APS and the Global Warming Scam

[william.scherk]

On 1/1/2017 at 6:48 PM, william.scherk said:

I've noted the three 'warm' physicists and three 'lukewarm' physicists at the APS expert workshop, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, William Collins, Ben Santer, John Christy and Isaac Held. None of them dispute the 'foundational' GHE. That is not where their disagreements lie.[...]

Biggest news this week on this crew is that Judith Curry resigned from her academic position. She has some interesting departure notices at her blog.  It should be noted that she has a robust existing private forecasting firm to manage, that she is going out with a few bangs. Not that there is anything wrong with that. 

My other excuse to post is this gorgeous animation of the year just past. Weather never looked so cool.  An almost comprehensible chaos. How I watch it is with my eyes fixed on one part of the globe at a time. 

 

The atmosphere in 2016; visualised using precipitable water. Featuring hurricanes, monsoons, tropical convection and much more. pic.twitter.com/sO8MiGJ8s6

— James Warner (@MetmanJames) January 1, 2017

[Ellen Stuttle]

On December 31, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Brant Gaede said:

I suspect Dennis May who started this thread is deceased.

Dennis' most recent post on one of his physics groups was January 3 this year (2017).

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

49 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Dennis' most recent post on one of his physics groups was January 3 this year (2017).

Ellen

which group?  Do you have a URL?  Thanks.

[william.scherk]

This post of Michael's is also topical in this 'scam' thread. Over where I take this from, Michael gauges the skill of Tucker Carlson in some measures that I do not contest here. He attempts to analyze the Tucker technique, so to speak, whereas I do not.  I hope to return to that with some thoughts -- for those who like textual versions of reality, I took the subtitles from the FoxNews video, so I could puzzle over the exchange. I share that down below.

On 1/8/2017 at 8:45 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He waits for THE CLAIM.  This is when the person makes a claim that can only be backed up with argument from intimidation since there are no facts to back it up.

I don't enjoy watching Tucker Carlson, nor credit him with any wisdom on the issue of climate change. And it was fun to see a historian struggle to explain what he believes he knows in a five-minute interview.  In other words, I do enjoy an inquisitorial exchange as much as the next guy -- see my inquisition of the Posse capers on the Conspiracy thread -- and I think "How do you know?" is a killer question.

We (I and Jonathan) have already slugged it out a bit on the wisdom of claiming any climate "Consensus."  At root, it is nose-counting.  Go out to the literature that could properly be classified as 'climate science' and count the rather nebulous concept of 'accepts that CO2 warms Earth' ... 

The best that can be said about raising the 97% 'consensus' as an epistemological finding is that it does not convince, not in and of itself. Even were it possible to assert truthfully that the vast majority of 'climate scientists' accept that adding CO2 to our atmosphere will, all things considered, increase the surface, ocean and atmospheric temperatures ... it isn't meaningful to the person who already is quite quite skeptical of what is called "Alarmism."

(I think it also bears mentioning that slurs and slags are a part of the broader societal "debate" over anthropogenic global warming.  It ranges from Denialism to Cultism.)  

That said, here is the moderately-stupid article that caught Tucker's eye: "Republicans, Climate Change, And The New Reality."  And the least stupid in an excerpt. May a hundred questions bloom ...

So now the country (and the world) seem to be awaiting the consequences in a mental state sometimes called the “delusion of reprieve,” where condemned people cling to the illusion that they might be reprieved at the very last minute. We hear news about Trump’s appointments to his White House and cabinet, his constant stream of petulant Tweets, and his cavalier attitude toward the world’s deadliest weapons and say: “Everything will yet be well.”

Through his public statements and personnel choices Trump has made it clear that he rejects the science of climate change. I’ve always believed that people who dismiss science in one area shouldn’t be able to benefit from science in others. If Trump and his cohort believe the science of global warming is bogus then they shouldn’t be allowed to use the science of the Internet for their Twitter accounts, the science of global positioning for their drones, or the science of nuclear power for their weaponry.

The oil, coal, and gas companies use the same scientific methodology to extract resources that climate scientists use to confirm the planetary disaster that awaits us. It’s pretty crazy to see the U.S. government abandon science when it conflicts with corporate profits, while Trump’s donors from Big Ag, Big Banks, and Big Pharma deploy science to patent new life forms, engage in “high frequency” trading, and invent new drugs.

It’s not just the people around Trump who reject the science of climate change. The leadership of the Republican Party — from House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, to the chairs of the key science and technology committees in Congress, to the Republicans’ favorite think tanks — all share the fossil fuel industry’s preference that the U.S. government does nothing to address the most serious planetary crisis humanity has ever faced.

The Republicans’ cravenness on climate change is clear. After claiming for years that the science was “inconclusive” (or a “hoax”), they held the public position that they opposed any concerted action to reduce greenhouse gases because China and India would never go along. Then, in 2015, when China and India signed on to the Paris Climate accords, Mitch McConnell and the Republican leaders began telling foreign governments that the Republicans would fight against any international deal on climate change in any case.

The Trump Republicans not only reject science when it conflicts with their donors’ bottom line, they’ve moved to rebuffing “facts,” scientific or otherwise. The Trump surrogate, Scottie Nell Hughes, unwittingly confirmed a half-century’s worth of media criticism when she told CNN:

 

“ . . . And so one thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts—they’re not really facts. Everybody has a way—it’s kind of like looking at ratings, or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth, or not truth. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”

The cable news shows and even middlebrow fare on NPR and PBS don’t have the tools to deal with Ms. Hughes’s Orwellian assertions or Trump’s brash mendacity. They generally greet with a yawn this epochal shift that is taking place in our nation’s political discourse, blandly interpreting it as a sign of the times brought to us by social media - blah, blah, Zzzzzzzzz.

We’re now entering a period where the U.S. military’s 22nd Century weapons technology is in the hands of those whose mentality hasn’t really left the Bronze Age. Say what you will about the deficiencies among the Democratic leadership (and there are many), at least the Democrats are trying to remain in the fact-based world and accept the validity of scientific inquiry

Quote

Then he asks the person how that person knows.

Which means you blow all your time on epistemic issues.  

-- to the "argument from intimidation," again:

On 1/8/2017 at 8:45 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

get people to shut up by shaming them with a charge of ignorance, implicit or explicit. ("Nobody intelligent could possibly believe blah blah blah...")

Could it be that Tucker was trying to shame the history prof?  He certainly used some choice words about the prof's 'religion' -- and he repeatedly said that "you don't know." ... "and the answer of course is you have no idea what climate science is ..."  ... "What you're trying to do to me is call me names because I'm asking questions."

"Nobody intelligent could possibly believe in anthropogenic global warming ..."

On 1/8/2017 at 8:45 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's well worth studying Tucker's tactics.

From my point of view, his tactics are part and parcel of "Nobody Knows." Or, nobody can know. Except him, perhaps. 

Quote

Objectivist snark and put-downs (especially ones that try to ape Rand's manner) never did discredit a person making an argument from intimidation, not with people at large.

Snark and putdowns are hardly going to advance any discussion or debate over human-caused global warming.  Eco-nazi, environazi, warmunist, libtard, scum ...

It would be interesting to have Tucker tangle with someone who is better-informed and less ideological than the prof.  Here's a bit from the Tillerson hearings today:  From Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller:

Quote

Former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson told senators during his confirmation hearing the “risk of climate change does exist,” but he said there’s still debate over the impacts future warming will have.

“I came to my personal position over about 20 years as an engineer and a scientist, understanding the evolution of the science, came to the conclusion a few years ago the risk of climate change does exist, and that the consequences could be serious enough that action should be taken,” Tillerson said during his confirmation hearing.

“The type of action seem to be where the largest areas of debate exist in the public discourse. I think it’s important to recognize the U.S. has done a pretty good job,” Tillerson said before being interrupted by Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Corker wanted President-Elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the State Department to give a more “succinct” answer of his thoughts on global warming.

 “The increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect,” Tillerson said. “Our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”

Environmentalists have opposed Tillerson’s nomination, arguing his confirmation would put “Big Oil” and “climate deniers” in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Environmental activists interrupted Tillerson’s hearing, yelling about pipelines and Hurricane Sandy.

But Tillerson is no “denier” of global warming. While CEO, Exxon supported a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Tillerson told lawmakers he thought a carbon tax would better address greenhouse gas emissions than cap-and-trade.

“Let’s simplify the system,” he said, qualifying such a tax should be “revenue neutral.”

“There will be impacts on jobs,” he cautioned. “It’s not a revenue measure.”

Tillerson also said he backed a “global response” to global warming since no one nation could tackle the issue on its own.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/11/tillerson-the-risk-of-climate-change-does-exist/#ixzz4VTrA5Ql0

 

The rough and ready caption file from the Tucker show:

 

--   in

Some fun from 1975: 

Quote

 

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

1. Wallace S. Broecker¹

+ Author Affiliations

Science  08 Aug 1975:
Vol. 189, Issue 4201, pp. 460-463
DOI: 10.1126/science.189.4201.460

Abstract

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Could it be that Tucker was trying to shame the history prof?

William,

No.

Not like with argument from intimidation. Tucker might have been laughing at the professor for lack of preparation and critical thinking, but he wasn't trying to get the professor to not express his views. Tucker invited him to express them and gave him ample space to do so.

The climate change folks use argument from intimidation all the time to shut people up. The other side likes to do something different: they point to the climate change liars who make false claims and have been caught, then point to the fact that the climate change folks still find the liars and some of their lies credible. They also like to point to actual cold weather and talk about global warming.  

This is not argument from intimidation because the nay side does not try to shut down discussion, which is what the argument from intimidation is all about. The nay side's manner can get aggressive, granted, but it's not aimed at barring a subject from public doubt and debate.

The climate change folks who use argument from intimidation do not want the topic itself to be contested. They do not want people to say what they are thinking or wondering about. They want compliance, not persuasion. If persuasion happens, fine, but it's not a requirement. The deal is to get people who disagree to sit down and shut up.

Apropos, President Obama made his farewell speech last night and made a masterful use of the argument from intimidation pro manmade climate change (transcript here). First he prefaced it with a discussion of social and information bubbles and how people are always talking past each other these days because of them. Then he made what, in persuasion, is called a "damaging admission." This is when you say something negative about yourself to make you look human and honest and reasonable, but you make sure your damaging admission is of a much lower level of importance than the issue you want to persuade is about. (The quoted parts are from Obama's speech.)

Quote

How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing?  It’s not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts; it’s self-defeating.

It's important to note that this is a lower level of importance because both sides do it. So Obama's side is not the only one that's flawed. And, for good measure, since it's his side doing bad, too, the real problem is not immorality, but impracticability ("self-defeating"). If he were only talking about his target, the real problem would be evil.  

Then he appeals to a "higher authority," that is reality--and his mom thrown in for a small feel-good spritz of oxytocin in the listener's brain.

Quote

Because as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you.

Then he goes full-on with the argument from intimidation:

Quote

Take the challenge of climate change.  In just eight years, we’ve halved our dependence on foreign oil, doubled our renewable energy, and led the world to an agreement that has the promise to save this planet.  But without bolder action, our children won’t have time to debate the existence of climate change; they’ll be busy dealing with its effects: environmental disasters, economic disruptions, and waves of climate refugees seeking sanctuary. 

Now, we can and should argue about the best approach to the problem.  But to simply deny the problem not only betrays future generations; it betrays the essential spirit of innovation and practical problem-solving that guided our Founders.

Not only are the oodles of scientists who doubt any serious effects of man's input into the climate blanked out, Obama implies you are a dummy if you do not agree with him. At the very least, you are unreasonable because reasonable people look for the best way to deal with this problem, even if they disagree about that, and unreasonable people deny there is a problem or minimize it. Not only that, if you don't agree with his sky-is-falling schtick, you are jeopardizing the very existence of all of our children (which only a stupid or evil person would do), and you are betraying the essential spirit of our Founding Fathers.

This last was expertly aimed at American patriots.

That is argument from intimidation done by a master without a shred of actual substance.

That is not what Tucker does.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The mainstream media are now going to create Zombie Obama.

He's sticking around DC so he can be trotted out for the pronouncing.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The mainstream media are now going to create Zombie Obama.

He's sticking around DC so he can be trotted out for the pronouncing.

--Brant

Obama has been carrying out  Saul Alinsky's playbook for decades (even including his time as President).  He will not stop now, now that he is ex officio.  He is one of Saul Alinksy's   Spirit Children. 

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

a quote from the same:

In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), Alinsky wrote at the end of his personal acknowledgements:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.

In the book, he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the opening paragraph Alinsky writes,

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

 

Brrrrrrr........

[BaalChatzaf]

About the "risk" of Climate Change   make that a certainty.  The climate of this planet is -always- changing.  it -must- change.  It is the second law of thermodynamics in operation.  Anything at a higher temperature than its surroundings into which energy can pass will necessarily cool off.  How fast and how much depends on the interface between a system and its surroundings (the rest of the cosmos). 

The issue is not whether climate will change  but how much and by what  channels of energy and entropy flow it will change.  The Luke-Warmers are telling the truth.  Currently the earth is warming a bit and will continue to do so until it starts to cool down and a new ice-age phase begins.  We are due for several more cycles increased glaciers  following by milder interglacial periods  until the hydrogen in the Sun is mostly turned into Helium.  When Helium fusion starts then we will certainly have  "run away"  warming.  This is at least a billion years off. 

And yes,  atmospheric CO2  does slow down the rate at which Earth radiates its inbound energy off to outer space.  The presence of the atmosphere produces a slowed up mode of black-body radiation.  Call it grey body radiation if you will.  And we are not having greenhouse conditions.  We are having hot water bottle conditions.   Real greenhouses keep things warm by preventing convection.  There is no glass roof on our atmosphere. 

[william.scherk]

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker

Science  08 Aug 1975

That date and name stuck out for me.  I hope some readers will have visited the link and will take a gander at the PDF of this 42 year old report. Broecker was an important 20th century actor in the 'Discovery of Global Warming' ...  and the question he asks back when rings still.  Somebody like Tucker Carlson would say "I cannot know, nobody knows, nobody can know,'  and someone like Judith Curry would say "the uncertainty monster needs to be addressed." Below are a few items from one of her presentations. 

Curry's latest post is Skin in the game, which explores the difference in responsibility between the private sector forecasting 'industry' and the climate-change-alarmism 'industry.'  She uses the word perversion to great effect:

Quote

Defenders of the climate models and climate model projections argue that climate models shouldn’t be expected to verify on decadal time scales.

In other words, climate modelers have no skin in the game in terms of losing something if their forecasts turn out to be wrong.  In fact, there is actually a perversion of skin in the game, whereby scientists are rewarded (professional recognition, grants, etc.) if they make alarming predictions (even if they are easily shown not to comport with observations).

[...]

The scientists themselves have absolutely no skin in the game, other than the perversions associated with being professionally rewarded for making alarming predictions and claiming that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a science ‘denier.’

From the Santa Fe conference, 2011:

-- an interesting side-road for me, maybe not for all, a closer look at one of 19th century names cited as pioneers of climate science, the name Curry uses as a substitution for the "greenhouse effect" -- the Tyndall gas effect.

Global Warming Science In The Age Of Queen Victoria: John Tyndall

Quote

In science as elsewhere, “one thing leads to another,” and this is especially true with such active minds as Tyndall’s.  He wrote in 1861:

The researches on glaciers which I have had the honor of submitting from time to time to the notice of the Royal Society, directed my attention in a special manner to the observations and speculations of De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins, on the transmission of solar and terrestrial heat through the earth’s atmosphere.  This gave practical effect to a desire which I had previously entertained to make the mutual action of radiant heat and gases of all kinds the subject of an experimental inquiry.

 The inquiry began in the summer of 1859, and for seven weeks Tyndall systematically conducted an “incessant struggle” to design, procure and build an apparatus sufficient to achieve the “exact measurements” at which he aimed.  Details of windings, insulations, and heat sources occupied him for much of the time, though some preliminary results were attained.  Returning to the project in September of 1860, Tyndall worked for another seven weeks, eight to ten hours daily, to attain the final form of the “ratio spectrophotometer.”

Tyndall's Ratio Spectrophotometer

 

The apparatus essentially compared two stable heat sources, the cubes labeled “C”, each of which was filled with water kept at the boil. The one at the left is a reference; the one at the right, however, sends its heat through the tube, which may be evacuated or filled with the gas or vapor to be measured. A thermopile converts the difference in received radiation to a voltage, which deflects a needle proportionately. Tyndall could thus directly compare the absorption of heat by water vapor, oxygen, carbon dioxide—which nineteenth century chemistry usually referred to as “carbonic acid”—or any other gas or vapor he chose.

His results were as interesting as they are robust. He wrote:

I am unable at the present moment to range with certainty oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and atmospheric air in the order of their absorptive powers, though I have made several hundred experiments with the view of doing so. Their proper action is so small that the slightest foreign impurity gives one a predominance over the other.

By contrast, “olefiant gas”—we call it ethene or ethylene today, and know it as the naturally produced gas which ripens many fruits—absorbed an astounding 81% of the heat passing through the sample tube. Tyndall was amazed:

Those who like myself have been taught to regard transparent gases as almost perfectly diathermous, will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effects. I was indeed slow to believe it possible that a body so constituted, and so transparent to light as olefiant gas, could be so densely opake to any kind of calorific rays; and to secure myself against error, I made several hundred experiments with this single substance.

(It is fortunate that ethene is not very stable in the atmosphere, or it would be a very troublesome “greenhouse gas,” as it occurs naturally and is produced in large quantities as a feedstock for industrial chemistry.)

Comparative Absorption Of Various Gases

A reproduction of Tyndall's table of comparative absorption of various gases. Note that the results are given in degrees, referring to the deflection of the galvanometer's needle. "Carbonic oxide" is called "carbon monoxide" today.

Signficance for climate science.

As the table above shows, the compounds “carbonic oxide” (CO, or carbon monoxide) and “carbonic acid” (CO2, or carbon dioxide), though not as effective as “olefiant gas”, are much better absorbers than dry air, or its main constituents, nitrogen and oxygen. Dry air—but air is not usually dry. What of air containing water vapor? On November 20, 1860, Tyndall differentially compared the absorptive power of the ambient air to that same air scrubbed of its water vapor and “gaseous acids.” He

. . .found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produce an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself. . . It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air.

Tyndall did not fail to underline the significance of the facts he had uncovered:

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. . . every variation [in aqueous vapour] must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal.

Fourier and Pouillet had shown the importance of atmospheric absorption and re-emission of radiation to climate; Tyndall had now, for the first time, identified water vapor and carbon dioxide gas as the most important substances responsible for this effect.

Weather Porn!

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by william.scherk
tightened the formatting, removed dross

[BaalChatzaf]

Tyndall's measurement  exactly characterize the effects of CO2, CH4 and other trace gasses.  This gasses are necessary to keep the planet warm enough for life to exist.  Without these radiation inhibitors (so called green house gasses)  the planet would be too cold for liquid water to exist anywhere, but in the tropics.

It is unfortunate that CO2 which is absolutely essential for plant life has been demonzed.  CO2 is NOT pollution. CO2 is plant food. 

[Brant Gaede]

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

About the "risk" of Climate Change   make that a certainty.  The climate of this planet is -always- changing.  it -must- change.  It is the second law of thermodynamics in operation.  Anything at a higher temperature than its surroundings into which energy can pass will necessarily cool off.  How fast and how much depends on the interface between a system and its surroundings (the rest of the cosmos). 

The issue is not whether climate will change  but how much and by what  channels of energy and entropy flow it will change.  The Luke-Warmers are telling the truth.  Currently the earth is warming a bit and will continue to do so until it starts to cool down and a new ice-age phase begins.  We are due for several more cycles increased glaciers  following by milder interglacial periods  until the hydrogen in the Sun is mostly turned into Helium.  When Helium fusion starts then we will certainly have  "run away"  warming.  This is at least a billion years off. 

And yes,  atmospheric CO2  does slow down the rate at which Earth radiates its inbound energy off to outer space.  The presence of the atmosphere produces a slowed up mode of black-body radiation.  Call it grey body radiation if you will.  And we are not having greenhouse conditions.  We are having hot water bottle conditions.   Real greenhouses keep things warm by preventing convection.  There is no glass roof on our atmosphere. 

How does that compare with water vapor quantitatively and qualitatively? By that I mean if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere--let's assume we can snap our fingers and it's gone--what would be the effect on temperature?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

On 1/12/2017 at 6:27 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

And yes,  atmospheric CO2  does slow down the rate at which Earth radiates its inbound energy off to outer space.  

How does that compare with water vapor quantitatively and qualitatively? By that I mean if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere--let's assume we can snap our fingers and it's gone--what would be the effect on temperature?

See: What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like? (emphasis added)

Quote

 

The ability for CO2 to warm the surface of a planet through the absorption of infrared radiation is well known.  What is much less appreciated, however, is just how effective of a gas it is in maintaining the greenhouse framework that helps to characterize the modern climate.

The question of how the climate would change in a completely CO2-free atmosphere was brought up recently in a testimony to the subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee.  An answer was provided by MIT scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, who suggested that such a hypothetical removal of all the CO2 in the air would translate into a global cooling of about 2.5 degrees, presumably in Celsius (see here, about 47 minutes into the video). 

[...]

There have been a number of studies which examine the evolution of the climate system with no CO2 in the atmosphere.  Such experiments are described for example in Pierrehumbert et al (2007) , or by Voigt and Marotzke (2009).  From these papers, one can trigger a full snowball Earth with a sufficient reduction in atmospheric CO2.  A substantial reduction in water vapor (shown below, from Lacis et al (2010) as well as increase in the surface albedo are important feedbacks here, showing that removing the non-condensing greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) in the atmosphere can collapse nearly the entire terrestrial greenhouse effect.  What’s more, since the albedo increases substantially, the total greenhouse effect can be thought of as providing even more than 33 K of warming relative to Earth’s blackbody emission temperature. In the Lacis et al experiments, removing the CO2 from the atmosphere generates a cooling of around 30 C, an order of magnitude difference from Lindzen's answer.

[...]

Lindzen has argued for a relatively insensitive climate system in the past, in which case it would be difficult  to explain the magnitude of large climate changes in the past, ranging from snowballs, the PETM, glacial-interglacial cycles, etc.  However, arguing that the climate would cool only be 2.5 degrees when you remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere is really just a made up number and ignored several articles on the subject that show otherwise.  Just the opposite, evidence shows that CO2 provides the building block for the terrestrial greenhouse effect, both because it absorbs strongly near the peak emission for Earth, and because it allows Earth to be warm enough to sustain a powerful water vapor greenhouse effect. 

 

See also a less technical rendering of the question, at Phys.org -- Carbon dioxide controls Earth's temperature, which refers to the Lacis et al experiments.  And for an even simpler exploration of the question, see Roy Spencer's What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect?

Weather porn!

 

 

[BaalChatzaf]

31 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

See: What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like? (emphasis added)

See also a less technical rendering of the question, at Phys.org -- Carbon dioxide controls Earth's temperature, which refers to the Lacis et al experiments.  And for an even simpler exploration of the question, see Roy Spencer's What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect?

Weather porn!

 

 

No CO2 and no CH4 means a cooler mean temperature.  No CO2 also means no plants --- period.  Plants need CO2 to synthesize there carbon structures.

Water vapor is more of a temperature inhibitor but it would not exist  in quantity if all the water were frozen.  Very little vapor would come off of frozen water.

To get water vapor one must first have liquid water from which high speed water molecules would fly off;.

[william.scherk]

On 1/12/2017 at 9:48 AM, william.scherk said:

On 1/11/2017 at 11:12 AM, william.scherk said:

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker

Science  08 Aug 1975

That date and name stuck out for me.  I hope some readers will have visited the link and will take a gander at the PDF of this 42 year old report. Broecker was an important 20th century actor in the 'Discovery of Global Warming' ...  and the question he asks back when rings still.

These model projections (scenarios/hypotheses/forecasts/estimates/projections) versus data comparisons in this brief video start with Broecker ... depending on your point of view, his is prescient or strictly wrong.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

These model projections (scenarios/hypotheses/forecasts/estimates/projections) versus data comparisons in this brief video start with Broecker ... depending on your point of view, his is prescient or strictly wrong.

 

It is interesting to note that the Alarmists might be right.  But they are doing a shitty job of making their case.  Which is too bad.  Because if they are right, and their obnoxious behavior is putting everyone off,  they are defeating their own purpose. 

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote: It is interesting to note that the Alarmists might be right.  But they are doing a shitty job of making their case. Which is too bad. Because if they are right, and their obnoxious behavior is putting everyone off, they are defeating their own purpose.  end quote

Who’s side are you on?

What is your ulterior motive?

What is more important, polar bears or humans?

What is the Alarmist’s purpose?

At what point would a median global temperature increase, harm more humans than it would help?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is interesting to note that the Alarmists might be right.  But they are doing a shitty job of making their case.  Which is too bad.  Because if they are right, and their obnoxious behavior is putting everyone off,  they are defeating their own purpose.

Bob,

Gobs of government money, power lust, arrogance, effete intellectual elitist conceit, and a collectivist soul will do it every time.

The question for me is, is it possible to be all that and be right about anything?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Gobs of government money, power lust, arrogance, effete intellectual elitist conceit, and a collectivist soul will do it every time.

The question for me is, is it possible to be all that and be right about anything?

Michael

In the case of excessive human caused warming it is possible that they are right,  but it is also possible (and I believe likely) that they have overestimated the climate sensitivity with respect to the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  CO2  does  slow down the rate at which the earth and atmosphere radiate energy in the IR spectrum.  This was established  by Tyndall back in 1861 and has been demonstrated over and over again since then. 

The argument is not  -that- CO2  slows down IR radiation,  but whether there are positive feedbacks resulting from man made increases in CO2 concentration and how powerful they are in relation to negative feedbacks.  The real  unresolved question is the degree and effect of cloud formation.

The climate ultra extremists are just plain coo coo   but  warming due to CO2  is as real as rain. 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In the case of excessive human caused warming it is possible that they are right,  but it is also possible (and I believe likely) that they have overestimated the climate sensitivity with respect to the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  CO2  does  slow down the rate at which the earth and atmosphere radiate energy in the IR spectrum.  This was established  by Tyndall back in 1861 and has been demonstrated over and over again since then. 

The argument is not  -that- CO2  slows down IR radiation,  but whether there are positive feedbacks resulting from man made increases in CO2 concentration and how powerful they are in relation to negative feedbacks.  The real  unresolved question is the degree and effect of cloud formation.

The climate ultra extremists are just plain coo coo   but  warming due to CO2  is as real as rain. 

By "warming" do you mean AGW or do you mean maintaining the mean? By "mean" I mean the glacial era we are within.

I think you are overstepping your knowledge base. The 400-year historical correlation with warming/cooling is with sunspot activity. The gradual warming since the Little Ice Age has nothing to do with AGW--it sure didn't get it started--and the data support no general warming for the last 20 years.

If AGW is a problem solve it by putting high sulfur jet fuel into commercial airplanes for high altitude cruising--thousands of them fly everyday to encourage cloud creation--The problem is the problem hasn't been identified with all these hysterical speculations and fascist attacks against "deniers." You have taken up a position in La La Land that reeks of appeasement except you don't seem to know where you are--or care--about what's really going on. The war is not being fought by bad-guy Aspies so good-guy Aspies aren't engaging them. That's you. You don't even know there is a war--know and/or care.

--Brant

it's a philosophical thing except the AGWers now want to make "denying" criminal ("now" was the now just before the now now for with Trump it's now over for now)

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

By "warming" do you mean AGW or do you mean maintaining the mean? By "mean" I mean the glacial era we are within.

I think you are overstepping your knowledge base. The 400-year historical correlation with warming/cooling is with sunspot activity. The gradual warming since the Little Ice Age has nothing to do with AGW--it sure didn't get it started--and the data support no general warming for the last 20 years.

If AGW is a problem solve it by putting high sulfur jet fuel into commercial airplanes for high altitude cruising--thousands of them fly everyday to encourage cloud creation--The problem is the problem hasn't been identified with all these hysterical speculations and fascist attacks against "deniers." You have taken up a position in La La Land that reeks of appeasement except you don't seem to know where you are--or care--about what's really going on. The war is not being fought by bad-guy Aspies so good-guy Aspies aren't engaging them. That's you. You don't even know there is a war--know and/or care.

--Brant

it's a philosophical thing except the AGWers now want to make "denying" criminal ("now" was the now just before the now now for with Trump it's now over for now)

the green house gasses (so called) maintain the average temperature on the ground 33 deg C   warmer  than would an atmosphere  totally transparent to IR radiation coming and going.  So CO2 is not only plant food, it and other trace gases keep the planet warm enough to have liquid water and reproducing biota.

I suggest you read a good treatise on the thermodynamics  of gasses.   You might want to read what Roy Spencer, a lukewarmist, and a man denegrated by the climate alarmists as a running dog for the oil companies has to say about the "greenhouse" effect.   Please  see:  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

 

 

[william.scherk]

18 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

These model projections (scenarios/hypotheses/forecasts/estimates/projections) versus data comparisons in this brief video start with Broecker ... depending on your point of view, his is prescient or strictly wrong.

 

It is interesting to note that the Alarmists might be right.

"The Alarmists"  ... is a useful term in the same way that "Denialists" is a useful term.  It adds a note of darkness to opinions. I am going to adopt the Yale Climate Communication rubrics going forward. It is a judgement call that anyone 'alarmed' by global warming becomes or acts as an alarmist, since 'alarmism' is by definition a position or profession of danger that has no empirical basis.  It is a 'fire' call in a theatre, by that definition. It is a 'false alarm,' so to speak.

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In the case of excessive human caused warming it is possible that they are right,  but it is also possible (and I believe likely) that they have overestimated the climate sensitivity with respect to the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

By "warming" do you mean AGW or do you mean maintaining the mean?

Bob says "excessive human caused warming." 

Quote

By "mean" I mean the glacial era we are within.

The Earth is in an 'interglacial period."  

Quote

I think you are overstepping your knowledge base.

It can happen to anyone, even me and you.

Quote

The 400-year historical correlation with warming/cooling is with sunspot activity.

"I think you are overstepping your knowledge base."  From Skeptical Science's Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

 

 

Quote

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. 

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates).

 

The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.

Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed the warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C; volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C; natural variability (like El Niño) heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C; and greenhouse gases have heated the climate by about 0.8 °C.

Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a) Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC, AR5, Chap 5)

Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result.

 

Quote

The gradual warming since the Little Ice Age has nothing to do with AGW--it sure didn't get it started--and the data support no general warming for the last 20 years.

"The data support no general warming for the last 20 years" is a quite strong claim. How do you back that claim up?  Please share from your 'knowledge base.'

Quote

The problem is the problem hasn't been identified with all these hysterical speculations and fascist attacks against "deniers."

Have another look at the last couple of informative posts; did you find 'hysterical speculation' in Tyndall's work? In Broecker's question? in the forecasts versus reality video immediately done?

What Bob is doing, to my eyes, is showing exactly where his doubts and uncertainties lie -- especially in the incompletely-understood area of cloud formations and feedbacks -- and being honest and straightforward.  

Quote

You have taken up a position in La La Land that reeks of appeasement except you don't seem to know where you are--or care--about what's really going on.

Golly.  Bob calls himself a :"Lukewarmist."  You know what that means by now, I bet.  How does a "Lukewarmist" act to 'appease' and who or what is being 'appeased,' in your view?. It is a pretty strong opinion (Bob is in La La Land) without any supporting warrants.   

Quote

The war is not being fought by bad-guy Aspies so good-guy Aspies aren't engaging them. That's you. You don't even know there is a war--know and/or care.

Yeah. Take that, Bob!  Among the 'worried' and 'concerned' are a few who might could accurately be called unduly alarmist. and named -- but when you don't name folks under the darkest label, the label does all the work.  Which advances knowledge not one centimetre, in my opinion.

Here Peter suggests by implication that Bob is supporting the 'wrong side.' 

13 hours ago, Peter said:

Who’s side are you on?

What is your ulterior motive?

What is more important, polar bears or humans?

What is the Alarmist’s purpose?

Bob is I think on Bob's side. His motive is to understand as best he can what is true and what is unknown or presently uncertain, at least from my point of view. 

The 'Alarmists' I deprecate are those who are neither climate scientists (atmospheric sciences, climatology, meteorology, earth sciences) but who campaign with politics on the front-burner. I class Bill McKibben under that loose rubric, an environmental activist selling a greater project. But on the whole I prefer the more clinical groupings of the Yale folks.  Less laden with moralistic umbrage and pearl-clutchings over name-calling.

Quote

At what point would a median global temperature increase, harm more humans than it would help?

">

That question could be your project, Peter.  With Google-fu and applied interest, you can rationally explore all  'sides' and figure out what it is you yourself understand about the plausible consequences of a (2C) rise in average global temperatures over land and sea.

One way to approach this is to segment out several 'alarmist' predictions over a large span relative to a human generation and the present distribution of population. Segment out, for example, what is happening in the Arctic regions. Set out to understand what is meant by Arctic amplification.  Set out to figure out who is zooming who about projected consequences ...

Weather porn!

 

 Gradual  warming since the Little Ice Age ... 

 

[Peter]

From the Talmud: We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.

Ayn Rand wrote: We begin as philosophers where we began as babies, at the only place there is to begin: by looking at the world.

What if the equatorial regions got hotter with higher humidity’s too? There might be some human and other animal migration. Or if the sea levels did rise, coastal cities would move inland or become uninhabited.  If crops could grow at higher elevations would that be a bad thing? The first evidence I remember reading about “The Roman Warming” was the fact that grape vines grew much higher up Italian mountains, 2000 years ago. What if the grain belt shifted to the “more” northern United States and well up into Canada? Would that be good, bad, or just different? My point is, that even a ten, twenty, or thirty degree average difference in median temperature could be tolerated by humans. We might even thrive to a greater extent as we did in previous warmings. I live in the eastern mid-Atlantic region of America. If my weather and climate became like Oahu’s would many people cry? Heck no.

Peter

I hope William will address the following.

Notes. "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer. Some ideas from the book. When The Earth has climatic warming, species thrive, including humans. When it cools, species decline or become extinct. So, global warming alarmists are fighting against what is good for us. You could go back 4 billion years and it would demonstrate that warmth is good, but let’s start more recently with some more modern history:

The Roman Warming. (500BC to 535AD) “Good for us!”

Then the Dark Ages. (535 to 900)  “Cold is bad for us.”

Medieval Warming. (900 to 1300)  “Good!”

The Little Ice Age. (1300 to 1850)  “Bad.”

Modern Warming. (1850 to Present)  “Good for us!”

Every time we “warm,” we thrive. If mankind were causing global warming, then we would not see simultaneous warming on other planets or moons. But we do. If it warms on Earth, it simultaneously warms on Mars and Jupiter at the same time. The sun is the primary driver of climate change. Mankind has nothing to do with warming or cooling in a climatic sense. And "warming" from the sun historically means just a bit, not a lot. Unfortunately, things "may be" getting cooler soon. We are in a temporary upswing in temperature within a much larger downswing in temperature. Author Ian Plimer mentions, in his heavily annotated book, that soon, the global warming position will, universally, be considered a fraud. 

Robert Tracinski wrote about “Climategate,” in realclearpolitics.com: For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in . . . . This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money . . . . This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated. end quote

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

From the Talmud: We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.

.What if the equatorial regions got hotter with higher humidity’s too?

Heat is transferred from the tropics to the northern latitudes by convection and the Coriolis forces.  Weather is earth's mode of air conditioning.  The polar regions ultimately get the largest temperature increases. 

When you boil a kettle of water  the hottest water is always at the top even though the high temperature is applied at the bottom.

[Peter]

Sabras unite! Or is that word just for girls? Speaking of the weather, how do you like this wind? It’s nice that the temperature is higher or we would be having a blizzard, and not the Dairy Queen kind.  

Ba’al wrote: Heat is transferred from the tropics to the northern latitudes by convection and the Coriolis forces.  Weather is earth's mode of air conditioning.  The polar regions ultimately get the largest temperature increases. end quote

Joke. By that top down reasoning the cumulative effect of a warmer climate would be to have the tropics in the Artic region (the top) and Antarctica would be the coolest. Or if we see which region of the earth is closest to the sun, (closer to ‘the burner’) we would say the tropics must be the warmest. But if everything is automatically air conditioned by one a’ them thar heat pumps then the ‘machine’ would start to heat where it is cooler, and it would lower the temperature where it is hotter, and that is not what I want when I take a shower.      

If global temperatures rose things would be wetter. If we can exist in the Sahara now we could live with higher temperatures anywhere since location is irrelevant. I have just never liked the 90 and 90 we occasionally get here on Delmarva. Palm trees in Jersey? 

The cat in my logo, Sparks just came in at 11:30pm but her dumb sister Precious won't come inside the garage where she has a warm Petco bed. 

[william.scherk]

On 1/22/2017 at 10:38 AM, william.scherk said:

Ole Man of the Artic said:

At what point would a median global temperature increase, harm more humans than it would help?

One way to approach this is to segment out several 'alarmist' predictions over a large span relative to a human generation and the present distribution of population. Segment out, for example, what is happening in the Arctic regions. Set out to understand what is meant by Arctic amplification. 

Unusual, unseasonable Arctic weather continues to surprise a few sciencey types. This is current at the Washington Post's "Capital Weather Gang" today: ‘Beyond the extreme’: Scientists marvel at ‘increasingly non-natural’ Arctic warmth.

For those who have been paying attention to unusual weather in the Arctic, and who have integrated the concepts Arctic Oscillation and amplification, background knowledge of variability in seasonal norms is important. No scientist in the thick of these events suggests excursions from the  long-term  norm are wholly due to an anthropogenic effect. So, it is likely that the next five years of Arctic seasons could see a return of 'normal' once this heat excursion is over. 

In other words, the next winter may see a return of the Arctic conditions to the negative cycle of the Arctic Oscillation. What seems like a freakish spike of warmth could just be evidence of the Arctic equivalent of a 100-year flood.

-- what is interesting about this report are the views of Chip Knappenberger of CATO, and Ryan Maue. Maue is nearer to a Judith Curry-ish stance, and Knappenberger is -- or was -- a thoroughgoing 'skeptic.'  On the Yale bingo board, I'd put them under D for doubtful.

Quote

2016 was the warmest year on record in the Arctic, and 2017 has picked up right where it left off. “Arctic extreme (relative) warmth continues,” Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with WeatherBell Analytics, tweeted on Wednesday, referring to January’s temperatures.

[...]

“[A]fter studying the Arctic and its climate for three and a half decades, I have concluded that what has happened over the last year goes beyond even the extreme,” wrote Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., in an essay for Earth magazine.

At the North Pole, the mercury has rocketed to near the melting point twice since November, and another huge flux of warmth is projected by models next week. Their simulations predict some places in the high Arctic will rise over 50 degrees above normal.

[...]

Sun, the chart’s creator, pointed to a recent lack of cold polar high pressure systems over the Arctic, which block heat and moisture transfer from mid-latitudes. “Now Atlantic and Pacific storms blow right into the central Arctic and transform the area from a cold, dry desert into a wet and stormy ocean,” he said.

But it’s unclear and perhaps unlikely that this set of conditions, which has essentially opened the floodgates for an onslaught of warmth into the Arctic, represents a permanent state.

Zack Labe, a PhD student at the University of California at Irvine who is studying Arctic sea ice and extreme weather, said that while greenhouse gases will continue leading to a warmer climate and less ice in the long run, the Arctic will probably continue to experience significant year-to-year fluctuations.

[...]

Climate scientists say there is no single cause for the remarkable warmth, but posit it is due to natural variations in the Arctic climate superimposed on a long-term warming trend resulting from human activity.

[...]

“I think we should be cautious, especially considering the resiliency of sea ice, when discussing the warming trend,” Labe said. “It remains uncertain the role natural variability may be having in individual years such as this one.”

Yet the human influence on climate in the Arctic may be redefining the so-called natural variability, said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute. “Natural variability is itself is becoming increasingly ‘non-natural’ as it includes influences which themselves are shaped by anthropogenic activities,” he said.

Such a statement is notable coming from Knappenberger, who some consider a climate change skeptic and is unconvinced climate change is a serious problem.

Peter's jokey reference to a hot Arctic and a cold Antarctic, resultant from a Heat Goes North concept, was kind of fun.  The actual facts are more fun.  The key concepts here are jet streams and latitudinal "cells."  Hadley, Ferrel, and Arctic cells.

 

-- what seems to have happened in the Arctic is that a 'relaxed' polar jet stream has sort of unblocked incursions  of warm, moist air, and warm oceanic water.  The relaxation looks like this, almost an absence of the polar jet:

And leads to leads to anomalous weather like this:

 

-- in the positive cycle of the Arctic Oscillation the northern jet stream hugs the arctic in a regular embrace, in the negative phase, the jet stream varies north and south in apparent waves:

Here's a picture that illustrates the variation of a negative oscillation, followed by the video visualization it was taken from. The difference between a positive and negative phase are clear -- especially the positions at 0:30.

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by william.scherk
Added Hadley cell graphic