Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

If Congress invests in seasonal weather forecast research, everyone wins. [link]

About those non-disappearing Pacific islands [link]

We’re placing far too much hope in pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, scientists warn [link]

New paper provides high resolution mass balance estimates of Greenland (1950-2015) [link]

Climate Model Simulations That Include Anthropogenic Forcing Are Not Compatible With Observed Trends on the Antarctic Peninsula [link]

Biofuels turn out to be a big climate mistake – here’s why [link]

Why 2015 was a big hurricane year in the Pacific [link]

Japan BOM: Global Warming will cause Heavier Snowfall [link]  …

Update to Comparisons of tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data [link]

Allowances for evolving coastal flood risk under uncertain local sea-level rise [link]

The diversity of socio-economic pathways and CO2 emissions scenarios: Insights from the investigation of a scenarios database [link]

New #BulletinAMS paper describes & assesses a new NWS project for operational #flashflood monitoring and prediction. [link]

Don’t Panic, But NASA Says Stellar Explosions Could Kill Everything On Earth [link]

Conditional nature of the local warming effect [link]

Study of the sea surface micro layer [link]  …

Climate History Newsletter [link]

NASA: Megadrought Lasting Decades Is 99% Certain in American Southwest [link]

Before jumping on bandwagon re:global warming’s imfluence on wildfire statistics in western US, consider this: [link] …

Scientists Spend Arctic Winter Adrift on Sea Ice [link]

Policy and social science research

How natural #disasters are paid for makes a big difference to the total economic cost: [link]

Dan Kahan: even liberal climate change “believers” are a bit skeptical about what “climate scientists” are saying. [link] …

Spy agencies team up with National Academies for major study of social and behavioral science [link] …

“Poorly formulated policy is worse than no policy at all.” [link] …

Jeroen van der Sluijs:  Challenges of risk migration in sustainable innovation ppt [link]  & background report [link]  …

Prospering Wisely: How research helps us confront the tough choices we face in creating a healthier society. [link]

Fewer than 1 in 10 conservative Republicans trusts climate scientists [link]

The cost of inaction: who will fund #lossanddamage ? [link] …

Scientists must have a say in the future of cities. [link]

The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policy making [link]

Post-Factual Perceptions of Weather [link] …

Should scientists seek to influence policy making? Does policy-relevancy require activism? [link] …

About science and scientists

A Plan To Defend Against the War on Science. [link]

Correlation, causation and confusion [link]

“Self-righteous students aren’t new. What is new: administrators who bend to their will.” [link]

Gluckman: Most of the science used by governments is “incomplete & ambiguous” & “Academies tend not to reflect these dimensions.” [link]

Consensus on climate change: what that does and doesn’t mean [link]

The current campus climate of safe spaces and trigger warnings has created a chilling effect of self-censorship: [link]

Carl Sagan on humility and why science is essential for democracy [link] …

The 40 year old burnout [link]

Harm-Reduction Initiatives Violate Hippocratic Oath [link]

Study: Democrat Professors Outnumber Republicans 11.5 to 1  [link]

 

 

 

74 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Pingback: Roundup 16 Oct | Catallaxy Files

  2. We’re placing far too much hope in pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, scientists warn [link]

    No one has ever proved that any of the warming, since the coldest part of the little ice age until today, has been caused by anything other than the same causes that took us cold periods into the Roman and Medieval warm periods. This warm time is part of the natural cycles and we did not cause it.

    • minor rewrite:
      No one has ever proved that any of the warming, since the coldest part of the little ice age until today, has been caused by anything other than the same causes that took us out of cold periods into the Roman and Medieval warm periods. This warm time is part of the natural cycles and we did not cause it.

  3. Biofuels turn out to be a big climate mistake – here’s why [link]

    Biofuels are not a mistake, they are major fraud. They are robbing us of money and energy.

  4. Japan BOM: Global Warming will cause Heavier Snowfall [link] …

    Eric wrote:
    All I can say is thank goodness we are not experiencing global cooling, otherwise we might have no snowfall at all.

    Yes, it snows more in warm times, that is why it gets cold after warm times. It snows less in cold times, that is why it gets warm after cold times.

    About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was called the Little Ice Age. It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now.

    Oceans warm, Polar Oceans Thaw, Snowfall increases. Ice is replenished on Antarctica, Greenland and Mountain Glaciers. Ice builds up and spreads out, reflecting more energy, dumping more ice and ice cold water into the oceans and on land until earth cools. Polar oceans freeze and the sun takes away ice every year until earth warms again.

    It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.

    CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.

  5. “EPA pushes out ban on air-conditioning coolant”
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/epa-pushes-out-ban-on-air-conditioning-coolant/article/2602860

    In a related development several companies that contributed to democratic parties already have climate safe refrigerators, at the low price government mandated monoploy price if $3000 a pop.

    Kind of like how full body scanners were ALREADY developed and ready to sell when Mr. Shoe Bomber showed up.

    The whole game is becoming rather transparent.

    • Bearing in mind the agreement today on banning refrigerant gases, I wonder if anyone is aware as to what actual contribution they are supposed to make towards the 2 degree centigrade increase that is built into the system?

      Tonyb

    • Somebody could make a fortune if they could commercialize this:

      Magnetic refrigeration is a cooling technology based on the magnetocaloric effect. This technique can be used to attain extremely low temperatures, as well as the ranges used in common refrigerators. Compared to traditional gas-compression refrigeration, magnetic refrigeration is safer, quieter, more compact, has a higher cooling efficiency, and is more environmentally friendly because it does not use harmful, ozone-depleting coolant gases.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration

      General Electric might get there first:
      http://www.ge.com/research/live/magnetic_refrigeration/

      • jacksmith4tx,

        Or you could use commercial Peltier effect solid state devices. The Wikipedia statement about “higher cooling efficiency” might well have been written by a climatologist. Redefinition of the commonly accepted definition of efficiency.

        Before you attempt to make a fortune investing in magnetic refrigeration, you might consider developing something along the lines of a CO2 heater. If you fill the wall cavities of a house with CO2 or similar, the IR will be trapped inside, and the temperature will rise – apparently.

        No need for an internal heat source. The house will heat itself. CO2 is supposed to raise the temperature of the Earth a couple of degrees at 0.04 %. Pure CO2 is 100%, so it might be necessary to keep the doors and windows open on the middle of winter to stop the house getting too hot!

        Do you think GE might get there first?

        Cheers.

      • Curious George

        The newest comment under the GE article is from 2 years ago.

      • Refrigeration represents a huge percent of base load electric demand and a keystone of maintaining civilization. It is both a technological and economic goal to revolutionize how we do it.

        A refrigeration break through will happen just like LED lights are replacing incandescent bulbs. Anybody reading this on a CRT??

      • A refrigeration break through will happen just like LED lights are replacing incandescent bulbs.

        AFAIK energy efficiencies of modern refrigeration are fairly close to the Carnot limit. There are ways it could be made much less expensive, and marginal energy efficiency improvements that could be made, but that’s it.

        Real breakthroughs, IMO, will come in two directions:

        •       Better insulation and control of drafts, and

        •       A two-dimensional approach to climate control, with much greater emphasis on humidity rather than temperature.

        Reducing the ambient (indoor) humidity has two important advantages: a wider comfort range and reduced diffusion through walls, etc. The human body has its own comfort system, using varying amounts of evaporation at the skin to maintain a desirable internal temperature.

        The lower the humidity, the more powerful this mechanism is. Warm dry air has less tendency to rapidly exchange with outside air due to temperature-driven convection, and even indoors within the open spaces. A low-powered fan can increase this effect: people whose bodies are already cool will experience little heat loss through the skin, while those whose bodies are a bit overheated will experience much more. (Within limits, this will occur without the skin getting wet.)

        There are some possibilities for marginal improvements, off the top of my head:

        •       Use pumped liquid water to transfer heat rather than sealed tubes of refrigerant. Water heat transfer is fully mature technology (with no patent monopolies for most of the basics), leaks are less important, and refrigerant can be limited to the actual cooling unit, reducing the chance of leaks.

        •       Ammonia would make a fine refrigerant if you don’t need sealed tubes running all over the place. The amounts needed could be small enough to not be a safety issue WRT either explosions or toxicity. Chance of leaks would be very small, and leak detectors could be cheap and easily mass-produced.

        •       Where space is not an issue, water might be an even better refrigerant for climate control. (I.e. not for freezers.)

        •       Distribute the actual air heat exchange to individual rooms. This would reduce (much of) the energy needed today for forcing air around. Retrofitting would be especially well supported: run your water tubes through existing forced-air ducts, put small exchangers where existing vents are. They could be made to vary the amount of air pulled through the ducts, applying most of their cooling to air already present in the room. (But providing needed ventilation.) Currently unoccupied rooms could have the process turned off, thus saving energy.

        •       Make the process control analog, so that the current cooling/dehumidifying in any room is proportional to the amount of heat and water vapor being added. (Same for the central unit.)

        •       Collect the water condensed at the cooling exchanger and transfer it to the outside evaporator, adding purified tap water as necessary. This will substantially reduce the temperature differential, adding substantial efficiency.

        •       Make the entire system “smart”, minimizing the temperature differential. This will also add efficiency.

      • AK

        “Reducing the ambient (indoor) humidity has two important advantages: a wider comfort range and reduced diffusion through walls, etc. The human body has its own comfort system, using varying amounts of evaporation at the skin to maintain a desirable internal temperature.”

        One has to figure in the human element: we are built to conserve water (kidneys) because of the high insensible water losses through respiration and transcutaneous evaporation.

        When a human is in a dry environment, and after several weeks of internal body chemical adaptation, the new equilibrium requires high & constant water intake.

        For those people who are ill, even with a mild upper respiratory illness may not be able to keep up with their water intake needs. For infants, evaporative water loss is already high because of their mass to body surface area ratio and requires baseline high fluid intake. The elderly, over 65 years of age, already have a less sensitive water loss/need mechanisms and dehydration becomes a chronic problem requiring excellent functioning kidneys as well as exacerbating pre-existing other body organ system disorders.

        People can live in a desert as well as a rain forest. Each environment presents its unique challenges for human survival. Much of the literature on dry environment adult human adaptation and survival comes from WW II (war stimulates research, sigh). Infant water needs trickled through the interventions in starvation, dehydration, and diarrhea managements after WW II and, especially during the war in Biafra, late 1960’s (now back in the Nigerian fold).

        In terms of dry eyes, itchy and nose bleeds, dry respiratory secretions from mouth breathing as well as water losses during exercise (going up stairs) let alone workouts in the home, makes the deliberately dry environment a very bad idea.

      • AK,
        I see you have thought about this problem a bit. I switched to zoned climate control and saved 70% on my electric bill and a very comfortable home.

      • AK

        We live next to the ocean in an already damp climate. Do you have any suggestions for an appropriate household humidity level?

        tonyb

      • In terms of dry eyes, itchy and nose bleeds, dry respiratory secretions from mouth breathing as well as water losses during exercise (going up stairs) let alone workouts in the home, makes the deliberately dry environment a very bad idea.

        Obviously it can be carried to extremes.

        But the dry end of the evolved comfort range is a lot dryer than many environments. Also more comfortable.

        As for “water losses during exercise (going up stairs) let alone workouts in the home,” people actually sweat more when some of it is dripping off as liquid than when it all evaporates. And even when they’re exercising so much the liquid remains on the surface, there’s both less water loss and less discomfort under warm dry conditions than cool damp.

      • I switched to zoned climate control and saved 70% on my electric bill and a very comfortable home.

        If it’s a newer system it probably has a heat pipe dehumidifier built into it.

      • @climatereason…

        Do you have any suggestions for an appropriate household humidity level?

        Not by number. If your climate is cool enough, you could probably just get a dehumidifier, start at the middle of the range, and tweak till it’s comfortable.

        My point is that air conditioning systems ought to allow you to set whatever combination of temperature and humidity you like, then the smart control can run it to optimize your energy efficiency.

        An even smarter control might allow you to set a curve of temp vs. relative humidity, and then optimize your energy efficiency along that curve based on conditions.

      • Tony asks AK: Do you have any suggestions for an appropriate household humidity level?
        _____

        Don’t know if I’m posting this in the right place, but I’m most comfortable when the humidity level is in 40-50 range. When humidity is within that range, i can be comfortable with relatively high indoor temperatures during warm weather. My recently purchased climate-control system lets me control humidity when cooling. It was well worth the money.

      • Max

        Thanks, but it’s more the other way round. It’s now the heating season and it would be useful to know how to reduce the heating input by having the humidity adjusted to the optimum level. It currently seems to be around 72 percent

        Tonyb

      • My recently purchased climate-control system lets me control humidity when cooling. It was well worth the money.

        I should think so!

        Mine was a prediction, I have yet to find evidence of such technology on the retail market.

        What was the brand?

      • I’m sorry, I didn’t understand. My climate control system doesn’t let me adjust humidity when it’s heating, so unfortunately I have no experience that would benefit you.

      • Never mind, I found a search string. Looks like most of them also use inverters, which also helps save power.

      • AK, my climate control system is a middle of the line Lennox which was installed last fall. The previous system did not have a control for adjusting humidity level. I like the new system so well I wish I had bought it years ago.

      • @max1ok…

        Thanks. I wonder though whether it would have been available several years ago. This is rapidly changing technology.

    • I am still waiting to hear who it was that shorted all those airline stocks just before 911…
      I would ask someone at the NSA but all I ever hear is the busy signal.

    • Nomenclature is becoming ever more important to those who remember, we do no live in a game show, we live on a Broadway Hit…

  6. from Update to Comparisons of tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data:

    Here we show that the average ratio of modeled and observed TMT trends is sensitive to both satellite data uncertainties and to model-data differences in stratospheric cooling. When the impact of lower stratospheric cooling on TMT is accounted for, and when the most recent versions of satellite datasets are used, the previously claimed ratio of three between simulated and observed near-global TMT trends is reduced to ≈ 1.7.

    It looks like they improved the models by adding a new process and parameter[s], or by re-estimating existing parameter[s]. That is good news, but all model revisions need to be tested against out-of-sample [probably future] data. Presumably the now more accurate models are forecasting (“predicting” etc) cooler futures.

    • charlieskeptic

      Tweak the models, tweak the data and instead of 3 to 1 bad, we only have 2 to 1 bad. Still bad.

  7. Fewer than 1 in 10 conservative Republicans trusts climate scientists [link]

    Climate scientists’ research findings are influenced by money most of the time.

    In climate science schools, no one who disagrees will graduate. In climate science, anyone who disagrees will get kicked out of the club. In Forecasting, anyone who disagrees will get fired.

    If you attend a skeptic climate conference, you will notice that the consensus crowd did not attend.

    The Catholic Church apologized to Galileo, hundreds of years after his death. That will happen again, to the Climate Skeptics, after our deaths, but this time it will not take hundreds of years, we are gathering data that continues to deviate, more and more, from the climate model output. We will understand honest climate science, sooner rather than later.

    • Curious George

      You don’t have to be a conservative Republican to mistrust climate scientists. I’ll paraphrase the finding, Progressives are more gullible.

  8. Re:Biofuels turn out to be a big climate mistake – here’s why

    The real reason why is that Congress and the Administration (and the Courts) aren’t qualified to pick one technology over another.

  9. Tmt model-observation comparison paper in J. Climate. After fiddles, the models are only 2x hot in the tropical troposphere instead of the 3x Christy et. al. found. Still falsified.

    • charlieskeptic

      I’ll take that to the bank. IPCC climate models are bunk at any metric.

    • It says “We show that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid- to upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record.”
      The problem was that stratospheric cooling was diluting the satellite TMT warming.

      • That’s strange:
        Stratospheric temperature changes during the satellite era
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024039/full

      • Yes, the satellite data has been undergoing a lot of adjustment recently. Not sure I would trust it much.

      • Jim D,

        If you’re not sure whether you would trust it much, then don’t trust it.

        Why would you think that anybody really cares what you’re not sure about trusting?

        I’m sure that most people don’t care what I’m not sure about, or even what I am sure about, because opinion counts for nought against facts.

        The GHE enthusiasts are sure that the Earth is heating (as in “Hottest year EVAH!”) but they just can’t seem to explain precisely why they are so sure. It might help if you could explain the reasons for your unsureness, avoiding terms such “I’m not sure”, or “I’m unconvinced” or even “I don’t think . . .”.

        People who are unable to produce facts to back up their assertions, often resort to appeals to their own authority.

        I can understand why you might be unsure about the GHE – it doesn’t exist!
        Neither does the luminiferous ether, phlogiston, or N rays.

        I’m always willing to change my surety in the face of new facts, but GHE supporters haven’t even any old facts, let alone new ones! Just the same old tired assertions of imminent disaster of one form or another – at some unspecified time in the future, at locations yet to be determined – maybe.

        I’m definitely not sure why I should waste a good worry. Predictions to date haven’t been runaway successes now, have they?

        Keep on with being unsure. Trust nothing. You wont disappointed, that’s for sure!

        Cheers.

      • Yep, 30 years of data is about 15 satellites, each with their own drifts and biases. Tough work getting a time series out of that lot. Certainly understandable if you are saying you doubt it too.

      • charlieskeptic

        Mike, I’m hoping there are some things we can (pretty much) all agree upon:

        1. The world warmed over the last 250 to 300 years. There have been minor ups and downs over that period.
        2. Proxies (paleo) do not have the temporal accuracy of thermometers. Grafting thermometer records onto proxies can give misleading results.
        3. Temperatures rose slightly over the 20th Century. There have been minor ups and downs over that period.
        4. The rate of temperature rise from about 1915 to about 1940 is not statistically significantly different than that from about 1975 to about 2000, although the latter period started at a higher level.
        5. The rate of warming of the 21st Century is at a lesser rate than the last 25 years of the 20th Century.

        I’m going to bed now, and will add more tomorrow. Add any you can think of.

      • Five ice ages in the past 420,000 years. Plus more way back…

      • If we get to pay a fee because we misused our carbon in the past we must pay a tax… next is a tax on breathing in to much ‘O’. If we accept paying for the invisible the powers that be will never stop educating us all.

  10. CSM on climate consensus. Reciting the warmunist catechism does’t make it so. Quoting only dedicated warmunists is not balanced reporting. Neither science nor monitoring. Just belief.

  11. A Plan to Defend against the War on Science
    “That if anyone could discover the truth of something for him or herself using the tools of science, then no king, no pope and no wealthy lord was more entitled to govern the people than they were themselves. It was self-evident.”

    But would the believers take any notice of it?
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/earths-surface-temperatures-using-hemispherical-rather-ulric-lyons?trk=pulse_spock-articles

  12. The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policy making

    I got a page not found error for that link.

  13. Consensus’ on climate change: what that does and doesn’t mean

    “natural phenomena that affect climate and are impossible to know in advance. These include El Niño and La Niña,”

    It’s a consensus of ignorance then, as ENSO responds to solar variability.

  14. “The local warming effect occurs when perceived deviations in the day’s temperature affect individuals’ global warming beliefs.”

    –i.e., the author is make a distinction between a ‘local warming effect,’ the magnitude of which is subjective and difficult to measure, and rhe systemic warming bias that has been injected into the record due to UHI which can be and has been objectively measured and to the dismay of any real scientist is very real.

  15. SW megadrought near certain? True. Look at Chaco Canyon for evidence. This century? Probably not. Climate models don’t regionally downscale, and they don’t get precipitation right. Another ‘computer game’ alarm paper.

  16. Climate History Newsletter. This is a quarterly from Climate History Network. Clicked About Us. 150 historians looking at historical paleoclimate impacts, based at Georgetown U. Pity they didn’t get Mann’s hockey stick memo erasing the MWP and LIA leaving nothing to study.

    • charlieskeptic

      Dig a little deeper into that Newsletter for an interview:

      “Valérie Masson-Delmotte is an internationally renowned climate scientist. She was a lead author for the “paleoclimate” section of the fourth assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). She was the lead coordinating author for the “information from paleoclimate archives” section in the IPCC’s fifth and most recent assessment report. For the IPCC’s upcoming sixth assessment report, she is a lead coordinating author for the entire Working Group One, the Physical Scientific Basis, which oversees all other scientific chapters.” I assume this means she was complicit in the Hockey Stick mess.

      Read the stuff yourself, but the following is a good indication of her faith in IPCC climate models:

      “Abrupt events near Greenland were particularly large, 8-16°C in a couple of decades to centuries. Today’s changes in Greenland are not unprecedented, but if we go on with greenhouse gas emissions, in the high end business as usual scenarios, we would reach or go above the fastest changes of the last glacial period.”

      I pointed out elsewhere that IPCC documents indicate AR6 will just assume AR5 results, and pile on B.S. thereafter.

  17. Dan Kahan: even liberal climate change “believers” are a bit skeptical about what “climate scientists” are saying

    It’s amazing the intellectual hoops the alarmists jump through since they have failed to convince all us ordinary folk to jump on the bandwagon.

    Perhaps they could start by not implying that everyone that declines to “believe” suffers from “cognitive dualism” or some other such psychobabble tripe.

    I’ll coin my own psychobabble jargon.

    Ivory Tower Delusional Disorder – the belief that one is a very special rat among all other lab rats

  18. Dr Roy Spencer adopts scientific approach –

    In relation to a graphic he posted on his blog recently –

    “That plot alone should tell you that something is wrong with the climate models. It’s not even obvious a statistically significant warming has occurred, let alone attribute it to a cause, given all of the adjustments (or lack of proper adjustments) that have been made to the surface thermometer data over the years.”

    Gee. A “climate scientist” maybe changing his opinion on the basis of facts?

    Whatever will come next? A demand for a reproducible experiment showing the heating (as in “hottest year EVAH!) properties of CO2?

    Cheers.

    • Oh everybody knows dr Spencer, he’s such a panicking warmist. /sarc

      Don’t scare-quote people, it’s rude.

      • wert,

        Are you implying that Dr Spencer is being unscientific by being prepared to possibly change his views if observations suggest such a course?

        What is a scare quote? Have I misquoted someone? Or do you mean a quote that scares the person who originally made it?

        As to rudeness, if you are telling me how to think, or what to do, I hope you don’t mind if I don’t obey your instruction. You are of course free to take offense at anything I might say – that is your prerogative.

        On the other hand you might choose not to take offense. I generally take the latter course – choosing to be offended doesn’t seem particularly rewarding, to me.

        I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

        Cheers.

  19. An update on the EPA ozone information – fact finally being accepted –

    “At any given time, ozone molecules are constantly formed and destroyed in the stratosphere. The total amount has remained relatively stable during the decades that it has been measured.”

    So in spite of all the chlorofluorocarbons etc, and all their evil ozone destroying actions –

    “One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules before it is removed from the stratosphere. Ozone can be destroyed more quickly than it is naturally created.”

    – it seems that actual, measured, ozone levels haven’t actually changed much since people started measuring them. The scary, scary, “we’re all doomed unless we obey the scientists” scenario doesn’t actually seem to exist, and has never existed!

    In fact, Mother Nature points out that over the Antarctic, the “ozone hole” waxes and wanes. I’m guessing that would be logical, seeing that in that region, sunlight barely skims the top of the stratosphere. None can actually pass through the ozone layer to strike the surface. The angle is too oblique.

    I wonder what the cost of combatting this apparently non-existent “ozone hole” chimera has been? I’m pretty sure scientists won’t give me a refund of the amount it’s cost me – directly or indirectly!

    Oh well – onwards and upwards to the next catastrophic forecast!

    Cheers.

    • Curious George

      It just coincided with the expiration of DuPont’s patents on freon. So DuPont switched to other patented compounds, and the progressives outlawed freons. I wonder why the UN is banning freons again.

  20. Shawn Otto is a ridiculous left wing hack.

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), chairman of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, took time off from his presidential campaign last December to hold hearings during the Paris climate summit showcasing well-known climate deniers repeating scientifically discredited talking points.

    He writes glowing Amazon reviews of Michael Mann’s books and swallows Mann’s version of the hockey stick whole. When I challenged him in the comments, some of mine were deleted:

    http://canmancannedcomments.blogspot.com/2016/07/amazon-deletes-my-comments-to-shawn-otto.html

  21. John Robertson

    “It’s not a belief issue,” says Professor White. Fossil fuels have been pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and “We don’t know of any example in which greenhouse gases don’t absorb the Earth’s radiation and therefore warm the Earth up.” This statement is from the Christian Science Monitor story Consensus on Climate Change – what that does and doesn’t mean…
    I understood that the amount of IR that CO2 can absorb is only within a very narrow bandwidth and as such there is a point where CO2 will no longer change the amount of IR reflected or absorbed. With that fact in mind (Mr. Best is not the only person to raise this point) I fail to see how Professor White can be considered correct in his statement and one has to wonder about the rest of the article’s background hypothesis. It looks like more of the same science by consensus rather than falsifiable research where the data is freely available for discussion.

    • John Robertson,

      One might as tritely say “We don’t know of any example in which objects on the surface of the Earth don’t absorb the Earth’s radiation and therefore warm the Earth up.”

      Complete nonsense. Even mentioning the “Earth’s radiation”, by definition shows that the Earth is cooling at the time. Just to cut the GHE enthusiasts off at the pass, I’ll say I am talking about nighttime. I don’t know of any example where, naturally, the atmosphere, surface, or objects on the surface choose to increase their temperature at night.

      Professor White is deluded. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere notwithstanding. Maybe the good Professor will claim that the GHE only operates while the Sun is shining brightly, or that it really makes things “warmer than they otherwise would be”.

      No falsifiable hypothesis. Just more Climatological Cargo Cult Scientism. As Feynman said once “This is science?”

      Non-science (pronounced “nonsense”), more like.

      Cheers.

    • Furthermore, what does any of it matter since, despite 30 years of climate research and advocacy, there still is no persuasive evidence (no valid damage function) to support the belief/assumption that human caused GHG emissions are dangerous or that they will do more harm than good.

    • You understand wrong. Clive Best did notraise this point”, he brought it up to refute it. Perhaps if you read harder?

      If Best’s discussion is a little to technical for you, Science of Doom has a simpler one with manifold links to more technical discussions. AFAIK everything he says in that post is correct, within the limits of a simplistic discussion. He also addresses some of the more common “talking points” sometimes brought up against it.

      From the “Preamble”:

      First of all, the “greenhouse” effect is not AGW. In maths, physics, engineering and other hard sciences, one block is built upon another block. AGW is built upon the “greenhouse” effect. If AGW is wrong, it doesn’t invalidate the greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect is wrong, it does invalidate AGW.</blockquote

      • AK,

        Your link provided the following –

        “5. Most of the emission of radiation to space by the climate system is from the atmosphere, not from the surface of the earth. This is a key element of the “greenhouse” effect. The intensity of emission depends on the local atmosphere. So the temperature of the atmosphere from which the emission originates determines the amount of radiation.”

        Unfortunately, this is complete nonsense.

        Disregarding the fact that the “climate system” radiates precisely nothing (being a contradiction in terms), the surface of the Earth radiates directly to space.

        Photographs taken from outside the atmosphere using UV, visible, and IR light radiated from the surface show the the atmosphere restricts little of the outgoing EMR. You may have noticed that standing out in the blazing Sun, soaking up the IR makes you hot. The UV that manages to reach the surface is enough to damage your skin, degrade paint and plastic, and rot things like exposed rubber tyres.

        Lord Rosse, in 1868, was measuring the temperature of the Moon’s surface – using the longer wavelengths of IR which penetrate the atmosphere. Accurately enough to be in close agreement with the Diviner results.

        The surface of the Earth is generally hotter than the atmosphere, and radiates at higher intensities as a consequence – t^4 and all that.

        The heat capacity of the Earth beneath the surface (heat reservoir) is far greater than the puny amount of heat contained by the atmosphere.

        The existence of cold low level inversions at night is a graphic and easily understood example of the physics involved. John Tyndall experimented, recorded, and understood this, more than 100 years ago.

        No GHE, no planetary heating due to CO2.

        If you critically examine the rest of the SOD link, you will hopefully come to agree with me. Whoever wrote it demonstrates the triumph of faith overcoming fact.

        Cheers.