Words of wisdom from Hobart, Tasmania.
Garth Paltridge emailed this gem, a letter to the editor of the Hobart Mercury. Garth, who lives in Hobart, describes Hobart as “the centre of Australian ‘green’ thought and activity.”
Dear Sir
The responses in Friday’s Letters page to my letter about climate change all seem to have missed the point. I said that Hunter and Godfrey were speaking as Environmentalists not as scientists. This was not a put-down of Environmentalism nor of them as competent scientists, it was a statement of fact. They make moral judgements about how we should deal with the world, the climate in particular. They have every right to do this, but science is not about moral judgements, it is about facts. It is not about what ought to be the case, it is about what is the case.
This distinction between science and ideology is important; it first happened in the 17th century with the foundation of the Royal Society and resulted in great advances in science. Now the distinction has again become blurred so that scientists like myself, who dare to suggest that the global warming hypothesis may be wrong, are treated, not as mistaken, but as traitorous. Why would people become so passionate about this issue if it were not ideological? This confusion of science and Environmentalism distorts them both. Unfortunately it is a confusion which affects journal editors and funding agencies as much as scientists themselves.
Ideologies (including religions) are the means by which human moral progress is facilitated, the means by which great numbers of people organise themselves to make the world a better place: to convert the heathen, to free the slave, to save the Planet. The problem is, ideologies are static. It is almost impossible to change an ideology once it is established. People who try to do so are often denigrated as ‘heretics’, ‘recidivists’ and so on.
Environmentalism is no exception. It has been with us since Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ alerted us to the dangers of unrestrained industrial pollution. The environment became something worth preserving, not just because of its relevance to human welfare but for its own sake. But Environmentalism is holding science back. Unlike ideology, science changes all the time as new discoveries and new ideas come to light. In the field of climate science, because of its ideological character, new discoveries likely to challenge the accepted narrative are lucky to see the light of day.
One such new idea is that of false correlation and spurious regression. This has been widely used in the field of econometrics since 1974, but is not seen as relevant in climate science. My present paper on this topic, which explains global temperature changes as random fluctuations, has already been rejected twice by peer-reviewed journals.
I intend to persevere. Wish me luck.
John Reid
JC comment
These words of wisdom are beautifully and simply stated. And they provide a good context for the forthcoming Paris negotiations, whose foundation at this point is green ideology and not science..
“Unlike ideology, science changes all the time as new discoveries and new ideas come to light. In the field of climate science, because of its ideological character, new discoveries likely to challenge the accepted narrative are lucky to see the light of day.”
Guess that applies to discoveries of SST-measurement biases. Challenges Judith’s policy driven narrative and must be denied.
Guess that applies to discoveries of SST-measurement biases. Challenges Judith’s policy driven narrative and must be denied.
Another environmentalist/warmunist.
1. The fact the change came from NOAA just indicates that a change came from NOAA. It doesn’t mean there wasn’t a hiatus. It doesn’t mean there was a hiatus. Refer to their ONI predictions. NOAA is an experienced climate guesser that doesn’t seem to learn from experience. An announcement from NOAA is just an announcement from NOAA. About the only thing you have to pay attention to are the storm predictions a day ahead of time.
2. The hiatus isn’t really significant except the eco/warmumists didn’t predict it, didn’t expect it, and don’t have a good explanation for it, since explaining the pause would undermine other eco/warmunist memes. The 80-90s curves were drawn into the future and it was claimed disaster was coming. 15 years in the future those predictions look half baked.
3. NOAA doesn’t want their work product or discussions investigated. Technical people would be proud to have a good adjustment investigated because it would display their technical competence and the excellence of their procedures and approach.
4. Dr. Curry didn’t “deny” anything. The SST change is an algorithm that is claimed to better. It is drawing one line through the envelope of possibilities instead of another. . She has let the matter be debated. Eco/warmunists should quit calling everyone deniers. They should also quit claiming there are science gods that must be listened to and obeyed. It makes them look like idiots.
5. Which brings up the last point. Most global warmers are ignorant non-technical worshipers of the science god. Consensus is all, is one of the founding commandments of the faith. These oracles are so above mortal man that their pronouncements are beyond our understanding and cannot be questioned.
All the gatekeeping and contamination of the grant process in climate science was to make sure there were no challenges to the CAGW science meme. The science god worshippers will slavishly follow the words of authority, much like they followed bad nutrition advice and ate goofy things for 30 years.
For technically adept these tiny changes are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Science in the next decade or two will prove if CAGW is in our future, not the scientific equivalent of a parlor trick.
But we have plenty of time to figure things out,
there is no hurry,
it isn’t urgent,
there is no hard deadline,
it isn’t like the world is going to end in 2050 if we are still burning fossil fuel,
So we have plenty time to get it right and as of right now CAGW looks like a non-starter.
Cheers!
Only thing I would somewhat agree with, the rest is bilge, is the simple fact that a large number of climate scientists are wedded to the AMO, and they do not think there can be a “hiatus” until it goes negative, and it is unlikely to go negative, short of a shutdown of the AMOC, in the 21st century.
Because it has been the PDO the whole time.
You know, if you don’t want people to use the word “denier” and I can’t remember the last time I used that term, you should not use the words “warmunist, science gods, idiots, ignorant, worshippers, and slavishly” to name a few.
Calling people non-technical worshippers of the science god, when there are only two things necessary and they are required, to bring down AGW.
Prove we are not putting CO2 into the atmosphere and prove CO2 is not active in the infrared.
Apparently no one has the technical chops to do that.
bobdroege I see you are using the argument known as “misrepresentation of an opponent’s position” otherwise known as the Straw Man Fallacy.
No, Oldfossil, you don’t get it either.
I was indeed responding to his position that CAGW looks like a non-starter.
In order for him to support that position, he indeed has to show that CO2 is not active in the IR, as well as showing that we are not responsible for the increase in CO2.
The rest is arithmetic.
Also I was pointing out his hypocrisy in complaining about the use of the d-word while using warmunist and other slang.
bobdroege | November 24, 2015 at 12:15 pm |
No, Oldfossil, you don’t get it either.
…
I was indeed responding to his position that CAGW looks like a non-starter.
http://s9.postimg.org/recefss1b/CO2_Forcing_at_SPRC_Feldman_2014.png
The modeled warming is at least 100% too high.
https://i.imgur.com/5J5CcKC.png
The CO2 is going to top out under 2.5 PPM/Y.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg/600px-Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg.png
Peak oil and China peak coal are 2030.
CAGW is a fantasy. The CO2 level will top out around 2040. At the 2-2.5 PPM rate that is likely that is somewhere around 460-480. I quote 500 PPM because I am a generous guy.
You can’t even generate 0.5°C of warming under those conditions. Half the IPCC ECS mean is 1.5°C. 1.5 ln (500/400) = 0.335 °C.
Like I said CAGW is a non-starter.
In order for him to support that position [ that CAGW is a non-starter ], he indeed has to show that CO2 is not active in the IR, as well as showing that we are not responsible for the increase in CO2.
No, you don’t have to show that at all.
CO2 can be a radiatively active gas, cause warming, and be increasing.
None of that means that it is a problem ( at least on a century time scale ).
AGW != CAGW
Further, there are good reasons to believe that the rates of AGW will be declining, regardless of fuel choices going forward.
No, you don’t have to show that at all.
In fact, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming CAGW.
Because most measures of human well being have improved at the same time temperatures have risen.
Correction on the “measured CO2 forcing”
The lines cross in the middle, when you sort it out, 0.32 is being compared to .22 so the IPCC CO2 direct forcing of 5.35 ln (2) = 1°C is only 45% higher.
But the period was 11 years which would capture most of the TSR (given that the TSR warming from the previous 20 years was incorporated), so they should have been comparing to the TSR rate which is 2x times the direct forcing rate..
But I’m fine with saying the ECS is only 45% too high and using that number. ECS = 2.07. (the ECS is about 1.5 times the TSR).
(3/1.45) *LN (500/400) = 0.462 °C so still below 0.5 °C even when computed with ECS.
I think you are the one living in a fantasy land if you think you know for a fact that is going to happen. No one else thinks so.
I think you are the one living in a fantasy land if you think you know for a fact that is going to happen. No one else thinks so.
No one has knowledge of what is yet to be, but CO2 emissions were flat in 2014, largely because they are declining in China – why would you believe they will accelerate?
bobdroege: In order for him to support that position, he indeed has to show that CO2 is not active in the IR, as well as showing that we are not responsible for the increase in CO2.
No. It is sufficient to show either that the harmful effects of increased CO2 are exaggerated, or that the net effects of increased CO2 are beneficial. There is evidence for both.
MatthewRMarler,
I’ll go with Richard Tol, version 1.1 from a conversation with Roger Harrabin
“RT: Yeah, yeah. No, but there’s more influenza in winter because it’s cold outside and therefore we huddle inside and we’re in closer contact with other people. So if winters become shorter or less cold, we would do less of that and it would actually also stop the spread of influenza, to a degree. So there’s those two factors, which are undisputed in the literature and both are of course unambiguous benefits. And they fall primarily on rich countries and cold countries. But of course CO2 is a fertiliser for plants; I mean CO2 is the basis of photosynthesis. If there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere then plants simply grow faster and this is particularly true for plants that are under water stress. So this is a particular boon for agriculture in arid and semi-arid areas, many parts of which are actually fairly poor. So that’s another unambiguous boon and people disagree about the size of the effects but not about the sign or that the effect is not there at all. So these things are actually uncontroversial. Now there’s also many negative impacts of climate change; of course when you have positives and negatives and you start adding them up, you may end up with a net positive or a net negative. And the literature is divided on that one: if you add up all these things, is it positive or negative? Most people would argue that slight warming is probably beneficial for human welfare on net, if you measure it in dollars, but more pronounced warming is probably a net negative.
RH: And where do you put the boundary line between those two?
RT: According to my latest calculations, it’s sort of around 1.1 degrees of warming relative to pre-industrial, so that’s …”
We are almost to the point where the advantages are balanced with the disadvantages.
matthewrmarler | November 24, 2015 at 3:23 pm |
No. It is sufficient to show either that the harmful effects of increased CO2 are exaggerated, or that the net effects of increased CO2 are beneficial. There is evidence for both.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=32
That is kind of interesting. The IPCC says commentorially:
Important advances in research since the SAR on the direct effects of CO2 on crops suggest that beneficial effects may be greater under certain stressful conditions, including warmer temperatures and drought.
So the IPCC really doesn’t have a handle on CO2 benefits.
Most studies indicate that mean annual temperature increases of 2.5ºC or greater would prompt food prices to increase (low confidence)
And they have “low confidence” that a 2.5°C temperature increase is bad, based on “most’ studies..
Perhaps since future starvation is the most important consideration – set the limit to where there is “low confidence” that more warming and more CO2 is beneficial. And do a thorough investigation of all the benefits of more CO2 and warmth – done with the same vigor as the “harm” investigations, so the position is well informed. And the benefit and harm studies used for the analysis should get a thorough and hostile review.
If we are going to make decisions on humanity’s future we should have “high confidence” that we are doing the right thing.
PA, “So the IPCC really doesn’t have a handle on CO2 benefits.”
So you don’t believe the IPCC will be given a $50 million Yale study on the benefits of CO2 as a companion piece to the detrimental effects of climate change on health? I’m astonished such a worthy study wouldn’t be funded.
bobdroege,
You wrote –
“In order for him to support that position, he indeed has to show that CO2 is not active in the IR, as well as showing that we are not responsible for the increase in CO2.”
You may be as silly as you wish, you may choose to be a denier (of reality and physics), but it doesn’t mean that anybody has to show anything, just because you decree it.
CO2 is “active in the IR”, as you misleadingly put it, but so is every gas in the universe. All can be warmed, and subsequently emit EMR of the wavelength appropriate to their temperature. The Warmist nonsense of creating energy from nothing is a figment of the Warmist cultists’ imaginations.
As to conflating production of CO2 with non existent warming, this is simply bizarre. CO2 is plant food. You may be suicidally calling for its removal, but please allow me to live. More CO2 is better, as far as I am concerned, as is every other non denier.
Show an experiment resulting in warming a body merely by wrapping it in CO2, and I’ll believe. Until then, it is you who remains the denier of reality, not I.
Cheers.
jungletrunks (@jungletrunks) | November 24, 2015 at 5:35 pm |
PA, “So the IPCC really doesn’t have a handle on CO2 benefits.”
So you don’t believe the IPCC will be given a $50 million Yale study on the benefits of CO2 as a companion piece to the detrimental effects of climate change on health? I’m astonished such a worthy study wouldn’t be funded.
Huh?
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/green_crude_the_quest_to__unlock_algaes_energy_potential/2582/
The only thing I can find is algae to fuel. There is lots of “rah rah” on the Yale site about the “benefits of mitigation” but that isn’t studying the benefits of CO2 (there is no benefit to mitigation – it is actively harmful).
Perhaps you would like to link to this study of yours?
You aren’t claiming that equal dollars have been spent studying the benefits of CO2 vs the harm are you? The NSF site if you haven’t visited it is pretty “rah rah” for climate change.
Further on the NSF site there have been lots of “sustainable energy” studies. Both coal and nuclear for the US are pretty sustainable, but the NSF focuses on more expensive exotic solutions for no apparent reason.
I don’t know if they are going to accelerate but after doing a little here is what I came up with for why I don’t think emission will slow down if we don’t act to reduce emissions:
First:
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2014-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2014-report-93171.pdf
Since energy demand is close related to GDP (see below) unless we either constantly increase energy efficiency and or increase the proportion of low carbon energy sources used we will not slow down the growth of CO2 emission much less decrease overall emissions.
http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u673/images/2012/1025/world-gdp-oil-consumption-and-energy-consumption-growth-rates.jpg
As for China, I think a very good case for why China is not going to stop growing rapidly any time soon.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/03/12/a-word-on-chinas-economic-and-energy-demand-growth/
“CO2 is “active in the IR”, as you misleadingly put it, but so is every gas in the universe.” – Mike Flynn
You never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.
John Carpenter,
You quoted me as saying –
“CO2 is “active in the IR”, as you misleadingly put it, but so is every gas in the universe.”
With which part of that statement do you disagree and why? If you are merely trying to be gratuitously offensive, you have failed. I decline to take offence as a general rule. I see no reason to make an exception in your case.
You went on to write –
“You never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.”
I am surprised. This is new to me. I believe I have heard of those words before, so you can either back up your assertion, or not. If you can’t, then I must assume you are mentally disturbed, in which case you have my compassion, and I wish you well.
Cheers.
MF, typically a gas molecule needs 3 or more atoms to be classified as IR active. So, “every gas in the universe”, it is clearly not.
PA, sorry, I was being too quick and made a clumsy facetious statement. One of the ivy leagues produced a report on the detrimental health effects of AGW. As I recall the cost was around $50 million. My point was; is there a comparable investment outlining the benefits of CO2? I’ve never seen one.
jungletrunks (@jungletrunks) | November 24, 2015 at 8:23 pm |
PA, sorry, I was being too quick and made a clumsy facetious statement. One of the ivy leagues produced a report on the detrimental health effects of AGW. As I recall the cost was around $50 million. My point was; is there a comparable investment outlining the benefits of CO2? I’ve never seen one.
Thank you for the courtesy, it is appreciated.
And you are sort of making my point. I do not believe that the issue has been well investigated by professionals.
I loathe making decisions in a vacuum if it is unnecessary.
A well funded objective study or studies would inform the IPCC and everyone else.
A debate on an important subject needs information as much as a fire needs fuel.
I completely agree with you, PA. Major government funding only occurs in attempt to prove negatives unfortunately.
Jim D,
Warmist obviously have difficulty with facts. You refused to quote, so I’ll do it myself –
“CO2 is “active in the IR”, as you misleadingly put it, but so is every gas in the universe. All can be warmed, and subsequently emit EMR of the wavelength appropriate to their temperature.”
Pick a gas. Warm it to say 20 C, using a source emitting IR. Try a hairdryer at a low setting, or maybe pass it through water at a temperature above 20 C. Do it in the dark, so there’s no nonsense about shortwave, back radiation or similar.
It is now at 20 C. What wavelengths are being emitted? Would nitrogen at 20 C emit the same wavelengths? If not, what would they be?
What part of my statement are you disagreeing with, and why?
Cheers.
“I believe I have heard of those words before,” – Mike Flynn
Like I said, you never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.
Bobdroege,
Strawman!. The argument is not about AGW. It’s about CAGW.
AGW is good. It increases vegetation growth and reduces the risk of an abrupt catastrophic cooling event (which would other wise be inevitable).
MF, gases like O2 and N2 emit nothing in the IR. That is why they are not classified as IR active. The special status of CO2, H2O, CH4, etc. is precisely because they absorb and emit in the IR. You only see these gases’ emission/absorption frequencies with IR spectrography. There’s whole field of physics in this area but you must have missed the class when they taught that.
John Carpenter,
You wrote –
“”I believe I have heard of those words before,” – Mike Flynn
Like I said, you never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.”
If you say so. Psychotic disregard for fact? Denial?
Cheers.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“MF, gases like O2 and N2 emit nothing in the IR. That is why they are not classified as IR active. The special status of CO2, H2O, CH4, etc. is precisely because they absorb and emit in the IR. You only see these gases’ emission/absorption frequencies with IR spectrography. There’s whole field of physics in this area but you must have missed the class when they taught that.”
So tell us Jim D, what wavelengths do O2 and N2 emit at 20 C? What about CO2? What about Pb or Fe or H2O? It’s not my fault that you misunderstand and misuse physics. It makes no difference. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so. Are you a denier? Really don’t believe it happened?
Good luck!
Cheers.
Jim D, don’t bother trying to teach Flynn. Waste of time. He’s already smarter than all of us combined.
John Carpenter | November 24, 2015 at 10:09 pm |
“I believe I have heard of those words before,” – Mike Flynn
Like I said, you never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/163876/thermal-radiation-of-a-nitrogen-sphere
Blackbody radiation, ideal gas law, this isn’t rocket science.
The gas isn’t ionized, the spectral line discussions are irrelevant. An energy pumped excited gas has nothing to do with relaxed gas situation.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/a27yR.png
If the gas response was qualitatively or quantitatively different you could put a volume of N2 next to a volume of CO2 and heat it up. That obviously doesn’t happen.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-questions-basic-physics.html
https://i.imgur.com/iOTQnsu.jpg
However it turns out that CO2 is not an ideal blackbody or even a pretty good blackbody and absorption and emissivity decrease with temperature. As CO2 warms it tends to become “dead weight” (less effective) in the atmosphere. As to the “gas next to each other” example – if absorption and emission decrease the result is basically a wash. It isn’t going to warm as fast or cool as fast.
Further, a tiny increase in H2O dwarfs the CO2 response.
http://www.biocab.org/DENSITY-EMISSIVITY.jpg
At least that is my take on it. Not sure how significant the decrease in emissivity is and don’t have time to get up to speed on it.
I’ll let you guys get back to the discussion.
PA,
You wrote –
“Blackbody radiation, ideal gas law, this isn’t rocket science.”
According to some Warmists, it isn’t science at all, by all appearances.
Oh well, Warmist science is settled. The pause either exists or doesn’t exist, CO2 is either good or bad, the atmosphere is chaotic or not, CO2 causes ice to increase or decrease, it causes warming, cooling, floods, droughts, earthquakes and volcanoes.
It might even cause and cure haemorrhoids and bad breath for all I know.
More CO2 I say. Wondrous stuff – feeds the staff of life – food plants!
Cheers.
MF, gases like O2 and N2 can only absorb emit at microwave frequencies due to rotation bands. Clearly you don’t know what those are, and are not interested in learning either. Go somewhere and find out. This area of physics is interesting stuff, and relevant too.
Bob D, in tallying up positives and negatives of increased CO2 I didn’t see any mention of the benefits of having abundant, low cost fossil fuel available. When that is taken into account the outcome is overwhelmingly positive. Which is precisely why moving to more carbon neutral forms of energy production is resisted with such vigor.
David Springer | November 25, 2015 at 5:13 am |
Bob D, in tallying up positives and negatives of increased CO2 I didn’t see any mention of the benefits of having abundant, low cost fossil fuel available. When that is taken into account the outcome is overwhelmingly positive. Which is precisely why moving to more carbon neutral forms of energy production is resisted with such vigor.
The goal of the US grid should be to provide unlimited almost free energy for everyone. You should not have to be Al Gore to be able to afford to plug your DeLoren into the wall outlet and charge it up for the next time trip.
People who think it should be US policy to force people to beg for the meager pittance of expensive energy that the government will allow them, and deliberately lower the US standard of living, are suffering from mental illness or defect.
Jim D | November 25, 2015 at 2:40 am |
MF, gases like O2 and N2 can only absorb emit at microwave frequencies due to rotation bands. Clearly you don’t know what those are, and are not interested in learning either. Go somewhere and find out. This area of physics is interesting stuff, and relevant too.
The above statement does not appear to be correct.
However if you want to continue your claim please post the blackbody spectra of N2 at 300 K or 255K.
“Blackbody radiation, ideal gas law, this isn’t rocket science.” – PA
You are only describing thermal radiation. The GHE is based on specific well mixed atmospheric gases, like CO2, that absorb specific IR spectral lines that make up part of the thermal radiation spectral gradiant. See HITRAN. This is observable.
PA,
Expecting a Warmist to answer a simple scientific question is an ask too far, in my experience.
They really believe the nonsense they sprout. Michael Mann probably believes that he is a Nobel Laureate. Steven Mosher probably believes he can influence the present, by adjusting the past. He threatens to create warming, if you point out the foolishness of some of his data manipulation.
People like John Carpenter seem to mindlessly parrot the sciencey words they picked up somewhere. Basic understanding is demonstrably lacking, but this doesn’t stop their thuggish attempts at browbeating.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, if singularly pointless.
Cheers.
John Carpenter | November 25, 2015 at 8:27 am |
“Blackbody radiation, ideal gas law, this isn’t rocket science.” – PA
You are only describing thermal radiation. The GHE is based on specific well mixed atmospheric gases, like CO2, that absorb specific IR spectral lines that make up part of the thermal radiation spectral gradiant. See HITRAN. This is observable.
And your point?
You do realize that the oceans lose 2/3rds of their energy by latent and sensible heat loss and only lose about 1/3 of their energy by radiation (stupid heat loss).
“People like John Carpenter seem to mindlessly parrot the sciencey words they picked up somewhere.” – Mike Flynn
I picked it up during 4 years of graduate school using infrared spectroscopy as a tool to study and characterize transient molecular species. I published 10 peer reviewed articles and earned a PhD in physical chemistry in the process of learning those sciency words. Just so you know.
How about you Flynn, maybe you bought a box of cracker jacks and got a prize?
“And your point?”
That CO2 absorbs thermal radiation. It is observable through HITRAN. That it is consistent with the GHE. That arguing there is no such thing as CO2 absorbing thermal radiation at specific spectral lines, as Flynn does, is demonstrably wrong.
There are plenty of ways to argue about the magnitude of this effect on warming the planet. IMO, arguing that the GHE is fiction is one of the least effective ways. Flynn makes no attempt to understand the science involved. He is smarter than everyone already. He should listen to Mosher. Comment less, read more.
John Carpenter | November 25, 2015 at 9:25 am |
“And your point?”
That CO2 absorbs thermal radiation. It is observable through HITRAN. That it is consistent with the GHE. That arguing there is no such thing as CO2 absorbing thermal radiation at specific spectral lines, as Flynn does, is demonstrably wrong
Thanks for that.
The discussion was getting pretty obtuse and I wasn’t sure what the point was.
The measured effect is around 2/3rds of the IPCC direct forcing (1°C per 2x CO2). That is more than half… If you use the TSR it is about 1/3 of the IPCC forcing. We’ll be generous and use the IPCC direct forcing.
You win on points.
bobdroege: In order for him to support that position, he indeed has to show that CO2 is not active in the IR, as well as showing that we are not responsible for the increase in CO2.
matthewrmarler: No. It is sufficient to show either that the harmful effects of increased CO2 are exaggerated, or that the net effects of increased CO2 are beneficial. There is evidence for both.
bobdroege: I’ll go with Richard Tol, version 1.1 from a conversation with Roger Harrabin
You wrote what you claimed was necessary, I countered with an assertion about what was sufficient, and you followed with a long quote addressing neither necessary nor sufficient conditions. How does that long quote relate to your assertion about what was necessary or my claim about what was sufficient to be shown?
bobdroege | November 24, 2015 at 12:15 pm |
“No, Oldfossil, you don’t get it either.
I was indeed responding to his position that CAGW looks like a non-starter.”
That’s because CAGW is very definitely a non-starter, of course.
Much to the surprise and constant amazement of skeptics, like PA and MF, as this comes up every few months here, O2 and N2 do not have absorption and emission at the thermal wavelengths. E.g., note the distinct lack of N2 and O2 here, only O3, CO2 and H2O. This is standard physics, easily found in a Google search. O2 and N2 are transparent to IR.
http://www.xylenepower.com/Mars_EarthM.gif
Jim D
“Much to the surprise and constant amazement of skeptics, like PA and MF, as this comes up every few months here, O2 and N2 do not have absorption and emission at the thermal wavelengths. E.g., note the distinct lack of N2 and O2 here, only O3, CO2 and H2O. This is standard physics, easily found in a Google search. O2 and N2 are transparent to IR.”
So what ?
CAGW is a fabrication. The world was warmer, much warmer 3 separate times during the past 5000 years. Why should I even care to engage in knowing the the different thermal wavelengths as it relates to CAGW ?
OK, but this is just the physics part that I am helping the skeptics with. If they can’t even get the basic physics right, they are nonstarters in the science debate, don’t you think?
IMO, ANY debate about the scientific factors other than temperature over the past 5000 years is a waste of time concerning the debate. Ice cores say it was hotter, then got colder, then got hotter blah blah AND none of that had to do with GHG or man, unless you want to count cow farts and blacksmiths.
If you want to impart some knowledge about the behavior of gases that’s one thing. I’m sure you are a good teacher, are respectful and honor the interest of another. If you seriously think talking about the behavior of gases has anything to do with the debate concerning CAGW then you didn’t understand the ice core data.
I don’t know most things, but I have become succinctly aware that almost all this debate about the science should not be happening. It’s part of the con, the ruse, the sham. It’s a sort of self validation that if a believer can engage you in the finer aspects of scientific variables that it creates validity that any of it matters to the debate. It doesn’t. Never did.
The people who think like you mostly inhabit sites like WUWT, but you won’t see them talking at real science conferences.
Thanks Jim
I’ll be the one with the blinking nametag, T Rex tie and cowboy boots.
Your intellectual arrogance is showing. The arrogance doesn’t refute the most basic of historical ice core facts concerning the CAGW hypothesis. Skipping over the most basic of incongruities and steering the debate towards increasingly irrelevant topics is the skill of a conman.
The arrogance does more. It diminishes the value of the field and associates it with poor scientific rigor. Quite possibly it will create long term damage to the credibility and decades old love affair that people have with scientists in general.
It’s very likely that it will be seen as a Dark Age in science. An age when self promotion merged with a manipulated message.
Yet, I wish you well. I wish that you honor the intellect that is yours. See it for both the gift and the responsibility that it is in your life.
The scientific method will survive, but the people that practice it will be very different than the ones they pervade the current CAGW debate.
Your type are going the way of the dinosaurs. The first degree of warming wasn’t enough, so maybe the second will be the final nail.
Jim
Ah yes, if you can’t cope with the facts of the ice cores demonize the messenger. If the first try at an appeal to fear didn’t work, double down. Better yet, join on unaccountable organization that tries to remove incompatible facts from history.
On second thought, don’t. On second thought regain your basic scientific method skills of skepticism. Jim, try to remember grander days when you excelled among your peers. When your intellect allowed you to observe the facts before others. When your skills at recognizing facts led you to see things as they really were with the minimum of bias.
If you are a scientist, you stand on the shoulders of giants. Those giants excelled under the freedom to challenge the pervading thought. Honor them.
“Skeptics” show the most lack of skepticism, because they put some crazy ideas out that have clearly not gone through any rigorous testing, and none of the other “skeptics” call them out on it, so it is left to the mainstream folks to play the bad guy and put the ideas to rest. One example was on this posting with undersea volcanoes. Self-styled “skeptics” lap it up with no doubt that it is true, and then blame people for even doubting it, or, heaven forbid, injecting real numbers into the evaluation.
Jim
Your attempting a technique called distraction. Don’t belittle yourself.
Intellectual dishonesty will make your old before your time. You’ll grow unhappy with the man in the mirror.
Start with the ice core facts of the past 5000 years.
Breath. Relax. See them for what they are.
You have been sucked into a ruse and it is beneath you.
Have a happy thanksgiving if you are American and honor the freedom of thought many have given their life to provide you.
Help me out here. What ice core facts do you need to know about the past 5000 years? I can’t predict your question, or see which aspect you are having trouble with. You seem to be asking something about the Holocene period.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Jim
First you apply a good dose of intellectual arrogance.
Then you try to drag the reader into distractions that are irrelevant.
Now you are faking ignorance in order to engage in a childish hide and go seek.
If you are a scientist, you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you are just here to antagonize readers and amuse yourself, it’s sad.
I hear the Pope is calling for blind following. You may find a home there.
Have a peaceful and joyous holiday season and please don’t attempt to engage me in further conversation.
Thanks
I was just trying to get clarification on your extremely unclear question on ice cores, and you go into a tirade. Have a nice holiday.
Jim D | November 25, 2015 at 2:48 pm |
Much to the surprise and constant amazement of skeptics, like PA and MF, as this comes up every few months here, O2 and N2 do not have absorption and emission at the thermal wavelengths.
I know a somewhat more about Wien/Planck radiation than you do and I have had to select IR sensors for various applications.
The question has a lot more complexity.
https://i.imgur.com/CwlyOtt.jpg
At the TOA the atmosphere is radiating at 255K or about or 239 Watt per meter and the upper layers are said to be transparent. However the “255” layer is a legal fiction. There is about 40 watts of surface emission, 30 watts of cloud emission, 23 watts of surface reflected energy.and about 77 watts of cloud reflected energy or 170 w/m2 that passes up through the atmosphere like grass through a goose..
All these other energies just pass through the atmosphere. There isn’t any water vapor to speak of and only a smidgen of CO2 when the energy of 169 W/m2 emitted by N2 and O2 escapes into space.
That analysis misses by about 4 watts here or there but is basically accurate..Given that there are CO2 holes in the outgoing emission spectrum, the emitted energy at the real effective TOA by and large isn’t coming from CO2.
Have it your way if you want. I’m a non-scientist so I guess you figure I don’t know anything.
PA, then you should know that gases are not black bodies. Far from it. They emit in limited bands as you can see from the diagram I posted or online radiative transfer codes like Modtran. And the gases that do emit are only the trace gases with three or more atoms in their molecule because you need vibration bands for emission in the thermal wavelengths. This is why you see no emission lines of N2 or O2 in the radiation emitted to space, or from the atmosphere down to the surface. Wherever you are getting your version of physics from, you need to go and tell them they got it wrong. See a textbook or radiative transfer codes like Modtran if you don’t trust Google or Wikipedia. This really is basic physics understood by the undergrads.
Jim D | November 25, 2015 at 5:09 pm |
PA, then you should know that gases are not black bodies.
Well, that’s fine but.
You have to provide the emission curve of N2 at some temperature – say 300 K to make your point. The sun’s surface is hydrogen and it does have a basically black body spectrum. CO2 and water vapor are lousy black bodies to the extent they don’t follow the 4 power emission curve.
If your claim about N2 and O2 was true a sample of N2 at 300K wouldn’t cool. The gases do have excited emission spectra but at 300K Nitrogen isn’t excited or even mildly interested.
To prove your point you need the emission spectra of N2 at 300 K which should be centered around roughly 16500 nm
This is why you see no emission lines of N2 or O2 in the radiation emitted to space, or from the atmosphere down to the surface.
True. Mono- and Di- atomic molecules lack the angles and degrees of freedom that Tri- and higher order molecules have to emit in the IR bands.
Of course, O2 does emit to space, just not in the IR.
The micro-wave emissions of O2 are what we get the MSU series from.
PA,
By now, you will have realised that some people refuse to believe that intermixed gases in a dark enclosure at 20 C are actually at the same temperature.
They also refuse to believe that if you warm or cool the enclosure, the gases contained within eventually reach thermal equilibrium with the enclosure, and hence with each other.
Oh no, they cry, unexcited gases can only absorb and emit particular frequencies! I’m happy enough to believe reality. First class minds such as Newton, Tyndall, Einstein, Feynman, and others provide some insight as to the reasons why Nature operates the way it does.
On the other hand, Warmists have Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, and Trenberth, ably supported by the likes of the inimitable Lewandosky.
In other words, not much at all. Their main distinguishing character seems to be a distinct lack of distinction. Oh well.
Cheers.
PA wrote: “If your claim about N2 and O2 was true a sample of N2 at 300K wouldn’t cool.”
Such a diatomic gas could cool conductively through molecular collisions on the walls of the transparent container. Apart from that, it would emit photons at a very low rate in the microwave bands that belong to this gas when rare inter-molecular collision would be energetic enough to provide the requisite (rotational) energy for the molecule to be able to interact with the EM field. The gas would indeed cool very slowly, just because the molecules don’t have any energy state, and hence not any energy band either, allowing the molecules to either emit or absorb IR photons.
Pure gases don’t have radiation curves, only discrete bands. The Planck curve at a temperature just is an envelope for all the discrete bands of a gas at that temperature. If there is no band at all in some part of the spectrum (such as the IR spectrum for N2 or O2) then the shape of the envelope is irrelevant for absorption or emission in that part of the spectrum. There just isn’t any.
To all the “air doesn’t do nothing without water vapor and CO2” people.
I took a look at it. I understand your point. It wasn’t lost on me.
Thanks for your persistence.
However. like I said at one point… things tend to be a little more complicated than you expect.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-petty-fig-8-1.jpg
No matter where you look, the bulk atmosphere has a more complex behavior than a couple of slices of emission. There are atmospheric emission curves and they are pretty ugly. In theory the “air needs a heat catcher” viewpoint should be correct. However it appears we don’t have a theoretical atmosphere. SH.
The spectrum is a masked black body behavior. We’ll call Nauru brown body radiation and Alaska blue body radiation.
Your serve.
Bob,
You have a point on the name calling. You also have a point about it being about arithmetic. Both after that you have nothing but muck.
I can (and do) agree with you that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere and that it is active in the infrared spectrum. However no one had the technical chops to prove there is a C element in CAGW.
If one in fact does do the arithmetic, they will know that SLR to the end of the century is in the range of 8 inches. They will see that the US and Europe could go to zero emissions tomorrow and it would have no effect on temperature by the end of the century.
timg56 | November 25, 2015 at 8:27 pm |
Bob,
…
If one in fact does do the arithmetic, they will know that SLR to the end of the century is in the range of 8 inches. They will see that the US and Europe could go to zero emissions tomorrow and it would have no effect on temperature by the end of the century.
I tend to disagree.
I expect the sea level rise to stop or slow around 2050.
We are running out of groundwater and the Chinese will have stopped emitting soot by then.
By then we should have enough cheap nuclear power and power from obsolete renewable energy installations (made unnecessary by installation of real power sources) that we can desalinate water and pump it inland.
The 0.2°C rise from CO2 isn’t going to do jack.
I expect the sea level rise from now to 2100 to be 4 inches or less
Oh and it is easy to convert the CU Sea Level Research Group satellite sea level to real sea level rise.
Take the CU figure. Subtract 0.3, multiply by 2/3rds. Presto – real GMSL.
PA, yes, the black-body curve serves as an envelope, but a given gas emits only on its own lines, so for CO2 that is a small range, for H2O rather wider. It is a Planck curve that is mostly just lines of emission, niot filled in like a true black body. O2 and N2 have no lines in the thermal IR range and would basically flatline at zero, and therefore not be interesting to see.
Jim D | November 25, 2015 at 9:28 pm |
PA, yes, the black-body curve serves as an envelope, but a given gas emits only on its own lines, so for CO2 that is a small range, for H2O rather wider. It is a Planck curve that is mostly just lines of emission, niot filled in like a true black body. O2 and N2 have no lines in the thermal IR range and would basically flatline at zero, and therefore not be interesting to see.
Well, it is emitting 169 W/m2 so it can’t be sparse.
What we have here is the collision of the scientist and engineer viewpoints.
Scientist comes up to engineer, “Did you see that atmospheric emission wave form it is just lines of emission …(more science speak).
Engineer holds up wattmeter, “I measured the emission. It is 169 W/m2, the energy budget is closed, the Earth isn’t warming, we are good”.
Scientist: “but… (more science speak)”
Engineer:looks at the scientist like he was a human resources person announcing sensitivity training or a manager demanding yet another staff meeting on a project over budget and behind schedule. The engineer holds up the wattmeter, points to it: “169 W/m2., Energy budget closed. Go away, I’m working”.
My take on this conversation is as follows.
Engineer: all gases behave like black bodies and emit copious amount of IR.
Scientist: No, there is a difference between gases, and only IR-active ones do all the emitting, and even then not as a black body
Engineer: No, N2 and O2 also emit
Scientist: No they don’t and here’s he spectra to show it.
Engineer: OK, I agree with the scientists. All the emissions is from the GHGs.
Scientist: That’s what we said in the first place.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 12:19 am |
My take on this conversation is as follows.
Engineer: all gases behave like black bodies and emit copious amount of IR.
Scientist: No, there is a difference between gases, and only IR-active ones do all the emitting, and even then not as a black body
Engineer: No, N2 and O2 also emit
Scientist: No they don’t and here’s he spectra to show it.
Engineer: OK, I agree with the scientists. All the emissions is from the GHGs.
Scientist: That’s what we said in the first place.
“Sigh”, Nice try JD, that isn’t quite it.
The energy transfer law from a body to a larger body (a sink/source) is:
Q = εAσ(T**4-Te**4)
The black body law really anticipates a point source with zero self absorption. Gases are pretty bad on that point. An emissivity parameter is used because life is less than perfect. The Planck version of the Wien-Planck law is derived from entropy considerations (first principles) so it is “The Law”. There is an envelope to the emission.
A grey body is one that more or less uniformly radiating at a lower emissivity.
N2 and O2 aren’t black or even grey bodies, JD wins that discussion on points.
However the emission curves are very dirty and even minor effects in the IR spectrum are significant given the 2500:1 ratio of other gases to CO2. IE separating the effects of O2, N2, water vapor, CO2 and the bulk effects of a mixed atmosphere will be challenging. And to this point no one has produced the N2 or O2 emission curves for 300K (Nauru).
The effective net radiation from the atmosphere itself into space is about 169 W/m2
169 W/m2 is equivalent to a temperature of about 234K.
At 5100 meters or 255K, the emission is about 240 W/m2
At 8300 meters or 234.2K the emission is about 170.6 W/m2.
At 11000 meters or 216.6 K the emission is 123.4 W/m2
So you can view the atmosphere as a really dirty radiator (badly behaved) or a grey body from much lower in the atmosphere, or that the effective emission height is just under 8300 meters.
Jim D my response to your “My take on this conversation is as follows.”
Ended up at the top of the thread.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/24/environmentalism-versus-science/#comment-746333
The simplicity is overstated because environmentalism is based on specific scientific claims, hence the scientific debate. On a technical note, Silent Spring was about pesticides, not industrial pollution.
Brought about the DDT ban, to keep bird egg shells from getting thinner, proven wrong, killed millions.
Also, and ironically, she was calling for the use of biological pest controls, but few actually read the book. What a mess that might have been. But in any case environmentalism did not begin with Silent Spring. There were a bunch of books on air pollution and such in the 1950s.
All signs of someone mired in an ideological anti-envorinmentalism.
Judith has a touch of it too.
Yeah, but the Bald Eagle has recovered and is no longer listed as an endangered species.
Yeah, it’s not DDT, it’s DDE, which is a metabolite of DDT that causes the egg shell thinning that almost eliminated the Bald Eagle.
All signs of someone mired in an ideological anti-envorinmentalism.
Current “environmentalists” are arrogant, narcissistic, self-absorbed, dishonest NIMBYs. Even Patrick Moore condemns the current activists.
What is wrong with being anti-environmentalist?
Bob, I thought it was the falcon with the purported thin shell problem. In the eagle’s case the reforestation of the eastern US has helped a lot. Also possibly the ESA. I doubt banning DDT has had much to do with it. Plus I doubt they were ever endangered, as I have always seen a lot of them.
David,
In the US the Bald Eagle population went from 300,000 to 500,000 down to less than 1000 and now has recovered to about 100,000.
The Peregrine Falcon was also affected, becoming locally extinct in some areas of the US. But have recovered somewhat, but more extensive measures were required for them, such as reintroduction of captive birds.
Most sources I can find list the ESA and DDT ban in the US as the causes of the recovery of both the Bald Eagle and Falcon, not the increase in forest area of the eastern US.
And by the way, DDT is not banned, just agricultural use is restricted, you can still use it for indoor pest control in Africa and other countries.
Eagles also do better when people don’t shoot them. Also works with polar bears.
bobdroege | November 24, 2015 at 5:08 pm |
“David,
In the US the Bald Eagle population went from 300,000 to 500,000 down to less than 1000 and now has recovered to about 100,000.”
And you Warmies are Hell-bent on reversing that trend with your love of bird-mincing wind turbines./
Congratulations.
Before I was born, the Dakotas had thousands of Bald eagle pairs. When I grew up, there was not a single pair statewide. They had completely disappeared. Now they back, the population is growing, and the state is full of windmill farms.
Someone, Michael, ‘s mired
in the Slough of Despond_
swamped by doomsday
ideological_environmental
dogma_ it’s happened before.
Excellent except for the unfortunate choice of words, “random fluctuations” at the end. All actions have causes and this formulation implies that the temperature record lacks them.
Unfortunately Reid is an CO2-effect denialist, and attributes everything to underwater volcanoes. No wonder he keeps getting rejected.
Here are some other articles written by (physicist) John Reid
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense/
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/10/physicist-looks-pause/
These are interesting essays
Convection, not radiation, he says. Is that even possible?
‘A scientific theory is not tested merely by looking for
confirmations but by conscientiously trying to “break”
the theory, by trying to disprove it. The AGW theory is
encapsulated in the IPCC assessment reports. The
models discussed in these reports have not been tested
in this way.
These reports include sections on “Verification and
Validation” but none on testing. “Verification” means that
only data which support the theory are examined and
data which do not support it are ignored. Indeed the
authors of this section in the IPCC Third Assessment
Report specifically dismiss the need for rigorous testing
when they state: “our evaluation process is not as clear
cut as a simple search for ‘falsification’” (Section 8.2.2
on page 474). Effectively what they are saying is: proper
scientific testing is too hard and we are not going to
bother doing it.’
“A fine science with no testing,
a fine romance, my friend, this is,”
tra-lah.
Convection, not radiation, he says. Is that even possible?
Within the troposphere? Absolutely.
To space? No.
But convection does move energy within the troposphere and also changes lapse rates. And lapse rate changes, I’m coming to appreciate, can significantly change emission to space.
I wouldn’t seem likely that such an effect would reverse constituent based RF – I still expect warming, but the difference between a troposphere with more warming aloft and less warming aloft is about 4W/m^2.
But, stability considerations aside, I would think uniform warming through out the troposphere would be most likely.
Of course, that’s at odds with the missing ‘Hot Spot’. And at odds with lesser warming aloft as indicated by sondes and MSU.
Here are some ;ogical gems from the physicist
“Why then do a majority of scientists support the theory? I believe it is largely a matter of loyalty. ”
Tell that to Tyndall.
“First there is the argument, commonly used by Al Gore and others, that carbon dioxide forms a layer like a blanket or greenhouse window pane high in the atmosphere which traps long-wave infra-red radiation, thus making the surface of the earth warmer. This is misleading. Certainly carbon dioxide is an infra-red absorber but, like most infra-red absorbing gases, its absorption rate depends on concentration and pressure and is at a maximum at the ground. The atmosphere is a gas, not a solid, and bits of it move up and down, carrying heat as they move. As a meteorological balloon climbs higher in the atmosphere, the measured temperature falls off with increasing height. This phenomenon, referred to as the lapse rate, has been known and described for more than a century. The lapse rate is determined by the thermodynamic properties of the gases that make up the atmosphere and has little to do with radiation. The convection term completely dominates the radiation term in the relevant equation.”
he doesnt even get the basics.
“Water vapour positive feedback is only an assumption; but, importantly for the modellers, it is an assumption which makes the models work. There is little experimental evidence that it is true, and radiometer data collected by NASA scientist Roy Spencer and others indicate that it is not true.”
oy vey.
SM are you citing Roy Spencer to promote your argument?
Mosh
Mosh
John Reid s an atmospheric physicist. Here is a job description
http://www.physicstoday.org/jobs/profiles/atmospheric-science-jobs
Why would he be totally ignorant of the things of which you write in your oy vey post?
Tonyb
Here are some ;ogical gems from the physicist
…………………………………………………….
Tell that to Tyndall.
……………………………………………………….
he doesnt even get the basics.
……………………………………………………….
oy vey.
Well done, Steven.
curryja,
You will no doubt have read –
“Simple physics tells us that, even in the complete absence of greenhouse gases, the planet cannot get any colder than the Ice Age temperature of -18 C because, at that temperature, the earth’s surface radiates the same amount of heat that it receives from the sun. This is the Stefan-Boltzman Law and it accounts for the lower boundary.”
Absolutely correct, if applied to a body with no internal heat source. The Earth is not such a body. Heat flux measurements show the Earth emits as a black body of between 30 and 40 K (a bit of variation between researchers). The amount of energy required to heat a body to 255 K from, say, 30 K, is less than from 0 K.
Even though the Earth is still cooling, it has not reached 255 K yet. The observed temperature and the calculated temperature based on physics supported by observation seem reasonably close.
If more precise observations of the Earth’s heat loss as it cools result in a base temperature which agrees with observed average temperature of the surface (if such a thing can be measured) including the energy input from the Sun, is there any further need to explain something that no longer exists? That is, physics accounts for the present surface temperature, without any extra warming required.
I believe I’m correct.
Cheers.
Steven Mosher,
You wrote –
“Tell that to Tyndall.” A little difficult, as Tyndall is dead. Further, you haven’t read Tyndall’s works in their entirety. You may not be aware that Tyndall reconsidered his speculations on the nature of the atmosphere as a blanket (his words), in later works.
You might care to buzz off, read Tyndall, get back to me, and quote Tyndall’s experimental results which support your Warmist position.
He hasn’t any. But don’t believe me, read him yourself, and shed bitter tears!
Cheers.
We don’t know that “underwater volcanoes” aren’t the primary mover of decadal- and longer-scale fluctuations. You find it unlikely because you’ve bought into the “CO2 as control knob” myth. (Personally I have my own reasons to consider it unlikely, along with the sun and CO2.)
But that doesn’t mean it should be blocked from publication. Just because an idea doesn’t fit the existing paradigm doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
And for that matter, even if it’s wrong, publication of his ideas might well lead to valuable discoveries as proponents of other paradigms undertake to demonstrate that. The focus on “consensus” is totally anti-science.
We don’t know that it’s not unicorns.
Here is what we can know.
It’s not random fluctuations.
Actually, there’s no way you can know that.
But anyway, that’s not what it’s about. External “forcings” may or may not actually be “stochastic”, but they certainly can be effectively random relative to the important drivers.
And one thing we do know is that most complex non-linear systems contain internal unforced variation on time-scales reaching up to at least an order of magnitude more than their longest-scale “memory”. Given that between geology and ecosystem change, the long-scale “memory” of the Earth system is longer than that of the ice-ages, the default assumption
isshould be that there will be effectively random changes on time-scales reaching beyond ice-age scales.Of course, this doesn’t rule out changes due to CO2. It just demonstrates that CO2 isn’t needed to explain any of the recent temperature behavior.
Steven Mosher says: “Here is what we can know. It’s not random fluctuations”
An interesting statement, given the inability of models to perform on any type of medium to long term time frame.
Also doesn’t address whether the actual causes are knowable *or* understood well now and in the near future.
If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, one corollary is any insufficiently accurate model is indistinguishable from divination.
We don’t know that it’s not unicorns.
Here is what we can know.
It’s not random fluctuations.
Hubris.
Sounds like you ‘know’ what the shortwave balance ( albedo ) of earth is a and has been. No one does.
You also sound as if you ‘know’ what random fluctuations are, when even the IPCC GCMs ‘know’ that fluctuations of +/- 0.5C are possible anytime:
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/tas_ipcc_control1.png
Mosh
No. But wouldn’t it be dull if everyone did? Anyway, jim started it…
tonyb
We don’t know that it’s not unicorns.
Here is what we can know.
It’s not random fluctuations.
On the other side of this, we do know that RF from constituent change ( more CO2 ) is real.
And it’s worth thinking about what things it would take to prevent that from accumulating heat in the troposphere. I can think of some things which likely will occur, but none of them are large enough to reverse warming. ( Stratosphere-Troposphere exchange, cooling of the top 100mb or so of the troposphere due to increased CO2 ).
Now, we do know that random fluctuation can induce a warming rate comparable to what we’ve observed since 1979, because the warming rate from 1910-1945 is about the same as the warming rate from 1979 through the present!
The absolute global temperatures are probably significantly higher, but the warming rate is about the same.
Steven Mosher: We don’t know that it’s not unicorns.
Are you referring here to the subatomic particle class of unicorns that you wrote about once? Or are you back in the class of things that you know for a fact can’t be there? Is this another ontological argument?
Whatever. It is known that underwater volcanoes exist and are undercounted.
It would be interesting if their frequency of eruption displayed a 950 year periodicity. I doubt it, but there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies, Steven.
SM are you citing Roy Spencer to promote your argument?
AK,
Here are a few reasons (not necessarily in order) that I’m prepared to consider that variations in crustal heat entering the oceans may have effects on the weather, and hence climate –
1. Nobody has the faintest idea of how much heat is emitted into the oceans from the crust/water interface. The crust is thinnest under the abyssal depths, making the red hot aesthenosphere closer to the water. Heat travels from hotter to cooler. It can only go into the oceans, not back towards the hotter mantle.
2. There are an unknown number of thermal vents and underwater volcanoes pouring in heat at far greater intensities than the cooler crust normally does.
3. Water when heated expands, and becomes less dense. Less dense water rises, taking the heat energy it contains towards the surface. Convection, in other words. The final outcome is that heat from the mantle makes its way to space. The Earth has lost energy, and cools as a result.
4. The oceans were once boiling. This appears to be due to heat from the Earth, rather than heat from the Sun.
5. Heat emitted from the surface of the oceans, just like heat emitted from the rest of the surface, interacts with the atmosphere, imparting various motions to it.
And so on. You’ve probably got some idea by now as to why I would not discount a role for crustal heat through ocean basins playing a significant role in the behaviour of the atmosphere. Not fanatical about it though.
If the whole system is chaotic, useful long term predictions may not be possible.
Cheers.
AK
very simply. if it were a random fluctuation, nothing could prevent it from
being below absolute zero.
A series that was purely a random fluctuation could end up at -100 K
but the physical temperature of the earth could not.
while a portion of the record may LOOK like a random fluctuation we know that the process driving temperature is not a random fluctuation.
Steven Mosher: very simply. if it were a random fluctuation, nothing could prevent it from
being below absolute zero.
A series that was purely a random fluctuation could end up at -100 K
but the physical temperature of the earth could not.
That is incorrect. You are imposing an additional assumption besides randomness.
Steven Mosher,
You’re indulging in bizarre flights of fancy, I suspect. Randomness can be bounded, of course. Individual random probabilities cannot exceed certainty, or 1.0. As you point out, random temperatures cannot fall below 0 K. Random numbers can be generated bounded between 0 and 1, if you wish.
And so on. Your clue still appears to be absent. It might be hiding with the missing heat, but I’m beginning to wonder whether you ever really had one.
Cheers.
Epistemology is obviously not Mosher’s strong suit. Has anyone any inkling of what his strong suit might actually be? I suspect it’s Anime but even that might be granting more credit than he’s due.
It’s not just John Reid that thinks underwater volcanoes influence currents.
Kamis here thinks they are the cause of El Ninos.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/el-ninos-generated-by-geological-heat-flow-not-global-warming.html
Steven Mosher | November 24, 2015 at 10:07 am |
“We don’t know that it’s not unicorns.
Here is what we can know.
It’s not random fluctuations.”
That’s your opinion as a climate “scientist” is it?
Yeah, right.
Jimd
Shame on you Jim. Here is an article from Reid about underwater volcanos.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/ocean-vents-faulty-models/
Here is some of his impressive cv;
“I was trained as a physicist and was granted a PhD for my postgraduate work in upper atmosphere physics. In the early 1980s I joined the CSIRO’s Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) for a time. Much of the theoretical side of oceanography entails fluid dynamics which, because of its heavy mathematical load, is regarded as a sub-discipline of applied mathematics rather than of physics. Because of this, in my view, many practitioners of oceanography and climatology have a cavalier disregard for experimental testing and an unjustified faith in the validity of large-scale computer models.
Later in my career I was involved in running and refining numerical fluid dynamical models, so I gained some insight into how this modelling is done and how rigorously such models need to be tested. Naval architects and aerodynamical engineers do such testing in wave tanks and wind tunnels.”
Here is his response to criticism of him over at Sou’s
‘For the record, I am not proposing that volcanoes “play a big role warming”. They may indeed warm the deep ocean, but the important thing is that the occurrence of volcanism under the ocean adds a major random forcing to ocean circulation, one that is not recognised by oceanographers nor included in the GCMs.’
I had never heard of him before your knee jerk reaction caused me to find out more. Underwater volcanos are as yet a pretty unknown topic.. I was told by a volcanologist at a Cambridge University dinner a few years ago that there were probably ten thousand times more underwater volcanos (or vents/fissures) than are commonly realised. I have no idea of their effect or otherwise on climate and neither, I suspect, do you.
Tonyb
Nope, it’s about as crazy as it gets as a theory.
Its an unknown, because people haven’t looked at in any detail
JImD
Your partisanslip is showing. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that violent underwater activity, concentrated along certain ridges, would affect sub sea activity that impacts on say,, currents? Why is that impossible?
tonyb
This is just a re-heated claim originating from the other Aussie larrikan – Ian Plimer. Plimer tried to claim that C02 from undersea volcanoes is much greater than ACO2.
Underlying all these volcanic assertions is the need for there to be a demostrable increase in undersea vulcanism to explain observed changes – the evidence for that is rather slim.
Blind (eyes squinched shut) denial at its best.
Remember the rule: Volcanism is for dismissing past climate, not for understanding present climate.
Pity. The single most likely global climate disaster (not a warming) is a big blow like Laki or Tambora. Pity that Decade Volcanoes are underfunded and the whole field is about as fashionable as a 1975 Trabant.
The land is warming twice as fast as the ocean, so explain that with underwater volcanoes. His largest known one is 6 GW, which sounds impressive, but is five orders of magnitude smaller than the daily global power of just the emitted part of CO2 currently. Presumably he is numerate. Do the numbers. Even the heat from burning and power generation is likely to be larger on a global basis.
They don’t know much, but they know enough to know that you don’t need to know. Doncha know.
Like I said: eyes squinched shut.
If you’d bothered to read the article TonyB linked, you’d realize how totally silly your comment sounds. If you actually understood the science, which you obviously don’t. Obvious to anybody who does, and bothers to read your comments.
But since you clearly don’t understand the science, you’re totally unqualified to open your yap about what is or isn’t “crazy”.
Michael
Of course the evidence is slim. That is the point. We need more research, not only on this but other possible sources. With the consensus so convinced they know it all, there is no motivation to look anywhere else.
Paleo-historical examples of large volcanic emissions resulting in major climate impacts have been confirmed (Siberian and Deccan Traps, for examples). Even a single volcanic event can alter the global climate (somewhat) for a few years.
So a hypothesis of underwater volcanic/fissures as CO2 sources or as drivers of ocean currents would seem plausible rather than beyond the pale.
I think vocalic eruptions, whine combined with additional ACO2, would just drive the GMST even higher.
Estimates of geothermal heat flow are small:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/q12.gif
But there’s no indication that volcanoes are understood or that the flow is regular versus long periods of inactivity followed by greater activity ( as we observe with terrestrial volcanoes ).
That doesn’t have anything to do with CO2 and emissions to space, but it is unknown.
erupt this
In his article he attributes 17 TW to undersea volcanoes, which is comparable with all the heat from anthropogenic burning and other heat releases. This works out to be 0.03 W/m2 averaged over the earth’s surface, while emitted CO2 forcing provides something near 2 W/m2 already, possibly rising towards 6 W/m2 by 2100. Remember, he is thinking of these just in terms of the heating effect, not even the CO2, and it is only because he has denied any CO2 effect that he thinks his source is significant. You may also look for WUWT supporting this idea with allowing a posting on it, and it doesn’t. They only mention volcanoes in the CO2/aerosol context. Even they have standards apparently.
climatereason,
It is hard to explain deep ocean currents without invoking the heat from the comparatively warm basins in which the oceans sit. Particularly currents that run at 180 degrees to each other at different depths. Oceanography abounds with such examples.
When the seas first formed eons ago, they were by definition boiling. Not due to heat from the Sun, but due to the fact that the crust had cooled enough for liquid water to exist.
Warmists seem to assume that the Earth was created at 0 K, and has warmed up since, due to heat from the Sun, and the magical heating or heat multiplying effects of CO2. This seems to deny fact. Until a body at say, 5500K cools to a steady state in accordance with its environment (whatever that may be), then its surface temperature must, by definition, be between its initial 5500 K, and whatever its final steady state temperature is – maybe 255 K for the Earth. At present, that appears to be around 288 K.
A bit wordy. Sorry.
Cheers.
@Jim D…
Eyes still tightly squinched shut:
Doubling down on silliness.
It’s hard to believe your reading comprehension is so abysmal. I’m familiar with Hanlon’s razor, but in this case I find it necessary to make an exception; this looks like deliberate deception.
Jim D | November 24, 2015 at 8:56 am |
“Nope, it’s about as crazy as it gets as a theory.”
LOL!
As if you would have the first idea!
Thank you Jim D for pointing out Reid’s interest. Just like Tony I had never heard of him before, but since I have wondered about that possible source of heat, this now gives me another place to seek more information.
Also, thank you for reinforcing the stereotype that many skeptics have of warmists, that they are so ensconced in inductive reasoning and so blind to other possibilities, they make it obvious to critical thinkers how incapable they are to do what competent scientists would do-always leave the door open to alternative hypotheses.
cerescokid
I find this airily waving away of the possible (and its no more than that )impact of volcanos on oceanic warmth or turbulence of some description to be baffling. You may remember the insistence with which Rgates argued the devastating impact of volcanos on our past climate. A meme taken up by Mann and Miller who believed they precipitated the LIA. My chart taken from my article here earlier this year illustrates climate evolution and volcanos.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/slide5.png
The (claimed) LIA precipitating single Volcano in 1258 is obviously off this graph. My point is that if one very large volcano can change the Earths atmospheric content to such a degree that it precipitates wholesale climate change, how are we to know if underwater volcanos-hitherto grossly underestimated- are not to have SOME impact on the oceanic content?
tonyb
Tony peddling his stuff again.
Can anyone stay on topic
And yimmy had sunk to a new low, only yesterday.
Mosher is now the on-topic cop. Choice.
Quick Jim, quick!! Call him a denier! He has the nerve to propose and research alternative explanations. What nerve! He needs to be ridiculed and called names and hopefully loose his job. Filthy denier scum he is.
Pathetic, Jim. But oh so common in your neck of the woods lately.
I remember so many scientists who have been shunned by their field. The doctor who said ulcers were caused by a bug not eating habits. He was nearly ejected from his profession derided and jeered for years. It’s happened in every profession but physics has an ignoble tradition in this where in the past many scientists ideas were rejected as poppycock. When some suggested Einsteins relativity theory could produce black holes every said the scientists who suggested this were wrong wrong wrong. They were denied jobs, ignored. Einstein himself wrote how impossible this was. One scientist said that certain substance he was analyzing had quasi-crystals. He was fired for suggesting this and shown books that proved crystals only exist in regular forms. He later got the nobel prize. I think physicists have become more open as a result of all the bizarre things they’ve discovered in nature. It is hard to believe with a science so young as climate science that the purveyors are so sure they have this or that right. With so little real data, so much unknown, so many big factors like the ocean and the sun and clouds all still 90% mysteries that climate scientists would try to opine that they have it down. I find any scientist saying that a little self-serving. With the rapid pace of progress exponential growth in knowledge and surprising discoveries made daily in every field we are practically lectured that there is a 95% chance of this or this is settled or proven. No, it isn’t. I’m sorry. It’s impossible this is all settled or even close. There is 0% probability that in 50 years we will look at climate science and say we had it right even in some very fundamental ways. That seems to me is much more likely to be true than we will have it right.
The only reason is obviously politicization and that for me is the biggest reason to doubt the “consensus.” Politicization of anything almost always happens at the expense of the truth. Possibly it is necessary for their to be untruth when there is high politicization because the whole point of the politicization is to discredit an alternate view which apparently if given the light of day would be more compelling than the political people are willing to accept. Thus where we find politics we are almost certainly going to find lies and deception. In this case possibly on both sides. We need to let the science work it out and get the politics out. It’s not helping.
You’re right. James Hansen has been subjected to wide ranging ridicule for his efforts in physics. A loner versus the mob. Some day he will be included with the ulcer guy.
Wizard hat, dunce cap, kkk head gear, all are pointy, why? You seem to know it all.
ou’re right. James Hansen has been subjected to wide ranging ridicule for his efforts in physics. A loner versus the mob. Some day he will be included with the ulcer guy.
Oh yeah, great to bring up Hansen in this topic – scientist who’s a complete ideologue!
Death Trains?
Half of all species go extinct?
Takes a quarter of millions $$$ from a political candidate, the eve of Iowa caucuses and complains the science is politicized?
When his models obviously fails, dreams up some other way that might mean catastrophe?
Great reminder that being a ‘scientist’ doesn’t preclude one from the blue eyed panic of hysterical ideology.
It works both ways. The number of human chromosomes was published in 1923 by Theophilus Painter. By inspection through the microscope he counted 24 pairs which would mean 48 chromosomes. His error was copied by others and it was not until 1956 that the true number, 46, was determined by Indonesia-born cytogeneticist Joe Hin Tjio.
Bretz was roundly ridiculed:
Flood hypothesis proposed[edit]
Geologist J Harlen Bretz first recognized evidence of the catastrophic floods, which he called the Spokane Floods, in the 1920s. He was researching the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington, the Columbia Gorge, and the Willamette Valley of Oregon. In the summer of 1922, and for the next seven years, Bretz conducted field research of the Columbia River Plateau. He had been interested in unusual erosion features in the area since 1910 after seeing a newly published topographic map of the Potholes Cataract. Bretz coined the term Channeled Scablands in 1923 to refer to the area near the Grand Coulee, where massive erosion had cut through basalt deposits. Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past.
Bretz’s view, which was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, ran against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz’s views were initially held in disregard. The Geological Society of Washington, D.C, invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a January 12, 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Another geologist at the meeting, J.T. Pardee, had worked with Bretz and had evidence of an ancient glacial lake that lent credence to Bretz’s theories. Bretz defended his theories, and this kicked off an acrimonious 40-year debate over the origin of the Scablands. Both Pardee and Bretz continued their research over the next 30 years, collecting and analyzing evidence that led them to identify Lake Missoula as the source of the Spokane Flood and creator of the Channeled Scablands.[7][8]
After Pardee studied the canyon of the Flathead River, he estimated that flood waters in excess of 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) would be required to roll the largest of the boulders moved by the flood. He estimated the water flow was nine cubic miles per hour, more than the combined flow of every river in the world.[9] Estimates place the flow at ten times the flow of all current rivers combined.[3]
The Missoula Floods have also been referred to as the Bretz Floods in honor of Bretz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
JCH | November 24, 2015 at 9:44 am |
“Some day he will be included with the ulcer guy.”
More likely Lysenko.
If he’s lucky.
SM are you citing Roy Spencer to promote your argument?
FYI here is my first letter :
Letters
The Mercury
Hobart
Dear Sir
My former colleagues, Doctors Hunter and Godfrey, seem anxious to promote the idea that climate change presents an immanent threat to civilization and that we should cease using fossil fuels ASAP. Your readers should be aware that in doing so they speak as environmental advocates not as scientists. Scientists, by definition, use the scientific method whereby theories which do not account for observations are rejected. Science is about facts.
In the present case, observed variations in global temperature may be fully accounted for as a random walk. The theory that there is an underlying rising trend in global temperature can be rejected with a high level of confidence; it is what is called a spurious regression. Scientists who continue to promote this theory do not understand statistics.
To some it may appear that global warming “must” be true because of observed variations of CO2 in the atmosphere. This too is a furphy. The rapid removal of radioactive carbon from the atmosphere following the 1960s atomic bomb tests demonstrates clearly that such variations are largely due to interchanges between the atmosphere and a very large oceanic reservoir and not to human activity.
The weight of opinion favours an alarmist view of climate change; the weight of evidence does not.
John Reid
Cygnet
+10, enlightening.
And thanks for the new vocabulary word.
Paris is a political conference. Whenever a political body meets to reach an international agreement, it is political. Whenever the benefits of an agreement are qualified (or the costs of inaction are qualified) by subjective descriptions such as “worse” or “better” or the like, a value judgment is implicated.
Each nation is self-interested. Each will try to get the best deal for itself. This is why a deal is doomed. Benefits to developed countries cannot be measured. But the costs can. This is a recipe for political standstill.
Add to that the calls for bold action, no way.
https://conflictresolutionpro.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/the-paris-conference-will-likely-fail-the-reason-is-simple-politics-wont-allow-it/
Each nation is self-interested.
No, the leaders of each nation is self-interested.
Our leaders are going to this meeting with an agenda that has been rejected by our elected congress, with a first priority that is last in public polls.
The leaders of the countries that hope to gain from the transfer of wealth will skim off the wealth and leave their people in poverty without affordable, abundant power.
The Pope is going to Africa to tell the people that he does not want them to have affordable, abundant, power from fossil fuels because he would rather save the planet from a fraction of a degree in temperature.
On the other hand, the leaders of countries that have already seized wealth n the basis of climate change control want to keep that money for themselves and not just let other nations have it.
Hence the politics. They can all agree about the science and they do. But they can’t agree what to do because it’s not about science.
Cheers.
Paris is a political conference.
Further, the IPCC is borne of the same political body, and founded by individuals who had a clear political agenda. The whole thing is political.
That doesn’t contradict the underlying principle of radiative forcing or global warming, but claims of catastrophe, or even net harm are highly suspect.
I concur. I am a believer in AGW theory, because the maths looks pretty clear.
On the other hand, I think there is too much that is not known, and that considering the general lack of worldwide catastrophes (despite the spin being placed on every weather event) that we actually have time for a deliberate approach.
Thus, if anything is going to get done, it will have to be a nibble. Bold action is not going to be agreeable.
Cheers
Absolutely. A culture based on the narrative of climate calamity dominates environmentalism and also burdens climate science with heavy bias mechanisms. Emotion and ideology are derailing reason in both science and policy, even the Law and civil exchange. One does not have to rely on just the opinions of those opposed to the climate consensus position to see this. Per my guest post about 4 back from this one, the standard frameworks via which culture is understood and detected, easily pick this up.
However, I disagree with one point above. Ideologies are not static, even though they are always promoted as such. In fact cultures and their ideological values evolve, albeit slowly, to maximize their footprint and to combat external challenges (from skeptics or competing cultures). This is via differential selection of a co-evolving meme set. This makes them harder to challenge, because while always maintaining a facade of the static, their narrative will subtly adapt (e.g. the de-emphasis of the prior main icon of the GST hockey stick, after significant challenge and the external slowing of GST rise for a period – ‘the pause’).
There are 2 things here.
1) Those that use politics and intend to use it to win regardless of underlying truth because of a political philosophy that makes them believe X or Y. In this many environmentalists are no different than religious people. That could be a compliment but it is not where I think science should be.
2) Those that actually believe they know this or that and have deluded themselves into thinking they have proved this or that. This is frequently associated with people who have an axe to grind for profit but it can be about any objective someone has. You can decieve yourself easily about what you know and don’t know. Still believe in science and be convinced you are simply right.
I don’t know how many on each side or in category 1 or 2. What I do know is that the people in category 1 may be more honest in that they aren’t deluding themselves. The fact is we don’t know a lot. It is almost impossible to make factual proven statements in this field. There is simply insufficient evidence and too much uncertainty in all the factors.
We generally know how to build things to resist earthquakes to a certain size. In the Loma Prieta earthquake lots of houses and structures fell but we actually knew almost all of these beforehand. The governor of Calfornia had before him the data on specifically which structures needed reinforcement and these were the ones that fell. The state had put off funding these retrofits for political purposes but they knew. We still make some mistakes and a 9.0 will cause a lot of damage but we are getting vastly better.
When it comes to GMO the geneticists will say they have studied this, they have proven to their satisfaction this is safe to do this but the facts are that genetic science is early. We just discovered 10 years ago that we were missing more than half the genetic code written in an entirely different language we have no idea about how to translate. We just discovered that there is a 5th nucleotide and even more recently a 6th. There is DNA we are finding all over the cell and other things that get copied during cell multiplication that contain information. We still have hardly any clue what the original 25,000 genes we discovered do and we have less information about the other genomes of other animals and plants we are expecting to implant this new genetic inventions into. We don’t understand the process of transfer of DNA from one plant to another or to other creatures. We don’t know how to stop 100% the movement of DNA we install in one plant from spreading to all kinds of the same species we are trying to prevent from getting the gene or other living things in the foodchain or competitive to the plants we intend to implant. If something goes wrong we have no way of extricating the gene from the plants or other things.
So, we say we know all about this climate science. We have virtually no data on the oceans and the time periods for which we have good data is infinitesimal compared to the horizons of possible cyclic behavior we observe. The amount of heat energy in the earth’s water is 1000 times the atmosphere which covers 70% of the surface of the earth and we know virtually nothing about the oceans internal dynamics let alone the weaknesses we have in atmospheric processes we have been observing for hundreds of years. We don’t understand what affects clouds or if clouds are a positive or negative temperature influence. It seems to depend on the type of cloud and situation. Yet the affect of clouds is enormous. We don’t understand variations in the sun and how that could impact the earth. However, there are clear correlations that can’t be statistical fluke between sun variations and earths temperature fluctuations.
The point is that while humanity has made great strides in understanding nature we are far from having a complete picture.
I believe 4 things mitigate my feeling about the urgency to mitigate CO2 production. 1) Mitigating in most cases would result in much more harm than not mitigating and there is no believable science that says disaster is afoot. The disaster scenarios are order of magnitude worse science than climate science itself. 2) I believe that technology will mitigate this at far less cost in the future than trying to mitigate now. 3) I don’t believe we will put enough co2 into the atmosphere to keep the exponential rise required to keep temperatures going up for much longer than 50 years at the outside. 4) There is actually a decent chance that CO2 has a net beneficial impact on the earth and people and all its animals and plants. The IPCC admits this for under 2C. I don’t believe we will ever get 2C therefore but in any case there are tangible benefits to higher CO2 and unclear negatives.
If we were about to undertake to push 300ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere and we were doing fine without doing so (i.e. GMO aren’t essential to keep improving plant productivity and creating enough food for humanity) then I would use the same argument I do for GMO. It’s not worth taking the chance until we understand more. However, cutting off CO2 would have devastating impact on most people of the earth far greater than the benefit of the temperature change or other catastrophic effects possible. Whereas with GMO the benefits are tiny compared to the possible reprecussions and our ability to mitigate those consequences. I would side on doing what we can and definitely having a long term plan and heavy investment in research on alternatives. I have personally slashed my energy costs by 75% in the last 2 years. Not bragging. It was in my interest to do so. I am saving $600/month. I suggest everyone do what they can and as the technology improves I believe we will solve this problem. Hence I’m not worried about it.
+100
Very well said.
This letter is spot on; I believe it’s at the heart of most AGW arguments, especially the globalism aspects. However I would argue differently about the genesis of the green movement. The green movement started much earlier than Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’, it just became truncated by historical events that closed our minds because of cultural trauma.
Read this paragraph and ask yourself if it doesn’t sound like it came straight out of todays environmental manifesto, the only tipoff otherwise is a couple of words:
“We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
Also:
“We understand completely the true symbiosis that embraces the entire animal kingdom, and which extends throughout the entire planet. However, as soon as the man of “progress” arrives on the scene, he announces his masterful presence by spreading death and the horror of death all around him.”
I’ve brought this topic up before and find myself cringing in doing so; but then I ask myself why? What sort of societal intimidation keeps people from looking at the darkest expressions of humanity that hides truths, that if looked at openly would provide clarity and warning signs. PC? This is probably one of the reasons history repeats itself.
Once science collaborates with ideological movements we have entered a slippery slope that can easily shift the ground out from under democracy. Ideology that collaborates with science can lead to all sorts of manifestations, societal perversions, but these perversions often only appear outlandish in hindsight when humans eventually come around to their senses to clearly see how the powerful effects and forces of monolithic group think overtake reasoning. Ideology can be like a drug that slowly leads to addiction, its effects become more corrupt and effective with scale. We have scale with AGW.
Ludwig Kluges manifesto:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Klages/Man_and_Earth.html
Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934, pp. 10-11. Lehmann was a professor of botany who characterized National Socialism as “politically applied biology.”
See Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971, Bloomington, 1992, especially part three, “The Völkisch Temptation.”
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/EcofascismGerman.
The point is not that there are disagreements over science or suitable conservation measures.
The point is that Green Blob has splattered its goo over our brains to the point that we think there is something odd about a climate which is behaving as it always has – and that includes a great deal of misbehaviour.
Nobody, till very recently, believed that the long observed and gradual sea level rise of the last couple of centuries was surprising. Everybody with a memory of the great storms of the 1950s and 1970s (the top four or five of the most intense measured) would have accepted the severity of more recent events as misfortune, not misdeed. El Nino conditions and the colossal and catastrophic monsoon failures of eg the 1790s and 1870s were known and accepted as part of living on this planet. Withering droughts of the past, which often coincided not with warming but with cooling (Bond Events, Ming Drought), were no secret, and till recently nobody would have had to stop and think of the political implications of discussing such matters. It was like talking about the cricket. It had all happened, and there was not the slightest reason to think any of it would not happen again.
Roll forward to 2015. Try talking about past climate and extremes now. It’s not like talking about the cricket. It’s like every word could be a “trigger word”, every opinion might nudge into someone’s “safe space”…and land you off-campus if you haven’t got tenure.
I don’t know who John Reid is, but he is right about the hijacking of intellects by distorting ideology. Those who think humans of very high intelligence and scholarship and largely free of religion can’t be swept collectively into mad and destructive belief systems…let me introduce you to the Twentieth Century!
Good points but one issue.
The letter raises the distinction of ideology and science.
These are not mutually exclusive.
Ideological groups can invoke science and scientists can be ( as human beings, most are? ) ideological.
I have a friend, who has a PhD in physics, that starts babbling the idiocy of the Syrian uprising being significantly a factor of CAGW induced drought, I realize, even with an education, he can fall for this nonsense and it’s due to his brain being consumed in ideology.
There are ideologues on all sides of an issue, of course, but less recognition of just how consumed the catastrophists are.
Ideology is an inability to admit a mistake.
What a fatuous letter – clear signs of the Galileo complex at work – a couple of journals rejected my paper, therefore it’s all about the ideolgy of others.
And “green iodeolgy”?? Geez Judith, why don’t you try turning the rhetorical volume down from 11?
“Why don’t you try turning the rhetorical volume down from 11?”
It´s still like whispering compared to the rhetorical yelling by United Nations.
You are excused.
As far as I can tell, your blinding ideology comes personal issues regarding need for acceptance rather than a larger group dynamic.
No journal ever rejected Michael’s paper challenging a prevalent wisdom.
Michael,
What is the Galileo complex? Is it where you believe you are right, and subsequent events prove you right, in spite of overwhelming opposition from people who knew not what they were talking about?
Sounds like a good complex to have! Or do you believe that fact should be denied, and madmen believed?
Cheers.
No mike, it’s every drunk leaning on a bar stool who thinks that he has an earth shattering idea, not accepted only because of the powerful dark forces aligned against them.
“it’s every drunk leaning on a bar stool.. ”
Explains a lot of where Michael gets his ideas from.
If you can’t attack the global warming science directly, try a back-door attack by claiming that it is driven by ideology. If that doesn’t work try branding it as a religion. Or claim statistical competency and call it a random walk. If that doesn’t do the trick, mention Racheal Carson and Silent Spring and how banning DDT killed millions. Then go on to underwater volcanism, and how everything we don’t know anything about could be caused by that, because we just don’t know, run for the hills it’s an unknown unknown and they didn’t use it in their models.
Just a small selection from the playbook.
Bobdroege, Why is it that it is mainly the leftist, CAGW true believers that advocate for limiting others free speech and whose websites routinely delete comments? Do you like that playbook?
So true. I don’t know how many times I’ve tried to post on pro-CAGW websites, maybe 10 times. In one or two cases they let me post some comment but after a few exchanges which they couldn’t respond to they gave up and deleted the whole thread. This has happened on multiple of those sites. That’s how they keep the troops in line. Don’t confuse them with any counter theories. Always look confident, spout some formulas to confuse people and act smart and confident. Deride those who challenge anything. If none of that works simply delete their comments before anyone notices.
I wonder what the readership on those sites is. I can’t imagine anyone stays to read the drivel they post over and over. We’re right. We’re right. The pause never happened. We never said TCS=10.0 or 6.0 or … We never said there would be greater intensity storms. We never said the energy couldn’t go into deep ocean for 20 years. We never said that temperatures would be 1 C warmer than they are now. There never was a MWP or LIA. There is no cyclic AMO/PDO. Oh wait there is but it will go away. We never said it would go away. They rewrite history over and over and expect nobody is reading to remember.
I never seen a thread deleted on a climate blog. Which ones are you talking about?
Jch,
Desmogblog, SkS, Real Climate have all done so.
Joe Romm and Greg Laden, to their credit, don’t.
Have no idea about Hotwhopper, as I have zero desire to go wading in a cesspool.
If you can’t attack the global warming science directly,
Of course you can.
Since 1979, temperature trends are all less than Hansen Scenario C, which is the one in which emissions stopped in 2000.
Since 2001, all temperature trends are less than AR4 guaranteed 2C/cntry
(2C/cntry has never been observed in backward looking trends to date).
ACE is uncorrelated with temperature.
US drought is anti-correlated with temperature, though not sig.
Strong US tornadoes have declined with rising temperatures.
Human longevity,mortality,health,education and productivity have all improve with rising temperatures.
Theorized rising latent heat reduces motions necessary for balance ( weaker storminess ).
Theorized rising latent heat reduces sensible heat necessary for balance ( reduced temperature variability ).
Annual rates of radiative forcing, the basis of AGW, peaked in 1979.
Decadal rates of RF due to CO2 peaked in 2007.
CO2 emissions were flat from 2013 to 2014.
Emissions of CO2 are falling in nearly half of nations on earth already.
Human fertility rates are below replacement in around half of all nations.
Human population will likely be falling soon as a result.
Which of these facts do you need help with?
Turbulent eddy
Thanks so much for joining these discussions. Your contributions based on physics and science are appreciated. I am an engineer who did not go to PhD schools in turbulent mass heat and momentum transfer but recognize an expert.
Your logic, knowledge and sound comments add a lot to the blog.
Scott
bobdroege,
Is this the science that accepts that the Earth cooled for around four and a half billion years irrespective of atmospheric composition, but now proposes that the Earth is going to warm due to a change in atmospheric composition which was associated with cooling in the past?
That doesn’t sound so much like science as delusional psychosis. I presume you have good experimental support for your so called “science”?
What use is your “science”? What benefits has it bestowed on humanity? Or is it just a sheltered workshop for wannabes, hasbeens, and delusional psychotics?
Ah well, I suppose it keeps them from interfering with the work of real scientists, even at a seemingly excessive cost.
Cheers.
Can’t attack it directly? How about, it ain’t warming? Now, when you point this out and get all manner of backdoor data revision, you begin to sense ideology.
When in Rome do as the Romans do.
bobdroege | November 24, 2015 at 9:52 am | Reply
If you can’t attack the global warming science directly, try a back-door attack by claiming that it is driven by ideology.
You are correct. The science should be attacked directly.
The measured forcing 22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 is between 1/3 to 2/3rds of the IPCC expectations. If you compare it to the TSR (which given the 11 year period is pretty TSRish) it is 1/3 of IPCC estimates.
The CO2 level isn’t going to exceed 500 PPM and nobody is interested in nuking the planet or burning down all vegetation in the temperate zone just to prove the warmers right (which is what it would take).
CAGW is a frick’n joke.
Emissions aren’t going to go moonward. Emissions will decline by mid century.
CAGW is an envelope of scare tactics to try to force the reduction of fossil fuels a decade or two early. Expensively and unnecessarily.
The honest truth about fossil fuels has not dissuaded people to stop using fossil fuel so warmers resorted to the dishonest truth because that is just the sort of people they are.
They have a “my way or the highway” attitude toward their parochial interests. They have to be right, facts be damned.
Just because they want to throw gobs of money our money at a non-problem just to be stylish doesn’t mean we should throw gobs of our money at a non-problem just to be stylish. If they want to be stylish they can do it with their money.
Meanwhile, back in Canada our own Environment Canada scientists (you know the ones whose long term predictions on climate are the worst of the bunch) are gleefully crowing about how with our new Jobama Prime Minster in charge they are now free to promote the IPCC global warming, err climate change, err climate disruption, agenda while both provincial and federal governments gear up to dramatically increase taxes by introducing multibillion dollar carbon taxes on ordinary Canadians in order to fight climate change. they are promising if they can tax us a whole lot more we will reduce carbon emissions in Canada each year by the same amount China puts out in two and a half hours. Of course, only those who are supported by “Big Oil” would think there was something fishy going on and protest. People in Canada apparently just love the idea of lining up to pay more and more taxes in the name of the science of saving the earth.
I forgot one of the more interesting predictions is that Canada is going to be hit twice the amount of climate warming compared to any other nation so we need to pay even more carbon taxes to stop that from happening.
tumbleweedstumbling
“People in Canada apparently just love the idea of lining up to pay more and more taxes in the name of the science of saving the earth.”
Canadian residential electric rate payers also line up to pay higher cost electricity, while defending the windmills and solar panel of Ontario; or so it seems.
Yes and people in Manitoba are lining up too pay huge amounts to allow Minnesota to use wind power with our hydro as back up for when the wind blows sold to them at below cost, the cost to be bourne by the people of Manitoba. But we’re saving the planet so who cares.
Money is never an object when you have a noble cause. However, them that don’t have money might have a few issues with that train of thought.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commodities-traders-helped-spark-the-war-in-syria-complex-systems-theorists-say
I got to say Canadians are wonderful people. I love ’em. They would be the biggest beneficiaries of climate change. Can you imagine if Canada was 5 or 10C warmer? Basically 500 miles farther north across the entire length of Canada would open up to agriculture, tourism, development. Who knows what minerals would become available and what nature would do with all that additional land and open space. With all the talk of negativity no-one seems to ever think of what could be the positive consequences. The amount of land that would open up to plants, animals and people would probably be 1000 times all the islands lost to going under assuming that actually happened.
However. Even in the worst case scenario maybe one degree. That’s not going to make tourism to Canada or immigration any more attractive.
Yet the Canadians are willing to go along.
Oh no, you see we are going to have twice as much warming, twice as many wildfires, twice as many droughts and twice as many floods as anyplace else on earth plus we will lose our polar bears! We have to pay carbon tax and right now and lots of it!
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Has it ever occurred to John Reid that his paper may have been rejected twice in peer review because it is scientifically wrong, and not for any ideological reasons?
Or is his ideology blinding him to this possibility?
Rejected in peer review .. how do you know that? Are you blind to other possibilities?
David Appell,
You’d have to ask John Reid that, wouldn’t you.
Why don’t you ask him, and let us know what his answer is. Or is it possible your ideology has blinded you to this practical approach? What is your reason for refusing to ask John Reid for an answer to your question? Cowardice? Stupidity?
I’ll ask you directly – why do you choose not to address John Reid directly, if you want to know what he thinks?
Cheers.
The responses in Friday’s Letters page to my letter about climate change all seem to have missed the point. I said that Hunter and Godfrey were speaking as Environmentalists not as scientists.
John Reid may have a point. However, by writing letters to the newspaper he is acting ideologically, not as a scientist.
The key point is that environmentalism is about values but activists take it as a fact that we MUST preserve all of nature. But this is a value. If the highest value in the world were how many times you could get high (which many people do ascribe to) then bald eagles have nothing to do with it and most urban people have never even seen an eagle in person. If the only thing that truly matters is religious salvation, then again recycling is irrelevant. And even if you value nature, it is not allowed to debate which aspects of nature are more worth preserving. Do we spend a billion dollars for a spider? How much is enough? The climate change alarm is heavily motivated by preserving nature but to get people’s attention claims are made about 20 ft sea level rise and scorching temperatures (i.e., that WE will be in danger), but when these are shown to be implausible it just makes the alarm look fake.
Your statement is true Craig; but once monolithic group think takes hold spotting “implausible” and “fake” requires a minority of reasonable people looking and seeing outside the shackles of religion; but being heard and taken seriously is another magnitude of difficulty entirely.
See: National Socialism and the Religion of Nature – apr 1986
Robert A. Pois (Author)
Review:
he substance of the book addresses a little known and widely misunderstood aspect of the Third Reich —the Nazi deification of nature. The Nazis had a utopian view of the natural order, the Volkgemeinschaft. This led to a rejection of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and an embrace of monism. Hitler: “Man who lives in communion w/ nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the churches.” “Today, a new basis for the state has been established, whose claim is that it does not see its foundation in Christendom” Himmler: “Man is a link in the chain of living nature just as any other organism.” Man was both divine and worthless, as Man’s value stems from his acquiessence to nature. National Socialism had nothing in common w/ Christian tradition, and was in fact, antagonistic towards it. This flies in the face of pop Hollywood politics, which views Christianity as necessisarily Fascism.
Two weaknesses from the book: 1.) Pois does not address the pagan connections to Nazi ideology and leaders. I can understand that Hitler and Goebbels were pragmatists and not as “religiously” driven as Himmler and Hess, however this should still have been mentioned and 2.) The Intro and Outro of the book are worthless. The Intro is basically an apology to fellow academics for analyzing the worldview of the Nazis. The Outro is a desparate attempt by the author to compare the Nazi’s Darwinistic New Age environmentalism to American conservative politics. It was a reach, and the author doesen’t prove his case (mostly because it doesn’t try to understand the American political spectrum, and is just feeding his prejudices). His criteria—flight from history and valorization of the natural order—fits more w/ Marxist dialectic materialism (plenty of flight from history and sanctification of its ‘natural order’ there) than w/ Madisonian Libertarianism.
More quotes:
“When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” – Ernst Moritz Arndt, quoted in Rudolf Krügel, Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914, p. 18.
Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl further developing his ecological nationalist thought. His 1853 essay Field and Forest ended with a nationalist call to fight for “the rights of wilderness.” He opposed the rise of Semitic industrialism and urbanization; glorifying antimodern rural peasant values which established him as the “founder of agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism.” (Klaus Bergmann, Agrarromantik und Großstadtfeindschaft, Meisenheim, 1970, p. 38)
“When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, München, 1935, p. 314.
jungletrunks
I was recently standing on Zeppelin Field in Nuremberg Germany, site of 6 Nazi rallies listening to content of Hitler’s speeches of the National Socialist movement and its environmental focus.
I had a double take.
The American version of Environmentalism, with the sanctity of Nature, viewing Natures preservation cleansed of mankind, and persecution of non-believers. Witness our POTUS, Environmental Agencies, and certain Congressional members as having all the hallmarks of the rise of National Socialist German Worker’s Party today.
I just shuddered as I read your remarks.
I see I am in moderation for what I believe is a moderate post. Possibly climate policy related persecution.
RiHo08, there’s very interesting and disturbing parallels to history occurring. Before I get scorched; I’m not saying today’s left is anything close to late 1930s National Socialism (in reality it was indeed a perverted form of socialism); however the dangers of collectivism are obviously a concern whenever any ideology begins to take on a life of its own while also having symbiotic alignment with higher institutions. But demonization of segments of culture is occurring, that’s simply a fact. Having said this, if another global depression were to occur, which it’s not out of the question with the current global economic and societal conditions, then things could get very ugly. The potential ingredients exist for extreme governmental perversions to globally occur if culture remains complacent.
I don’t see a dark future occurring, but it’s possible. The left naively is trying to force globalism and ever increasing social engineering today, western nations are becoming too weak because of it. Humanity is too young, not advanced enough technologically nor culturally to handle it IMO. I do see globalism occurring in the very, very distant future as a natural evolution of technology and culture almost certainly.
The spam filter doesn’t like the word N*zi!
“Do we spend a billion dollars for a spider? How much is enough?”
The point isnt about putting a dollar value on a spider. It largely about valuing the spider more highly than the human need that is in competition with it. Your thinking on the subject becomes more clear when you realise that Environmentalism is more to do with anti-humanism than pro-naturism.
human1ty1st,
The Environmentalist apparently want to get rid of CO2. No CO2 means no plants, which means no us. OK, I thought, at the anaerobes can take over. But maybe not.
“Some clinically significant anaerobic bacteria were incubated in pure culture in anaerobic jars containing a range of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Growth of Clostridium perfringens, C. sporogenes and C. septicum was independent of the amount of CO2. Small supplements of CO2 (0.25%) allowed good growth of the majority of anaerobes studied–an observation contrary to established teaching. The exceptions were Fusobacterium necrophorum which showed an absolute requirement for CO2 of at least 1% and B. melaninogenicus which needed an atmospheric content of 10–40% CO2 for optimal growth. The inclusion of CO2 in the anaerobic jar at a final concentration of 10% is to be recommended for all routine isolation procedures.”
Notice “Small supplements of CO2 (0.25%) allowed good growth of the majority of anaerobes studied–an observation contrary to established teaching.”
Experimental observation contrary to accepted teaching? Maybe even a rejection of the consensus? Even some anaerobes requiring CO2 for optimal growth?
It’s obviously worse than I thought! We need more CO2, and we need it quickly – yesterday if possible!
Cheers.
+1
Environmentalism become Environmentology, sort of like among Hollywood swells, Science became Scientology.
sp.. warning was prescient
Suzuki 1972 ( Warns of the Dangers of Anointing Scientists as new High Priests of Society )
David Suzuki on science, elitism and the apocalypse (1972)
Suzuki talks about the politics of science and the science of politics
“This is the kind of Priesthood that is evolving. The kind of Priesthood that has an impact on general society that I think is very profound”
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1828006140
Sadly David has become exactly what he warned about.
However we cannot say he did so from lack of foresight.
One might even say his warming was prescient.
all the best
brent
Using the example of the undoing of David Suzuki, Leftist-environmentalist, Dr. Tim Ball observed how extremism is all beginning to fall apart for the Left:
You don’t need the qualifications of someone like Reid to see the illogic of the people who place great faith in climate models. If the models can’t replicate the past climate, how can they predict future climate?
Even forecasting the weather one week in advance using computer models is a wag.
I don’t know, for some reason I didn’t like the tone of this post. Seemed like he had a chip on his shoulder or something. Probably just me.
Steven Mosher | November 24, 2015 at 10:07 am |
As is sadly far too often the case, your terse posting style doesn’t serve you well. For example, you have not:
a) said whether we DO know what you say we CAN know, or whether you’re just expressing a possibility of future knowledge;
b) provided any kind of working definition of what you are calling “random fluctuations”;
c) told us how you’ve distinguished said undefined “random fluctuations” from other, also undefined types of “fluctuations”; or
d) provided a scrap of support or a single citation for your vague claim.
I know that you are a wicked-smart guy, so it’s not clear why you keep trying to destroy your own reputation with these comments that are failed attempts at scientific haiku …
w.
Depends on what the meaning of it’s is.
Oh… did Mosher invoke unicorns?
One trick pony, he.
Andrew
Willis Eschenbach,
In regard to Steven Mosher’s comments, maybe it’s a normal reaction for a “scientist” when faced with the opinions of a real scientist.
There seems to be a lot of it going around in Warmist circles.
Not limited to Warmists, though. I believe Wegener got a bit of flack when he proposed a theory of continents drifting around. Some commenters here still deny this behaviour of continents, I believe.
Real science seems to progress in leaps and bounds, not incrementally. Climatology, not being a real science, is going nowhere except into oblivion – incrementally, in all likelihood.
Cheers.
wicked-smart
Shirley you jest.
I wonder why there isnt a push to gather and interpret data? Given the huge cost one would think they would have more satellites, more buoys, more look at clouds….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331558/Turkey-shoots-fighter-jet-Syrian-border-Local-media-footage-flaming-plane-crashing-trees.html
Syrian rebels chant ‘Allahu Akbar’ over body of dead Russian pilot after Turkey shoots down jet for violating its air-space… then chopper searching for co-pilot is blown up by anti-Assad troops
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331558/Turkey-shoots-fighter-jet-Syrian-border-Local-media-footage-flaming-plane-crashing-trees.html#ixzz3sRPdUInT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So much for McCains allies!
How long before Russia destroys some of the oil infrastructure in ISIS territory?
Russia’s oil economy could use the boost and now they have the excuse.
They have already done so.
Hitting at a primary source of revenue is a valid objective. That it may provide secondary benefit to Russia is gravy.
Game on!
Peruvian farmer sues German energy giant over climate change
http://news.yahoo.com/peruvian-farmer-sues-german-energy-giant-over-climate-165713924.html
With all those hydrogen bombs of El Nino energy blasting away at the Peru like a blow torch, I’m surprised the mountains haven’t melted.
This takes the id-e-o-cy to an entirely new and much higher level. Hope the leftist more-ons are happy now.
Please join the effort to reap a peaceful and unanimous conclusion to the Paris Climate Conference.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_the_Paris_Global_Warming_Conference_conclude_Earths_climate_is_controlled_by_a_pulsar
Hmm. The big guns are firing away on this thread but there seems to be more heat than light being shed on the subject of post modern (normative) science and what seems to be the strong influence of environmental ideology!
Peter M Davies,
But . . but . . . How else can I show that my tribe has got bigger spears than your tribe?
Cheers.
RealClimate is back, by the way, but using a backup domain name. The story is here.
http://realclimate-backup.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/reports-of-our-demise/#more-18903
Maybe we should consider building cities on the bottom of the ocean where Trenberth said all that missing heat was hiding.
https://dviw3bl0enbyw.cloudfront.net/uploads/forum_attachment/file/46003/_atlantis__cover_book_project_by_as07-d4ye830.jpg
Will the current El Nino be greater than those of the recent past?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/eln-f-pg.gif
Ocean temperature at San Clemente Pier at 19 °C is definitely warm compared to the 1981–2005 average for this day of 16.3 °C (range: 15.1 °C to 18.8 °C). You could ride a jetski in the ocean in So Cal at Christmastime with just enough rubber to keep the wind off, especially if the sun is out. How much rain on the coast and snow in the sierra’s is anyone guess but the stars are in alignment for a replay of San Diego’s Hatfield’s flood:
“On December 8 the Common Council received a letter from Hatfield offering to produce at least forty inches of rain in the vicinity of the Morena Reservoir without expense to the city. On instructions of the Council, City Clerk Allen H. Wright sent a telegram to Hatfield, who was then in Eagle Rock, near Los Angeles, asking if he could be present at a meeting of the Council the next day. In reply, Hatfield forwarded the following offer:”
(Source: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/books/pourade/gold/goldchapter11.htm )
I had lunch today with a respected old friend. He’s wedded to CAGW. We never have really gotten into it much on the issue. Life and its oddities made sure other things came first.
I brought up the warmer climates of the past 5000 years. Middle Ages, Roman, Minoan … showed him a picture of the cherry picked hockey stick except I showed it in the perspective of the 5000 year time scale.
First he challenged the ice core data.
Then he challenged the origin of the graph.
Then he clung to CO2 increases.
Then he chastized me for not being a climatologist.
Then he flailed about the polar bears and the lost species and the impact to human health.
I was kind of speechless. Hell, I cant even remember what I ate for lunch.
I still respect him, but I am worried about this svengali grip on his critical thinking skills.
Are they putting something in the water /sarc.
I had very much a similar experience. My long time friend became unglued and brought up oil money and that I got all my information from Fox News and then to show how his information was superior to mine, he cited Natural Geographic. Of course, how could I top that.
I had that same experience with my father-in-law who resides on the political spectrum somewhere to the left of Marx. He eventually said he believes what he believes and you (being me) are not going to change my mind. Well, there.
Join the club.
I remember when everyone in final year high school, 30 kids, except 1, believed in the liberal party [Australian Republican party].
There were 3 atheists only.
CAGW has a similar hold on critical thinking but has not quite reached critical mass of religion.
Wife children and many friends are CAGW, impossible to reason with,
I guess they think the same of me/us however.
Did move to Labour [democrat] for many years voting wise but seriously considering liberals purely for any small Skeptic crumbs.
Funny thing is I value the environment, favour sensible alternative energy but none of this counts unless you have the right green philosophy.
Eco-regressivism is a religion.
These people are “final fantasy” true believers. They believe unless man leaves the environment absolute pristine Gaia is going to rise up and thump us.
They further believe in zero sum. IE if I have three neighbors, and I raise a fruit tree and grow four apples, I have to give three apples to my neighbors because I stole them from them. If I hadn’t grown my apple tree presumably they would have all had one apple.
Some others are:
1. Man is bad.
2. Anything man does bad
3. The higher the standard of living the more man damages the environment.
3a. Energy must be conserved and its use minimized.
3b. The human standard of living must be minimized.
4. Human must have zero emissions or Gaia will thump us.
They have a number of postulates like this to their belief system. It goes without saying that most eco-regressives have never had a practical job where they did something useful in their lives. They are pretty clueless on cost/benefit.
This is a religion. The belief system has to be taken on faith because it defies facts, logic, and reason.
There is a chain of custody to their belief system.
Man is bad -> Man uses energy -> producing energy is bad .> Man burns fossil fuels for energy -> fossil fuels are bad -> fossil fuels produce CO2 -> CO2 is bad (since it comes from fossils) -> we must ban CO2 since allows man to use more energy than he needs.
There is nothing wrong with CO2, it is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with abundant, on demand, cheap energy, it gives people a better life.
Because the eco-regressive’s beliefs are counterfactual and their goals harmful, they have to use dishonesty and deception to achieve them.
PA
I liked your reply. Blunt but purposeful, but then again I believe life is too short to wallow in nonsense. It’s too much of a gift to be squandered on nothingness.
There is insult in your reply. I like it but then I don’t. My primary hesitancy is rooted in a lost opportunity to fix the hoax. Case in point.
I am a reformed believer. I was never rabid about it, but casual. I trusted the early proclamations because well, I’m a busy man and didn’t have time to dig into the research. I believe that I quite possibly represent many others.
The ice core data of the past 5000 years was the sledgehammer to my brain. Anger, embarrassment, fear, name an emotion … I’m sure I tasted the bitter bile of being deceived. I am not one to pout and am fiercely responsible for my own life. I work hard, understand the cost and benefits of my choices and pride myself on being nobody’s fool, yet I was easily deceived in momentous fashion.
It appears to me that cognitive dissonance takes place concerning an everyman type discussion over CAGW. I notice the gritting of the teeth, the searing of the eyes, the flaming of the nostrils. I sense the anger. The fear of embarrassment, the desire to press the reset button. Yet, I have compassion because I still remember the sense of being naked when it dawned on me that I was fooled.
I’m not sure how to engage the issue among the masses. You are correct that the clinging to the belief is rooted in some false guilt that elevating your standard of living is bad, that man is bad and that man is bad to both the earth and his fellow man.
I resist the baby/bathwater approach that all reasonable environmental stewardship needs to be tossed aside. I’m sure you agree that some is warranted. The manipulators are using the aged ole skillset of pandering to the extremes, preying on false guilt and mixing good with bad.
I believe that poking the bear is warranted concerning this CAGW nonsense, but I hope that I can maintain the state of awareness to see the common ground on other issues such as cheap, clean and reliable energy. The manipulators are counting on the common man NOT being able to do this.
Well said, PA. Neoenvironmentalist religion, I’ll call it what it is. The biggest risk associated with the religion is the reemergence of “politically applied biology”; so far this has been contained within sovereign nations through their own respective environmental actions, i.e., the EPA in the U.S. The tyranny behind environmental ideology that uses CAGW propaganda and fear to facilitate change must be contained. I’m optimistic that the Paris conference won’t gain teeth, but it’s the forces that seek to exploit environmentalism that are the true danger, the seekers of power over nations.
Knutesea, I agree that we should expect and use reasonable stewardship to protect the planet. That’s not what I refer to. The danger with religion is that it invites the exploitation of servile believers by power seekers who foster its growth. The main thing humanity must be on guard for is instability created behind black swan events, that these don’t manifest into authoritarian risks leading to exploitation. Religion represents low hanging fruit for those who seek to garner power. The danger that first comes to mind are the leftists that wish the UN to be the central governing body of the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if they themselves are sketiptics, environmentalism is not their main desire, power for change is, these are the global community organizers.
… probably suffering from, Hot World Syndrome:
Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.
The last gasps of the ideologues are the data revisions. Yet there are some indications that some of the revisions to the surface data are justifiable. It is possible to be right for the wrong reason. So if you just give the idealogues their surface data revisions, what would it mean? How is it possible that the louvered boxes at airports and cities (even when rural stations can be construed to agree) and the iron ships (even when substantiated by a particular buoy dataset) can be correct and the satellites which report rather less warming for the much taller section of TLT and no warming for TMT also be correct? Warm air rises.
Dark energy flux can’t be ruled out, but it seems possible that there is a “warm skin” to the surface atmosphere. This skin effect might be exacerbated somewhat by human water and CO2 from combustion, and yet be as trivial to the overall mass of the atmosphere as the “cool skin” is to the mass of the ocean. Perhaps we are just warming our noses.
Garth Paltridge seems to have got it about right.
I think part of the problem has been the drive to ‘diversify’ science teaching.
Science used to be seen as boring and hard, so many tried to make it easier and more interesting. That attracted the ‘I like furry animals and want to save the planet” brigade. And so here we are, with the new science-of-everything which brooks no dissent or advancement.
Did you mean John Reid? I agree that the practice of climate science has been contaminated by environmental ideology and that their messaging has been tainted by demagoguery.
Yes, Peter. Thank you for the correcting my error.
I have never for a moment considered the environment as a thing of value for its own sake and i never will. Yet i oppose experimenting with our own planet with no restraints at all.
What ought to be done depends not so much on the facts of what is or will be, but on the facts of what actually could be done to materially change any of that, the consequences and the costs, and the willingness, or lack thereof, of people to agree to such things.
Cheap available abundant fossil fuel energy sustains the lives of 90% of living humans and the comforts of 100% of humans as have comforts, plus civilization and peace.
Unless the great grain belts were at risk, there is nothing any conceivable warming of the planet could do that would be as bad as abandoning fossil fuels, with no combination of new or more efficient technology or new and less polluting energy sources in sight to replace them.
Yes.
John Reid’s words are surely words of wisdom.
But forthcoming Paris negotiations are much more than green ideology and activism, based on junk science. They are just insanity.
Having maintained COP21 starting only two weeks after dreadful terrorist attacks stroke the heart of Paris is just insane and irresponsible.
The point is not to step back in front of terrorism but to define and correctly rank the priorities, the top one being for sure the people’s security.
Indeed terrorism appears to be a much more imminent, tangible, critical and now unfortunately proven threat, than the supposedly anthropogenic global warming.
Spending 100 billion $ per year (over decades), trying to fix this unproven and false climatic emergency, and mobilizing about 30 000 cops or soldiers to ensure the security of COP21 participants, whereas hundreds of French or foreign jihadists plan terrorist attacks against French or European populations and territories, is the height of insanity and irresponsibility.
And confusing the acknowledged terrorist threat with the AGW fallacy, as President Hollande did while visiting President Obama, contributes to this insanity.
People in the US don’t have the slightest idea of the disgusting climate propaganda imposed since months by the French media and government, in view of COP21.
You have the chance to have a real (even if sometimes very lively) debate about climate issue, whereas here in France the debate is not only over : indeed it never took place. As Gore and IPCC did a decade ago, climate science is stated as settled so there’s nothing to debate on.
AGW has become the official and compulsory dogma and woe betide those who dare contradicting this dogma. A meteorologist on a French (public) TV channel has recently been fired for having published a skeptical book about global warming.
So welcome in Paris.
A French skeptic.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
BobDroege’s logic is based on correlation and not causation. That is the problem in a nutshell with climate change… except they select the correlation periods to suit the outcome (after the mid 1970s – late 1990s); and when the most data does fit the correlation, they adjust the data (Karl et al.)
John Carpenter,
You wrote –
“That CO2 absorbs thermal radiation. It is observable through HITRAN. That it is consistent with the GHE. That arguing there is no such thing as CO2 absorbing thermal radiation at specific spectral lines, as Flynn does, is demonstrably wrong.”
Anybody who is not a complete idiot, and who has basic comprehension of the English language, will quickly establish for themselves that you are spouting complete nonsense.
The reason that Warmist delusionalists refuse to actually quote what I wrote is because they would rather avoid the truth.
If you can actually quote where I said that there is no such thing as CO2 absorbing thermal radiation at specific spectral lines (I would have said at particular frequencies or wavelengths), I would be flabbergasted.
If you have the education you claim, you might like to assure me that you have not had a mental breakdown, a severe head injury, or some form of cerebral irritation resulting in delusional transference, where you imagine other people are saying things you don’t like.
It obviously doesn’t matter whether the observable fact that I never expressed the ideas (let alone uttered the words) that you claims. Maybe your twisted frame of reference compels you to invent even more absurd claims, for all I know.
You might pay me the courtesy of quoting the words you disagree with, but the last thing I expect from a straw man building Weaselly Waffling Wayward Warmist is courtesy, comprehension, or rationality.
I might point out that using a microwave oven to heat a prepackaged meal, does not mean you understand anything at all about electronics, electricity, metallurgy or any any other of the myriad facets of creating such a device.
Likewise, following the operating manual for a spectroscope, pushing the buttons, twiddling the knobs as instructed, and so on, does not mean you understand what is actually happening, or why. Do you know much about the light source for your spectroscope, its power supply, the regulation circuitry? Or anything else?
You have put words in my mouth, but that’s OK. You are obviously scared to address what I said, preferring to argue with your own preposterous statements, which you ascribe to me.
Cheers.
OPEN LETTER to GREG HUNT (Minister for Environment, Australia):
Australia should seek this amendment at COP 21 climate talks next week
Dear Greg Hunt MP and other Politicians
I realise Australia will sign next week, but I urge you to seek an amendment to the effect that all obligations are subject to the production within 90 days of verifiable physics which shows what physical mechanism supplies the thermal energy (“heat”) required to maintain the mean surface temperature of Earth and how the increase of carbon dioxide supposedly causes that mechanism to increase the surface temperature each morning.
If you provide me with some future “explanation” that they provide I will expose the errors in their physics, as I have done regarding their “gold standard” textbook by Pierrehumbert.
They will try to prove that the surface temperature is determined by radiation. It is not, as I have explained at http://climate-change-theory.com
Because the Sun’s direct radiation is not strong enough, they will claim that they can add about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere supposedly helping the Sun to raise the surface temperature each morning. It can’t, because heat cannot be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
They will say, yes it can provided more heat comes back out. That is not correct: it is just like saying water could flow up a hillside to a lake at the top provided that it subsequently flows further down the other side.
They will say that, when they add this radiation from the atmosphere that they then have 390 watts per square metre and that this flux produces a temperature of 15C.
But, even though the 390 figure is wrong (because it includes radiation from the atmosphere) it still does not give anything like 15C as a mean temperature. That is because the flux is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Hence, if the flux varies (as it does) the effective mean temperature produced by that variable flux is always much colder than the temperature produced by uniform flux equal to the mean of the variable flux – that’s a mathematical fact.
All their “science” is wrong and in the wrong ball park. What happens is here: http://climate-change-theory.com
GHGs prevent the heat from the sun, that warms the surface, from escaping. Without them, the earth’s average surface temperature for the same solar input would be minus 18 C, not plus 15 C. This type of atmosphere clearly has a significant effect on the mean climate.
Jim D,
Of course, except at night, when the surface cools.
Or for the last four and a half billion years, when the surface cooled.
But a delusional denier won’t believe this, of course. They’ll claim they have calculated the Earth just keeps getting hotter. Night and day. Winter and summer.
Yes, Jim D, Warmists agree. 97% of them, at least!
Cheers.
The surface would cool a heck of a lot more if it wasn’t for the GHGs. See the Moon for an example of how that looks.
Figured out a while back that the Atmosphere (assuming it radiated at a constant 255K/240 W/m2) would take a little over 5 months to cool to absolute zero.
One could make the argument that the thermal inertia of the atmosphere is responsible for most of the GHG effect.
However, the top surface of the land has almost no thermal inertia and if the solar forcing goes to zero it cools really much faster than the atmosphere. Imagine the difference between a clear and a cloudy night, but amplified by a factor of about two.
“GHGs prevent the heat from the sun, that warms the surface, from escaping.”
Very crude and unscientific, yimmy. You are regressing to your earliest low-level alarmist drone training. That is what you are supposed to tell little kids, to get them started. We expect better of you.
By the way, are you really a Scientologist?
The basic idea is very simple, like insulation, and you don’t need to be a scientist to know how insulation works.
Because of the surface eddy effect the atmosphere keeps the surface warm at night by convection.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 11:15 am |
The surface would cool a heck of a lot more if it wasn’t for the GHGs. See the Moon for an example of how that looks.
Indeed. The surface would also warm a heck of a lot more if it wasn’t for the GHGs. See the Moon for an example of how that works.
At least you are a selective denier. You only deny that which doesn’t suit your cause.
PA,
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesn’t seem to work too well at night.
I guess if the atmosphere wasn’t surrounding a big ball of molten rock with a very thin crust, it might get really cold at night. The oceans might freeze, too.
In the Antarctic, ground temperatures drop to below the freezing point of CO2 at times. I wonder what happens to CO2 warming then? I must be a heretic.
Oh well, if Warmists say the world is warming due to CO2, who needs proof? It must be true.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn | November 26, 2015 at 7:09 pm |
PA,
Overnight, in arid deserts, temperatures can drop by 50 C or so, in less than twelve hours. The GH effect doesn’t seem to work too well at night.
That just proves the GHG effect doesn’t work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing given your example.
PA,
You wrote –
“That just proves the GHG effect doesn’t work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing given your example.”
Yes, you are right. CO2 does nothing to speak of. Neither does H20 by the look of things. The highest temperature on the face of the earth are found in arid regions, such as Death Valley, the Libyan desert etc.
Unfortunately, the lowest temperatures on the face of the Earth are also found in extremely arid regions – such as Antarctica.
Even worse, the Moon has a lack of either supposed GHG, and it gets both hotter and colder than anything Earth experiences.
But Jim D and his ilk say GHGs make things warmer, so they must. It is interesting that Arrhenius explained his inability to demonstrate the GHE experimentally by claiming that the needed equipment was too expensive. Read his paper if you find this hard to believe.
As I say, speculation. Lord Kelvin speculated that the Earth was no more than 40 million years old at around the same time. He “proved” his speculation with “calculations”. Just like “climate scientists” these days.
Nope. Still a heretic, me. I’ll leave belief in the non existent, unprovable, invisible ridiculous GHE to the true believers. I just wish they wouldn’t steal quite so much from me. Why don’t they just ask for contributions, like any other sponger?
Cheers.
Jim D: “GHGs prevent the heat from the sun, that warms the surface, from escaping.”
No they don’t.
Stop making stuff up.
Denial in its purest form.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“Denial in its purest form.” You might explain why you are so proud of denial. Do you really think that by denying fact, you can make it vanish?
I guess you do. Sorry for doubting the purity of your denial. You set a standard to which other Warmists can only aspire!
Cheers.
MF, you misunderstood my reply to catw. Read harder.
They are referring to the fact that GHG do not prevent heat from escaping. You should apologize and move on. Unless candor and humility is against Scientology dogma. We don’t know, because we don’t get involved in cults.
It’s like insulation, Don.
Jim D
The solar radiation is far too low to “warm the surface” above its existing temperature. That’s not how the surface gets its energy, and I put my money where my mouth is and, in effect, bet you AU $10,000 that you can’t prove me wrong.
You have not explained with radiation calculations how the ocean surface gets to the observed temperature. No amount of slowing of cooling will make it hotter than the Sun’s radiation. The Sun’s radiation (even with back radiation incorrectly added) is way too low.
In fact there is a totally different process in operation about which you know nothing, Jim D.
At the base of the nominal tropsphere of Uranus there is no surface and no solar radiation and no significant amounts of GH gases within 300Km and yet that process of which you know nothing ensures it’s hotter than Earth. I can explain it: you can’t. It’s all on my blog where you can attempt a submission for the AU $10,000 reward for proving me wrong.
https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
At this distance the incoming net solar radiation can only warm the surface to an average of 255 K. So, yes, indeed, by itself the sun is insufficient to explain the surface temperature. The rest is the greenhouse effect that raises it to 288 K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Prove it wrong to save your $10k.
Do I need to send a mailing address for my check now?
These guys from Uranus that drop in here from time to time are really smart. They must have good schools over there. I wonder if they have very big heads.
Jim D,
When the seas fell below boiling point, was this due to the effects of too much CO2, or too little?
As you say, the Sun can only heat the surface to 255 K. Where did the rest of the heat come from? What about when the surface temperature was only 5 K warmer than it is now? Is the GHE wearing out, do you think?
It seems like CO2 levels are rising, but temperatures refusing to follow. Maybe the Warmist need to recharge the CO2 by reciting the secret mantras (Manntras?), or we might all wind up in the Schmidt!
Oh well, Hansen is as Hansen does.
Cheers.
Yes, MF, without GHGs, the surface temperature would be 255 K. The fact that it is not is explained by science known for over a century now. If you can explain it to DC at itsnotco2, who also has trouble understanding, he’ll even personally give you $10k. Have a try. Don’t bother with me or this blog. That’s where the money is.
Jim D,
If I understand you correctly, GHGs warmed to Earth until the rocks melted a long time ago. Then they allowed it to cool.
With the Moon, the absence of GHGs makes the Moon both hotter and colder than the Earth. Just like Vaughan Pratt’s magical inconstant constant, GHGs make things hotter or colder, or not, even if there aren’t any!
You’re managing to reach new standards of denial, if not stupidity.
Cheers.
Check with DC. Maybe he’ll agree and give you the money.
Jim D incorrectly states “Yes, MF, without GHGs, the surface temperature would be 255 K”
But he shows no calculations. There is a mean of 168W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching the surface, and that has a black body temperature of 233K which is about 40 degrees below freezing. Furthermore, because it is variable flux, it would in fact only support a mean temperature that is even colder, as my example in a comment below shows. So Jim D can present no valid calculations to support his 255K, which, by the way, is merely reiterating the mistake that Pierrehumbert made in his textbook.
In fact, without greenhouse gases, especially water vapor which forms clouds that shade the Earth and increase albedo, and which reduces the temperature gradient, thus lowering the temperature at the surface end, the hypothesis which I have explained from standard physics indicates surface temperatures of a little over 300K without IR-active gases.
Jim D – as the Moon gets as much heat from the sun as the Earth does: is the average surface temperature of the Moon minus 18 C?
That would depend on its albedo, wouldn’t it? And don’t you mean -18 C.
Average surface temperature … who believes that the average surface temperature at the South Pole is plus 15 C? Clearly, the average yearly temperature is location-dependent. How do you average this over the surface of the Earth, including oceans? Please show me your simple calculation.
Likewise 288 K is +15 C which is the surface temperature needed to radiate 390 W/m2 that is about the surface upwards IR flux. So, again this is an effective radiative temperature, but it is also about the same magnitude as the area-averaged surface temperature of the earth, and not coincidentally.
Jim – somehow, you neglected to mention albedo. You only mentioned GHGs. How many other holes you discreetly pass over?
250 W/m2 includes the albedo effect. 255 K is indeed -18 C, and it represents the temperature you need to radiate 250 W/m2. So -18 C is the average radiative temperature. Glad to help.
I lifted “minus 18 C” directly from your text. I mean whatever you mean.
Curious George,
In case Jim D takes offence because you may have implied he was simple (asking for a simple, rather than an intelligent or rational) calculation, maybe I could suggest that Jim D might be asked to perform a delusional calculation.
The would be one that shows that the surface of the Earth is bathed in a never changing average amount of completely accurately measured radiation of all wavelengths, blah blah blah.
Delusional. He’s got no calculation showing the Earth has warmed since its creation, regardless of atmospheric composition. Lives in a state of denial of reality, like the rest of his ilk. I suppose he really deserves pity, rather than derision. Oh well, he obviously seeks attention, so he shouldn’t complain when he gets some!
Cheers.
CG, you can go ahead and answer MF.
“I suppose he really deserves pity, rather than derision. Oh well, he obviously seeks attention, so he shouldn’t complain when he gets some!”
The objective of the person who engages in hyperbole, half truth and obfuscation is to attract attention to themselves. They attract a certain kind of passion to their cause. Attract attention to themselves. Claim harm when there is none, claim ignorance when they are seeking to dramatize, claim knowledge when it stirs the pot.
It’s hard to nab. Harder to pin down on the internet. They do deserve pity because they sense they are affecting the world by drawing attention to themselves.
Jim’s measure of success is the countless meaningless emails he has generating half cocked opinions.
I find that the best test question is to ask a believer if the climate of the past 5000 years was the makings of man and if so, do they know it was much warmer during the Romans, Middle Ages and Minoan civilizations. If they work hard to deny it exists, I suspect that I am dealing with someone who has no honor concerning evidence. Worse yet, they may be of the Mann ilk who actively attempt to purge the historical climate from the record.
The debate is full of posers.
can anything ending in “ism” be a science anyway ?
Jim D
You are wrong on several counts …
(1) The solar radiation reaching the surface has a mean of about 168W/m^2. The black body temperature for that is about 233K, not 255K.
(2) A body only reaches the temperature indicated by Stefan Boltzmann calculations if in fact it is a true black body which does not lose thermal energy by any process other than radiation. The Earth’s surface loses in excess of 100W/m^2 by processes other than radiation which you have neglected.
(3) The black body must also be receiving homogeneous flux over a long period. When the flux is variable, the mean temperature achieved is far lower than, in this case, the 233K temperature. I suggest you approximate with five zones receiving 20%, 60% 100%, 140% and 180% of the mean flux. Then calculate the temperatures and take the mean of the temperatures which will be much colder.
(4) Radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface does NOT transfer thermal energy to the surface – see https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
(5) Where are your calculations leading to the 288K figure? You keep avoiding the issue, because it doesn’t work, does it. With variable flux you need a much higher mean. For example:
Flux
This is just the dragonlayer stuff. I stopped at point (4) which is wrong on its face. Ask Mike Flynn what he thinks of your ideas, or comment on his molten core idea.
I am not a member of PSI and do not agree with their false physics wherein they assume radiation sets the surface temperature. It doesn’t. Too bad you stopped at Point (4) which is correct. Silent readers are visiting my blog at the rate of nearly a thousand a week and not one has posted a comment with any valid criticism of the hypothesis or any study proving water vapor warms rather than cools, as my study of real world data showed, and my hypothesis explains. You cannot explain, and have not explained why the surface temperature is what it is, and I have set out in these comments precisely why you are wrong, Jim D.
You have nothing but fictitious physics that you present, Jim D, and of course that goes for the IPCC et al as well. You cannot prove wrong what I have explained about the “heat creep” process and you don’t deign to take a scientific approach even to read what it is all about. You bury your head in the carbon dioxide hoax, probably because it’s your bread and butter. But it’s wrong, and carbon dioxide and water vapor both cool.
Point (4) is wrong because downward radiative flux is independent from upward radiative flux, and both transfer energy because they consist of photons. Photons just transfer energy whether you like it or not. That’s all they do. The ground is also very efficient at absorbing thermal photons, probably over 90% because its emissivity is in that range.
Jim D
Photons are not like little hand-grenades delivering thermal energy to everything they strike. That’s where you lack knowledge of 21st century physics. If the target is warmer than the (effective) temperature of the (attenuated) incident radiation, then all that happens is that photons find electrons that can be raised through the exact energy difference with which they resonate (because they were originally emitted by the identical reverse process) and then those electrons immediately re-emit an identical photon, so it looks like the original incident radiation being scattered. That is why physicists call the process pseudo scattering and, energy-wise, it is just like diffuse reflection.
But you, Jim D, still do not address the fact that it is also well known that (because of this pseudo scattering) photons that are “colder” do not penetrate the warmer water. So you only have solar radiation which, on average, does NOT support a mean surface temperature anywhere near as high as 255K, let alone 288K because the mean reaching the surface is only 168W/m^2 and that mean is a mean of very variable flux.
I suggest you and silent readers now read my three comments to dave starting here.
For someone who denies being part of the dragonslayers, you sure talk like one. Of course photons emitted by the atmosphere can be absorbed by the surface. If you are going to deny basic physics, I don’t have time for you.
Jim D (continued)
For example: Try a mean flux of 460W/m^2 with five values 20%, 60%, 100%, 140% and 180% of that mean. The mean of the 5 values is obviously also 460W/m^2, and this is far closer to reality than assuming we have uniform solar flux day and night all over the globe.
Flux Blackbody temp
92W/m^2 200.7K
276 264.1
460 300.1
644 326.5
828 347.6
So we have Mean flux = 460W/m^2 giving mean temperature 287.8K.
Note that uniform flux of 460W/m^2 gives 300.1K, and that’s the type of calculation done in climatology fictitious fiddled physics – not only ignoring the T^4 relationship in S-B, but also wrongly adding back radiation which does not even penetrate the ocean surface by more than a few nanometers. Such a thin layer (with all that energy you think is being transferred) would boil and evaporate well before it could have any significant effect upon the temperature of the rest of the ocean below it. So it is blatantly obvious that only solar radiation could “warm” the ocean surface, but such radiation is like that from a nearby iceberg 40 degrees below freezing point.
You don’t have a mean flux of 460W/m^2 Jim D and it is incorrect to count the back radiation anyway, and you cannot cite any standard physics text which says it’s OK to do so, because EVERY one-way pencil of radiation is an independent process which, within an isolated system, MUST not produce any reduction in entropy. In other words, the electro-magnetic energy in that radiation CANNOT be converted to thermal energy and what does happen was the subject of extensive research I did for a paper I published nearly four years ago based on 21st century physics that was evolving at the time. It is summarized in my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
In any event, none of the energy diagrams show 460W/m^2 into the surface.
It’s just not the way the surface gets warmed, Jim D, so you may as well face the fact sooner or later. Obviously you cannot explain what happens on other planets with any such radiation mechanism either, whereas I can with the process I have explained in my paper.
And, because it is impossible to explain the surface temperature of any planet with a significant atmosphere using radiation calculations, you thus CANNOT determine what would happen to that surface temperature if there were any variation in radiation, especially radiation from cold CO2 which does not transfer thermal energy to the warmer surface anyway. And if you say it slows radiative cooling you are correct, but it does not slow non-radiative cooling and I ask, cooling from what temperature? It’s irrelevant because the Sun’s radiation cannot get the mean global temperature up to anything even within 50 degrees of the estimated mean temperature.
No amount of “slowing of the radiative component of surface cooling” is going to help the Sun make the surface warmer with its direct radiation.
One of the best threads on Climate Etc. So far. Particular thanks to Mike Flynn for his insightful and concise comments and for showing such patience in responding to the zealots.
Bravo!
@Curry
Did you even read what Reid was trying to publish? Or did you blindly assume that he is just a poor dismissed scientist?
Pingback: New paper claims no pause in warming, but unaltered data says otherwise - Principia Scientific Intl