and pressures. For there to be liquid water and an atmosphere, the energy of the atmosphere must try to equal the energy emitted by the surface and that is all energy not just radiant and water must be conserved.
The emissivity of water is close to 1, but the effective emissivity of the ocean surface about 0.85.
Why is that? Glad you asked.
First, there is no perfect energy transfer through any medium, entropy rules the universe.
Second. Conductive heat transfer is slower than radiant heat transfer at a liquid gas boundary.
Third in order to conserve water the average freeze, thaw, evaporation and condensation have to equal over time.
Finally, 334/2257=0.15. That is the ratio of the heat of fusion to the heat of evaporation. Energy has to come from somewhere to compensate for latent heat loss or gain. You can’t change the SST without transferring latent heat one way or the other.
Capt. Dallas
I don’t generally intend to respond to Tubhead unless he mentions me specifically. As I keep saying – he is delusional, noxious and ignorant. So I may respond if only to negatively reinforce that he best leave me alone. But he is a persistent little cyber stalker.
I have had this ocean discussion with Tubhead – even linking scepticalscience as well as science of doom and Kevin bloody Trenberth – all of course to no avail.
The approximate power fluxes are these in W/m^2.
SW……………..+168
LW………………-66
Thermals……..-24
Latent…………..-78
The maintain the delusional concept that the atmosphere warms the oceans by difusion of heat from the atmosphere Tubhead finally suggested that SW in fact came from the atmosphere. Well I suppose it does pass through the atmoshere. Discouse with Tubhead becomes rapidly old as he has such a coarse and unimaginative command of the pejorative and a sociopathic personality.
This seems oddly a trait of the typical warminista. They have such a distorted idea of certain physical processes and remain smugly convinced of their intellectual superiority and pretend to the moral high ground. Can they all be sociopaths?
Best regards
Captain Kangaroo
“They maintain the delusional concept that the atmosphere warms the oceans by diffusion of heat from the atmosphere ”
I think you’ll find that was you and CD. I spent some time last week trying to convince you that the atmosphere would only warm after the ocean did due to the way convection works. Anyway, it seems you came around, so good.
So Comrade Jim D – you spent some time trying to convince me that the oceans warm the atmosphere by convection? You should spend some time at the peoples cube linked to in my handle. You might get perspective and a sense of humour.
I think you will find that downwelling radiation reduces IR losses from the oceans resulting in an accumulation of solar energy and warming. We then get a resurgence of energy up and the oceans stop warming. The coupled ocean/atmosphere system equilibriates at a higher energy state.
I don’t mind people not having the complete picture – but the ‘gotcha’ warminista cr@p is quite tedious.
The two Captains Courageous are trying to maintain what little credibility they have left.
How did the oceans get warm in the first place? From the excess heat arriving from above the surface. It didn’t come from the interior of the earth.
Next, they think that excess heat in the form of IR is somehow special. No, it is not that special and the excess diffuses to the bulk of the ocean’s heat sink just the same. What do you bet that Paltridge would suggest the same thing.
“The oceans stop warming” ? Wow. Is that you commanding it to stop, like those legislators in Virginia?
I think you are desperately trying to describe an asymptotic diffusion process but word salad will only get you so far. At some point you may want to work out the equations.
@webbie
‘How did the oceans get warm in the first place? From the excess heat arriving from above the surface. It didn’t come from the interior of the earth’
You sure about that? Nothing to do with the idea (as I studied it at school…maybe outdated) that the Earth was once a ball of molten rock that slowly cooled down, but remains super duper warmish on the inside because of radioactive decay – hence geothermal power, Iceland, hot springs, volcanoes, all of igneous geology..granite etc
You seem to suggest that the water somehow arrived from nowhere (where exactly, already?) onto a nice cold dry planet and that only sunlight has warmed it since.
Is it not more likely that the water was always there – in gaseous form – an slowly condensed to form warm seas that gradually cooled?
Maybe a geologist could settle the matter for us?
“You sure about that? Nothing to do with the idea (as I studied it at school…maybe outdated) that the Earth was once a ball of molten rock that slowly cooled down”
Earth is a molten rock. But it has far cooler scum on it’s surface, which we call home.
There are 4 theories of how the Moon formed. The most favored is a large planetoid [perhaps the size of Mars] hit proto-earth. and this collision resulted ejection of a mass which latter formed into the Moon.
You don’t need a Mars size object hitting earth vaporize the oceans and convert land into molten rock- anything bigger than say couple hundred km in diameter will do this [and would instantly kill everyone and everything].
With proto-earth and mars type impact this would occurred around 4.5 billion years ago.
Without being hit by mars type impact, we probably had few impactors that hit earth turning whole planet molten lava. See great bombardment.
“The late heavy bombardment, thought to have caused most of the Moon’s craters happened 3800 to 4100 million years ago.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_great_bombardment_occur
Obviously in such impact there is no crater [molten planet leaves none]. The oldest rocks on earth could possibly survive such levels of extreme heat.
Here:
The discovery of rocks as old as 4.28 billion years pushes back the age of the most ancient remnant of Earth’s crust by 300 million years.
…
“There have been older dates from Western Australia for isolated resistant mineral grains called zircons,” says Carlson, “but these are the oldest whole rocks found so far.” The oldest zircon dates are 4.36 billion years.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925144624.htm
The older zirons can withstand a lot heat and stay intact.
Apollo found oldest rock [which was brought to earth]. One of them is called “Genesis Rock”- 4.1 and oldest rock found 4.5 billion years old:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_15.html
Recent studies related LRO spacecraft orbiting Moon:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/turbulent-youth.html
Longish video:
http://www.space.com/14914-moon-evolution-nasa-videos.html
Shorter version [first video]:
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-nasa-lro-videos-moon-evolution.html
We know for certain, for instance, for some reason for some time in the beginning there were hot lumps. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through the black holes of space. These insignificant lumps came together to form the first union: our Sun, the heating system. And about this glowing gasbag rotated the Earth…Winking in astonishment across the face of time.
We were covered with a molten scum of rock, bobbing on the surface like rats. Later, when there was less heat, these giant rock groups settled down among the land masses. Now, during this extinct time our earth was like a steam room – and no one, not even man, could get in. However, the oceans and the sewers were simmering with a rich protein stew and the mountains moved in to surround and protect them. They didn’t know then that living, as we know it, was already taken over.
Animals without backbones hid from each other, or fell down. Clamosaurs and oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then came the sponges, which sucked up about 10 percent of all life.
Hundreds of years later, in the late Devouring Period, the fish became obnoxious. Trailerbikes, Chiggerbites, and Mosquitoes collided aimlessly in the dense gas. Finally, tiny edible plants sprang up in rows – giving birth to generations of insecticides and other small, dying creatures.
–from “I Think We’re All Bozos On This Bus,” 1971, Firesign Theater
‘How did the oceans get warm in the first place? From the excess heat arriving from above the surface. It didn’t come from the interior of the earth.
Next, they think that excess heat in the form of IR is somehow special. No, it is not that special and the excess diffuses to the bulk of the ocean’s heat sink just the same.’
Webby you are a crazy retard. A liar and a fool. A sham and a fraudster. Heat arrives from one place – the sun. Which is certainly immediately obvious in the numbers I gave for the budget. Yes certainly the sun is above the surface but the twee deliberate misdirection is contemptible.
There is really only one equation necessary – and it approximates the KT budget numbers I gave above. You might notice it sums to zero.
I don’t think IR is all that special. Heat moves from a warmer to a cooler body according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics – so the heat is from the oceans to the atmosphere. Again quite obvious to any 5th grader from the KT energy budget.
How do you think you can get away with such patent misdirection? Do you have such contempt for people that you think they won’t notice such an obvious error you are desperately trying to hide? Such flimsy nonsense. Nothing but a contemptible lie.
‘“The oceans stop warming” ? Wow. Is that you commanding it to stop, like those legislators in Virginia?’
Idiot. You substitute misdirection and verbiage – indeed verballing – quoting out of context – reductio ad absurdum – anything to try to avoid looking more ridiculous yet. Too late.
‘I think you will find that downwelling radiation reduces IR losses from the oceans resulting in an accumulation of solar energy and warming. We then get a resurgence of energy up and the oceans stop warming. The coupled ocean/atmosphere system equilibriates at a higher energy state.’
Now I think I have just described simple energy equilibria. If you want to persist in foolish schoolboy warminista debating points – you have my contempt. If you truly don’t understand – I don’t care.
@captain skippy
‘Heat arrives from one place – The Sun’.
None from inside the Earth? All those hot volcanoes just Hollywood special effects? Yellowstone geysers just another wonder from Walt Disney and the team?
Perhaps you might like to rephrase your statement.
I get enough Skippy from the retard. Do you really wish to confuse him further with trivialities?
We are talking about 0.1 W/m^2. Along with the 0.3 from combustion – it is something to be considered in the finer detail. It is a small amount of the budget given above. It perhaps makes one small difference in reducing or eliminating the lag in atmosheric warming with additionl C02. But as there is so much energy from the Sun it perhaps makes little difference. It goes to the concept of radiant imbalance – which misleads many people (including the retard) because they fail to then go to the next step. That of increased emissions at higher temperature.
Apologies – lost a decimal point for combustion – 0.03 W/m^2.
Web, this particular Captain Courageous is working on a thermo problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine Since steam is involved (water vapor) Tc=-1.9C The freezing point of salt water, we have to recover our refrigerant doncha know. W is 50%, so entropy is 50% now solve for Th, the “RESERVOIR” temperature. Take your “ocean is the biggest heat sink” and stick it up your impurity doping &%%>.
The -1.9 at 50% defines a thermodynamic envelope, a moist air boundary. You wanted to play with MAXENT, there is your playground. Once you know what equilibrium looks like you can move on, but not until you know what initial condition you are supposed to be starting from.
The sun warms the ocean, the ocean warms the atmosphere.
Write that down.
All that matters is how it is described in mathematical terms. The sun heats the ocean and that has a huge heat capacity, and the atmosphere and land also have a heat capacity, though not nearly as large as the ocean. The collective effect is that of providing a large thermal mass against extremely fast temperature changes, in particular, as one would find on the moon.
“CO2 restricts out going LWR and incoming LWR”
There is no significant incoming LWR. Sheesh. There’s near infrared (which is a significant component of sunlight) and there’s far infrared (which is not a significant component of sunlight). Longwave infrared (LWR) and far infrared are synonyms.
Michael, your “histroical revionism” is indeed showing. In your abovementioned “imagination”, just what percentage of bloggers here are you trying to pretend don’t accept a CO2 greenhouse effect at all. More than 1% ?
And ditto the other points. Eg, pretending that governments require a “conspiracy” to advance their own interests doesn’t fly either. That’s just BAU.
Even if it was only 1 scientist, it doesn’t matter in science. One is more than enough, if right.
But I agree that the ‘skeptical/lukewarming consensus’ is that there’s a CO2 sensitivity.
“To the extent that there is such a thing as normal science, it relies upon accurate observations to verify its theories. Accurate is the operative word here. Climate research has to rely on spectacularly inaccurate data from information on Earth’s past climate.”
Normal science being damned with faint praise. What a travesty! There is nothing else EXCEPT normal science. These ideas of post-modern, or post-normal science are just a complete load of garbage.
It was clear, ab initio, that science (forget the normal), physics, because of all the known inaccuracies, etc in how the world’s climate works, could never answer the question “What happens when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere?” This is what people with names like Houghton, and Watson should have said loud and clear 40 years ago. And, more important, the scientific establishment should have said this even more loudly and clearly when the proponents of CAGW abused science in claiming that adding CO2 to the atmopshere would cause immense damage.
So a pox on this notion of post something-or-other science. It is a load of garbage, and it does not exist.
“If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.”
Hmmm…*fill* the atmosphere with carbon dioxide?
fill (fl)
v. filled, fill·ing, fills
v.tr.
1.
a. To put into (a container, for example) as much as can be held: fill a glass with milk.
b. To supply or provide to the fullest extent: filled the mall with new stores.
c. To build up the level of (low-lying land) with material such as earth or gravel.
d. To stop or plug up (an opening, for example).
e. To repair a cavity of (a tooth).
f. To add a foreign substance to (cloth or wood, for example).
Which defintion is this joker using? a + b don’t fit, and if c its only speculation and there is a lot of doubt.
Andrew
Typical pablum.
Paltridge obviously has a background in physics. Anybody that actually understands physics knows what “fill” means in this context. All it means is to add concentrations of a material, which can then fully disperse to fill out the containing volume, according to maximum entropy principles.
It has nothing to do with displacing a volume, which is what your overly literal mind has turned into FUD.
“add concentrations of a material”
Webster Hubble,
And what evidence would you like to present supporting “the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise”? Drawings?
Andrew
I know that you like to use the crayon drawings that Joe’s World creates.
Hmmmm… no evidence offered.
Color me bored.
Andrew
It is easy to provide theoretical evidence for the increase.
It is next to impossible to provide theoretical evidence for the converse.
There is empirical evidence for the increase, as some fraction of the 33C differential is caused by CO2.
There is little empirical evidence for the converse, as natural systems don’t go through abrupt transitions whereby something that was rising suddenly starts going the other direction. At best the increase would asymptotically slow down.
Bad Andrew,
Perhaps our friend Web is a bit more irritable than normal because he had to move back into his mommy’s basement?
I heard those gubbermint checks keep gettin’ smaller and smaller.
Andrew
Who knew Tasmania had a university?
Regardless of being critical of the source Paltridge does a decent job of stating the obvious. Emeritus Professors, in my experience, are the most likely to not give a damn how many enemies they make among their non-retired colleagues by rocking the boat with unpopular views.
Just don’t expect much to come of this as it’s not exactly coming from the Ivy League.
Rob Brown (Duke physicist) has more boat rocking potential. His latest missive on both social and science aspects of climate change inspired by Nature Climate Change’s recent brainfart (or should I say BainFart) is terrific:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/20/dr-paul-bain-responds-to-critics-of-use-of-denier-term/#comment-1014635
I agree. Robert Brown has consistently offered good comment on the topic.
Dave Springer: Rob Brown (Duke physicist) has more boat rocking potential.
I agree with you there.
Emergence of truth is not eradicated by lack financial support; its arrival is only temporarily delayed.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/21/three-new-papers-on-interpreting-temperature-trends/#comment-211602
It’s time to stop moaning, get on with the work that needs to be done.
Keep going vukcevic…
Prikryl, P.; Rusin, V.; & Rybansky, M. (2009). The influence of solar wind on extratropical cyclones – Part 1: Wilcox effect revisited. Annales Geophysicae 27, 1-30. doi:10.5194/angeo-27-1-2009.
http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/1/2009/angeo-27-1-2009.pdf
Thanks for the link above, looks interesting.
No trouble. Here’s a more recent paper that cites the 2009 paper:
Mironova, I; Tinsley, B.; & Zhou, L. (2011). The links between atmospheric vorticity, radiation belt electrons, and the solar wind. Advances in Space Research. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2011.03.043.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~mironova/Mironova_Tinsley.pdf
Be aware that neither the recent papers (2009 & 2011) nor the originals from the early 1970s use optimal methods. This is a long story — short version for now: Nonstationarity of the following is tightly coherent with terrestrial climate shifts AND the Tsonis framework:
1. Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) Earth-Crossings
http://i48.tinypic.com/2yydr92.png
2. Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) Earth-Crossing INTEGRAL (emphasizes shifts in persistence)
http://i45.tinypic.com/2nbc3dw.png
Explaining further requires tedious discussion of aliasing, harmonics, spatiotemporal aggregation, & more.
Outlook: I believe that with the right paradigmatic framework it will be easy for someone to crack the code of interannual (ENSO-timescale) terrestrial oscillations. I aim to clarify the framework to enable others.
Coronal Holes & Earth Rotation:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2yw7711.png
CH = Coronal Holes
nCRm = neutron Count Rate (moscow)
M.5 & P.5 = Schwabe-extent (11 year) Morlet & Paul wavelet power of semi-annual Length of Day (LOD)
These observations are well-constrained by:
A. Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (LCAM).
B. Central Limit Theorem (CLT).
B empowers us to “see through & beyond” interannual (ENSO-timescale) variations with grace & ease. The paradigmatic key is to recognize that we are dealing not with a single stationary oscillator, but rather an infinite population of tightly-coupled quasi-stationary oscillators. (By the way, I’ve now determined from the literature trail that this result was actually known to some as far back as at least 1980. This raises a lot of questions…)
More will follow weeks from now on a beautiful twist at the annual timescale.
Excellent post.
Well summarized.
David Springer wrote: “One of the above is a flametard carpenter with delusions of genius who has a cadre of cheerleaders who uncritically applaud anything contrary to CAGW punditry…..”
Funny, how my sense that non-scientists can come to perfectly valid scientific opinions by judging the debaters only grows more confident with time.. I agree with the above not because as a layman I can look at data filled posts and find problems on my own, but because I can judge the back and forth between the author and his critics. Therein lies the great value of the web.
Because very quickly the guys who know what they’re talking about… the guys who have the better of an argument…just as those who don’t… reveal themselves stylistically. The former group I’m finding, is generally characterized by a relatively even tone, by a willingness to listen to the other side and respond on the merits, and for lack of a better word, by decent social skills.
I bring this up not to slam anyone, but because it’s the same process I’ve used especially in making up my mind about CAGW. The skeptics in general have the qualities I described above. The firm believers have the opposites qualities. And the firmer the belief, the more obvious that becomes…
Are you a poker player? :)
Social skills are inversely proportional to genius. Write that down.
… If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise… is an unprovable hypothesis that has been substituted for truth. It may be the obsession of Western schoolteachers but it is an illusion when the money dries up.
Wagathon,
CO2 is a ghg.
All things being equal, more CO2 means warming.
The question is how much.
It is physics, not finance.
What dries up with the money is the apocalyptic clap trap and worthless expensive AGW pushed policies and schemes.
The atmosphere is capable of holding far more ‘greenhouse’ gases that it actually does (most of which is water vapor). But it doesn’t. There is a reason for that: All things are not equal
I’m not sure that’s strictly true. If you try to add more it just rains out.
See Miskolczi 2010
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
You’re making my point — i.e., the thermostat effect and the existence of negative as well as positive feedback
hunter
The issue is not CO2 as ghg, but the ghg H2O amplification models aka “climate sensitivity”.
Look at Miskolczi’s evaluation of the global optical depth – which he finds has changed hardly at all over the last 61 years despite a >30% increase in CO2.
David,
I agree.
But we are delaing with true believers, who have very elaborate mythologies and deep seated faith. We need to be specific if we are to get the true believers to pay attention.
Reblogged this on evilincandescentbulb and commented:
Unfortunately, even this the long list of hypocritical ideologues suffers from political correctness. For the sake of argument, can’t we all just agree on one simple fact of reality:
Socialists (i.e., anti-capitalists), atheist fundamentalists (i.e., enviro-wacko anti-humanists), contra-cultural hedonists (trust fund liberals and other life-aborted victims of anti-Western science, Marxist ideology and anti-Judeo/Christian ethics and morality) and the purveyors of anti-Americanism (i.e., haters of the ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility), will always be for the idea of ending catastrophic global warming caused by everyone but themselves, by whatever means, including curtailing the production of life-sustaining energy. The ideology of the global warming establishment is the art of self-defeatism at the cost of the life, liberty and property of others.
After briefly going Global — with the entire earth in its sights — now that the hot air has left the balloon, the Left has again reclaimed the moral low ground. The immorality of the hedonistic Left buggers the mind:
“Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about “saving the planet.” What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act.” (Philip Stott)
Dear Wagathon
To begin with: I don’t think your list of accusations are facts of realities, but never mind.
My question is, if there are bigger problems than global warming and its consequences (like famine in general or the spreading of AIDS) then how do you want to challenge them?
I presume there has to be a change in our economy or political systems because else these problems wouldn’t occur, would they?
The reality I referred to is the hypocrisy of the Left–i.e., they will always be for the idea of ending catastrophic global warming caused by everyone but themselves. Addressing the real problems of the world is the last thing the Left wants to do. Their only interest is riding the backs of the productive like gadflies. The real problems Philip Stott is talking about can be meaningfully address but more energy will be required not less.
You failed to read my “never mind”. My question was what your action of adressing the real problems would be.
You say “more energy” – I assume that you mean physical energy like electricity. However, I don’t see quite clearly how you can grow vegetables in deserted landscapes with more energy,..
It takes electricity to run the refrigerator that keeps life-saving drugs from perishing. Sanitation takes energy. A water pump takes energy.
Will the Leftist-libs ever learn that it is not altruism to consign the third world to an energy-deprived existence of misery, poverty and death? The AGW hoax of the Leftist-libs tramples on the rights of man and all secular, socialist bureaucrats that facilitate the hoax and scare tactics of global warming alarmism belongs under an oversize picture of Mao and should have Castro and Chavez on speed dial to share their philosophy.
The Leftists-libs hate Bush because he blocked Kyoto just like the lone man in China who stood in front of a column of commie tanks at Tiananmen Square in 1989.
“Humans have always feared climate change and developed myths that our sinfulness is its cause. Accordingly, we always want to be able “to do something” about climate, to sacrifice to the Earth to bring about a golden age of climate stability. Unfortunately, both geology and history show us that the idea of a stable climate is untenable; there has never been, and never will be, a stable climate under human control. All we can do is adapt to constant change.
“Our current obsession with the single factor of carbon dioxide emissions is little different. In a system as complex and chaotic as climate, actions with just one factor out of the thousands involved may even trigger unexpected consequences. It is vital to remember that, for such a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, not doing something (i.e., not emitting gases) is as unpredictable as doing something (i.e., emitting gases). Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.
Basing policies on worries about `global warming’ is a serious threat to us all, but especially to the 1.6 billion people in the less-developed world who have no access to any modern form of energy. The twin curses of water poverty and energy poverty remain the true scandals. By contrast, the political imposition on the rest of the world of our Northern, self-indulgent ecochondria about `global warming’ could prove to be a neo-colonialism too far.”
(Philip Stott)
(Sorry, but I cannot respond to the reply below and I want to)
Firstly I don’t see that there is only the climate warming problem. There are also other ones – especially the pollution of water trough chemical companies (you were talking about water pumps.).
Secondly I don’t see what Bush Chavez and the other ones have to do with this.
Thirdly a “stable climate is untenable” – I agree on that. But if there is a man-made cause that accelerate the change man can also slow this change.
Fourthly is there really a dichotomy between fighting against global warming and fighting against water poverty and energy poverty?
“grow vegetables is desert landscapes with more energy”
electical pumps to bring up well water and distribute it for one.
refridgriation (sp?) to keep what food is grown from spoiling (you are aware that up to 50% of foodstuffs produced each year are lost to watage, primarily from spiling.
Then there is energy in the form of tractors, which frees up labor – in particular child labor – from being in the fields rather than in the classroom.
Or how about electricity for local hospitals to keep people from prematurely dying from preventable illnesses.
BTW Andreas, why would you want to grow crops in the desert if you didn’t have to? We do not have a shortage of ariable land. Cheap energy allows you to transport food from regions where it grows to regions it doesn’t.
Andreas,
Some reasonable points. I would answer yes there is a dichotomy between fighting against global warming and fighting against water poverty and energy poverty?
The first is that the proposals to fight climate change all result in higher costs for energy. They act to increasse energy poverty.
The second is that resources spent pushing or implementing global warming mitigation policies are resources that don’t get used on addressing water issues.
Clearly one needs energy for hospitals an alike. But the rise in cost on the energy is not as big as these things cannot be powered anymore. One has to save energy elsewhere where it really is wasted.
Yes, most of the aproaches are on paying more for the energy. However, these costs are meant to be those that the public pays unwanted – for example the pollution of cars through carbon dioxide. This is called internalization and a lot of economists are in great favor of this idea.
“We do not have a shortage of ariable land.” – That is exactly the problem if global warming is really taking off. Then there will be less arable land. Also the global circuit of water is damaged. You cannot just use the water indefinitely – the water wells will eventually dry out if you use them too much. In additon there are lots of places where the water is intoxicated by chemicals or bacteria. (maybe even because of energy producing or too much manuring)
And then your idea of growing food in far away countries isn’t going to work out as there they also cannot do it anymore…
The last point. You say that if we spent too much resources in global warming mitigation we cannot adress water issues. Now by this argumentation everything is aganist improving the availability of water – even adressing the energy poverty. But I give you the point, these two (or three) issues are maybe more difficult to combine as I thought…
Your point with the wastage of the food is certainly correct. However, you should also think where this food is wasted – mainly in the rich industrial countries. There they have refrigerators but nevertheless waste food. Besides there are other possibilities to store food than refrigerate (or what did the people in the medieval times do?)
@andreas s
‘a lot of economists are in great favor of this idea.’
That is usually a pretty good reason to do the exact opposite!
What a regrettably poor-quality analysis Garth Paltridge has provided! If we look for the elements of a good scientific analysis …
• history
• mathematics
• physical theory
• observational data
• laboratory experiments
• economics
• morality
… we find that precisely none are present.
As an example of a good essay that will usefully challenge your powers of rational thinking please let me commend to Climate Etc. readers Tim Gowers’ recent weblog essay How should mathematics be taught to non-mathematicians?.
By the way, Tim Gowers is himself a Fields Medalist, as are some of the commenters (Terry Tao for one). There is no-one in the world better-qualified to discuss the tricky topic of how to draw rational inferences from uncertain data.
Summary: If we want to *really* learn how to draw rational inferences from uncertain data, we are *far* better off reading Tim Gowers than Garth Paltridge.
LOL … we see in the comments that Tim Gowers is now, by the favor of Her Royal Majesty the Queen, Sir Timothy Gowers! :) :) :)
Fan, first you have to recognize a scientific analysis when you see one. What Paltridge wrote was not a scientific analysis and was not meant to be one. Your looking for elements of what you think a good scientific analysis should have in an essay and…surprise….you don’t find any. Then you chastise the essay for not having the elements of what you think should be in a scientific analysis. Then you offer up an example of a ‘good’ essay, not a scientific analysis, as an example. So what are you trying say to the readers of Climate Etc? Cause it’s coming across like you don’t know yourself.
Indeed John, Garth’s is a social commentary, as the title makes clear. And a good one at that. Fan is deflecting, as usual.
It is a conservative narrative that is readable and cogent. That’s what they object to so much. It lacks a conservative agenda – a plan for the future without which the battle for future can’t be won.
Summary: If we want to *really* learn how to draw rational inferences from uncertain data, we are *far* better off reading Tim Gowers than Garth Paltridge.
Indeed which is why vigilance is necessary,and thanks for confirmation of the almost obvious.
gowers Says:
One thing I perhaps didn’t make clear is that I wouldn’t expect people who took this course to master enough mathematics to be able to give mathematically sophisticated answers to all the questions. I’d be happy if they came out of the course with a good sense of what mathematics can be used for. That way, people who found themselves in later life with complicated policy decisions to make would have a better idea of the traps one can fall into if one relies on instinct only.
To give an example, somebody might think that to measure the average global temperature it is enough to have a lot of measuring stations and simply take the average measurement. After taking the course, they might not be able to give a good explanation of what to do instead, but at least they would understand why the naive approach is unsatisfactory.
Oh please, Garth.
If you spent even an ounce of energy being concerned with “data accuracy” in your negative water vapor feedback paper, it might be easier to swallow all this. This is all supplemented with continued misrepresentations of climategate, and attempts to rationalize the academic laziness of people who think they have game-changing ideas but aren’t willing to publish them. It’s conspiracies all the way down with just enough philosophy to get Judith interested, but it has no basis in reality.
It is most certainly not the case that blog protocol is “…fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review” or that not citing such work is “a pity.” Most of these forums provide an avenue for people to just drop off their random thoughts for the day, without any need for consideration of data uncertainties, previous work in the literature, methodological details, etc. The people reading these random musings for the day generally have no atmospheric science background, so it quickly becomes a “rah rah!” fest and a convenient way to enable people’s self-esteem via cheerleading. (Willis’ negative feedback/thermostat work at WUWT is an excellent example of someone who doesn’t understand the very basics of tropical convection or previous satellite-sensitivity literature, but has convinced countless onlookers that he has established a very, very low climate sensitivity, with very little hint of self-skepticism).
There are of course some good, scientific blogs on the internet, such as Isaac Helds, though I would also not cite that in a real paper. Science is not done this way in any field that I know of. What if people who studied biology could just start citing creationist blogs as authoritative?
“…fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review…”
Garth seems to have changed his mind. Previously he wrote;
“Sceptics on the other hand have in many cases been too personal in their attacks on climate science and climate scientists. They have made full use of the various sceptical climate weblogs to get around the discipline of peer review.
A lot of their scientific arguments are “hairy” to say the least; and in general they have not been greatly constrained by the checks and balances built into the normal scientific system.”
Garth Paltridge wrote: “Willis Eschenbach” “balance and maturity”
Remarkable isn’t it Chris? Total WTF.
Chris,
the post is an obvious wind-up, deliberately invited to provoke cheers from one side and the blindingly obvious sensible response from people like yourself.
Rather than respond to it, better to ask why it’s being given a platform here.
I do though *love* the sycophancy, “these three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame” – very Alan Partridge
Chris
Willis has the courage and honesty to clearly show his work in process with links to the data and method for others to challenge. So to does Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org.
In Science as an
open enterprise June 2012 the Royal Society calls for open data sharing
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/21/royal-society-report-on-data-sharing/
Oh that “climate science” could rise to this level of the professional objective scientific method.
CC,
So you actually did read climategate e-mails?
When did you change your mind?
A good first step. Thank you, Chris
“The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate.”
This is just not true. The science has been questioned by many for decades. Was it Bohr that said Arrhenus was wrong?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34962513/Elsasser1942
the bove link is to a paper that does not acknowledge the strength of CO2 to heat anything. The paper is about radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere.
Angstrom said Arrhenius was wrong. Angstrom didn’t go into major detail that I have seen, just used a lab experiment to show that CO2 was near saturation. The Geniuses revived Angstrom’s experiment and determined that if he had used a longer test chamber and more precise concentration of CO2 that he could have tweaked the experiment to show that CO2 would have an impact. It is pretty much irrelevant though since water vapor is a natural feed back that regulates the entire system. Pretty neat system, much too simple for geniuses to figure out :)
Actually, all Angstrom did was argue that Arrhenius’ guestimate of the climate sensitivity (and he wasn’t even considering feedback at the time) was way high. Which it was. Way, way high.
by Garth Paltridge
(1)The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.
(2)And there is very little real proof on either side of the climate change story.
==============================================
What a nice example of a contradiction. “Very little real proof”, but “there can be little doubt” and “acceptable”!
And Mr.Paltridge, if you read this, there is a real proof on the scientific side (which is not the AGW side), a purely physical proof that the “A” has no basis in real science: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
Just in case you are shocked by the article and the date 1909 and your defence mechanism starts blocking your common sense: this experiment is not about greenhouses, it is about the allegedly warming effect of back radiation.
Here is a better experiment Greg House.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf
Briefly, At >200 ppmV [CO2] there is no increase in absorptivity/emissivity [assuming Kirchhoff’s law at equilibrium]. These data are routinely used in furnace design and are correct in that they work.
The experiments were done using a heated/cooled container and there are good theoretical reasons that the real process is absorption then pseudo-scattering to give indirect thermalisation at the walls of the container, so the real process is the effectiveness of the CO2 at scattering energy to the container walls and vice versa.
There is no direct process for transfer of absorbed quanta in GHG molecules by multiple collisions to symmetrical N2 and O2 as apparently claimed in climate science.
Molecules have no memory so Local Thermal Equilibrium (LTE) is restored once an already excited molecule emits the same quantum: no direct thermalisation. This is kinetic selection in that the energy is transferred by multiple pseudo-scattering events as if the GHGs were a heat transfer medium, only stopping when the quantum is absorbed/thermalised at a heterogeneous interface, or heads off to space.
In the atmosphere, the ‘container’ is clouds and bare aerosols giving the impression of direct thermalisation. Nahle has shown theoretically from partial molar specific heat data The ultimate arbiter is the experimental data of Hottel and Leckner. Clouds are grey bodies because the absorbed band specific IR is thermalised over many more wavelengths, so again making a very different heat transfer problem than the IPCC claims. Thus cloud under surfaces will emit specular IR in the atmospheric window back to the Earth whose energy will have originally been partly CO2 specific. On the contrary, there will also be transfer in the other direction so it probably cancels out.
As the atmosphere thins and has fewer clouds, the IR emitted by clouds and warm air will preferentially escape to space because as it is pseudo-scattered, it is selected to escape UP. This means that as height increases, the emissivity DOWN tends to zero.
At Bottom of Atmosphere (BOA), the boundary condition is that only the net IR UP is important in that the rest of the heat transfer is conduction and convection, the total being 160 W/m^2. In effect the emissivity of the earth’s surface is <<1 and radiative flux only exceeds [conductive plus convective] flux at ~100 °C [see McAdams’ Heat Transfer for example. Thus the IPCC claim that there is a radiative equilibrium between a 'blackbody' surface in equilibrium and 'blackbody' air is completely wrong.
At TOA there is zero DOWN IR. At BOA, UP IR = 63 W/m^ and it is claimed that 40W/m^2 of this goes through the atmospheric window. Let’s assume this is correct. The net result is that the climate models artificially increase heat in the system by a factor of [240+333-240]/240 = 1.39 and the IR bit by a factor of [23 + (333-240)]/23 = 5.04. This shifts the calculation to IR dominance whereas the real atmosphere is dominated by convective processes; thus the incorrect modelling is the origin of the unphysical positive feedback.
In summary: thermalisation is indirect and because the scattering of IR from the Earth’s surface asymptotes at ~200 ppmv [CO2], there can be no net CO2-(A)GW in the post ice age World.
You blokes who beleive in consenus science are being left out of the loop on purpose.
The writer and I share much in this matter. To a great degree – although probably not entirely – I would say that he speaks for me. I have no problem with ‘a’ greenhouse effect. What I question is the certainty in grand, planetary tinker-toys that claim to predict the future. I also see the same corruption-by-motivation. ‘Big oil’ can only offer money – to the degree they ever did. Ideology offers righteousness, and toeing the line offers a continued career.
The main travesty is for the IPCC not to acknowledge the cyclic nature of global mean temperature and its trends => http://bit.ly/MkdC0k
This is the most important issue that the AGW camp must acknowledge otherwise they will continue not to be trusted.
Great post, but the bio link to Wiki needs correcting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Partridge
Incorrect, ha ha, you are confused with Andy Partridge.
The typical skeptic is “The Mayor of Simpleton”.
Web,
Actually, you would be wrong. AGW skeptics are on balance more educated than true believers.
Of course, if you believe Nassim Taleb (and I happen to), the level of education is not a very good predictor of whether or not someone is right about an issue, but it is a very good predictor at how likely they are to think they are right.
What I find most astonishing about typical climate skeptics is their thought process.
They think that funded climate science is a hoax if it has anything to do with AGW research. When the climate scientists don’t predict some aspect to their satisfaction, they tee off even more. The typical complaint starts with a lecture about the fact that climate is “irreducibly complex” or that the climate scientists are incompetent. The skeptic argues that there is no point in pursuing this path of GCMs and simulations, since the natural complexity overrides anything man is capable of understanding (remember that point). They then assert that all the money spent is robbing the taxpayer.
On the other side of the coin, these same skeptics are also routinely against some aspect of green technology, such as alternative and renewable fuels research and development. They have a reaction against wind turbines and photovoltaic technology because they think it has to do with planning for carbon reductions. They also assert that wind turbines and photovoltaics (among others) are loser technologies because they don’t have the efficiency that they desire and that would then make it a candidate suitable for energy substitution.
This side of the coin is linked to the other side. It is pretty obvious if you realize that science is always rationalized as part of the funding and proposal process.
Let me explain. Everyone knows that fossil fuels are a finite resource and the supply won’t last forever (first oil will go, then NG, and so on). Many scientists also realize the connection between our environment as a potential source of renewable energy, and the need for replacements of fossil fuel. Although each potential renewable technology can only supply a fraction of what fossil fuel is capable of, taken together they do hold more promise than any individual source. From the aforementioned wind turbines and photovoltaics, we also have hydropower, geothermal, heat exchanger, passive solar, energy storage, hybrids, biofuels, tidal energy, smart grids, and others to be considered.
Again, each of these alone is not much but taken together the jury is still out on how substantial the cumulative impact may be. And there could be more efficiencies yet to be gained. You see, many of these technologies depend on the climate and the earth in one way or another and may be improved if we understand the climate and earth sciences better. Again, the same complaint that the skeptics have against climate scientists as to the hopelessness of their pursuit, is actually considered perfectly acceptable as a research and development (applied R&D) topic when directed at trying to perfect renewable sources of energy from our environment. No one ever said this would be easy, and nature *always* fights us. It was Charles Darwin who said: “If Mother Nature can, She will tell you a direct lie.”
So one man’s problem (banging the head against the wall trying to understand the long-term climate) thus becomes another man’s opportunity (someone could incidentally figure out how to predict wind speeds more accurately). This illustrates the hypocrisy of complaining about climate science funding, because above all else, this is a useful research area to be involved in. Since the seeming complexity is evidently hurting our ability to extract energy more efficiently, why not put extra effort into the climate science domain? One then has the objective of understanding climate change alongside the spin-off potential to find something novel relating to renewable energy sources. That was for years the side rationale for the space program, which did yield technology benefits.
That’s why when a scientist writes a research proposal they impress on the potential funding agency that the work they do can have a substantial impact on practical technology. This is usually boiler-plate stuff, but has merit just the same. So the connection is that if we as scientists understand climate better, it has all sorts of potential applications, not only in better understanding the variability in wind speeds and the availability of sunshine, but the old standards of agriculture, shelter, and basic day-to-day coping with our environment, whether it be cold spells or hurricanes, shipping or commuting — this is all good stuff to better understand and potentially apply.
That’s why I don’t understand the skeptic mindset. The rationale for climate science is more than a single-minded pursuit , as it is no different than funding in any other research topic, which is to find some breakthrough that has benefit for humankind.
I have understood this from day one, yet don’t understand why so few climate scientists spend time advertising this broader objective. They must think it blindingly obvious, but as the crowd that they are dealing with includes reactionaries, cornucopians, dominionists, and the occasional Luddite, they need to do extra work selling their wares.
The best part is how they claim irreducible complexity, then in the next breath tell you how they know it’s the sun, or PDO, or ‘natural climate variability’.
Our deniers are such geniuses that they could disprove AGW with half a cucumber and a loaf of stale bread.
If only they weren’t so busy blogging, they’d write it up and submit to a peer-reviewed journal and blow all these dumb scientists out of the water……..
You got it, Michael. Clinton always said it’s “the economy, stupid”, but in this case it’s “the hypocrisy, stupid”.
The skeptics are very consistent in their inconsistency.
“On the other side of the coin, these same skeptics are also routinely against some aspect of green technology, such as alternative and renewable fuels research and development.”
It’s not research and development- this does not need much funding.
Research and development is what done pre-market.
The money being spend is subsidizing something. Meaning you giving money to it [because perceived “social good” or you some misguided notion that if you increase the economics of scale {think, Solyndra] , one can lower costs- both of latter is market related. I.e not research and development [unless you grand idea regarding development].
“They have a reaction against wind turbines and photovoltaic technology because they think it has to do with planning for carbon reductions. ”
It is promoted to be about carbon reductions, but in fact it isn’t.
“They also assert that wind turbines and photovoltaics (among others) are loser technologies because they don’t have the efficiency that they desire and that would then make it a candidate suitable for energy
substitution”.
They can not replace fossil fuel energy production- and they increase energy costs by the government forcing the public buy this “provider of energy”. So public getting robbed of tax dollars, and robbed because they force to buy the lousy product in the form of higher energy bills.
And the supporting them with tax payer support loans, which these scam artist default on.
gbaikie, I would call you aggressively close-minded and unbelievably naive.
You have exposed yourself to be not only anti-climate science, but anti-research in the larger scheme of things.
If you think that Solyndra and wind is promoted solely for its carbon reduction potential, it just goes to show how single-minded your obsession is. You have to do some self-reflection to see how hysterical you sound
This is where the hypocrisy reaches a peak. I spelled out the fact that skeptics routinely claim that no one understands climate science very well, and they say that the pursuit of knowledge in this area is hopeless due to its inherent complexity. Yet, gbaikie turns around and suggests that he understands everything about wind and photovoltaic technology and that no further progress can be made, as it “can not replace fossil fuel energy production”. Who says? You? Are you now as arrogant sounding as the climate scientists you complain about?
Don’t you all see the blatant intellectual disconnect? He disses climate science and then he disses technological progress, just as a Luddite would. As I just said in another comment: it’s the hypocrisy stupid!
Squeegee for brains,
Irreducible imprecision – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full – at least get the terminology right even if you can’t understand the paper.
The problem has been solved. The energy mix will be radically different in 2050. Conversation farming will radically increase food production and sequester immense amounts of carbon. Economic growth fostered by free markets and the spread of democracy will adance humanity and the environment and help to reduce population pressues.
You mistake opposition to taxes, caps and subsidies as oppostion to technological innovation. Ultimately it is the economic questions on which we differ. My emphasis is on how best to foster maximum economic groth susainably. Yours is focussed on limits, government intervention, degrowth, false economies, etc. Your fellow travellers admit that this can only achieved through suspension of democracy and massively centralised controls to reduce income and wealth. Which is an especially invidious socialist fantasy.
So Comrade sh+t for brains – have you or are you ever likely to get a clue?
Best regards
Captain Kangaroo
@webbie
‘Yet, gbaikie turns around and suggests that he understands everything about wind and photovoltaic technology and that no further progress can be made, as it “can not replace fossil fuel energy production”.
You do not need to be a genius to understand ‘energy density’. Unless you have a perpetual motion machine hidden away in the basement of Oil Depletion Towers, you will not be able to get out more energy than is actually there. We know all the variables for both those technologies.
And even if you could get them to 100% conversion efficiency – which your study of thermodynamics will assure you is impossible – there is not enough power available from these sources to replace fossil fuels…and still have any land available for growing things and living on. It is dark under a PV collector and plants won’t grow. If it ain’t dark, it ain’t 100% efficient.
Conversation farming happens on blogs. On the otther hand conservation farming is the current farming revolution improving production by up to 100%.
“Yet, gbaikie turns around and suggests that he understands everything about wind and photovoltaic technology and that no further progress can be made, as it “can not replace fossil fuel energy production”. Who says? You? Are you now as arrogant sounding as the climate scientists you complain about?”
Quiz: what is the major cost of wind or photovoltaic technology.
You talking about costs, I assume you have a clue.
“And even if you could get them to 100% conversion ”
You can very significantly increase German PV;
Put them someplace with more sunlight- like Texas.
Spain would be a 50% improvement?
Let’s check:
German is about 1000 Kw hour per year.
Spain average is about 1800 Kw per year
UK has at best about 1200 Kw
Texas has 2100 Kw per year.
Japan has.. can’t find it
Australia: well, it’s as good or better than Texas.
India has about 2000 Kw per year.
Can’t find much on China- but doesn’t look good.
Roughly, worse than Spain.
Climate science is about understanding climate.
Making the most out of renewables involves understanding our climate to the greatest extent possible.
Therefore, climate science will continue to get funded by nations that believe it important.
Not a hard concept to grasp, yet it eludes all you fake skeptics.
Obviously touched a raw nerve with you guys. You can’t take the fact that any technical progress can be made with respect to alternative energy.
@webbie
Care to give some recent examples of where ‘studying climate’ has led to ‘technical progress in alternative energy’ as claimed.
BTW I don’t doubt that some technical progress can be made. But you;ll never get more than about 1500.Wm-2 out of sunlight or get over the density and speed of air to limit wind power. They are physical limits that ain’t going to change.
And making progress in either of these has no connection that I can envisage with ‘studying climate’. They are physics and engineering questions. Persuade me otherwise.
@webbie
Example. You want to get rich by robbing a bank. Do you go to the little out of town suburban branch that only ever has $100K on the premises? Or the big City Centre one that has $100M on a good day?
Obvious ..you go to the big one because your potential return is so much higher. Even if you can only achieve 50% in that one you still get $50M. But if you strive and struggle and stretch every sinew to get to 90% in the small one, your return is still only $9K
Want to read my book? Oh, I guess that wasn’t funded.
It sounds as if it always boils down to money for you idiots. Consider the case of someone wanting to figure out how high in altitude to place a wind turbine. Well, scientists do research on the local climate and find out what the maximum and average wind speed is as a function of altitude.
This sounds basic but stuff like this needs to be done. Now I realize you will start belly-aching that this is not expensive research. Tough luck you bozo, if some country decides to spend money funding climate research and it’s not your native country, you have no control over it. Ha ha. You Latimer, a Brit twit, have no control over what the Dutch are willing to invest in.
You basically have no response to this because spin-off technology from basic research has been known to work time and time again. You are out of the loop and have become insanely jealous, a Luddite who has to lash back at progress.
@webbbie
Sticking a kite up near where you want to put a windmill and measuring the windspeed is ‘climate research’? On that definition, me opening the bedroom window of a morning to assess the temperature and whether I need thermals or not is also ‘climate research’. You are being even more than normally ridiculous.
And no, I don’t want to read your book on the topic. But as an author who has studied the subject, surely you should have reams of better examples than kite flying for a windmill that can prove your point. That you don’t tells me all I need to know. Juts wittering on about basic research spinoffs with not a single example is typical wishful thinking.
PS – the optimum height for a windmill is just so the lowest blade misses the ground. Maximises the power, minimises the cost and engineering of the pole.
Latimer, predictable, as I already put the kryptonite shield on cost of research and you took the bait. Tell a kid that the school science project she is working on is not research (and pathetic besides that) and that will turn her off to science for sure. But that is your objective, to turn the next generation into a bunch of Luddites that can’t do research in areas that you consider to have no benefit.
@webbie
‘Tell a kid that the school science project she is working on is not research (and pathetic besides that) and that will turn her off to science for sure’
You may be right. But since I have no intention of doing so, the point is irrelevant.
‘But that is your objective, to turn the next generation into a bunch of Luddites that can’t do research in areas that you consider to have no benefit.’
I have no such objective whatosever. And they can do research into anything they like as far as I am concerned. But if they want public funds to do it, then it is not a one way deal. Public funds should only be used for research where there is a reasonable expectation of some public benefit. If the research that little Johnny is interested in doesn’t fall into that category then he is welcome to fund it himself.
Latimer,
Isn’t there a public benefit in getting kids interested in science?
@andrew adams
You ask
‘Isn’t there a public benefit in getting kids interested in science?’.
Yes there is. Just like making sure they can do readin’ and writin’ and ‘rithmetic, And in UK we fund this via the education budget. Of the order of £5000 per pupil per annum.
It has nothing to do with climatology. If redundant climatologists wish to transfer to working in education, and they have the relevant qualities and qualifications, I am sure they would be welcome. But you cannot count ‘education’ as a benefit of climatology.
Great article. I don’t see how science is being held hostage though. It’s the ‘scientists’ what done it. The CAGW fanatics have poisoned the well of science.
The unintended consequences of global warming alarmists attack on the business of living will be very long lasting–to the end. A part of going Greek results along the way a growing underground economy that is essentially a boycott of government. Much of the business that takes place in Leftist economies is underhanded and operates under the table.
There are some valid comments and ideas in the post, but I think all those have been presented very many times on this site as they have been elsewhere.
There are also clear errors. The quote from Jaques Chirac’s presentation is from the original November 2000 presentation or rather from a translation that’s basically correct but still misleading. The wording of that presentation allows for different interpretations and checking what else Chirac has said makes it clear that the interpretation presented in the posting is false while the interpretation presented by Andrew Adams is probably right. Chirac is not a proponent of a World Government but he expressed the view that on some issues worldwide common actions are needed.
There are similar unjustified characterizations of the views and acts of others that Paltridge disagrees with. The paper is written as are so many other politically motivated papers that choose to counter the opponents by misrepresenting their views. It’s not at all surprising that he has received some praise from people whose views are close to his and who have repeatedly used the same approach in their own comments.
While I don’t believe that Chirac was for a World Government I do believe that many people do connect their more general views on best policies with their thoughts on the urgency on acting on climate change. If a person has already the view that we should reduce our consumption it’s very easy for him to support early and strong policies to mitigate climate change. He doesn’t need any proof that the proposed policies are cost-efficient, because he already knows that the policy is in agreement with his political views whether it makes a dent on warming or not. Similar conclusions are easily reached by people who believe for other reasons that early investment in solar or wind energy is a good thing.
My views differ from the above in that I don’t believe in the value of most proposed policies as I don’t believe that they will lead to the stated goals but may have much more negative consequences than their proponents realize. I do also think that far too much money and other resources are wasted in renewable energy investments that are of little real value.
If the climate issues is so severe that it justifies drastic action then it requires also wise action, drastic without wise may be worse than nothing.
Gotta love the immature flaming from people who want to accuse me of immature flaming … guys, if you don’t like my science, then you really should raise scientific objections, not whine about my day job. The place to do that is on the threads regarding my scientific claims. Calling me a “flametard carpenter” damages your reputation for science, not mine.
I have published a number of peer-reviewed pieces in the scientific journals, including a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature magazine. Funny, they had no problem with me being a carpenter, with my “self-skepticism”, or with the quality of my scientific work …
w.
PS—I note that Chris Colose says, without a shred of self-skepticism, that I operate “… with very little hint of self-skepticism.”
Chris, if you disagree with my science, you should attack my science. Attacking me and what you perceive as my style merely establishes that you are short of scientific arguments …
Finally, I just put out there what I think is true. I attach code and data so you can do the math yourselves. I put in error bars when I can calculate them. I indicate when I see problems or alternate explanations. And unlike far too many AGW supporting scientists, I freely admit when one of my findings is shown to be wrong.
Beyond that, the job of tearing down my claims belongs to you, not to me.
In such a situation, I’m not sure what more in the way of “self-skepticism” you would like me to exhibit. If I am truly skeptical about one of my findings, I don’t publish it … what do you do, Chris? Publish something you don’t believe, and then stand around being skeptical of yourself?
Fair comment.
I think one of the reasons Chris is so desperate to big-up the legitimacy of ‘the community’ and to besmirch anything that isn’t in the ‘literature’ is because he so wants to be in with the big boys and to look down upon the hoi polloi. Otherwise, the location of the work or the background of the researcher would be completely irrelevant.
The more there are people on the ‘outside’ the more he can puff himself up and feel that one day he’ll be accepted as part of ‘the community’.
Oops.
I don’t know where that came from.
Just gratuitous.
Apologies to Chris Colose
I sense pure jealousy in some of your critics, Willis.
Willis,
No one ever went broke betting against Chris in a debate on a science issue.
I wonder when Cris last published in a major journal?
Willis, I can’t always follow the science, but I like your style.
Amazing but true:
Western Academia’s global warming alarmism creates more divisions among the global human community than any other previous human endeavor has ever attempted. We are witness to a new Tower of Babel.
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/rock-the-vote/
Willis, I was clear in an entire SkS article and in several comments at WUWT (along with many cited refereed articles), why I didn’t think your analyses had much merit. I also suggested some elementary textbooks on thermodynamics/convection that would shed light on your interpretation of observations. The SkS article is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropical_thermostat.html and you can follow links to article therein. There are many more. I didn’t really talk about your most recent negative climate sensitivity post because the data isn’t showing anything about climate sensitivity.
There are multiple papers that show that temperature-radiation regressions over these timescales is not related strongly at all to sensitivity, let along equilibrium sensitivity. In any case, you reach results even at the low end of what people like Lindzen or Spencer claim, and apparently at hot enough temperatures, you get a negative sensitivity. None of this makes any sense. Just like Garth Paltridge found evidence of a negative water vapor feedback that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but it’s because he cherry-picked one reanalysis product (even though most show positive feedback, and most people in the community don’t even give much weight to re-analysis for upper trop. water vapor trends). It’s this sloppy work and lack of awareness as to what you people are looking at that gives rise to no one in the scientific community taking you seriously, or your inability to publish…it’s not some grand conspiracy. You might not like my responses, but until you publish, no one is actually obligated to pay much attention.
You are also the one that said “For that purpose, publishing here [WUWT] has much more effect than publishing in the journals,” and “Reading WUWT (and Climate Audit) are requirements if you are serious about climate science and you want to stay up-to-date.”
This is a delusion of the most serious kind. Reading GRL, Journal of Climate, Nature, etc and attending real scientific conferences are how you stay up to date. Buying some textbooks and learning the fundamentals beforehand. Going to talks at universities, AGU, etc. Methinks that you and Garth both severely over-estimate the power of your blogs. This parallel universe of yours might affect the education of some third-party onlookers who don’t know better, but it has had virtually no impact on the evolution of atmospheric science as a discipline.
Chris,
You do know that the moment you reference Skeptical Science your level of credibility goes way down.
What I find rather amazing is the number of people whose opinions have been swayed towards scepicism in large or small part by the nature of comments on sites like SkS and Real Climate. Add in the documented evidence of reision of posts by SkS and you have a flashing neon sign 40 ft tall telling you Stay away.
Hi Chris
Wow. I just discovered that you are still only a student! From the way you write (the arrogant superiority keeps trickling out) I was firmly convinced that you were an Emeritus Professor with at least 300 publications to your name. I’ve rarely seen anyone with so much apparent buy in to the traditionalist view of academic life a la 1950s, so I assumed that was when you were a student yourself. Not so it seems. You are the original 25 yo conservative ‘Young Old Fogey’
But I read your long list of all the good things that you see climate scientists doing. Reading ‘august’ publications. chatting with other climatologists, going to conferences with other climatologists, corresponding with other climatologists, condemning people who only write on blogs and all the good stuff.
But to my eyes the huge great bit that was missing is doing any experiments or observing what nature actually does. Maybe in post-normal Wisconsin nowadays they are deemed irrelevant, but even back in the 1970s when I too was a student (Chemistry) we spent a lot of time just doing stuff in the lab. Seeing what nature actually did ..and often being surprised.
Just my tenpennorth…but then I haven’t got a PhD in Radiative Physics so probably my opinion on these matters is entirely worthless….
“Reading GRL, Journal of Climate, Nature, etc and attending real scientific conferences are how you stay up to date. Buying some textbooks and learning the fundamentals beforehand. Going to talks at universities, AGU, etc.”
Well Chris. I am sure this is the consensus view amongst your professors and comrades, but after 25 years playing this show-biz game, I see it a little differently. All of that stuff is what I do to keep playing this show-biz game. But if I want to make progress on problems that actually interest me, tips from my fellow heretics and occasional search-sessions with Google Scholar and RePeC do the trick for me. Unlearning what is in the textbooks is a constant struggle; stepping out for a smoke during most conference sessions is time well-spent; and giving the talks (rather than going to them) are the secrets of what I call my success (for lack of a better term).
Free Yo Mind And Yo Ass Will Follow! –PFunk
Pekka Pirilä | June 22, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Reply
Pekka, I’m in mystery here. I can’t find where Andrew Adams said anything about Chirac. I also don’t know why you call the translation misleading.
The translation I find says (emphasis mine):
The Chirac Foundation, who you think would likely know what Chirac said, says:
Chirac himself, in inaugurating the work of the foundation bearing his name, said:
Finally, you say:
If he had said “common actions”, you would be right. But he didn’t say that. He said we need an “organization”, that we needed a “new method of global governance”, which is a very different thing.
w.
w.
Andrew didn’t specifically comment on Chirac, but he did comment more generally on attitudes on World Government in a way that applies to Chirac as it does apply to most others who discuss possible approaches to worldwide action.
You are right in stating that Chirac supported the idea of a stronger international body for environmental issues. Similarly EU was pushing for a stronger body than UNEP in Rio but didn’t succeed in getting that to the agreement of Rio+20 summit.
Something stronger that UNEP or something proposed by Chirac would still be just one small actor in the global policy front.
That’s just what the world needs. The geniuses driving Europe off the cliff to do the same thing for the planet as a whole.
“But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.”
This sounds like climate denialism/”skepticism”!
We had relativist ideas fed to us by climate skeptics on previous threads where we are told there is no objective truth, just opinions wherein one may believe the CO2 rise is natural and another that it’s due to man and neither is wrong, just different “interpretations” of the same facts.
The “all ideas are equal” post-modernism is pushed by climate skeptics because they know alternatives to AGW for the recent warming are weaker. So the concept of weight of evidence has to be sacrificed and ridiculous bars of “proof” erected so that all ideas are equal.
“Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind.”
More accurate would be to say all 3 of them are lukewarmers, not climate skeptics. They accept AGW. They certainly don’t deny it.
This bit from the article:
“It would seem important also that any political and economic action on the matter of global warming should be flexible enough to be changed, or indeed discarded, should there be a significant shift in scientific or public perception.”
_______
I agree that political and economic action (and policies) should be flexible and able to be changed, but the criteria for changing them should not be public perception (which is often molded by political and economic interests) rather than facts. For example, what if we’d left action on the destruction of the ozone layer by CFC’s up to public perception? In this age of mass media, the public perception becomes putty in the hands of those with the deepest pockets. The public elects their representatives to set policy, and (in an ideal world) there would always be a separation both physical and financial between policy makers and those with financial interests in setting policy a certain way– hence why campaign finance reform and term limits are an attractive idea.
But In the same vein, neither should political and economic action be left up to scientific perception alone, but rather, scientific data shared with elected policy makers with the requirement that uncertainty always be clearly communicated.
I’m not sure if CFC’s and the ozone hole are a good example to bring up. I never see anything about it these days, yet I understand that it still exists, we still can’t explain why it is where it is and not where it was predicted to be and we are not certain that it didn’t exist prior to placement of satellites able to measure it.
Robert Watson orchestrated a massive scientific report to support the UN Montreal Protocol, shutting down CFCs. It worked so well that he and his friends created the IPCC, to shut down fire. The rest is history. So far not so good.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ice-ozone-link.html
That appears to be more likely the ozone connection since the Arctic ozone and the tropical stratosphere are showing the same signs. It appears to be a natural feed back to local deep convection. Of course, someone could cast blame at something, but water has been around for a while.
CFC’s and the ozone hole is the perfect example actually of how science can move policy when a quantifiable threat to the health of the biosphere is identified. But AGW is a whole different animal, with far more uncertainty and of course, bigger sacrifices needed than just finding a substitute for CFC’s. Fossil fuels are integral to the global economy, whereas there were fairly easy ways around the banning of CFC’s. Hence, the policy pickle were in…
RG,
I’ll take issue with the quantifiable threat to the health of the biosphere statement.
The increase in uv exposure from the ozone hole was reportably the equivlent of what a person living in Minnesota would get if they moved to New Orleans. Now, supposing you lived in Minnesota and someone offered you a job at twice the rate you get paid now, would you turn it down solely on the basis of your increased risk from uv exposure?
And since we have had the hole at least as long as I’ve been out of grad school, one would think solid evidence of the harm being done to the biosphere would be evident by now. Is it? Or is this threat of the same nature as the threat we are told a warming climate represents? Major disruptions to food production, species extinctions, spread of tropical disease, massive relocation of populations, you get the drift. (Note that I am not saying you claim this, just that these are just some of the claims being put forth.)
I’m of the opinion that the Montreal protocols may eventually prove useful for their impact on warming. I can’t see where it has done anything definitive with regard to ozone.
Disagree with both of you. The only affect of Montreal protocols was to unnecessarily increase the cost to consumers. It costs hundreds of billions of dollars to the consumers. Some increase costs went into the pockets of “big business”, but mostly it money wasted.
It had no effect upon ozone hole, nor did it affect global temperatures.
There no evidence of it doing either, it’s just wishful thinking.
timg56,
The chlorine and bromine catalytic cycles that destroy the ozone will take many decades to fully work themselves out of the system. Some estimate show the early 2020’s will be when we’ll begin to see some significant reduction of the size of the seasonal hole, with complete restoration perhaps by 2070. A fairly good overview of this at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w47rv7k722044500/
Of course, those doing work in Antarctica or living in Australia and the Patagonia know full well that times of lower ozone levels over the the SH can represent serious health threats…unless you think skin cancer and cataracts are not serious?
RG,
I can acknowledge that changes in the size of the hole require long timeframes. As for the health effects, they are not of a degree where simple precautions don’t protect against them.
For me there is a difference between some threat or risk and Oh my god the health of the bioshpere is threatened. The latter was how the ozone hole story was protrayed in the 80’s and 90’s.
timg56,
Certainly on any given issue there are the extremes in position, but suppose somehow we’d not banned CFC’s way back then? I think there is a reasonably good chance that much worse health effects would be covering a larger part of the globe today.
Gates: I guess democracy is not your first choice when it comes to public action. What is your first choice? Technocracy? Facts are not a fact when people disagree. So facts versus public perception is a false choice. Your false choice, apparently.
Representative democracy is just fine…so long as the elected officials represent the will of the people (all the people) and not just those with the deepest pockets. As American democracy has long since vanished to be replaced by a corporate backed Plutocracy, there isn’t much point in discussing what “could be” as it simply isn’t anymore. Each election cycle becomes a contest only for which corporate interests will reign in America, not whether corporate interests will reign.
Money has corrupted American politics to the core, and the people are either too asleep, too filled with platitudes pumped in to their minds by the mass media on all sides of the political spectrum, or too distracted by just earning a living to really notice or care. So unless the people are ready, willing, and able to really take back their democracy from the big money interests that have long since taken it over (the two current political parties both serve corporate masters), then they’ve gotten exactly what they deserve.
But other than that…yeah, everything is fine in Amerika.
Well, I for one am glad that the Plutocracy helped elect our current president so the Mickey could keep Pluto company. Mickey whispered into Pluto’s ear that by complicating the federal regulations and codes that Daisy and Donald would have to merge with Scrooge while Minnie was blissfully ignorant that the CFLBs Mickey installed would lead to nearly as much toxic waste power they save.
Mickey’s 2012 slogan is, “If over regulation is a problem we will regulate a solution.”
Your typical US election year.
Democrats: “There’s something wrong with the economy, but we can fix it.”
Republicans: “There’s nothing wrong with the economy, and we can fix that!”
–P.J. O’Rourke
“Representative democracy is just fine…so long as the elected officials represent the will of the people (all the people) and not just those with the deepest pockets.”
So it follows that Obama was elected by those with the deepest pockets,
and if loses the up coming election, he loses because of deepest pockets.
Or are the deepest pockets not buying presidential elections, and perhaps focuses more on Senators elections?
It seems to me that politicians pass laws regarding interests in which are the same that get them elected. And politicians lie. So so politicans talk about going after the rich, all it means is they pass laws which the rich want passed, and they get money from them for their re-election.
Say there money in astrology, it seems to me the result of this would that the politicians would focus on passing law regarding astrology, and passing laws on astrology draws astrologist into politics. Politicians get money from astrologist because astrologist now care what the politicians are doing. If result of all this is some astrologists getting richer, and politician claiming they against the astrologist and spending decades in office, with decades of these politician saying to same old story.
Perhaps one imagine the politicans are going to act against the interest
of the rich astrologist- unless they find particular astrologists which aren’t contributing to their campaign.
So much time is spent now by politicians “fund raising” for the next campaign, that less and less work of the people gets done. Obama outspent McCain, but McCain also was handicapped by other considerations as well…i.e. Palin.
But that’s all water over the dam isn’t it. It’s a brand new election year, and a whole new round of fresh money is being spent to get their man into office. Of course, the great majority of that money will be spent on creating propaganda pieces that show their candidate “good” and other “bad”, further polarizing an already polarized electorate. But the real joke is on the electorate anyway, as they somehow think that their will or what they want makes a difference. Sorry, not in this corporate ruled Plutocracy. In the end, it will only be a question of which corporations will get to have their way in Washington for the next four years.
Thanks Gates, this is about what I expected from you. So if democratic decision making is a sham, as you claim, why are we here?
That’s a pretty existential question, isn’t it?
But supposing you mean here on Judith’s blog. We’re here for as many reason’s as there are regular posters here. We’ll all go into the voting booth or send back our mail ballot having voted for the candidate that we surmise best matches our view of the world and basic values. Of course, neither candidate is beholden to us, but to the deep pockets of those who will then expect loyalty.
So what corporate interest is preferentially represented now? Which corporate interest is reigning with this administration? Your offering generalities with no substance. Offer one concrete example of a ‘corporate’ interest that reigns over Amerika. How is you argument any different from any number of ‘skeptical’ arguments about climate change? How is ‘corporate’ America affecting climate change policy?
Of course, to get his health care reform passed Obama had to make huge concessions to big Pharma. They are a perennial power in D.C., really more allied with the Republicans, but Obama needed their support (or at least their silence) to get it passed, so he struck a deal. But it is really collaboration of industries that will be favored by any one candidate or any party. For example, in the telecommunications industry, you will tend to see the established near- monopolies such as Comcast allied with the Republicans while the “left Coast” companies like Google allied with the Dems. In other industries, oil has of course long been associated with Republican interests, and even back to the time of Lyndon Johson, who though he was a Dem, was really more allied with Republican interests, and certainly would be a Republican if representing Texas oil interests today. In the defense sector there is so much money at stake that both parties feed at the trough and serve the overlords pretty evenly, though the Republicans like to be seen as the “hawks”, to attract a few votes from the patriotic masses and hopefully get first in line when the Defense contractors dispense their campaign cash.
“Of course, to get his health care reform passed Obama had to make huge concessions to big Pharma. They are a perennial power in D.C., really more allied with the Republicans, but Obama needed their support (or at least their silence) to get it passed, so he struck a deal.”
What faery land you live. Obama huge concessions? Obama didn’t even do the deal. It was the Dems in both houses, who passed by their majority rule of these house. Republican were ignored. The huge concession were “big Pharma” paid a lessor amount to Dems political contributions than the Dems wanted [their desire is infinite in this regard]
Oh, I forgot, Obama did hand out about 1500 waviers, so in that sense
he played them also.
Gates, you offer good examples, all of which I will not dispute. Now, who makes up the corporations? I’ll assume its your impression there are a few bigwigs at the top who are directing American policy, that they have a lot of power. The problem is they don’t have quite the power you envisage. Why do they have to go to the halls of congress and why do they have to cater to each administration? Because they don’t have the power. You argue they are ‘buying’ influence to the power… so what else is new. You talk as though Democracy has been lost here in the USA. Well, Big Business has been manipulating politics since… well since there has been Big Business.
Lets get back to the people who makes up the corporations, besides the bigwigs at the top… corporations are largely made up of the middle class workers who have to do their job and pay their bills. Millions of people are employed by the ‘corporations’. So, do all those employees get no say? Are they not benefitting from employment? Aren’t they able to vote for their favorite candidate? If a legislator represents an area where a lot of corporations and their employees reside, isn’t it wise for the legislator to listen to the people he represents regardless?
My point is you can’t talk about corporations only as monolithic evil entities set to destroy democracy… they are made up of people like you and me who are trying, like you and me, to improve their position to be successful. Corporations are a larger team of people all rowing in the same direction… maybe they may make better headway. Is it fair? Is it right? Look at it in terms of evolution, are predators evil in nature? If your the prey, perhaps you have that impression… if your the predator, your just trying to make a living. If your a pack of lions working as a team it’s because you have more mouths to feed.
I gather your real arguement is that as a result of all this influence buying and re-election posturing, nothing actually gets done. Everyone is too busy looking out for #1. Well, I have to agree that is a problem. We all want to see government move faster, make decisions quicker, get down to the business of running the country… but I’m not sure too much has really changed in the last century and I’m not sure how democracy has been lost as a result, how was democracy better before your notion that ‘we lost democracy’?
“As American democracy has long since vanished to be replaced by a corporate backed Plutocracy, there isn’t much point in discussing what ‘could be’ as it simply isn’t anymore.”
Leaving aside Comrade Gates lack of knowledge of the current American political system, I get a kick out of an elitist who pines for the power to run the entire world economy using the word plutocracy as a negative.
If you had to live in a country run by a bunch of elitists, which would you rather? That it be run by those who generated great wealth by their success; or by those whose success has been solely in the academic world, and have never run anything but their mouths?
Virtually every western country is currently run by progressives who agree with our faux skeptic on economics, politics and climate. Since the accumulation of so much power in the hands of his fellow progressives is clearly not enough for him, one can only assume that he shares Thomas Friedman’s yearning for the type of republic the progressives in China have given their people.
Gary, unfortunately for your rather predictable analysis, I am not a Progressive, but have been an Independent for nearly three decades. The two party system is far too corrupt for me swear allegiance to. The system is quite broke– broke by the influence of vast sums of money.
Finally, your claim that I lack knowledge of the current political system is based on what? Your wishing that my accurate analysis of the corrosive influence that big money has been to our former democracy was not true?
The Most Unskeptical Warmist Ever,
“Finally, your claim that I lack knowledge of the current political system is based on what?”
It’s based on that regurgitated gem of proto-Marxist pap that I quoted from you as the first sentence of my comment.
http://www.rochester.edu/college/psc/clarke/204/Stratmann.pdf
A recent review of empirical studies of the influence of campaign contributions on electoral outcomes.
I disagree. facts can be facts even when people disagree. youve made truth subjective
Uncertainty is being clearly communicated, by real skeptics not semantic pirates.
By real skeptics you mean not deniers and not AGW alarmists, right? You mean skeptics in the David Hume sort of meaning of the word I hope.
No I mean what you call deniers. That is real skeptics, not semantic tricksters like you. Hume has nothing to do with this, unless you want to debate the reality of causality.
Did you just Google Hume and try to find something in the Wiki article to make you look like you knew what you were talking about?
C’mon…fess up.
To suggest that one of the most important skeptics in history has nothing to do with skeptical thinking shows me you’ve not actually read Hume, or maybe you bought the cliff notes instead?
Hume’s scepticism is in the atmosphere of western enlightenment culture. We understand these ideas because they are at the core of our scientific and philosophical training – those of us who have it – even without reading Hume. It is the starting point rather than the end game.
On the other hand a sophomoric attempt at a tedious gotcha fails to impress in any way.
We’ve heard it all before of course, but yet again, Paltridge trots out a lot of the tired old global warming conspiracy theories and cliches, claiming that us ‘warmists’ have hidden agendas. We either like the idea of carbon cap-and-trade because it will be “the first step towards global governance”, and we are all communists who want to ” force a redistribution of wealth both within and between the individual nations.”, and of course we are power seekers who see emissions trading as a path to the sort of influence that used to be wielded the major religions, and futhermore we are all so politically correct and cannot help but be driven by “a need for public expression of our own virtue”
Paltridge is supposed to be a scientist. So where are his scientific arguments? He doesn’t seem to have any. It’s just so much simpler to dismiss what he doesn’t like by applying the label of ‘postmodern’. Postmodern? Can just one word be used to dismiss a century or more of climate research. Either its right or it isn’t. And if he thinks it isn’t right he needs to say why. Scientifically.
If this is the best he can do he really ought to get back to his more usual retirement activities.
His discussion is much more sophisticated than your response. Go figure.
Garth Paltridges discussion is certainly more sophisticated, in style, than the usual rants we get about Al Gore, UN world conspiracies, greedy scientists lining their pockets with research grant money, socialist politicians, bloated sate bureaucracies, excuse to raise taxes, threats to the western way of life etc
But he’s pretty much saying the same thing. If he isn’t what’s the difference?
David, if we list the scientific elements missing from Garth Paltridge’s analysis, we are left with mighty scant margin for substantial contribution to the climate-change debate.
This lack wouldn’t matter much, if Garth were a political operative or a hired ideological shill. But from a scientist, this kind of shoddy analysis is unexpected and less excusable.
Fan, speaking as what you call an ideological shill, your list is garbage. Do you ever actually make a serious point, or is it all empty claims and name calling with you?
@ David, Fan wasn’t engaging in name calling. Read his post again.
When you done that, maybe you would like to set us all a good example and make a serious point in answer to the question I asked you in my last post. Just what is Garth Paltridge saying which is at all different from the usual ideological claptrap about world conspiracies etc etc: and with which we are all only to familiar?
@tempterrain
I’m sure that David is too wise to fall for your little
‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’
question.
“Science held hostage in climate debate” pretty much tells it all.
Sure, there is a GH effect.
Sure CO2 is a GHG, along with water vapor (the principal GHG) and some others.
Sure, humans emit CO2 (and other GHGs).
Sure, these emissions contribute to a gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Sure, this should result in some warming of the planet (all other things being equal).
That’s the “science” in a nutshell.
IPCC claims, based on model simulations and theoretical deliberations, that the GHE has been the principal driver of our climate since the mid 20th century, that this warming has been unusual in the past 1,300 years, and that it represents a serious potential future threat to humanity and to our environment, unless human GHG emissions (primarily CO2) are curtailed dramatically.
So far, so good. That’s an opinion based on a large dose of uncertainty, which has yet to be corroborated by empirical evidence based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation and has yet to successfully withstand falsification attempts.
But IPCC (supported by a group of climate “insiders”) insists on “consensus”.
This is not a scientific concept. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of “science”, where rational skepticism, conflicting views and constant challenging of the prevailing paradigm are an inherent part of the scientific method.
So Paltridge’s premise is well-reasoned: science is being held hostage by the IPCC “consensus process” in the climate debate today.
Max
So get with the program then. We need alternative forms of energy besides fossil fuels. They won’t last forever and something will need to get accomplished on that front. You make it sound as if this is something more significant than dangling the carrot in front of the horse.
Understanding climate is important for its own sake as that may provide a path to renewable energy, if not benefiting agricultural processes, water supply, and needs in our basic environment. It is funny how a small fraction of the population gets wound up about this.
As the real skeptic Michael Shermer has asked , “Why do People Believe Weird Things?”
@webbie
‘Understanding climate is important for its own sake as that may provide a path to renewable energy’
How? We know how much energy we get from the sun. The problem is converting it into stuff we can use. Physics and stuff. WTF does studying climate come into it?.
Latimer said:
Latimer is so slow that he doesn’t understand that climate has a spatio-temporal aspect to it. From what the climate skeptics say, this behavior is not well understood and explains why climate models for predicting AGW are so poor. Yet these same models can be used to understand the best placement in time and space for renewable energy installations. So we continue research into climate to better understand this. But this gets the Luddite skeptics upset as well. Can’t win with these dolts.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Latimer, you are actually a great set-up man.
@webbie
‘these same models can be used to understand the best placement in time and space for renewable energy installations’
You do not need climate models to work out ‘the best placement in time and space for renewable energy installations’.
For solar PV you need weather records (esp sunshine hours) and a knowledge of the geometry of the earth. For wind you need weather records (esp wind speeds) at the chosen location. Small portable weather stations can provide both within a year.
And at least in UK, the overriding consideration for their placement is the availability of land to put them rather than the weather.
And the best placement in ‘time’ for both is
‘as quickly as we can before the government sees sense and the subsidies dry up’
Latimer,
Yes that is considered science. I know that you have trouble with that concept because I have yet to see you lift a finger and actually engage in any data mining analysis.
Since you ALWAYS aggressively ask for evidence, I guess I have to point to the work that I have done in analyzing wind patterns in different parts of the world. I piggyback off of met stations and wind farms and find some interesting spatial and temporal correlations.
Of course, most of this analysis is available for people to look at. I can mention that it is in my book, but of course I realize that you will say that you don’t care to look at it.
You continue to show a regressive, reactionary, and ultimately Luddite approach to progress.
@webbie
Great. You’ve found some interesting spatial and temporal correlations.
Since you don’t seem capable of telling us what they are,we’ll juts have to pat you on the head and tell you, once again, what a clever little Webbie you are.
But assume that I am a bloke with a lot of earth moving equipment, twenty windmills on the back of low loaders and a team of daily paid workers who want to get the bloody things erected asap. How, exactly, will your ‘interesting spatiotemporal correlations’ help me to determine the best place to dig the holes for my wind farm?
@webbie
I’ll do you a deal.
You give us a link to the chapter and page number of your book that discusses the correlations you discover, and their relevance to wind and solar placement and I promise to read it. And by placing such a link here, others interested in your work will also be able to see it.
I cannot say fairer than that.
Deal?
Lat, are you referring to his ground breaking research that verified to a 95% confidence level that the Earth surface appears to have an average wind velocity?
In Minnesota, all the wind velocities are above average. Maybe he meant the Dakotas.
=========
It’s quiet in Minnesota in January.
That must B @ Lake Windbegone.
================
I have looked at his wind stuff. It’s nuts. He reads some data off a graph on the net and then fits a curve to it. I can’t figure out why and how that tells you more than the actual data. One thing is that the curve diverges at the high end – just when it starts to get interesting the curve fitting fails. I do this stuff all the time. The only reason curve fitting is of interest is that you can then estimate a 1000 year or a 10,000 year storm – for which of course data is lacking. Simply fitting a curve to data is of no interest at all. Fitting a curve to no data or the wrong data is worse than useless.
That’s what he does and then behaves likke a sociopath all over the blog.
Little pal Joey is all about being insanely jealous of someone that lifts a finger.
Terrabytes of data exist on wind records (and wave, temperature, etc) just waiting for enterprising AGW spin-off researchers to process and analyze. I have started on the tip of the iceberg and the end is not in sight as to the correlations one can find.
The typical Team Skeptic tactic is to marginalize any advances because that is at the core of their Luddite philosophy. They think that using the term “sociopath” is some sort of weapon — not even close sockpuppets, as sociopathetic better describes your own insignificance.
And yet the process is entirely curve fitting. As I say I do this stuff all the time only I understand what I am looking at.
Kanga, You don’t even understand autocorrelation. I bet you would consider it just curve fitting, being a Civ and all.
Max,
Is there a consensus that the earth is not flat?
Does this mean it’s not rational to believe that earth is not flat??
Skeptics? Ha!
Michael
Whether or not there is a “consensus” that “the Earth is not flat” is rather immaterial.
There are empirical measurements and observations that have corroborated this. IOW, the premise “the Earth is flat” is easily falsifiable based on empirical evidence.
To date such empirical evidence does not yet exist for the IPCC “consensus” premise of CAGW. Ergo, a rational skeptic of the CAGW premise can point out that it is an uncorroborated hypothesis, scientifically speaking.
That is the key difference (and it is a BIG one).
Max
pokerguy | June 22, 2012 at 10:25 am
Funny, how my sense that non-scientists can come to perfectly valid scientific opinions by judging the debaters only grows more confident with time.. I agree with the above not because as a layman I can look at data filled posts and find problems on my own, but because I can judge the back and forth between the author and his critics.
=============================================
I am afraid, not being a climate scientist is a necessary condition to judge the AGW concept. As Garth Paltridge put it, an important factor “is the need to eat”, so you should not expect much from the climate scientists.
Besides, to question their basics is easy. E.g. if you start looking for purely physical experimental proof of CO2 warming you will find only fakes or unrelated stuff. If you look at their methods to calculate “global temperature” you will immediately start screaming internally. Those things have no basis in real science.
The most obvious and ridiculous thing is the third pillar of the AGW concept: attributions. They claim some local events being consequences of the “global warming”, but their “global warming” is per definition a sort of average thing, and a global average can not cause anything local. It is exactly the other way round: a local change automatically influences the average.
It is a very sad picture.
Seems to me that the moment you declare yourself to be ‘a climate scientist’, you almost automatically have to become an alarmist.
Because (absent a few rich ‘philanthropists’ with more money than sense), you have just about defined that you future career will be entirely funded by public money. Unlike physics or chemistry or biology or materials science, there are no private sector jobs as a climate scientist. You will have to survive in academia…you would have no life-support outside of that world.
A few consequences follow. No government in their right mind is going to fund projects that consistently show that not much is happening..it’s all pretty boring, business as usual. And the good academic is going to be clever enough to work this out. By a simple evolutionary process workers reporting disaster and devastation will get the boodle while those who don’t won’t. Simple survival stuff. ‘Dr Mann is a great scientist because he brings in a lot of grants’
And it also explains why all climatologists pay such close attention to the weird and obscure mores of academia, while ignoring those things that the rest of the world finds many times more important. Academia is their only liveable environment. They know- and can know no other. For fear of the outside they draw up the bridge and whistle together to keep their spirits up.
Perhaps this explains the strong dislike (I am being charitable) for Steve McIntyre..he is not only a statistician rather than a climate scientist (bad enough), but he makes his living independently of academia and grants and he can’t be controlled by the usual academic mechanisms of patronage and career. Ditto Anthony Watts or Pointman or Donna or Bishop Hill. They dare to do what ‘climate scientists’ never can.
A true climatologist a while back accused me of treating the subject as ‘just a game’. Indeed I do not…it is supposedly the ‘most important problem humanity has ever faced’ and it is my contention that if so it should be addressed in a proper and serious way, not allowing itself to pay attention to the playground sensitivities of the academic’s little closed world, but using the best techniques we know. Its a long way away from that now.
But it took a long while for the penny to drop. For me, the future of humanity is really about the welfare of distant generations. I care intellectually, but only a small part emotionally. But for the climatology guy the continuance of the scare is central to his being, It pays the bills, it gives him status and self-regard, it allows him to bring up a family. He spends 40+ hours a week with climatologists and he would be essentially unemployable outside that world. I have no reason to believe that he is anything other than completely sincere in what he writes. But it would be a brave and foolish man who would decalre that despite all these social and welfare pressures he can retain 100% objetcivity, He can’t.
And since there are very few non-academics (here at least), who adopt the warmist position, I think the battle is better seen as for the survival and future employment prospects of the climatologists.
That’s interesting. But an academic doesn’t need to teach fear.
Therefore it seem a climatic scientist doesn’t need to teach or promote fear.
At least, logically it follows.
So it’s seems to me an academic has no need to cause fear- not traditionally.
But religion has had this a part of it’s tradition.Many priests may have argued they need their believers to fear damnation.
So can loosely guess it is the religion that needs the fear, and science that doesn’t?
And let me further speculate that it’s the priest with lack of enlightenment
that feel they need to cause fear. Or don’t recall Jesus needing to cause people to fear.
So can then say the incompetent climate scientist need to cause fear, though perhaps lack science in climate science, tends to make this more common.
Finally someone is picking the low hagning fruit by studying the question: What makes AGW extremsits tick?
http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Delusion+problem+with+green+crowd/6823927/story.html#ixzz1yYjOzVlX
Chris Colose | June 22, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Thanks, Chris. I hadn’t seen that SkS article. I read it carefully, and I still don’t understand your point, so your claim “I was clear in …” could use some self-skepticism.
In particular, my article said in part:
I see nothing in your article to contradict any of that. As to what the mechanism is, I called my speculations just that … speculations. Which should be enough self-skepticism for anyone, but apparently not for you.
As always, I strongly encourage people not to believe either Chris or me, but to read both articles, mine and Chris’s, and make up their own minds.
w.
If take a shallow dull black pan water with say 2″ of water. Put on stove increase to boiling temperature. Take off stove and put it in sunlight at noon, clear skies, and 30 C air temperature or warmer. How low will the temperature the pan of water cool to?
gbaikie | June 22, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Well, by midnight the following Christmas with a cold wind blowing and snow falling the temperature of the pan will cool to …
gbaikie, surely you must understand that as posed your question has no answer. Inter alia, it depends on such things as the relative humidity of the air, the conductivity and radiative properties of whatever structure is holding the pan up, the temperature and radiative properties of the ground underneath the pan, the strength of the wind, the time of the year, whether the skies remain clear, how cold the night is, and how long you leave the pan out there. Since you have not specified any of these, the question cannot be answered.
For example, when I lived in New Mexico you could freeze water overnight in a shallow black pan just as you described, even though the air temperature was never below freezing, so given the right environmental conditions the water in your hypothetical pan put out at noon could get below 0°C as quickly as the following morning … go figure.
w.
If take a shallow dull black pan water with say 2″ of water. Put on stove increase to boiling temperature. Take off stove and put it in sunlight at noon, clear skies, and 30 C air temperature or warmer. How low will the temperature the pan of water cool to?
Well, by midnight the following Christmas with a cold wind blowing and snow falling the temperature of the pan will cool to …
gbaikie, surely you must understand that as posed your question has no answer. Inter alia, it depends on such things as the relative humidity of the air, the conductivity and radiative properties of whatever structure is holding the pan up, the temperature and radiative properties of the ground underneath the pan, the strength of the wind, the time of the year, whether the skies remain clear, how cold the night is, and how long you leave the pan out there. Since you have not specified any of these, the question cannot be answered.”
I specified noon, clear skies and plus 30 C.
So it should exclude night time.
But it does depend on various factors. I meant to say where and under what conditions could get the warmest water, assuming it’s open to the air, and assuming warmed with direct sunlight.
I would predict if took the boiling pan of water and put in warmest location you could find, that first it cool down in about 30 mins though may take as long as hour to fully cool down, and the temperature in best location would be around 30 C. By which I mean I would surprised if it was over 40 C. Though believable if say 35 C.
Now, where and under what condition do you think you get the warmest water?
I would say near sea level or perhaps lower than sea level if there was high humidity. Or perhaps in the middle of tropical ocean on some particularly warm day.
“It is regulated by temperature not forcing” Actually, I believe it is regulated by enthalpy not temperature. The enthalpy of the surface layer of the ocean changes by 4.2Joules per gram degree K. As the surface skin layer enthalpy changes, the enthalpy of the atmosphere above it has to change to try and regain equilibrium. The column of air can rise with sensible heat, absorb more moisture or both, but the energy in the atmosphere responds to the energy of the surface skin layer. You can calculate the enthaply of the surface directly, but you need a psych chart to determine the atmospheric response. Since there is plenty of moisture over the oceans, CO2 has little if any impact. Anywho, Willis is on the right track.
Excellent article, avoids “no warming for a decade” garbage, states the science is dodgy on both sides, etc..
Well done. The more distilled the better.
Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific “theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.”
Precisely. This has happened in Australia and in other countries. I am in complete agreement with Paltridge and his contributions to atmospheric science make his views highly relevant to the debate on global warming.
Interestingly, when he talks about his area of knowledge, he’s very IPCC – man is increased atmospheric CO2, it will definitely lead to warming, and possibly up to 3 deg.
You completely agree with that too?
Mike 22June 4.59pm:
I’m not sure, Mike, but I think you may have jest qualified for the Guinness Book of Records ‘longest sentence’ record. Collect yer gold star award.
Beth,
You don’t know how much I want that gold star, Beth! But I’m afraid I’ve gotta decline–it’s an integrity-call thing. I mean, like, I did a re-count and that cheese-bolting, fancy-pants wine-swlling, vastly over-rated Proust motor-mouth guy, that nobody reads, anyway, beat me by one freakin’ word–just one freakin’ word. And I mean, like, it would have been so easy to add a couple more words, I mean, like, just an additional, hyphenated “booger-eater” would have been all it took to push my near-miss gold-star sentence over the top!!–but I got in a hurry and careless and miscounted! Michael does that sort of thing to me–so does that make you a happy little cucaracha to hear that, Michael? Enjoy!, Michael. Have your little fun, Michael!
I’m really P. O.’ed. But I’m not givin’ up, Beth.
‘Decadal-scale climate variations over the Pacific Ocean and its surroundings are strongly related to the so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) which is coherent with wintertime climate over North America and Asian monsoon, and have important impacts on marine ecosystems and fisheries. In a near-term climate prediction covering the period up to 2030, we require knowledge of the future state of internal variations in the climate system such as the PDO as well as the global warming signal. We perform sets of ensemble hindcast and forecast experiments using a coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model to examine the predictability of internal variations on decadal timescales, in addition to the response to external forcing due to changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, volcanic activity, and solar cycle variations. Our results highlight that an initialization of the upper-ocean state using historical observations is effective for successful hindcasts of the PDO and has a great impact on future predictions. Ensemble hindcasts for the 20th century demonstrate a predictive skill in the upper-ocean temperature over almost a decade, particularly around the Kuroshio-Oyashio extension (KOE) and subtropical oceanic frontal regions where the PDO signals are observed strongest. A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1833.full
The question is – has the ‘SAT’ rise slowed down since the inception of the current cool Pacific decadal mode? It has indeed. So what is the decadal future? More of the same it would seem as the cool Pacific mode intensifies over a decade or three. It is precisely these climate shifts – around 1910, the mid 1940’s, the late 1970’s, and 1998/2001 – that bring into doubt the relevance of maximum entropy principles in my opinion.
‘The Earth-atmosphere is a classic example of a closed, dissipative and nonlinear thermodynamic system which is subject to both regular and irregular impulses causing significant departure from steady state. It is closed because it exchanges energy (solar and thermal radiant energy) but not mass with its environment. It is dissipative because the net input of radiant energy occurs mainly in regions of high temperature towards the Equator and the net output occurs mainly in regions of low temperature towards the poles. It is nonlinear basically because of the multiplicity of internal feedbacks and because of the importance of advective processes. It has steady-state character in the sense that the annual mean radiant energy input is very close to the annual mean output, and parameters such as the annual mean temperature do not vary significantly from one period to another. The regular seasonal variation in solar position ensures significant departure from the steady state so defined, and there are also significant irregular departures arising (for instance) from variations of solar input and IR output caused by variations in the amount and distribution of cloud. Recently I have shown1 that the overall Earth-atmosphere climate system seems to have adopted a format whereby the total thermodynamic dissipation associated with the horizontal energy flows in the atmosphere and ocean is a maximum. ‘Format’ in this context refers to the annual average geographic distribution of cloud, surface temperature and the horizontal energy flows. The practical significance of this is that, if one could accept it as a general principle governing climate behaviour, one could use it directly as a means of a priori prediction of climate and climate change without needing detailed analysis of the internal workings of the system. (emphasis mine) I could not explain previously why the Earth-atmosphere system should be so constrained. This note points out that the Earth-atmosphere has characteristics such that it might be expected to obey such a constraint. Furthermore, these characteristics are sufficiently general that the same principle of selection of steady-state mode of maximum dissipation may apply to a broad class of non-linear systems. (Paltridge 1979)
I quote the abstract in full because it is a good description of certain terms that come up again and again in rather less meaningful ways.
Perhaps it is my limitation – but it seems precisely the irregularities that we are interested in rather than the average state of a system that seems quite likely to dissipate – eventually – all incident energy. For analysing planetary warming and cooling detailed information on the workings of the system seem essential. Workings that for instance lead to slowing and acceleration of warming at odd junctions.
As interesting as all this is, however, it is of less import to humanity and society then the type of responses proposed and these are based on values.
‘Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values. Nor is that to be seen as a defect. Of course choices between competing values are not made by relying upon scientific knowledge alone. What is wrong is to pretend that they are.
A hot debate about contested social and ethical values is thus being cloaked in terms of a systematic assessment of scientific information.50 In reality, the climate debate is a contest over what values are going to shape global society into the future.’ (Prins and Raynor 2007)
What we see here is the usual suspects pursuing delusionary narratives superficially in the language of science – but the underlying motivations are political and inimical to freedom and democracy. Paltridge is correct in his categorisation of the perverse aims of these people – but at this juncture in human history does not go nearly far enough. The aims include suspension of democracy and tyrannical controls on production. These are disturbing undercurrents in society that threaten our enlightenment heritage – and we have seen this last century just such idealistic fervour leading to rivers of blood. They insist that their intentions are pure but we should nonetheless by vigilant against these types.
‘Where do you go then? Is it still worthwhile not adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we undoubtedly do? What sort of policies can we implement that recognises the political realities in a non warming world as well as the development and economic needs of people? Is it a policy that enthusiastically embraces economic growth, social development, political and economic freedom and democracy? Or is it one that emphasises limits to growth, suspension of democracy and centralised control of economies? Because if it is the latter – the battle lines are drawn and you are the enemy.’ Me
‘It goes from the latter to the former.’ Jim D
So goes the motivation of the enemy.
A single graph worth thousand words in the climate debate => http://bit.ly/MkdC0k
Perhaps if those particular words are the words of a madman.
Dave Springer: “who knew Tasmania had a university”, and of Garth Paltridge’s acedemic career “not exactly Ivy League”.
Rather snobbish of you. I did my first degree at the University of Tasmania in the early 1970s, and the academic expectations were very high. For English novels, we did a text a week, for 27 weeks (three nine week terms), many of them very fat (eg Dickens). For calculus and abstract algebra (I have a mixed pedigree) the pace was withering. The attrition rate back then was about 40%. When I moved to a big university (Monash, regularly ranked highly in the league tables) to do my honors and PhD, I was surprised at the relative slackness. On querying this, I was told that small universities have to maintain higher academic standards than the big ones, or get lost in the rush. On the slights regarding Garth Paltridge, did you know that he contributed to the Charney Report (1979)? That means 40 years of involvement, 30 plus at the top level, in climate matters, yet Springer and Colose (still a grad student?) demean him. The position of Chief Scientist in the CSIRO (before it was corporatized) was a more prestigious appointment than a university professorship. Nowadays, CSIRO Chief Scientist just means ‘chief fundraiser’. He finished his professional career as head of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies, located, most sensibly, at the University of Tasmania because that is the closest academic centre to Antarctica.
Yes, yes… University of Tasmania has a prestigious history dating back to 1890 when, presumably, the students would have been the children of felons and gold miners.
Seriously, anecdotal comparisons by alumni notwithstanding, it was ranked #320 out of 700 in the world in 2010.
DaleC | June 22, 2012 at 11:34 pm
On the slights regarding Garth Paltridge, did you know that he contributed to the Charney Report (1979)?
===========================================
He did? I do not see, how this can be considered a good thing.
“He did? I do not see, how this can be considered a good thing.”
He part of what started this nonsense?
They thought CO2 would double in first half of 21 century.
Not mentioning doubling pre-industrical level. But even assume a
low pre-industrical level and so giving 520 ppm. I don’t reasonable that we
going to get to 520 ppm in next 38 years.
Also doubt they imagined China would be emitting twice the US CO2 emission.
“Science held hostage in climate debate”
Science isn’t being held hostage in the climate debate. It’s being abandoned.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/ipcc_gives_science_makes_grey_literature_official-91262
Dopes.
The grey lit has been used for ages.
It’s best practice when conducting systematic reviews to refer to the grey literature.
Huh? The one time I wrote a systematic review, I am sure that my bibliography included no grey literature. At all.
‘It’s best practice when conducting systematic reviews to refer to the grey literature’
Why?
And it rather gives the lie to the old warmist mantra that if something hasn’t been peer-reviewed (by them) in a respectable (i.e reliably warmist) publication, then it is beneath their notice and beneath contempt,
‘Missed it by that much!’* I sympathise, Mike, it’s like losing the footie grand final by one point! But remember, if at first yer don’t succeed….
* H/t ‘Get Smart.’
Ninety-nine, CAGW is the second biggest hoax I’ve ever seen.
Just a layman question for the crowd.
Wouldn’t the billions of dollars we are spending on the dubious endeavor known as climate science be better spent on curing aids or parkinsons or feeding irrigating croplands?
And wouldn’t the time you used typing that have been better spent solving world hunger?
Michael, Brian is the kind of skeptic I was referring to with my longish comment here:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/22/science-held-hostage-in-climate-debate/#comment-211852
Brian doesn’t seem to understand that research on the Earth’s climate can provide possibilities for improving “feeding irrigating croplands”.
Just like doing climate science research can have the spin-off effect of improving renewable energy efficiency.
IMO, whatever is spent is money well-spent as it all goes into research.
Hey, wake up WEB.
You were dozing off and must have been dreaming.
Would you like to provide one real world example where climate research has helped with agriculture? Yes some researchers are playing with models to develop regional climate forecasts, with one of the proposed uses being to assist with water management. Go visit Roger Pielke’s site to find out just how successful they have been.
Climate research helping with renewable energy? Again, how about an example? A dollar spend on climate research is a dollar not spent on something else. That in itself isn’t enough reason not to spend money on it, but don’t go making outragiously untrue, fantasy statements about it helping solve hunger and energy problems.
Basic research. You have got to be kidding me. Go away old man.
@webbie
I’ll take that as an admission that you have no answer to timg56’s excellent questions.
I answered you elsewhere. I had enough with your team’s weak talking points.
The local climate provides rain. Rain grows crops. Humans study climate because they are intellectually curious on how to improve their existence. Need I go on, or are you that slow? Next thing you will say is that I am being pedantic. Right, because you guys are closeted Luddites.
@webbie
‘The climate provides rain, Rain grows crops’
Umm…weather provides rain (*). And farmers have been studying their local weather for 10,000 years.
* We are constantly reminded that weather is *not* climate.
Add 2 billion to NASA’s Budget with these additional funds specified to advance the schedule to explore the moon. NASA’s current budget is stretched over long period to enable returning to the Moon. This actually ends up costing more dollars in total. One could also consider applying extra funding to JWST [James Webb Space Telescope] which over budget, IF the assumption that adding funding would shorten it’s schedule [and save money in terms of total cost.]. If JWST is hopeless, then near terms
funding should mainly go to develop a robotic lunar program, that would be precursor to any manned aspect of lunar program. Also some funds should go to a program that will lead to getting a 7 meter diameter space rock and delivering it to Earth/Moon L-1 [Lagrange point 1].
well, I guess that solves that.
I reject the premise that science has been held hostage. On the contrary it has been very free for any scientist to express an opinion, and the AGW view has evolved into a clear majority in the free market of competing science opinion, which is a problem for some. So the minority factions, of which there are many, are actively trying to restrain what appears to be the winning view, but they haven’t yet been competitive because they need an actual theory.
It isn’t a winning view for much of the US public.
You mean that block known as Republicans and their media outlets, who are perhaps trying to hold the science hostage, or at least bind and gag it, if anyone is.
Re decadal changes in the PDO, surface air temperature has certainly plummeted here in wintry Melbourne and its rained cheshire cats and dogs.
Walking today by the swollen Yarra River, usually meandering down to the sea, the river flowing like its on a mission. Two ducks paddling up river were going nowhere, the river is on the verge of overrunning its banks, now pillow soft and sliding to meet it.
Here’s a nice irony: The OZ Bureau of Meteorology’s Dr Andrew Watkins, in April predicting a dry autumn:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3487806.htm
Suggestion: “rained cheshire cats and diamond dogs.”
Hi Beth – the high pressure in the southern ocean is the culprit.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/pacific_ocean.shtml
A lot of people predicted drier conditions because of ENSO – but there are 4 what are technically known as climate dogs. Here is ENSO and SAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsMmajLYG4&feature=relmfu
Can’t resist fiddling with something so broken.
The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense.
Uh.. what? Individuals get to decide what is or isn’t acceptable, and in what sense, as theory? And what is the ‘broad theory’, anyway? Seems kinda, I dunno.. presumptuous way to start, even considering the writer’s august career and lengthy credentials.
If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.
If? There’s doubt humans continue to emit CO2? There’s doubt humans will continue to emit CO2? There’s doubt the temperature now is above ‘what it would have been otherwise’? (I mean credible doubt rising to a significance level above 0.05%.) It seems a waste to put such a feebly stated assumption in such a prominent position. And, lacking both analysis and synthesis, it’s also a statement I assert is beneath a scientist to use in an argument, given its vagueness and combination of both noncommittal and noninformation. It’s waffle.
Let’s try “The IPCC theory of man-made global warming is qualitatively acceptable, and the most scientifically sound theory of global climate change supports the GHE as its main driver based on the evidence of those observations making up the body of current climate knowledge. Humans continue to increase the CO2 level with little expectation of stopping, and resulting rising temperatures are inevitably associated with more costly and dangerous conditions than would be otherwise.”
See? No waffle there. Vastly improved. And just as true. Go Science!
The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate.
Uh.. what?!
Try, “An issue science can eventually settle is how long the passage of time, how extreme the CO2 rise, before the increase is distinguishable from natural variations of the climate.” See, no implication that human industry is “natural” in the same way as ocean circulation or moose farts. Plus, true. See, truth isn’t so hard. Never too late to learn.
The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse.
Okay. I can get that some utterly without training in Economics might make such confused statements. It’s a bit like a man who knows nothing about agriculture might think orchards get ploughed regularly, simply an indication of ignorance of the topic.
There are many Economic and social arguments, for those who care:
1. Property rights over the air one breathes. Huge topic.
2. Who has the right to determine for others what changes to the quality of a necessity of life they can make? See, that’s a fair debate.
3. Of the winners and losers, what compensation are the losers due, even if ‘overall’ the welfare of ‘mankind’ by some measure is net improved?
4. Who has the right to decide those questions?
.. See, and those four are just variations from some of the most fundamental questions. There’s many more. Only someone who wants to be led around by the nose to a prefab soundbyte of a conclusion would buy into this “change the overall welfare” crap. It’s an obvious set up. For shame.
@bart r
‘Can’t resist fiddling with something so broken.’
You should have.
Maybe you have some good points to make. Maybe you can organise them sensibly and coherently and can make a solid case that Paltridge’s essay is wrong.
But writing it all down in the style of a knowall clever-clever smarmy teenager is totally counterproductive. I stopped reading after about paragraph 3 and the snide remark about his career and credentials.
If you want to persuade people that you are right, you have to get them to at least read your stuff. You fail.
Latimer Alder | June 23, 2012 at 2:35 am |
?
The remark about Dr. Paltridge’s career and credentials was 100% sincere.
What would make anyone think otherwise?
I can disagree with what a person says without attacking him personally. What I said is about what he wrote, not about who he is.
@bart r
Sorry – forgot that you are from the US and don’t do ‘irony’. In UK your remarks about his career would have been interpreted as dripping with sarcasm. If you didn’t mean it that way, my apologies.
But maybe a useful reminder to us all that its supposed to be ‘global’ warming, not just an offshoot of US domestic politics.
Offtopic, but would anyone care to speculate why we have so few contributors from. say, India, where AGW/CAGW (if real) could be expected to be a very big problem?
English is widely spoken among many Indians and their level of education in science and technology is at least equal to those of us in the traditional ‘West’. Is it that they just don’t care? Or they don’t believe? If not, why not? The washout in Rio suggests that they neither believe nor care.
India on the one hand benefits from prestidigital carbon-credit-lubricated industrial migrations, on another is home to Choo-Choo, but on yet another hand knows fracking well that decarbonized energy, with the exception of its nuclear plants and plans (very extensive) haven’t a lowland glacier’s chance of contributing to the urgent and enduring need to haul huge populations out of pre-feudal penury.
Speaking of fracking, it seems it has near-shore unconventional gas reserves now that bid fair to make it imported-fuel-free in the near thru long term.
Given that mix of contradictory considerations, the prudent thing to do is accept such freebies as are on offer but keep relatively mum, except when necessary to firmly decline to decline its carbon consumption.
India knows the IPCC spouts nonsense to gather money and power.
This is the way of corruption and it is well known to India. It is said that Britain invented bureaucracy, but India perfected it.
The IPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political body. It produces a political report. Indians are smart enough to know the difference and don’t bother with knives at a gun fight.
Latimer Alder | June 23, 2012 at 3:54 am |
China, the USA and India are # 1, 2 and 3 in terms of current Internet users. In terms of penetration, the UK, Germany, Korea, Japan and the USA are the top 5 of the 20 countries with the highest number of users, ranging from 84.1% down to 78.3%, while India’s penetration is only 10.2%. (http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm)
One supposes that the 10% of early Internet adopters in any population have better things to do, by and large, than blog about climate passions with people who have no ability to understand their own experiences.
It would, however, be a mistake to think because few from India post here that India doesn’t talk about climate. http://www.indiaclimateportal.org/ for example, is just one among hundreds or thousands of Indian climate sites. Moreover, India’s later adoption means it will lean toward newer media, such as Facebook and twitter, over blogs. Not India’s fault if we’re all stuck in obsolete technology here.
@bart r
Thanks for your post. I looked at the India Climate Portal site you suggested and regret to say that it seems pretty moribund. No news items since 25 April, and not a single comment on that either.
Maybe there is a thriving Indian climate debate, but that was not where to find it.
Humans continue to increase the CO2 level with little expectation of stopping, and resulting rising temperatures are inevitably associated with more costly and dangerous conditions than would be otherwise.”
================
Nonsense. Increased CO2 and warming brings with it increased moisture and increased food production. We have gone from barely feeding 3 billion people 50 years ago to doing a much better job of feeding 7 billion today. Along the way food prices have fallen in real dollar terms.
The nonsense comes in ignoring the reality of what is happening as compared to what those that live in ivory towers imagine will happen. The Club of Rome got it badly wrong about the “Limits to Growth”.
Unfortunately the school system was not able to distinguish political papers from economic papers, and we have two generations of nonsense taught in schools as a result.
Disinformation, a lie repeated often enough, this is the basis of the phrase “inevitably associated”. Nothing is inevitable, except death and taxes.
ferd berple | June 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
I’d think expensive and dangerous to 7 billion people would, all other things being equal, be more than expensive and dangerous to 3 billion people. ;)
Increased CO2 brings unpredictable changes to moisture and food production, and while world food production has never been higher, world food prices have also never been higher than at the start of this decade. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-food-fao-index-idUKTRE71226G20110203)
Hunger remains endemic, and for the first time in history the leading cause of hunger in the world is poverty, not warfare or failed distribution systems. It’s no longer a problem of getting surplus food to hungry people; now, it’s simply not being able to afford to feed them.
You’re making up facts. Looking at how wrong the facts you’re making up gives one little cause to credit the opinion you spout with much value.
CO2 brings somewhat predictable changes to transpiration – water loss acoss leaves. This might lead to less water limited agriculture. It might lead to less moistture in the air and less dew. An important water source for plants and animals. Subtle changes – the outcomes of which are unpredictable because tipping points are everywhere in biology.
Other changes seem more critical and predictable in improving agricultural productivity. This primarily involves building the organic content of grazing lands through certain simple techniques. Cropping soils are likewise amenable to improvement. A 1% increase in soil organic carbon on grazing lands is 500 Gt of carbon sequestered. It is an astonishing amount and importantly has other drivers that mean it is happening right now.
70% of food is on small holdings. There are Australian farmers in Rio who can double production on small holdings. About 15% of Australian famers are conservation farmers and number is growing rapidly as the new green revolution takes hold.
Thx again, Chief, for climate dogs. Hmm, that pesky little penguin went and let SAM off the leash alright. Hope SAM runs out of puff soon.
The Green Mantra dog: More government intervention and massive centralized controls are the way to go:
Das Kapital.
Karl Marx
October winds blow.
Your contradictions doom you,
Capitalist swine.
:-)
(Translation by Bader.)
Opium of the people
Drugs come and go
The climate cult is apparently more addictive than bath salts. Makes people do crazy things.
Gaia herself is revulsed by the trappings of religion. She much prefers the obeisance of the plants.
=================
Summary : it’s a basic conflict-of-interest scenario.
Governments have an enormous vested interest in public acceptance of CAGW, providing them as it does with a seemingly iron-clad justification for expansion and making further inroads against a free society by means of more taxes and regulatory bodies. Unsurprisingly, the majority of scientists they select and pay duly ‘conclude’ that CAGW is indeed an issue. A portion of our taxes are thus being used to fund a rationale for further taxes.
And if this crippling conflict of interest isn’t bad enough, almost all climate science is government-funded, a situation unlikely to change. The prospects for objectivity by the professionals has simply never been good.
We get another lecture from Le Pétomane aka the bartinator. It is as if he opens his mouth and the bile pours out. Who is this angry little man who pretends to be an economist, a physicist, a mathematican, an IT expert…
When I suggest that we vote on it – he suggests that demagogues have captured the debate and democracy obviously doesn’t work because only loud mouthed minorities agree with him – and even then most of them don’t. It is again the curse of the misunderstood genius. I suspect he is another warminista with designs on suspending democracy and imposing his own views on the world at large. I believe the views include to tax carbon energy until it is no longer viable and distibuting the largesse to Kalihari bushmen. His motto will be we will make you virtuous or else. This is of course profoundly practical, moral and mandated by the dismal science. I suggested that the fatal flaw was that the tax stopped along with the carbon engines of industry leaving the bushmen with higher energy costs and no pocket money. He suggested that both Australians and bushmen could go to hell for all he cared. I thought this a little harsh as the bushmen were really only peripheral actors.
He has no doudt that he is correct and will push through despite any and every setback. Compromise is not in his lexicon. It is win or lose to the death – from boredom usually – with no prisoners taken. His language is a bit clunky at best – incoherent at worst. It is a game where if he can verbally inrimidate someone he will even if it means lying and sham – but will turn nasty if he can’t. His speciality is spinning science until your spins and you can’t really be bothered to correct yet another error. His latest error was on ‘regression to the mean’ in his ongoing cyber stalking of poor littl Girma. Let’s face it – Girma has only one defence in stubborness. I will just say that the variance and the mean don’t change unless you start with an unrepresentative sample. Regression to the mean is something else entirely to do with extremes.
The cyber stalking, however, is a bit of a worry. Have I discovered another warminista sociopath? I think this is turning in to an all encompassing diagnosis. As I said they need help – not just once a week with therapist but a team of specialists concentrating just on them aound the clock. Capt. Dallas I think suggested a re-education camp in Somalia. I don’t really care where – just as long as they are prevented from going over the same loser crap all the time.
Best regards
Captain Kangaroo
If I had a nickel for every misunderstood genius on the internet…
I’d rather have a penny for every idiot who parades around as a misunderstood genius. I’d be far wealthier.
The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) | June 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
Do you get a penny for every sockpuppet, or just for the one poster?
I’m not sure sockpuppet farming wouldn’t be a bit deflationary.
I am as Captain Kangaroo a climate warrior and immune from loser crap from warminista space cadets. Tell me what makes you think I’m a genius. My tone? My obvious erudition? My scientific and engineering training and love of poetry and natural philosophy – a classically renaissance man? My facility with language? The fact that I recognise an AGW space cadet when I see one? It doesn’t sound like something – unlike space cadets Le Pétomane, Gatesy and Tubhead – I would say. Modesty and a sense of the ridiculous prevents me.
Never mind. Your answers are never particularly germane or clever.
That kangaroo bait worked pretty good. Keep on antagonizing the kangaroo, and it will eventually flip out.
Another ugly, sociopathic, clueless space cadet emerges from the morass of their fervid imaginings. It seems utterly bizarre that (a) no one mentioned Captain Skippy but me and (b) well really who gives a rats arse.
Just another indication of Tubby’s divorce from reality. I have it on good authority – Tubby – that you are feeling much better since you moved back into your mother’s basement. Best place for you.
I hope you are having better luck with your little science hobby than Le Pétomane. Apparently he was doing some chemistry and his brain exploded all over the place. Very messy. I hope you at least do not use chemicals, data or anything else to set back the recovery. Just stick to making graphs even if they do bear no resemblance to reality at all. You are used to that and any change may be upsetting. The good news is that you are certainly eligible for the space cadet rehab centre currently under construction in Somalia. Your mother will be much relieved I’m sure.
In other news:
Science Held Hostage in a Paradigm.
“A picture held us captive, and we could not get outside it.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations §115
This is not a picture of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. It’s just a cigar.
==========
I swear I did not have sex with that woman.
Let’s not go a Jacob’s ladder too far:
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25289-wittgenstein-s-private-language-grammar-nonsense-and-imagination-in-philosophical-investigations-243-315/
Science held hostage in a paradigm … but its almost high noon ..
Set lights brighten, music score, gradually increasing in intensity …”Do not forsake me oh my darlin… drum beat…etc ” Enter Gary Cooper.*
(no relation.)
It’s Gary Cooper week on Encore Western channel.
It would seem important also that any political and economic action on the matter of global warming should be flexible enough to be changed, or indeed discarded, should there be a significant shift in scientific or public perception.
This is the policy version of falsifiability, in a way. If it doesn’t provide for, invite, or permit challenges, then it cannot be valid, not to mention safe to implement.
Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/21/global-carbon-emissions-record?intcmp=122
Some observations:
“In 2010, the latest year for which figures have been compiled, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) said the world emitted 31.8bn tonnes of carbon from energy consumption. That represents a climb of 6.7% on the year before and is significantly higher than the previous best estimate, made by the International Energy Agency last year, that in 2010 a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide were released from burning fossil fuel.”
“China, which in 2006 took over the US’s historical position as the world’s biggest emitter, raced ahead in 2010, emitting 8.3bn tonnes – up 15.5% on the previous year, and a 240% increase since 1992.”
And propaganda:
“Increases in fossil fuel use of this magnitude are likely to carry the world far beyond the temperature rise of 2C by 2050 that scientists have estimated is the limit of safety, beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible.”
We’re doomed.
The map:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/21/world-carbon-emissions-map
I wonder what the airborn fraction of the human CO2 emissions is doing. It must be very low. Emissions are over 4 ppm/year (only Energy, total emissions are higher) and should continue increasing, if there’s no global crisis.
Change in atmospheric CO2 (NOAA global):
2001 1.84
2002 2.41
2003 2.20
2004 1.58
2005 2.41
2006 1.79
2007 2.11
2008 1.79
2009 1.66
2010 2.36
2011 1.81
Like Chris Colose says – move along folks, nothing to see here.
Climategate didn’t happen, climate science isn’t tainted by its monopoly funder with a vested interest in an alarmist finding, there’s been no dogged hiding of data, no calls to delete emails, the IPCC is isn’t a political lobby, there’s no gatekeeping, the Climategate universities’ objective investigations of themseleves, exonerated themselves entirely.
Just start believing.
@One Fine Day
You forgot;
‘The cheque’s in the post’
‘I’m from Head Office and I’m here to help you’
‘Of course I’ll still love you in the morning’
…
Cervantes got it wrong … Don Quixote got it right?
So the dream is the reality. Sometimes yer wish.
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time…
And especially the oppressor’s wrong.
Current science nit picks what conclusion the person is trying to achieve.
Not really seeking knowledge of our planet or even how it was created.
This is why our current knowledge base is so badly corrupted and ignores anything outside it’s cocoon of goons of consensus.
The ultimate outcome is our planet will be another Mars by water loss and not by anything man-made. To do this, it will be getting hotter and hotter until the rest of the ocean boils off(barring getting hit by a massive ice meteor).
Common sense and ignoring facts for fictional theories is our current consensus which hangs onto the uncertainty crutch to stay alive.
Yabbut it will take billions of years for earth to lose its water. Mars had too little gravity. The dearth of gravity causes a dearth of atmospheric pressure at the surface. Lower pressure lowers the boiling point of water. So it boiled off and was blown away by the solar wind. The earth’s gravity won’t change anytime soon but the sun is getting hotter and will eventually turn the earth into a cinder.
This plain statement of fact elicited typical demogogic responses from this forum’s resident demagogic denialists:
In particular, David Wojick’s bald assertion “Facts are not a fact when people disagree” expresses a fundamental axiom of demagogic denialism.
It is evident that David Wojick *does* have a deep understanding of how demagogic denialism works. Demagogic denialists really *do* believe that advances in scientific understanding can be stopped, and even reversed, by adamant demagogic rejection of those advances. Which is a nutty belief, eh?
@ A fan
You flatter yourself.
I did not bother to criticise your contribution. They spoke for themselves.
My remarks were in response to another piece from a different contributor.
My comment was as to this plain statement of sheer idiocy:
“As American democracy has long since vanished to be replaced by a corporate backed Plutocracy, there isn’t much point in discussing what ‘could be’ as it simply isn’t anymore.”
And I think I was kind in my assessment. Now, I would not be surprised to find that you did not know that what you wrote was proto-Marxist pap. I suspect you don’t even understand Marxist theory. And I am certain you do not understand the workings of the democratic republic established by the founders of the U.S.
You are a default progressive, no matter what you call yourself. You believe what you believe because it was all you were told by your progressive teachers. Almost everyone you work with, and everyone you socialize with, believes the same things. You don’t understand conservative governance and conservative economic theory because you have probably never even been exposed to them. You were taught to have contempt for conservatives, and to never bother your time reading or listening to them, except through the filter of other progressives, who will show you excerpts to prove how stoopid conservatives are.
And like a good little drone, you ate it all up. You are a progressive because it confirms your already inflated opinion of yourself. Not only can you be pompous and vain, but you can put an ideological gloss on it.
You are great at spewing forth what you read on the Huffington Post and hear on MSNBC, or whatever other members of the Democrat Party PR team you choose. So you don’t need to understand it.
You are as much an independent as you are a skeptic.
Gary,
You are as entertaining as you are wrong about me, and you are enormously entertaining.
I never read the Huffington Post nor watch MSNBC. My workplace is split about half and half between Republicans and Dems, with myself being the only Independent.
In your narrow, black/white, us/them, Progressive/Conservative view of the world you fail to realize that this is just a model (your model) of the world of politics, but there are all sorts of variations on theme.
I fully admit, that socially, I’m about as liberal (or Progessive) if you prefer, as one can get. I would legalize pot, and generally repeal any law that tries to tell people what they can and can’t do to their bodies and between two consenting adults. Yes, I would legalize prostitution in all 50 states. But being liberal socially hardly makes me member or minion of the Democratic Party.
Fiscally, I’m a conservative, and I’m all for keeping government as big as it needs to be to serve the interests of the people, and no bigger. And serving those interests needs to be done efficiently. .I have a very simply definition of what the role of government ought to be with the foundation thought being that government ought to be and extension of the collective will of the people, serving the people’s interest: But here’s my rather basic, though surprisingly all-encompassing definition for what the role of government ought to be:
“As a collective extension of the will of the people, the role of government ought to be to maintain an environment in which every individual is afforded an opportunity, by the application of their own efforts, imagination and skills, to achieve their maximum potential as a human being.”
The word “environment” above is not meant in a specific sense of ecological environment, but in the broadest sense of the word. Now, as simple as this definition is, is has wide reaching application to everything from education, national defense, and economics. I would suggest some reading this actually consider the broader ramifications of this definition of the role of government.
In short, I am both a Skeptic and an Independent, and your failure to acknowledge that there are broad minded independent thinkers who have stepped outside the corrosive 2-party system in the U.S. is an indication of your lack of imagination more than anything.
I didn’t say you were a Democrat. I said you were a progressive. Two different things. Just as Republican and conservative and not the same thing.
But since you are not a progressive, I am sure you reject the concept of government centered decarbonization of the economy (the only way it can be done). Glad to hear it.,
And as a true progressive, your definition of the role of government is vague and unmoored to any real principle that would restrict government. Which is of course the point. Just like your Orwellian definition of “skeptic.”
Let me guess, in order to “maintain an environment in which every individual is afforded an opportunity, by the application of their own efforts, imagination and skills, to achieve their maximum potential as a human being. we need government centered health care, government control of the energy economy to “reduce emissions,” massive regulation of the financial industry, etc.
In other words, the progressive economic agenda.
It’s all about “fairness” and “for the children.”
You are a political drone. An articulate drone, but a drone all the same.
But I am of course gratified that, no matter what, I provide you with some amusement. I am glad to give respite to someone such as yourself who is living in dread of thermageddon.
Say, Aka, 22/06 @10pm:
Questionning whether David Wojak has read Hume is a bit rich. Hume’s prose is not difficult to read, have you read his ‘Treatiise on Human Nature?
Hume formulated the logical problem of induction, whether, logically, unobserved cases/events may be inferred from others we observe. He argued that we may not, that one black swan will render invalid, the proposition that since all the swans I’ve ever seen are white all swans therefore are white.’ Hume’s position made him sceptical of what we can ‘know’. and tolerant of different ethical positions, we’re free to adopt many positions tho’ none may be justified.
Where Hume’s epistemology seems to be in error, as Popper argues, is in applying the problem of induction to human psychology, assuming that humans are necessarily inductive learners, Popper calls induction the ‘bucket theory’ of learning, ‘Knowledge as mere custom or habit, a theory that undermined the rationality of Newton’s dynamics.* Popper argues that in human learning passive collection of facts is a myth, we are deductive learners. formulators of theories in response to problem situations and questions we ask, though we make can make poor guesses and are prone to error. He calls deduction a ‘searchlight theory’ of learning., a basis of our scientific method which transcends subjectivity through the critical language humans created which we use in formulation and critical evaluation of a theory, a theory that which can be tested and criticised by others. Once formulated, theories have an existence beyond any subjective state of their creators, who may not have forseen many of the possibilities or outcomes.
As flawed humans, tellingly exemplified in ‘The Black Swan,’ we walk a knife edge through our bias, our hubris, our hip pocket self interest and………………
but we can searchlight ourselves into new theories that have some truth content, we can respond to problem situations in a rational way, we can think outside the box, create and innovate. Hume may have posited a truth of logic, but not a psychological truth, allow me to assert ). We are not altogether sunk in the quagmire of sub ject iv ity … look at Judith Curry and ‘some’ of the denizens here, go on , think self referentially!
And then there’s Socrates.
Oops, ommitted the citation at the end, (not that I’m irrational.)
‘Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach’ Karl Popper Clarendon Press1979 Ch 3 Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject.
Web and JimD, a little cartoon,
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Websterscartoon.png
Entropy rules the universe.
clear as mud
@jim d
+1
????
Captain is somehow trying to say that gaseous H2O will freeze out of the atmosphere once it gets to a certain temperature at altitude and that this explains everything. He draws an abstract diagram apparently representing where the freeze-out boundaries appear. The “theory” is that excess CO2 or H2O will not go beyond these points and so this creates a limit boundary which fixes the impact of the GHG effect. Adding more CO2 and H2O will not expand this boundary so that the incremental effect of excess concentrations is inconsequential.
I don’t care if I screwed up Captain’s explanation because if he can’t clearly articulate what he is trying to say, or at least provide some references or citations to anything that is at least close to what he is smoking, then it is completely open for interpretation.
The entropy comment appears as a non-sequitor.
What Captain needs to do is create a mix of mathematical formalism, citations, abstract figures, concrete data, and models which fit that data. Any decent research which spans theory and experiment seems to have at least each of these elements. He just don’t seem to have put enough together for this to go anywhere. It is too close to approaching numerology for my tastes.
I am not sure why I haven’t put him on the climate clown report. It’s probably because he appears to sincerely want to understand what is happening, but nothing is completely coalescing, so that I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Someday he might be able to completely articulate his theory beyond word salad.
Web, the series of mathematical formulations for the chaotic troposphere is near impossible to communicate. That is why you select boundaries to simplify the math. The complex formulation for those boundaries is Ein=Eout + delta S, The Carnot heat engine.
Web since you are so much fun to mess with, because Ein=Eout + deltaS, the emissivity of a perfect black body is 1 and the emissivity of a perfect gray body (delta S = 50%) would be 50%. With 341Wm-2 supplied to the Earth, 1/2,
Sorry hit the post by accident, 170.5 would be ideal atmospheric effect. Since our atmosphere contains poorly mixed water vapor, 170.5 is instead 240Wm-2 The difference is 69.5Wm-2, why?
That is the problem, If you don’t understand basic thermodynamics it makes no sense, if you do, it hits you between the forehead like a ton of bricks. The blue moist air envelope is controlled by the properties of moist air. The enthalpy of the air in the moist air envelope will equal the enthalpy of the open ocean or else there would be no atmosphere or no ocean.
The S is entropy, since there is a steady state, i.e. energy has to continuously be transferred to the atmosphere, S entropy has to be 50%, the other 50% is the work done to maintain the energy in the moist air envelope. It is really quite simple.
Captain of the Muletrainers warms up his 2X4. Mebbe a beam not a mote, Sir.
======
Yep, it is still 0.8 +/- .20, no emanate ice age and Trenberth is still mathematically challenged
CD, as Einstein said, “Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler”. You went a step beyond simple.
Very true JimD, He also said something about humans, what was that again?
If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.
===========
You forgot to say “all other factors remaining unchanged”.
What is missing from this statement is that nothing ever remains unchanged. Increase CO2 something else will happen. First and foremost, life will happen. The life on the planet will change in response to increasing CO2, and with a billion+ years of evolution or more behind it, the response will be to take advantage of the extra CO2 to create more life.
Why? Because CO2 is currently only slightly above the lower limit to support life. CO2 is one of the three main raw materials on the planet required to sustain life, and it is by far in the scarcest supply. Water and oxygen in contrast are plentiful.
Jim D | June 23, 2012 at 1:22 am
…the AGW view has evolved into a clear majority in the free market of competing science opinion,
===========================================
The “climate science” market is not free, the IPCC is a monopoly and there is also a sort of cartel of scientific journals.
Climate science basics, still used today as the foundations of AGW, developed a long time before the IPCC and also before the politicians and oil industry got interested. It was initially just an academic interest in understanding how much GHGs affect global temperatures.
The foundations of AGW had never been proven scientific facts, so they needed a monopoly and cartels to promote it.
gbaikie | June 23, 2012 at 4:29 am | Reply
No, you said you were putting it out at noon, and asked “how long”. Unless noon lasts for more than an instant, we’re already into afternoon, and if the pan takes more than six hours to cool, as it assuredly will, we’re into the night.
Again, you haven’t given us anywhere near enough information to answer your question. Look, if you have a point, how about you just make it rather than faff around with Socratic questions?
w.
Here ya go Web and JimD
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-to-bound-open-system.html
It has even got fancy equations, pretty pictures and everything :)
So, to continue where last we left off, The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse.
We’ll fix that up:
“The economic and social arguments — even though humans are not well suited to discern climate changes that in any one lifetime are on comparable scale to natural variability despite being more durable than the average of natural sources of variability as a driver over the multidecadal to millennial scale — include what to do to address welfare concerns related to climate change and about other related concerns to do with emission of CO2.”
See? Now it’s waffle-free, focused on solutions, and not dripping with ignorance of Economic principles.
Carrying on with Paltridge’s incredibly broken discourse:
Attempts to resolve the arguments are plagued with problems, a lot of which are inherently insoluble.
How pessimistic and negative this bit of waffle is. Let’s try:
“The field of Climate Economics is rich with opportunities, many of which have already been effectively addressed on the scale of proof of concept in early adopters of social solutions to anthropogenic problems.”
See how that changes the entire tone of Dr. Paltridge’s depressive assertion to something actually worth discussing?
There are many aspects of the behaviour of the natural climate system and of human society that are unpredictable in principle, let alone in practice.
Meh. An incomplete thought, isn’t that? How about adding:
“..no different from similar aspects in overcoming diseases, addictions, lack of drinking water and lack of hygiene, starvation and lack of education that have taken centuries of attention and work and which have eventually shown signs of reversal and hope of remedy globally though even now they remain pressing issues.”
Unpredictability is just one aspect of some problems. It’s not an excuse to throw up one’s hands and just give up like a quitter. Or a waffler.
And here’s a quirky thought:
But perhaps the biggest of the underlying problems, and it is common to both arguments since it inevitably exists when there is large unpredictability and uncertainty, is the presence of strong forces encouraging public overstatement and a belief in worst-case scenarios.
Huh. Has Dr. Paltridge really not heard of the equally disputatious underlying and common problem of dismissal of statements and scenarios without due consideration? One believes such dismissal is some order of magnitude more frequent than overstatement and focus on the worst possible case. Let’s face it, the real worst-case scenario would be a world that ends up being run by the French, but only a rabid alarmist would cry wolf by trying to scare rational people with such a ludicrous canard.
From the social and economic side of things, one might take much more notice of the global warming scare campaign if it were not so obvious that many of its most vociferous supporters have other agendas.
Scare campaign? Pfft. Shaking in my boots, I am. Aren’t you shaking in your boots? And here I thought Australians were made of sterner stuff.
Right. Because hiding one’s head in the sand the second one detects contamination of a discourse by people with another agenda is such a winning strategy.
Like when the Soviets were racing for space to show the superiority of their political system, and the USA beat them to the Moon. Oh. No,no. It appears I’ve got my winning strategies backwards. Or Dr. Paltridge does.
In case I’m not the one who has it completely wrong, I propose:
“Social and Economic agendas will be inserted on all sides in any issue as border-spanningly broad and far-reaching as climate change due human industry; it is best to seek such agendas whether made explicit by their supporters or not, and disentangle from climate science as much as possible.”
Carrying on:
There are those, for instance, who are concerned with preservation of the world’s resources of coal and oil for the benefit of future generations.
The devil you say! Considering future value, consequences of actions, the traditional approach of human societies toward resource reserves, and the nation-building attitude of visionaries and patriots! How shocking!
That shameful agenda no doubt is carefully hidden.. Why, I hide mine as the most prominent line in my Denizens post.
Still, I’d take the line, with the addition, “This is not unlike the tradition of Scientific conservatism, which among other values calls on seeking the best precision and accuracy in observations, making statistically conservative deductions, and using conservative logic in drawing inferences, and preserving data and records assiduously for the sake of future researchers and scholars.”
Next:
There are those who, like the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, speaking at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, look with favour on the possibility of an international decarbonisation regime because it would be a first step to global governance (the president’s actual words were “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance”.)
Oh look. The rabid French World Government canard. Shame, Dr. Paltridge! Have you no shame?
Suspension of democracy and economic ‘degrowth’ is not by any stretch limited to the French. It is a contemptible lie to suggest that centralised control in a police state is not the first objective of the typical warminista. Some deny – some admit. Good cop bad cop – but would be cops eco cops all the same. Smoke and mirrors to disguise a deeply unpopular agenda.
It is something that is moreover profoundly unneccessary. Solutions to a problem, if one exists, arise from techologies. One of these is conservation farming – a green revolution for the 21st century – providing for increased productivity, lower costs and immense scope for increasing the organic content of grazing land soils especially. Many other technologies are at least theoretically feasible and many people from Lomberg to the London School of Economics anf the Breakthrough Institute have been suggesting focussed funding of R&D for some time. Something that has largely fallen between the cracks with the focus on taxes, caps and subsidies. I have suggested a billion dollar energy prize. That would certainly focus attention.
It seems not possible to reach an accomodation. The value systems are incompatible. One side favours economic growth, free markets, individual freedom and democracy. The other government control and economic contraction. The latter is alternately denied and openly advocated.
GaryM’s claim helps us understand the illogic of climate-change denialism:
• Science says AGW is real, serious, and accelerating.
• Unregulated markets exploit commons to destruction.
• Therefore, climate-change science is wrong.
In view of this grossly non-logical faux-syllogism, is it any wonder that so many denialist essays read as though written by Karl Rove-style political operatives and/or Big Carbon shills and/or agents of oil-producing nations?
No Johnny, “Science” doesn’t “say” that (you really got to stop that anthropomorphism).
Ergo, the rest of that comment is fail.
PE, if Hansen’s scientific predictions come to pass , then demagogic denialism fails.
What then for denialism, PE?
lol
James Hansen and his colleagues boldly predicted in 2011: “The ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade.”
Given what the satellites are showing us this spring, Hansen is on-track to have last laugh over you, PE.
What then is denialism’s Plan B?
If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were on Karl Rove’s payroll.
LOL … yes, Karl Rove and James Hansen definitely take opposite sides with respect to AGW’s reality.
It appears that Mother Nature is casting her deciding vote with … James Hansen, eh? :) ;) :)
That’s why demagogic denialism *does* need a Plan B. What is it, the world wonders? :) ;) :)
Are you once those ‘neurologically diverse’ people who don’t detect sarcasm? NTTAWWT.
My bad, P.E.; here’s the quote with an added Wikipedia link to its famous historical circumstances:
It’s more clear every day that demagogic denialism has no Plan B, eh P.E.?
A new scientific paradigm emerges in the context of an anomaly. With AGW it is the anomaly of a failure to warm. Although resort is had to the idea of the warmest La Nina ever or the warmest decade ever. Paradigms die hard and these rationalisations grow ever more desperate. But there is little doubt in science that climate shifts are a reality and that we are in a cool mode for another decade or three.
What does science say.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
‘Thinking is centered around slow changes to our climate and how they will affect humans and the habitability of our planet. Yet this thinking is flawed: It ignores the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future. The issue centers around the paradox that global warming could instigate a new Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere.’ https://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/abrupt-climate-change
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/
We leave the simple minded conceptions of the climate system to simple minded AGW space cadets.
The libertarian deus ex machima – a climate shift. Just in time, a cold cangeroo falls from the heavens.
It’s unKangelooney.
So I link to relclimate, the Woods Hole Ocenaographic Institute and NASA and it is a libertarian boondoggle? Seems like we have another delusional sociopathic member of the royal numbnut corp. of space cadets. Someone notify Somalia.
It is acually totally f……g hilarious.
Fanny’s been bouncing around the internet for a while. Just new here. And yeah. A nut, but a relatively good natured one. I usually don’t engage the trolls, but Fanny’s fun.
“• Unregulated markets exploit commons to destruction.”
From proto-Marxist to neo-Marxist in the blink of an eye. Which just confirms that there is no real difference between the two.
First, unregulated markets will “destroy” the commoms? Since the commons in this case is the climate, where precisely is the research showing even CAGW will destroy the climate? I though “C”AGW was a misnomer. Maybe it should be DAGW, Destructive (of the climate) Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yeah, that’s much better.
Second, where precisely on this planet do you find an “unregulated economy?’
This is why the more intelligent Marxists avoid debate at all costs. Their cognitive dissonance tends to become too obvious. They end up either in embarrassing self contradiction, or are forced to admit what they really believe. As demonstrated by our resident faux independent skeptic here.
Either way…it’s all good for November.
Oops, missed that this comment was by A Fan of More Flabby Discourse, not R. “faux indeoendent” Gates. My bad.
This idiotic example of regurgitated Marxist nonsense is from another muddle headed progressive.
Where else but that small-government libertarian paradise … Somalia? :( :( :(
Being an Australian I am not overly fond of the term libertarian. This may be a result of confusing the terms libertarian with libertine and – well it was fun while it lasted.
As Heyak explained in the Constitution of Liberty. ‘At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty, those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as “conservative,” it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known – perhaps more appropriately – as conservatism.
Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called “liberalism” was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense. This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves “liberals.” I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term “liberal” in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.’
‘In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use “liberal” in the sense in which I have used it, the term “libertarian” has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.
We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name. It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution. Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, “Whig” was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.’
The Whigs were of course very much a product of the Scottish enlightenment. For Heyak government existed to enforce the rule of law, to protect the weak against the brutal, to manage interest rates to prevent asset bubbles and to provide those essential services that the market cant or wont. An overly large or intrusive government is an instrument of oppression.
It seems we are at such a time as Heyak’s yet again – as bizarrely short sighted as that seems.
Captain, your feeble, circumscribed, inadaptive (and poorly spelt!) characterization of Hayek’s thought is yours alone, not Hayek’s.
By what economic mechanism, and in service of what moral objective, are fisheries regulated, for example? If Fred builds a dam that waters Fred’s fields but parches Bob’s downstream fields and moreover destroy’s Alice’s anadromous fishery, what does Hayek have to say to Fred’s unilateral action, and Alice’s and Bob’s moral responses to it?
If Eve declines measles/mumps/rubella vaccination for her children, and thereby impairs the herd immunity that prevents epidemics, are her actions warranted?
To assert that Hayek’s philosophy contains all the answers to modern challenges is just plain dumb. There is no such thing as an uncompromising embrace of Hayek’s enduring insights … for the simple reason that, properly understood, Hayek’s philosophy amounts to a well-chosen set of prudent compromises that adapt to changing circumstances, with a view toward reasonably sustaining liberty, security, and prosperity.
Kind of like James Hansen’s philosophy, eh? :) :) :)
Captain,
Trying to have a serious discussion with fan is like pig wrestling.
fan enjoys it greatly and you just get dirty.
Hunter, we all rejoice in the ongoing demolition of libertarian shibboleths! :) :) :)
‘Lonesome is part of the iconic nature of being a cowboy.’
‘That’s a shibboleth.’
Let’s deconstruct.
You make much of a typo – but what really are you saying? Leaving aside the nomenclature – the distinction between liberal, libertarian and conservative that ring as true today as when they were written – you assert first that I misrepresent Hayek, that Hayek provides no guidance as to economics and that somehow Hayek is adaptable to all the circumstances of the pissant progressive? The enemies of freedom identified by Heyak that you so well represent?
Let’s first of all deal with your ‘adaptive’ response. It is about limits – ‘degrowth’, depopulation, centralised economic controls, suspension of democracy, slavery for the individual, threats and violence towards and intimidation of opponents, the criminalisation or medicaliation of dissent. We have seen it all before. You have deliberately misrepresented Hayek to support your neo-socialist agenda and I am sure that Hayek is similarly spinning in his grave. Tell us without prevarication what you policies are and not just spout words that you think will mollify popular and well founded opposition.
To deal with your straw men.
Fisheries? There is everything in Hayek’s philosophy to suggest that the rule of law is an essential means to protect the weak. This extends to labour law, consumer law, protection of the environmental, etc. There is nothing to suggest that laws arrived at by democratic consent to protect the general populace are not accommodated in this enlightenment view of civil society. The view is in fact far older than Hayek – as he suggests in those parts of his treatise ‘On the Constitution of Liberty’ I quoted.
Is the question of measles immunization a trick question? If I answer one way I lose and ditto the other way. On principle I think people should be free to determine their own course of action for themselves. Very similarly to abortion – it is simply not my choice to make. Although the latter seems a very difficult path and I have on occasion supported friends in their grief. The former is a choice for parents and it is for them to judge the risk of catching the disease. After all, an immunised child is quite safe.
Fred’s dam is subject to if nothing else the common law – which is quite outspoken on water in jurisdictions having an English common law heritage. The common law is a key institution of freedom to be defended against the likes of you.
But indeed there are economic rules from Hayek that are transgressed at very great risk. These involve the management of interest rates to prevent asset bubbles, prudential oversight of the banks and markets and balancing government budgets. I assume you are American? How is that working out for you? There is an optimal size for government of about 25% of GDP before it starts crowding out private activity.
One of the things we are suggesting is that there are alternative means that go beyond the government and market dichotomy to devolved systems of management of the commons. These have in fact always existed and the tragedy of the commons allegory that always missed the mark. Noble prize winner Elinor Ostrom was a giant in the field of polycentric governance. We find these network solutions in watershed management and something of the sort is feasible for fisheries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByXM47Ri1Kc
People power is in fact succeeding in amazing ways in sequestering CO2. Conservation farming is a people powered movement. It has the potential to sequester 500 Gt of carbon on grazing land. The greatest benefit by far however is the potential to double food production. It is no less than the next green revolution – and this is a super green revolution in all meanings of the term. About 15% of Australian farms practice conservation farming and the number is growing rapidly. We have farmers at Rio – but they are predictably drowned out by clueless greens pursuing impossible dreams in an orgy of self regard.
Another practical – and practicality and effectiveness must eliminate taxes and caps – approach to reducing carbon emissions is technological. It seems unlikely that the energy mix of 2050 will be very different to that of today’s. We endorse both R&D and large scale energy prizes – both ways top focus attention and move development forward. We are interested in lower cost energy to foster economic growth.
The best thing you could do is to lobby your government to meet their Millennium Development Goal commitments – unilaterally and encouraging the spread of democracy, the rule of law and good economic governance – to achieve the priorities of the Copenhagen Consensus. You can support these initiatives – health and education, safe water and sanitation, micro-nutrients, conservation and restoration of ecosystems – but above all a bright future for all of humanity. You talk about liberty, security and prosperity – now walk the walk.
Dave Springer | June 23, 2012 at 10:38 am
There is no significant incoming LWR. Sheesh.
===========================================
I would like to see a scientific proof for that. Specifically the proof, that CO2 does not block any portion of the solar radiation. Because otherwise this effect would be a contribution to cooling.
The solar spectrum is very close to continuous black body @ ~5500C. The peak frequency is visible yellow light. There is nothing significant left in that spectrum at far infrared. CO2 has no absorption bands shorter than the tail end of the near infrared where there is almost no energy left in sunlight.
This graph is accurate and is taken from experimental data in the 1950’s.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Here’s a scanned image from the 1950’s of GHG absorption bands.
If you distrust everything no one is going to want to talk to you because it’s too tedious reviewing and confirming every tiny bit of data that’s been known for a very long time.
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/image71.gif
Scanned image referred to above.
cooling. looks like it started the bold. Italics would be better than bold. a little low and higher or maybe
code would be niceWebHubTelescope | June 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
There is empirical evidence for the increase, as some fraction of the 33C differential is caused by CO2.
=======================================
Really? Until now no warmist I talked to has been able to provide a link to such an experiment proving “the 33C differential”. They were only able to talk about “Earth without atmosphere” and stuff like that. You can be the first one.
Please, provide a link to such an experiment.
You can also say you do not know, no problem, nobody seems to know.
What kind of atmosphere are you talking about? One with only diatomic and monotonic molecules such as N2, O2, Ar, etc?
As we have learned from all those SkyDragon idiots, experiments are only useful if the person wanting the results actually understands the physics. Otherwise the experimental results are twisted to prove whatever they want to prove.
Come on, you said there was empirical evidence and I asked you to provide a link to it.
Just do it, do not beat around the bush.
Minuscule, if the atmosphere was.purely N2.
Scratch yourself over that one.
C’mon webby. It was a simple request. Cough up the experimental support for 33C warming due to greenhouse gases. ROFLMAO
Scratch or fold? It’s one of ’em.
==========
I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Of course there is no direct experimental support, as we don’t have a controlled planet earth that we can experiment with.
So the proof remains theoretical. One can always refer to Pierrehumbert’s book, but the gist is that theory says that a doubling of CO2 concentration leads to a degree of forced warming. Start working backwards from 400 PPM and you can get about 9 degrees before CO2 hits 1 PPM (this halving can go on forever but the doubling rule is only a rough approximation). One can do the same with water vapor which has a higher atmospheric concentration than CO2 and has a larger impact. Another GHG is methane, and a few others.
Put all these GHG’s together and a back of the envelope estimate can easily make up the 33 degree difference.
You won’t be satisfied, but that is the current science and no one has a better explanation. That’s the way that science works (unfortunately in your case).
Actually, I would like to see Web explain the 33C :) if he could tear himself away sniping. The 33C is actually the combined Tyndal gas effect and assumes 30% reflection of incoming energy. So the 33C is actually the temperature estimate for the point in the atmosphere where 30% of the solar energy is reflected. So if you draw a line around the Earth at 255K degrees, you have the 33C surface. It is high in the atmosphere near the equator and under the surface at the poles. So if you live high in the air like Web, or deep underground near the poles like some others, it works perfectly :)
If you add to the 33C, some areas it would be higher in the air and some less underground., If you happen to live some place with 33C average, you would be 1.5C warmer, all else remaining equal of course.
Once again, Captain refuses to admit that radiation is actually composed of photons of different wavelengths, and that GHG molecules preferentially interact with specific photon wavelengths. Engineers of a certain age develop a mental block about science outside their level of expertise and this will be with them until their grave. I am fortunate as deep physics has been with me since I started and can’t seem to shake it.
Physicists are the preeminent snipers because they have the most comprehensive scientific knowledge.
Once again Web refuses to admit that radiant heat transfer decrease with density and in Earth’s case moisture :)
Engineers of a certain age forget the basics that are the foundations of our understanding of radiant heat transfer :)
Web, buy a good thermo book. We live on the surface, the system frame of reference should be the surface, the radiant balance becomes dominate outside of the moisture boundary which is generally not part of the surface we live on.
Obviously, once the altitude is high enough the concentration of GHG drops enough so that the outgoing radiation will balance, thus establishing the radiative temperature profile.
Captain, you really ought to work with the Modtran tool since you don’t seem to understand the physical mechanisms:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
I don’t know exactly what frightens you. You can take the Modtran user interface and plug in zero for CO2 and water vapor and see what comes out. It’s not like it’s gonna bite you.
The plain fact is that thermodynamics is derived from statistical mechanics, and you have not shown any application of statistical mechanics at all.
Web, actually, I use MODTRAN all the time to make sure I am selecting the right boundary conditions. I use the up/down at various altitudes and initial conditions to isolate the moist air boundary. Inside of that moist air boundary this is a pretty handy tool,
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-to-bound-open-system.html
There are some seldom used hard to read lines for specific volume, that is the inverse of density, that marks the spot :)
Oops, wrong link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PsychrometricChart.SeaLevel.SI.svg
I lost my computer and books in Wilma, but I used to have all of the formulas to reconstruct that Psych chart for any barometric
If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.
There is a lot of doubt, that is what this is all about. If there was little doubt, Climate Etc would not be needed.
It is obvious that Dr. Brown, in his comments on Bain’s Nature article is familiar with how AGW true believers approach discussion:
“Please understand that by creating a catch-all label like this, you quite literally are moving the entire discussion outside of the realm of science, where evidence and arguments are considered and weighed independent of the humans that advance them, where our desire to see one or another result proven are (or should be) irrelevant, where people weigh the difficulty of the problem being addressed as an important contributor (in a Bayesian sense) to how much we should believe any answer proposed — so far, into the realm where people do not think at all! They simply use a dismissive label such as “denier” and hence avoid any direct confrontation with the issues being challenged.”
Sort of sums fan, lolwot and our other trolls pretty well.
I have for long been an admirer of Paltridge and his work, but I think that like Climate etc he concedes too much to the believers’ claimed physics by accepting that maybe rising atmospheric CO2 does contribute to some global warming, if not very much.
The truth is that as John Tyndall showed back in 1861, atmospheric CO2 is not at all a GHG, while N2 and O2 really are.
Here are Tyndall’s main findings based not on computer models (yet to be invented in 1861) but on physical experiments on the apparatus he constructed in his own laboratory.
Here are Tyndall’s key messages, they are not mine, and they speak for themselves, I claim no credit, but do believe Tyndall is (posthumously of course) more deserving of the Nobel that Arrhenius managed to award himself.
1. “Dry air was now admitted into the tube [which had a heater at one end], while the needle of the galvanometer [at the other end] was observed with all possible care. Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not detect the slightest change of position [of the galvanometer’s needle when air sans CO2 and H2O was present]. Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, subjected to the same test, gave the same negative result.”
2. “According to my experiments, for small quantities the absorptive power of the former [CO2] is about 150 times that of the latter [O2]; and for atmospheric tensions, carbonic acid probably absorbs nearly 100 times as much as oxygen.”
3. “Air sent through the system of drying tubes and through the caustic potash tube produced an absorption of about 1. Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of 15”.
4. “But this aqueous vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays, is comparatively transparent to the [direct] rays of [sun] light. Hence the differential action, as regards the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.”
BTW, that result is confirmed by my regressions showing the statistically significant and much greater power of the atmosphere’s H2O than its CO2.
http://www.tswj.com/contents/
http://www.tswj.com/2012/761473/
Full Story (PDF File)
5. “As the above experiments indicate, the chief influence exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”
Again, my regressions above confirm this.
6. “The measurements recorded in the foregoing pages constitute only a fraction of those actually made; but they fulfil the object of the present portion of the inquiry. They establish the existence of enormous differences among colourless gases and vapours as to their action upon radiant heat”.
7. “The number of degrees through which the RADIATION from the [gases] urged the needle of the galvanometer :-
Air . ……0
Oxygen … 0
Nitrogen. …. 0
Hydrogen ….. 0
Carbonic oxide . . . 12
Carbonic acid (CO2) .. 18
Nitrous oxide . . . . 29
Olefiant gas (ethylene)… 53”
8. “If we inspect the results above recorded, we shall find that the elementary gases hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the mixture atmospheric air, possess absorptive and radiative powers beyond comparison less than those of the compound gases.”
None of the 97% of climate scientists who produce the garbage of the IPPC has ever read let alone refuted Tyndall’s demonstration that N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do, and thereby save us from being cooked by the retention of the earth’s heat by the N2 and O2..
That is why N2 and O2 are the real GHGs, as they really do trap the heat emanating from the earth’s surface, by neither absorbing nor radiating it, while the atmospheric CO2 and H2O both absorb that heat from the warm earth and radiate it to the cooler space via the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Until lukewarmers explode AGW by getting back to Tyndall, they will never win.
Yes, non-radiating atmosphere cannot cool to space.
Curtin and Edim deserve each other.
Huge gaps in comprehension.
Web, you have already shown your poor comprehension.
Let’s try again. How does increased CO2 affect air emissvity? Please, only answer directly and stay on subject. This is not about AGW, policy or whatever. Just simple physics question.
Hey Mr. Mental Block, I live in the world of color, that of frequency and wavelength. You do to, yet you do not have the mathematical or scientific background to understand any of this. Same goes for the Sky Dragons. It is truly pathetic. If this was a classroom, the teacher would give you an F and you would have to deal with it. Yet, here on the internet, you can keep jabbering away and if it wasn’t for someone to throw it back in your face, this yammering would continue forever. Oh wait … it does anyways, so it is really pointless to continue.
So you can’t answer the simple physics question.
Emissivity and absorptivity are the same when integrated over all wavelengths. It has to be, otherwise the material will create energy. However, at any point within the spectrum, the two don’t have to match.
Edim, you are the F- pupil and this is the answer an F- pupil gets.
Web OK. What’s the effect of CO2 on the emissivity of Earth’s atmosphere at typical wawelengths for the atmospheric radiation.
This isn’t a game of 20 questions, and don’t confuse your inability to articulate a cogent thought process with my refusal to play games.
Go read Pierrehumbert’s book. All you have to do is find the passage you disagree with, and then argue to your heart’s content. No wait, that’s why students usually fail, they don’t read the assigned textbooks. Now it all makes sense.
It is a balancing act with CO2. Under some conditions it warms and others it transports heat away from the system. The chicken and egg routine all over again. So it amazes me that some can be positive that it warms and others positive it cools. It is almost like it is part of a temperature control system :) The colder it gets, the more it tries to warm.
So I says to myself, self, what is the main control element? Aqua impura I thinks to myself, since answering is a bit disconcerting to some.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/06/faint-young-sun-and-liquid-water-is-not.html
While I am sure that needs some fine tuning, it is pretty interesting to ponder.
Actually capt. you’re getting closer to the truth about the actions of CO2 as the climate thermostat. As a good thermostat, it works both ways, the more it warms the more it tries to cool, and the more it cools, the more it tries to warm. But you need to expand your model to all different actions of CO2 over many time frames and include biosphere, oceans, and lithosphere to see the full ramifications. Just one example of course is the actions of CO2 related to the rock-carbon cycle. As temperatures increase and the hydrological cycle weathers more rock, this takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere, eventually sequestering it in the oceans. Quite a fascinating cycle.
That is what I am working on, but in case you haven’t noticed, the system is somewhat complex :)
You may find this interesting, it is the start of a multi-layer model.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-to-bound-open-system.html
The problem I had starting is that the moisture portion of the heat engine is open. Ice forms and its energy is moved outside of the envelope, so I defined the moisture boundary to simplify that serious PITA situation.
I am fine tuning it, but so far it is a good simplification. Too good actually, because most don’t realize how effective it can be :)
Good luck with your work there capt. Just a reminder to include rates of change in your model. As you know, thermostats work through feedbacks, but if the rate of change is too rapid, those feedbacks become overwhelmed and the the system becomes unstable and can rapidly alternate between states. This may or may not be what is happening with anthropogenic greenhouse gas buildup. It certainly happened in the Oldest Dryas to Bølling-Allerød interstadial to Younger Dryas period. The transition to the Younger Dryas was especially rapid, and may have occurred in less than a decade. Something (a meteor strike, ice-dam rupture, etc) rapidly overwhelmed the system,
My point being is that RATES of change (not just the change itself) really really matter.
You are preaching to the choir there Doc. One of the rapid changes appears to be the Siberian fresh water lake that is created when ice dams the flow to the Arctic. When that dam burst, there was a huge shift in thermal mass from fresh temperate to salt global. Getting the timing of that break would be nice. Know any smart Russians?
Skeptical Gates,
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Startingpoint.png
That is the heart of the heat engine. -1.9C is fixed by the impurities in the water. The average temperature of the skin layer is close to the current reality. The deep ocean temperature is close to reality. What controls the maximum temperature of the surface skin layer? Sea level pressures of course.
Yet, what we have observed so far is:
At the highest CO2 concentrations, climate shifts from warming to cooling and at the lowest it shifts from cooling to warming. This never fails.
This seems to occur at all time scales. Even now, at the highest CO2 concentration for this warming period, global climate indices are plateauing.
Observations can be misleading. The moist air envelope expands and contracts with total energy. The temperature in the tropics and temperature zones change little while the edges have a huge change. CO2 uptake by the oceans is not just dependent on temperature but also surface area and the biological uptake is of course dependent on moisture and temperature. We live in beautifully simple thermodynamic engine that can take lots of abuse. Still, it is always a good idea not to push your luck.
Yes, observations can be misleading. But I don’t see how this one is misleading. I doubt CO2 has a significant warming effect, not to mention the knob effect, if it’s so easily overpowered.
Edim, that depends on if you think 0.8 +/-0.2 is significant. I don’t because I know that land use, specifically snow removal and ice breaking have a greater impact by not allowing the moisture envelope to contract. There is a reason that Ice ages are called Ice Ages, Ice area/volume is a control variable.
The Null is no effect. Zero. All of the global warming since ~1960 is natural (non-anthropogenic). That’s the starting point.
The null is no effect. The observations are too uncertain to verify or exclude the null. That is why I build models that work. 0.8 +/-0.2 is the current best estimate that I have. You can barely tweak out a forcing impact by comparing land minus ocean temperatures, which you have to subtract other potential forcing to get that estimate. My model confirms a change in the resistance to heat loss at the 204.2K radiant boundary layer. Half of that would impact the surface, but not uniformly. land use change can easily mitigate that change, if you can find someone that likes freezing their butts off.
TRC Curtain,
A photon at the most common ground to sky IR wavelength of around 15 microns would be 0% absorbed or otherwise restricted by an atmosphere composed of N2 and O2. These molecules have no absorption at this wavelength or anywhere around it. They are most definitely not the “real” GHG’s. What kind of nonsense are you trying to peddle here?
15um is not the most common ground to sky IR wavelength – you’re getting confused with the dominant CO2 absorbtion band.
Peter317,
Thanks, I did misstate that. It’s been quite a while since I’ve looked at an actual Planck curve for Earth’s surface temperature. It is of course CO2 that notches out a great deal of the LW energy wavelength’s around 15 microns (actually from about 12 all the way to 18 microns if you include the all the side bands). The peak of the LW ground radiation from Earth is around 10 to 12 microns (both as measured and from theory). Still, my point is valid, N2 and O2 are not going to be doing any absorption or emission at around this peak in 10 to 12 micron range. LW at this wavelength leaving ground will pass right through an atmosphere of N2 and O2. These gases are hardly the “real GHG’s” as T R C Curtin states with his befuddled logic.
Gates, that was Curtin’s point – N2 and O2 don’t do any emission to space. They ‘trap’ the heat.
Then he’s using the term “trap” in a very odd manner. When something allows something else to pass through it, unencumbered. I would personally not called that “trapping”. Perhaps he ought to get a job with certain departments of the U.S. government where he could claim a “deficit” is really money in the bank. The government is always looking for more well-practiced double-speak experts.
Well, it’s just as odd as the consensus heat trapping, if not less. The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection/evaporation plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs’. This energy of the bulk cannot be transfered to space – it can only be transfered to ‘GHGs’, which radiate it to space. So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat. More CO2/H2O, less trapping.
“Edim | June 25, 2012 at 3:43 am |
Well, it’s just as odd as the consensus heat trapping, if not less. The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection/evaporation plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs’. This energy of the bulk cannot be transfered to space – it can only be transfered to ‘GHGs’, which radiate it to space. So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat. More CO2/H2O, less trapping.”
The difference is greenhouse gas are referring to gases which absorb and radiation a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
There are different types of energy. Heat is the motion of matter.
The storage or trapping of heat is something we do all the time.
Insulation for a home is to trap heat which generated in furnace, and can also keep cool air inside the house in warm weather. Insulating your with fiberglass insulation is most about prevent convection and conduction of heat- fiber insulation is porous, filled pockets of air. So it’s the trapped air in the fiberglass which prevents conduction and convection of heat.
Or also use thermo bottles to store hot beverages. Or dewar flask to store something like cryogenic liquid nitrogen. Or brick walls for kiln are used to contain extreme heat. The type of material [lack of material in case a vacuum] and the temperature difference are element which can control the conduction, convection, and radiation of heat. generally the most heat can transfer with conduction and metals generally conduct heat well. Convection is related to gravity- hotter liquids or gases are less dense and are buoyant. I.e putting hand above a stove element will heat your hand, whereas same distance horizontal to heating element is not as hot. The heat when horizontal to a hot element would be mostly radiant heat. Or a electric space heater will radiating heat, and if has some sort fan it helps spread it’s heat via convection.
Whereas storing any electromagnetic energy is not something commonly done. One could say laser sort does this, with mirrors it can bounce the radiation back and forth [but this delaying the energy for some fraction of a millisecond.
Any electromagnet radiation is traveling at speed of light- the atmosphere could not hold this energy for any significant amount time and I have never any adequate explanation of exactly how this kind of energy is supposed to be “trapped” nor any attempt to quantify the amount energy which can transferred. I assume the delay and the amount energy transferable is somewhat insignificant.
All the above is correct (although there is some freedom of interpretation and all interpretations are not right)
This is not correct. CO2 and H2O can actually trap a little more both in rotational and in vibrational degrees of freedom than the same amount of N2 or O2. It’s true that more CO2 means that a specific volume will also radiate more, but the difference between absorption and emission does not change much. For the atmosphere as whole more CO2 means that trapping radiation extends to higher altitudes and lower temperatures making it more difficult for the atmosphere to radiate to space.
Pekka, thank you for the reply.
“More CO2/H2O, less trapping”
This was a bit of a speculation. I am not certain at all of this point, but on the face of it, it could be true. I would have to look into it more to make a stonger claim for this.
This is my starting point, I don’t know how accurate are the energy flux estimates:
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif
“None of the 97% of climate scientists who produce the garbage of the IPPC has ever read let alone refuted Tyndall’s demonstration that N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do, and thereby save us from being cooked by the retention of the earth’s heat by the N2 and O2..
That is why N2 and O2 are the real GHGs, as they really do trap the heat emanating from the earth’s surface, by neither absorbing nor radiating it, while the atmospheric CO2 and H2O both absorb that heat from the warm earth and radiate it to the cooler space via the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
“and thereby save us from being cooked by the retention of the earth’s heat”
Pure N2 and O2 would not cook us.
The surface of the earth has a maximum temperature it can reach.
Let’s start with obvious N2 and O2 would never exceed the surface temperature. Desert sand temperature has say maximum 40 C, the air will never exceed 40 C. No kind of greenhouse effect can make the air exceed the surface temperature. Any warmer air can reduce the losses of a surface temperature due to convection. Though a vacuum reduces those same losses to zero. So surface temperature in a vacuum will be highest temperature a surface temperature can reach for given amount solar energy. Or Moon [near perfect vacuum] regolith reaches around 120 C.
No surface if using same regolith material can have it’s surface temperature
exceed the Moon’s temperature surface with any kind gas atmosphere.
Or the air is warmed by the surface and air will stop being warm if “somehow” reaches the same temperature as the surface. But on planet the air temperature never gets close to reaching the maximum surface temperature. Or the highest recorded air temperature on earth:
“The world’s highest recorded air temperature, to date, is 136°F (58°C) recorded at El Azizia, Libya, on 13 September 1922”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_hottest_air_temperature_ever_recorded_on_earth
Whereas getting a surface temperature of 136 F can easily occur anywhere on earth on any warm summer day. [The land surface get this hot, the ocean surface never gets this hot- due to evaporation.]
And in terms of hottest surface temperature [such the top layer sand on a desert] the temperature can get as high as 170 F [76 C].
So roughly surface can reach about 40 F [20 C] higher than air temperature. Though such high difference doesn’t occur with ocean surface and ocean surface is 70% of surface of Earth.
In world which isn’t a water planet like earth and it had a pure N2 and O2
atmosphere and at earth distance from the sun, one would have the air temperature never getting higher the about 20 C degrees below the surface temperature. So take part of planet, have always face the sun and surface will not warm much more than 76 to 80 C and air will warm more than 58 to 65 C. If reduce the amount of atmosphere one could increase these temperature to come closer to airless world like the Moon. Adding atmosphere such doubling, will reduce these max temperatures. These max temperature would similar if the “planet” was disk which always faced the sun. BUT planet aren’t disks and one has
take into account the spherical nature of a planet.
So on spherical planet the equatorial regions [near tropic zones] the surface areas [sand] could reach 76 to 80 C with air maxing out at 58 to 65 C. But basically other half of sphere [or hemisphere about say above 40 degree latitude] will have lower surface temp and air temperature will also be cool. So not talking about axis tilt that gives us summer and winter, the 40 degree latitude and higher has fall and spring surface temperature. To simplify- knock off 10 to 20 C degrees from surface and air temperatures for region 40 degree latitude and poleward.
So a hempishere always facing the sun will have lower “averaged” surface temperature. And the cooler surface of poleward region by itself
cools the highest possible air temperature- without getting the other half of the sphere which is on the nightside.
Dave Springer | June 24, 2012 at 8:51 am
The solar spectrum is very close to continuous black body @ ~5500C. The peak frequency is visible yellow light. There is nothing significant left in that spectrum at far infrared. CO2 has no absorption bands shorter than the tail end of the near infrared where there is almost no energy left in sunlight.
============================================
This graph demonstrates that the “greenhouse gases” do block some portion of the solar energy thus contributing to cooling: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/absorption.gif
This article is also good: http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/spectrum/multispectral_sun_overview.html
Nice graph, note that water vapor does absorb solar, around 6% as vapor not liquid. More surface evaporation is a negative feed back on surface absorption plus that water vapor and and clouds are a negative feed back of upper level heat energy. The water vapor and clouds absorbing more energy increase the rate of upper level convection. Something the climate models seem to have under estimated.
According to this:
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif
16% of the incoming solar (100%) is absorbed by the atmosphere plus 3% by clouds. Atmosphere absorbs MORE from the sun than from the surface (15% of the incoming solar)
Let’s see. Where were we?
Ah yes, Dr. Paltridge alarming us with the ghastly proposition of Frenchmen determining our every action and thought:
There are those who, like the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, speaking at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, look with favour on the possibility of an international decarbonisation regime because it would be a first step to global governance (the president’s actual words were “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance”.)
Perhaps we can help Dr. Paltridge’s phobic disposition by rephrasing:
“Deposed even in France, Jacques Chirac is known to have said, ‘For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,’ of action for sustainable development at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, ignoring that the 20th century was practically a continuous exercise in global governance proposals and efforts, and insulting the genuine work of Nobel Laureates who overcame some of the deadliest and most damaging diseases ever to face humanity through such cooperation, showing that no more ‘instrument’ of governance is needed than simple education and cooperation, and the goodwill of governments to act in the democratic interest of their people ahead of the tyranny of special interests.”
See, that corrects Chirac — who was simply historically wrong — and Dr. Paltridge, who was so panicked by French lies as to run and hide under the bed from the One World Government bogeyman, rather than shine the light of truth on it and make it evaporate like the mere insubstantial fiction it is.
Carrying on, past Dr. Paltridge’s lowest point yet..
There are those who, like the socialists of the 20th century, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between the individual nations.
A bit paranoid, and lending socialists far too much credit for power and durability as the ones of the 20th century pretty much reduced to a sad little cadre of nostalists after the fall of the Berlin wall, but I guess if we want to be truthful, we have to admit there were some, and to a greatly diminished degree there still are some has-beens like that to be counted. We ought add the phrase, “in inconsequential numbers..” to give some sense of proportion to this assertion, however.
There are those who regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of influence which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions.
Huh. That’s such a bogus claim, as stated.
Here, try:
“Though the claim is unsupported by evidence, some assert there are those (clearly deluded few souls) who regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of influence which to now has been the province of the major religions.”
See? Less waffle, and a better description of the situation in qualitative and quantitative terms. It would have been nice of Dr. Paltridge had included specific and relevant examples for each of his wild assertions or claims, and this becomes glaringly apparent by this point. However, seeing the French example of Chirac he supplied, perhaps it would be less helpful for clarifying his logic than we might hope.
Maybe he gets better later?
More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.
Hey, something I can agree with! A bit of hypocrisy, considering the context, but we can’t be choosey, it seems.
So, in summary, while opposing interests have tried to gag and bind the science by calling it a hoax or too certain of itself, I don’t think they have succeeded in holding it hostage yet. or is that not what he meant by the title:-)
Jim D | June 24, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
It appears the title means, “Dr. Paltridge Held Hostage to Singer Doctrine on Climate (and Tobacco)”.
Same baseless foundation set out in the preamble before he attempts to get to any point — one which works only within the Singer framework — and the same subjective judgements and interpretations of data and circumstances with the same blinkers that prevent inductive logic from considering the simplest and strongest hypotheses, replaced instead with foregone conclusions and Iron Sun conspiracy theory.
Penguin jokes: Say how did you get yr entry visa?
So are you here on business or jest a holiday?
Might be more entertaining if we go over what the polar bear said. “A coke, a smile, and a penguin; everything goes better with coke.
Question to traveling male penguin accompanied by attractive young female penguin:
“Is this a business trip or is that your wife?”
Cheers for Elinor Ostrom bequeathing a heritage of rational engagement and investigation of options to solve problem situations about sustainable development. For people on the spot, whose self interest lies in maintaining their environment and source of income, problem solving is an urgent necessity. For government at- a -distance bureaucracies, regional issues are not so urgent and other priorities may muddy the waters.
Joshua | June 26, 2012 at 12:55 am |
Muller took data from my friend Anthony with an agreement not to disclose it until Anthony published. It was an extraordinarily generous gesture on Anthony’s part, and one that Muller made him regret deeply. Not only did Muller disclose and discuss the data, he disclosed it in front of Congress, in front of the media, and in a forum where Anthony couldn’t answer his claims. To add insult to injury, he made claims that his results from his studies of the data contradicted Anthony’s results, claims that he did not cite or support with any kind of data or references.
I call that scummy. I call that traducing and betraying someone in a particularly nasty way, in a forum where they could not reply. I call that slimy, underhanded, and perfidious.
Now, if you want to get all mush-mouthed and pretend that Muller did nothing wrong, that’s your right. You are free to act like butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth, just as you are free to believe that Phil Jones didn’t lie through his teeth to me, and you are free to think that Michael Mann never deleted any emails. Me, I’m too grown up for fairy tales. All of them stand convicted by their own words.
Was my action balanced and mature? It was definitely mature, because an adult stands up for what is right, and calls out what is wrong. An adult cleans up his own backyard. The problem is not that I’m too outraged, Joshua. It is that the AGW climate establishment is not outraged enough. They are neither adult enough nor balanced enough nor mature enough to call a crook a crook or to call out even the most egregious scientific malfeasance, and we have seen that over and over—with Climategate, with the Mann and CRU whitewashes, with the Jesus paper, with scientists who hide their data and code, with Peter Gleick, with Richard Muller, the list of things that you and your friends have tried to sweep under the rug in the name of balance and maturity is long, long and ugly.
As a result of the AGW establishment by and large following your advice to ignore bad actions and bad actors, your advice to be what you call “balanced and mature”, which appears to mean “blind and dumb”, climate scientists have lost the trust of the public … and now, folks like you stand around and scratch their heads and gin up theories as to why, and decry and mock those of us who have the nerve to stand up and be counted under our own names, and not be just some anonymous internet popup posting under an assumed name like yourself, someone who never has to take responsibility for his words … and you think you are in a position to talk about maturity?
Signing your name to your words would be a good start on your long path to maturity, Joshua, although you have a ways to go from there, that’s only the start.
Yes, I know you approve of people not even whispering that the Emperor is buck naked, Joshua. You’d be much happier if no one pointed out any flaws with your heroes … but the truth is that they not only have feet of clay, they are clay from head to toe.
Regarding Richard Muller, it comes down to this—when a man stabs your friend in the back in a public forum, it is neither balanced nor mature to pretend that he didn’t. At that point it is the path of a coward to say nothing, and that’s what you think I should have done.
Sorry, not happening. For me, being balanced and mature means, among other things, telling the truth. Muller’s actions were deeply reprehensible, and I have no hesitation in pointing that out.
w.
Willis said
“The problem is not that I’m too outraged, Joshua. It is that the AGW climate establishment is not outraged enough.”
To that you can add a whole litany of climate scientists ‘losing’ data, Hansen attempting to put together important and complex papers whilst working in what a journalist called a ‘comically cluttered office’ and climate scientists standing back and keeping quiet when Dr Mann promoted tree rings to celebrity status instead of saying;
‘ Lumps of wood that have a three month growing season and highly susceptible to their own micro climate?. So how precisely do you get an accurate global temperature signal from those Michael?’
tonyb
@tony b
Simple answers.
1. Dr Hansen is a Climatologist and so has such a Great Brain that he doesn’t need to work in an organised and ordered way like mere mortals.
The same applies to Dr Phil Jones whose Enormous Intellectual Ability is such that he has forsworn the Baconian idea of experiment and observation, dispensed with all forms of method and scrutiny and gladly returned to the long Aristotlean tradition of ‘Science by Pronouncement’.
2. Teleconnections. The Chosen Trees – by the act of being Chosen – mysteriously acquire the characteristics of being treemometers and reliably show us whatever it is that the researcher in question wanted to prove. Like an arboreal form of transubstantiation. In case that the mysterious physical process does not quite take place as required, the subsequent statistical processing (in techniques known only to Climatologists) will be able to reconstruct what it ‘should have been’.
After Phil Jones Teleconnections is quite the daftest idea in Climatology….an area that is not lacking in candidates for that august prize.
Latimer
To ‘chosen’ trees we can surely add chosen ice cores, chosen co2 readings and chosen temperature stations AND a chosen ‘ideal’ temperature we need to get back to by reducing co2.
tonyb
Whoa!
Missed this from a couple of days ago, Willis.
Thanks for adding more “maturity” and “balance” to the debate. I’m sure that Paul will appreciate it greatly. :-)
And Willis, I have to say it is also unfortunately typical of your analysis to construct some causal relationship between the use of last names on blog comments and the attribute of maturity. It is a causal attribution that is easily proven false, even in fact by the very post where you make the ridiculous connection. It is exactly that kind of facile reasoning that makes me think that your scientific contributions may often be influenced by the same sort of self-serving, and crippling biases.
One sign of maturity, Willis, is understanding the relative nature of what we encounter in life. It is a basic developmental feature that usually accompanies growth as one exits adolescence.
That doesn’t mean that maturity requires someone to be silent in the face of developments they disagree with. It also doesn’t mean not calling people on actions you don’t approve of. Maturity doesn’t mean that you don’t voice the opinion that someone’s actions are reprehensible. Maturity doesn’t mean that you necessarily have to be civil. Unfortunately, it seems that in your haste to deny your own, obvious, lack of balance and maturity, you have relied upon reasoning founded on a series of false dichotomies.
One sign of a lack of maturity is the need to create false arguments on the part of those you disagree with, or attribute to them beliefs that they don’t actually have – in order to build what you think is a “mature” or “balanced” perspective. Here, allow me to provide you with an example:
You will never see me, ever, offering any such “advise” to anyone, anywhere.
There is an ever-increasingly long list of occasions when you have done that, Willis. You do it in virtually every post you’ve ever written in response to one of my posts. My particular favorite was when you constructed a belief that I think that you’re an “evil man.” I don’t think you’re an “evil man,” Willis. I think that you are vulnerable to the very same pitfalls that we’re all vulnerable to.
You’ve studied psychology, and I think that you must know that the characteristics I just described are common among people who are less developmentally mature. There are very few among us here, Willis, who serve as good examples of “balance” and “maturity.” Billc comes to mind – can’t think of too many others. But I can think of many who serve as excellent examples of those who are certainly not shining examples of those attributes – and you are certainly a member of that group.
‘Twas brillig and the slithy tove
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe…
Beware the jabberwock my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch.
H/t Lewis Carroll.
Yes Willis, some of us will remember the discussion at WUWT
Tony b
I’m working on the history response I mentioned in an earlier thread, re my overview of historicism and your comments about the unpopularity of history ).
There’s a chapter in a book I’ll try to send you if I can git it on to email format, I’ll ask my nephew. It may interest you … or not, when you have time to read it and ‘if’ I can send it.
Beth
Look forward to it
tonyb
just trying to clear the boldface. :-)
It didn’t work. :-(
What did you try?
The characters .
I wish we had a preview option.
Ouch! The characters
concatenated without “new paragraph”.
(it is really picky!). Once more: less than, forward slash, b, greater than.
html preview – just sayin’. Handy dandy little thing.
Re above: “JC note: note the difference here between postnormal and postmodern science.”, referring to Garth Paltridge’s description “Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.”
Drs. Curry and Paltridge are correct in their assessments. Regretfully, postnormal and postmodern science” are distinctions without a difference. The distinction may be called a fallacy: the use of one word or phrase in place of another having negative connotations.
“Postmodern science” is included within “Postnormal science” by Ravetz’s own discussion.
Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome. “The Post-normal Science of Precaution.” Futures 36, no. 3 (2004): 347–357. http://www.iris.ufsc.br/projetopar/docs/RAVETZ.PDF
Earth Temperature is regulated by ice and water and water vapor! It has a set point and can cause powerful changes! CO2 is a trace gas and can cause trace changes! Earth temperature stays in a bounded range because of ice and water and water vapor! The data shows it snows more when earth is warm and that it snows less when earth is cold! Climate is complicated, but this thermostat is simple!
Earth has water and CO2. The Circus has Elephants and Fleas. If CO2 is the main thing that controls earth temperature then the Fleas help put up the circus tents.
Does anyone out there really understand how much water is on the earth and understand what a trace gas is by comparison. Our Climate is perfect for people because earth has a lot of water. CO2 is nice because it makes the green things grow and the green things produce our oxygen.
It is amazing the amount of vitriol and ad homs that are thrown around here, following on from and mostly irrelevant to the excellent article by Garth Paltridge. Many of the earier postings disparaged Paltridge’s expertise as an atmospheric physicist, [and as a climate scientist]. For those who remain unaware, Paltridge was the chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric research, and was involved with the WMO’s bureaucracy that set up the World Climate Programe in the 1970s. He was involved with the National Climate Programe office in the US at the time of emergence of the IPCC. If anyone here has the time and inclination, he wrote the most literate, and thoroughly readable book on the politics of ” climate change”, and I would recommend “The Climate Caper” to anyone . You want to know how we got to this state in the “debate”?….read it.