Jump to content

APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No. It had a graph of prior CO2 concentrations.  Look at the historical graph. We used have much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the Earth did not turn into Venus. I am a data wonk.  Fear has no place in my thinking.  My first, last and middle concern is facts and logic.  Fear is for the Normal people. I am not Normal. 

A graph? So what? It doesn't tell what caused what--not over such huge blocks of time. Recently a comparable graph showed--I thought--that first the temp went up then the CO2 followed. If that were in the article then we could debate or talk about that.

The two graphs were one for 1/2 million years and one for half a billion years, not the much shorter time I'm on about.

WIKI scientific articles are not peer-reviewed and not signed. I suspect most are pretty layman good, but not on this politicalized subject. I don't trust peer-review either for the same reason: confirmation bias, but you love it so much I'm sticking it to you.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 989
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have no idea  who started the notion that global warming is a hoax.    Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880.  So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not

Technically Lindzen is correct.  But blanket is a good analogy.  Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night.  The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g)  slow down the rate at which IR energy is ra

I am glad you posted that.  I was going to post Palmer's lecture.  it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate.  His discourse on the Navier Stokes equa

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

We're talking about the effect of human-added CO2.

Or we were until you switched.

--Brant

Once the CO2 is in the atmosphere it retards IR radiation.  The CO2 does not know who put it in the atmosphere -  people  or the cows  or the local volcano erupting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Well, there was a time when the CO2 loading of the atmosphere was between 4000 ppm and 5000 ppm,  or 12 times the current loading.  

Well, yees, there was indeed a time when the COconcentration is believed to have been (roughly) between the figures you put up. At least according to the paleoclimatologists who study such things.

Turning the statement into a question is useful: When, when, when was there a time with 12 times today's estimated CO2 concentrations? There was such a time, and the time was during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. That was approximately 55 million years ago.

The other obvious question entailed by the statement is "where did that 4K-5K ppm come from (how did the concentration 'evolve')?"  and another question is "How quickly did the high concentrations appear in the paleoclimatic record (or reconstructions)?"

Quote

Did life end on Earth.  No indeed.  In fact it flourished.

Sure, life did not end on Earth. It  endured some perturbations during the timeline of the shift (~20K years) from a lower concentration to a high concentration.  And of course, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum marked a boundary between geological eras.  

So, how might we usefully compare the evolution of the PETM 'natural GHG' variability? Here's one such attempt, an illustration of the change rate, from Wunderground:

petm_vs_modern_emissions.png

Figure 2. Rate of temperature change today (red) and in the PETM (blue). Temperature rose steadily in the PETM due to the slow release of greenhouse gas (around 2 billion tons per year). Today, fossil fuel burning is leading to 30 billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year, driving temperature up at an incredible rate.

 

Quote

 If the Earth supported life at 12 times the CO2 load we have now,  why should we believe  the doom and destruction await us  with a CO2 load of 400 ppm?

This uses equivocation to support its point. Human life did not exist fifty-five million years ago. The continents had not fully disengaged from Pangaea.  And of course, the mystery remains ... from where did the carbon represented in the ancient PPM measurements come from?  I mean, what natural sources ... ?

Watch this space.

Quote

I had a look, and I am sure every interested person had a look.  The take-home message is that the image corresponded to 500 plus million years of CO2 climate reconstructions ... 

Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have contempt for sell-outs. And the more someone tries to present a group of sell-outs to me as credible experts, ones who I should follow and take seriously, meaning he gives the dodgy cognitive import of the sell-outs' pronouncements a pass, I likewise lower the cognitive import of my own words in judging the sell-outs.

I understand and empathize.  I noticed, for instance, just glancing through the material William posted, that he cites Gavin Schmidt, as if Schmidt is a source worthy of any credence.

Regarding  the source, the hilarious screw-up was first noted by Schmidt. It is the screw-up, not the source, that is notable in this tweet --  and which impacts the credence given to the graph screw-up's author.  If Joe Schmo had illustrated the screw-up, then would Joe Schmo have 'credence'?  The cognitive import of the tweet may be absent, absent an understanding of the graphics embedded.

Here is the first graphic, with a "corrective" caption:

The red line shows the current NOAA world temperature graph - elevated in recent years due to the ¿adjusted¿ sea data. The blue line is the Met Office's independent HadCRUT4 record. Although they are offset in temperature by 0.12°C due to different analysis techniques, they reveal that NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend.

The red line shows the current NOAA world temperature graph - elevated in recent years due to the ‘adjusted’ sea data. The blue line is the Met Office's independent HadCRUT4 record. Although they are offset in temperature by 0.12°C due to different analysis techniques, they reveal that NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend.

 

Here is the thing. David Rose's 'Flawed NOAA data' line is doubly misleading.  The two data sources use a differing baseline at which they set their records upon.  Rose's Mail on Sunday graph puts the two data-sets in contrast, but in actuality the 'flawed' set shows almost exactly the same form once the baselines are properly accounted for in the data presentation:

 

C33wwT3WQAEFOHc.jpg

-- the mechanics are fairy easy to understand. NOAA tracks anomalies relative to a 1901-2000 baseline, whereas Hadley's 0C is relative to the average temperatures from 1961-1990.

 

On 2/7/2017 at 9:47 AM, william.scherk said:

Now, what is important, what are people saying, what are the implications of the Bates publication, what 'officially' or in truth is the sum total scandal and probably reckoning for Karl et al? What is the take-home message? 

Everyone is a whore, apparently.

On 2/7/2017 at 9:47 AM, william.scherk said:

Less important, perhaps, is what informed analysts and critics are saying, those who find some errors and inconsistencies within Bates's story and the Rose piece. 

Who gives a shit about informed analysis or critical attention when it is obvious (to Who) that everyone is involved in intellectual prostitution -- including John Bates himself?

Weather porn!  Created by whores and sell-outs to a person.

GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_T2_anom.png

 

GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_WS250.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeballing the temperature gradients at the top of the world, it seems that the Arctic is almost divided. 

GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_T2.png

Eyeballing the next two slices of dynamic data ... you can fit together the concepts. The Arctic low, the swings of  Arctic Oscillation, the Arctic jetstream, these are all 'conspiring' to move energy around. Some experts like Jennifer Francis have proposed that the primary cause of the unusual excursions is the reducing sea ice extent (because it leads to the 'loose' phase of the Arctic Oscillation, which engenders a wobbling jetstream, which leads to large Rossby waves, which lead to momentary 'stabilities' like now).

Now is where southern waters move north relatively unimpeded, from the tropics to the northernmost regions of the Arctic Ocean. Now is where atmospheric flows are pulsing warm moist air as far as the pole. A shrinking season ice "cap" is not enough to keep the jetstream tightly wound around the pole as it is in Antarctica. This is in Francis's view, all tightly coupled enough to be a new-ish feedback on already present trends in Arctic seasonal shifts in temperature.

I don't know that Francis is right, or even half right, and there is robust discussion on her hypothesis  --what unites opinion are the notable, 'unusual' phenomena of the last few Arctic winters. It must be an exciting time to be a climatologist or meteorologist studying the Arctic 'weather machinery.'

The striking thing about this moment's high-latitude record-breaking temperatures is that this excursion is the fourth in twelve months. Usually such weather comes maybe once in a decade. That's why for some meteorologist/weather wonks it is the most remarkable Arctic season on record.  Coming after the remarkable winters of 2014 and 2015, that is saying something. 

 

GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_T2_anom.png

 

GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_WS250.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

A local letter to the editor was intriguing. A person who lives on Deal Island in the Chesapeake Bay was addressing the greatest danger to humans if the earth is warming: sea rise. They mentioned that two rows of sand dunes have vanished in his lifetime but if you go to another, locally inhabited island there has been little or no erosion or loss of land. So does that mean if the arctic ice shelf that is currently “hanging” drops into the ocean as predicted, then the sea won’t rise? At the worst it could mean a three foot rise by 2100, which gives coast dwelling people time to adjust. Imagine, that as a kid you went to visit your neighbors in a row boat.         

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter said:

A person who lives on Deal Island in the Chesapeake Bay was addressing the greatest danger to humans if the earth is warming: sea rise. They mentioned that two rows of sand dunes have vanished in his lifetime but if you go to another, locally inhabited island there has been little or no erosion or loss of land. 

What is the name of the other island, and what was the person's point in the letter?

Deal Island is but a small part of the estuary at risk.

 

Quote

So does that mean if the arctic ice shelf that is currently “hanging” drops into the ocean as predicted, then the sea won’t rise?

Your question does not follow from your notes about Deal Island. 

First, there is no "arctic ice shelf" so to speak (though of course, its glaciers provide such outlet shelves in some areas). Arctic sea ice at the North Pole does not rest on a continental land mass as it does at the South Pole. This is because Antarctica is a continent-island, like Australia, or Greenland, while the Arctic has a central ocean -- the Arctic Ocean. 

Further, ice shelves as ring Antarctica "ground" themselves on the sea bottom as they flow off the continent  -- and thus retard the advance of  fresh-water ice in the huge sheets behind.  It's like a raggedy brim on a hat.

At the North Pole oceanic waters underlay the entire sea-ice 'cap' ... meaning that salt water can flow relatively freely within, all the way up and under the Arctic ice crusts on the waters. Right now, the Arctic is experiencing an unusual pulse of warmth, which attenuates all other knock-on effects.

The Antarctic hat brim:

refreqcbczb4nxrb17z7.png

The rest of your question, once corrected, is pretty good. If Arctic iced-water "floats" on the ocean much more than it is grounded on land edges, then, melting the ice will not result in higher sea level, because the total volume hasn't increased, right?

Sort of. The three main contributing currents to sea level rise are: "thermal expansion of sea water as it warms up, (2) melting of land ice and (3) changes in the amount of water stored on land." 

Another way of keeping Arctic and Antarctic processes separate in your mind is to think of what the Arctic does that the Antarctic does not. It oscillates between a tight and a loose jetstream. Antarctica almost always preserves a tight jetstream.  There are no Rossby waves around the South Pole. The South Pole never gives up its land to the sun's rays, whereas the Arctic seasonal front moves up and down the northernmost land masses. All southern 'settlements' are icebound year round. In the Arctic the vegetation line ebbs and flows. Permafrost land is exposed and then snowed upon again. 

The thing they do both have in common is sea ice in a seasonal pattern (reversed from each other). In the dark months the sea ice increases, in the light months it decays. The southern pole is much more stable than the northern, once you compare them across the metrics.

Arctic ...

 

 

The trend in Arctic sea ice extent, thickness and seasonal minimum is down, and the trend has seemingly accelerated in the last thirty years. The issue here is the albedo of snow and ice versus the albedo of ocean water.

A reflecting ice or snow cover means that less net energy is taken from the Sun than non-reflecting open ocean  -- not only does the ocean absorb more energy, but its own re-emitted infrared energy escapes back to space more slowly -- because of the atmospheric 'Tyndall gas effect.'  This increases the net energy of the atmosphere and the oceans. Energy retained does the work of further melting of ice, which reveals more low-reflectance ocean. And so on.  

That is where the alarmists go haywire, so ends the mini-review.

Quote

At the worst it could mean a three foot rise by 2100, which gives coast dwelling people time to adjust.

Some countries will adapt intelligently to a manageable risk, though it is best to think of individual cities+regions challenged by seal level rise as it occurs.

In North America effects of the past twenty years of sea level rise are most apparent in the shallowest and most 'friable' coastal areas. So, Florida's southeast-coast habitations are perhaps the most vulnerable.  I haven't read into the specialized literature that examines sea level rise effects in Chesapeake Bay. I know that it is claimed that the bay is rising faster than the world norm. I don't know how this is derived. I also don't know what is expected to happen as salt-water ecosystems displace fresh-water ecosystems at the margins, or if there are knock-on effects on fisheries and other human uses. 

tides-charleston.jpg

Here I think it is quite important to note the "wobbles" or zigginess of sea level, rather than only the trend.  There are natural variabilities that shift the height of the ocean over vast distances, so that the 'left' side of the Atlantic will at times be higher than the 'right,' and vice-versa. There are also relatively rare local conditions such as 'king tides' that spike and lurch up and down about the average --and certain intersections of conditions that bring temporary sea level rises hugely above the norm, the trend, and the mean. This is what happens when a storm surge overlaps with a king tide, for example. Something that commonly comes but once a decade, can recur each year.  

In Miami-Dade, for example, a complex interaction between the 'bedrock' and the groundwater level, the aquifer and the seas means they are already spending millions raising roads and establishing new standards for construction in the 'weakest' areas.

 

SeaLevel.png

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Added clickable NASA chart of sea level rise ...
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2017 at 11:50 PM, Brant Gaede said:

A graph? So what? It doesn't tell what caused what--not over such huge blocks of time. Recently a comparable graph showed--I thought--that first the temp went up then the CO2 followed. If that were in the article then we could debate or talk about that.

The two graphs were one for 1/2 million years and one for half a billion years, not the much shorter time I'm on about.

WIKI scientific articles are not peer-reviewed and not signed. I suspect most are pretty layman good, but not on this politicalized subject. I don't trust peer-review either for the same reason: confirmation bias, but you love it so much I'm sticking it to you.

--Brant

After the glaciers melted  some 10,000 ybp  there was a rise in sea level of over 200 feet.  Partly from the ice melting of the land glaciers and partly because water expands when it is heated  above 4 deg C.  Way back when a lot of water was locked up as ice.  It was during that period  that humans waded to the pacific islands (some of them). 15-20 thousand ybp humans walked from Siberia to Alaska.  When the glaciers melted from the land separating what was now the Black Sea from the Mediterranian   there was dreadful flooding from the Med into what is now the Black Sea. That is probably where the Noah Flood myth had it roots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

After the glaciers melted  some 10,000 ybp  there was a rise in sea level of over 200 feet.  Partly from the ice melting of the land glaciers and partly because water expands when it is heated  above 4 deg C.  Way back when a lot of water was locked up as ice.  It was during that period  that humans waded to the pacific islands (some of them). 15-20 thousand ybp humans walked from Siberia to Alaska.  When the glaciers melted from the land separating what was now the Black Sea from the Mediterranian   there was dreadful flooding from the Med into what is now the Black Sea. That is probably where the Noah Flood myth had it roots. 

The greatest flood (hypothetical) was when the Med dried up then the Atlantic flowed in starting with a gigantic waterfall a kilometer high. (The Zanclean Flood.) Imagine 500 times the flow of the Amazon River. (I can't.)

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Deal Island is but a small part of the estuary at risk.

 

 

Click to see huge detailed map:

MDVA_1m_interval_without_non-tidal_600dp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry William, I don’t remember the other small island’s name and I threw the paper out. I don't think I saw the other island's name on your map or I might have remembered it . . . it may have had a population of under a hundred people. The letter writer’s point was to sound reasonable and to be vigilant, as he weighed the evidence. I would say he was fairly positive that the sea level was rising. I live on the Atlantic and need to go thirty miles to see the Chesapeake Bay so I won’t comment on that.

In my area, the Ocean dunes periodically need replenishing. My mother in law’s house is on the Ocean City Bay and she has seen the loss of marshland, and her dock getting torn up . . .  but her “water house” and shed have remained about 30 feet from the bay, for the last 50 years.  

You mentioned sea levels rising around coastal Florida but I have heard that fresh water depletion has led to the land settling, not to ocean waters rising. And of course there is that loony Polynesian island nation that tried to sue the U.N. because of sea level rise . . . only there wasn’t any noticed when old photos were examined.

Sorry if I wrote Arctic when I meant Antarctic. The "Richard Attenborough??" science show I watched about the Antarctic shelf breaking off with a 3 foot sea level rise by 2100 may have been from 2012 or thereabouts.

The key to the controversy is to NOT scare people and politicians into doing something expensive and unneeded based on emotional claims. You constantly show evidence with mock up global maps but I usually skip to your commentary.  

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

You mentioned sea levels rising around coastal Florida but I have heard that fresh water depletion has led to the land settling, not to ocean waters rising.

When calculating relative sea level rise in a given locality, it is necessary to measure a sinking or rising of the land mass. In the Chesapeake Bay, as I understand from some review, the land is sinking. Not because of ground-water depletion, but because it is on the edge of the lands to the north that were covered by ice in the last glaciation.

Confusing? Yes.  There is a kind of spring-back over long periods of time where an ice mass used to sit. It takes time for the earth to 'bounce back.'

On the edge of the former ice mass, there is a phenomenon akin to pressing down on a cushion. At the edge the 'land' rises up as the ice sheets press down further north. In the bay region, then, the earth is settling back to a lower relative level. Combined with the rise of the sea, this makes the bay subject to quicker effects than elsewhere on the east coast.

In some basins, particularly in central California, measured land subsidence is a problem due to groundwater depletion. The soils compact and the level of the basin sinks.  This leads to problems with the water-moving systems of aqueducts and canals, which tend to degrade with the settling. Costs money!

I don't know much geology of Miami-Dade. I think it might be limestone of a particular kind, deposited by shallow water creatures when last the shelf was under water. Without digging and checking, it makes sense that water removal from a friable rock will lead to compression, all things being equal, but there may be an intervening variable, like salt-water infiltration onshore from below that could balance the compression.

I'll go see what survey says. 

Quote

And of course there is that loony Polynesian island nation that tried to sue the U.N. because of sea level rise . . . only there wasn’t any noticed when old photos were examined.

You may be conflating a couple of places. The collection of atolls that is the Maldives is in the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific. The Maldives is one of those places where (for complicated reasons like in Chesapeake) land is subsiding at the same time the sea is rising.  For a very 'low' land this a problem, if not an immediate short-term crisis.  And if you are thinking about an 'expose' of "photos prove no sea level rise," there are a few personalities who have made this a Thing.  I mean blog posts that serve to debunk the notion that there is any sea level rise there at all.  See the 2009 WUWT article that highlights the debunking of Nils-Axel Morner.  He is the biggest guy to take this line. You may find it unconvincing when you examine the critical response.

As with anything in the "Climate Debate" there is pushback to Morner's expose.  I'll dig up references to that and put it here.

Quote

The key to the controversy is to NOT scare people and politicians into doing something expensive and unneeded based on emotional claims.

I agree, mostly. Emotionally-laden arguments or chicken-little Venus-by-2100! assertions are weeds. Another thing we probably agree on is that insult and denigration of 'the Other' is of little effective use in persuasion or critical thinking. it might feel good emotionally to slag off a blob or its constituents, yet it doesn't advance discussion. So for every nasty 'shrieking alarmist' is a mirror-insult 'blind denialist'  or worse. People are touchy and prickly and uncharitable under pressure of controversy, I guess.  For some at both extremes, blob-thinking takes over.  Alarmist! Denialist! Faux-Skeptic! Lukewarmer Traitor! Pawn of the Climate Clique Monstrosity!

Quote

You constantly show evidence with mock up global maps but I usually skip to your commentary.  

I'm glad. Your questions and viewpoints can be interesting to consider and explore. I'm glad I haven't heard a repeat of "what side are you on?"

Good weather news: the rain in California has filled up all its dams, recharged the snowpack, and will to some degree recharge the suffering and subsiding aquifers in the Central Valley. The Oroville dam emergency spillway hasn't failed. But all the weather wonks on Earth are watching for the next moisture surge to arrive and overfill the dam again. Here's a video from when the dam first spilled, from across the river. With real American commentary.

One of my favourite Trump-positive meteorologists of Twitter is Ryan Maue. He has had it up to here with climate hysteria and shoddy reporting, but he is a weather wonk Vulcan. His forecasts are usually spot on, backed by all the power of meteorology to predict.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/29/2016 at 5:24 PM, Charles R. Anderson said:

[T]here have been cases in which some of the "Dragon Slayers" have been excessively derisive of lukewarmers who I do not think deserved such treatment, but there are also many cases in which some lukewarmers and many alarmists have been very inclined to call those who do not agree with them nasty names.  I have always been respectful in my interactions with such people as Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer.  However, I have no use for James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, or Michael Mann.

I am wondering about the 300 names on a petition just sent to President Trump:

lindzen300.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the CO2 is Nice petition sent to the President, I wonder how much it will influence his pending Executive Order ... especially if this bit of news is reliable:

Ivanka and Jared saved the Paris Agreement — for now

The efforts by Kushner and Ivanka Trump to remove antagonistic language about the agreement from the upcoming executive order seem to support perceptions that the couple is a moderating influence on the president, who has described global warming as "bullshit" and a "hoax."

The Wall Street Journal first reported the involvement of Kushner and Ivanka Trump. A source said the couple successfully worked to remove the language about a week ago.

It looks to me like the White House is consulting with leaders in Congress, figuring out if staying in the UNFCCC makes more sense than withdrawing. Whether or not anti-Paris Agreement language survives in the coming order is a test of the "source," as well as an indication of the trade-offs considered. 

-- Back to the subject of Scam and the APS, one of the six who reported  (along with John Christy, Richard Lindzen, William Collins, Judith Curry and Isaac Held) at the workshop -- Ben Santer. While Judith Curry made an appearance on David Icke's Richie Allen Show, Santer accepted an invitation to an NBC late-night comedy show!

This transcript etc, is from 2-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon Soros nursery, Media Matters For America:

Quote

From the February 22 edition of NBC's Late Night with Seth Meyers:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SETH MEYERS (HOST): Very exciting. Our first climate scientist on the show. 

BENJAMIN SANTER (ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST, LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY):  I'm honored. 

MEYERS: Good. I'm honored to have you. I want to start by saying this though, you work at a national lab, but you want to make -- you want to stress that you are here tonight as an individual, as a private citizen. Why is that important for you to make that distinction? 

SANTER:  These are strange and unusual times, and it seems kind of important to talk about the science that we do, but I'm not sure how the folks who fund my research will feel about that so it just seems kind of safer to do it this way. 

MEYERS: Right. For tonight you're just a rogue scientist. Yeah. You mentioned -- you mention interesting times. Obviously you're going from President Obama, who believed this was a serious issue and now we have a president who has called climate change a hoax. You have a new head of the EPA who has sued the EPA multiple times in the past. How does it feel right now to have what you do for a living challenged in this way? 

SANTER: It feels tough. Imagine, if you will, that you spend your entire life trying to understand one thing and that thing is the cause of change in the climate system. Best of your ability you do that, and then someone comes and dismisses everything you've understood, all of that scientific understanding as a hoax, as a conspiracy, as worthless, as a contrived phony mess. You have a choice. What do you do with that? You can either retreat to your office, close the door, and be silent. Or you can choose to push back against ignorance and say, “Hey, this is not our understanding. We know something about the causes of climate change.” 

[…]

MEYERS: I want to talk about this because I had Senator Ted Cruz on the show and we were talking about climate change. And he said something, and again, he's a very smart guy, and of course I did not have any research to debate what he said. I'm going to play what he said on this show. And then I'm going to let you answer to it. Let's take a look. 

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Many of the alarmists on global warming, they got a problem because the science doesn't back them up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrates for the last 17 years, there's been zero warming. None whatsoever. 

[END VIDEO CLIP]

MEYERS: Okay, so the best I could have done then was, “Nuh-uh!” But, I'm going to turn it over to you. Satellite data, no change, 17 years. What do you have to say for yourself, you alarmist? 

SANTER: Or warmist is the word en vogue. 

MEYERS: Is that a climate change scientist joke? 

SANTER: Yeah. So he made a testable claim on your show. 

MEYERS: Yup. 

SANTER: Listen to what he said. Satellite data. So satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature show no significant warming over the last 17 years, and we tested it. We looked at all of the satellite data in the world, from all groups, and wanted to see, was he right or not? And he was wrong. Even if you focus on a small segment of the now 38-year satellite temperature record -- the last 17 years -- he was demonstrably wrong. More importantly, if you look at the entire record it shows strong evidence of a human effect on climate. Warming of the lower atmosphere. Cooling of the upper atmosphere. And that's the fingerprint of human-caused changes in heat trapping greenhouse gases. So the bizarre thing is, Senator Cruz is a lawyer. He's got to look at all of the evidence when he's trying a case, when he's involved in a case, not just one tiny segment of the evidence. 

MEYERS: I think you have a different estimation of lawyers than I do. As far as what they are trying to accomplish. But I want to finish with this. Obviously this is a scary time. It's an interesting time as you've called it, yet you remain optimistic. And I'm happy to hear that, but where are you finding optimism right now, considering this sort of deck that's stacked against you? 

SANTER: Well, it seems like a real teachable moment. Climate science has been elevated in public discourse. Look at that. Look at Senator Cruz appearing on your program making testable claims. The President of the United States saying nobody really knows the causes of climate change. And we do. So this is a moment when people -- when people are willing to listen, when I can come on your show and say, "Nobody really knows" is wrong, it's fake news. 

MEYERS: Yeah. I'm really -- 

SANTER: So, what I want, I want those teachable moments. I want to tell people, this is our understanding. These are the likely outcomes if we do nothing about the problem of human-caused climate change. And let's have a respectful, honest debate on what to do about it. But let's not dismiss this incorrectly as a hoax or a conspiracy. We all lose if we embrace ignorance with open arms. 

MEYERS: Well, I couldn't agree with you more. And thank you so much for making the time. It's fantastic to have you here. 


My question is should I denounce Ben Santer as one of THEM. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About 732,000 results (0.57 seconds) 
 
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea  who started the notion that global warming is a hoax.   

Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880.  So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not generate heat,  it slows down the rate at which heat is radiated back into space a bit.  Without CO2 in the atmosphere not only would plants not grow or exist  but the equilibrium temperature at the Earth's surface would be -15 deg C.  In short Earth would be frozen and lifeless on land and the only place where life could exist is in the deep oceans next to the geothermal vents. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I have no idea  who started the notion that global warming is a hoax.   

Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880.  So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not generate heat,  it slows down the rate at which heat is radiated back into space a bit.  Without CO2 in the atmosphere not only would plants not grow or exist  but the equilibrium temperature at the Earth's surface would be -15 deg C.  In short Earth would be frozen and lifeless on land and the only place where life could exist is in the deep oceans next to the geothermal vents. 

Bob,

The warming effect you describe is NOT what people are talking about in saying that "global warming is a hoax."  They're talking about supposed runaway catastrophic warming specifically caused by human "greenhouse gases" emissions, especially CO2 - the AGW scare, which you don't buy yourself judging from many of your posts.

On the "blanket" analogy, which I've seen you use several times:

Have you ever read Dick Lindzen's "Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously"?

As Lindzen writes in the Introduction to that paper:

Quote

When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified. This includes the simple ‘blanket’ picture of the greenhouse effect shown in Figure 1.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, william.scherk said:

My question is should I denounce Ben Santer as one of THEM. 

Doesn't appear to me that you think that there are any "THEM," just honest folk who have their disagreements.

I consider Santer a major player among THEM.

Ellen

PS: I'm not desirous of arguing the point with you, but since I noticed that you asked, I don't want to leave a possible implication through saying nothing that I consider Santer honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“My question is should I denounce Ben Santer as one of THEM?” William asked.

Ach de lieber. Denounce all vous want just don’t you dare step across zee border. I was just watching that Sandra Bullock film, “The Proposal.” We deport illegals from other countries who enter through Canada but how many Canadienne nationals each year? Zero, you dachshund. Talk about open borders. You guys can just waltz across the border to the land of the free and  . . .

Peter        

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Bob,

The warming effect you describe is NOT what people are talking about in saying that "global warming is a hoax."  They're talking about supposed runaway catastrophic warming specifically caused by human "greenhouse gases" emissions, especially CO2 - the AGW scare, which you don't buy yourself judging from many of your posts.

On the "blanket" analogy, which I've seen you use several times:

Have you ever read Dick Lindzen's "Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously"?

As Lindzen writes in the Introduction to that paper:

Ellen

Technically Lindzen is correct.  But blanket is a good analogy.  Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night.  The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g)  slow down the rate at which IR energy is radiated into space.  In effect they slow down the energy loss in the IR bands and make the equlibrium temperature of the earth with space somewhat higher.  W.O.  CO2  the  temperature of the Earth with space would average around -15 deg C.  With the amount of CO2 we have the a  temperature that averages around 18 deg C.   The CO2 absorbs energy in the IR band and radiates that energy to the surrounding cooler air and the ground. That accounts for the 33 deg difference.  If the Sun went out  CO2 or no CO2 the earth would eventually be at the temperature of space or maybe a little warmer because of some geothermal heat reaching the surface. The source of all warming on Earth is the Sun (ignoring the small geothermal output).  Like all bodies  at temperature above 0 K (absolute zero)  it will radiate heat until temperature equilibrium with the surroundings is reached.  It is the heat we get from the Sun that keeps us as warm as we are.  Even if the doomsday sayers were right and the temperature of the Earth at the surface increased much further  we would radiate out energy faster.   This is the result of the Stefan Boltzmann law with says the rate at which body radiate energy is proportional to the 4 th power of the temperature difference between the body and its surrounding.  Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature for details. This article has the mathematics of radiation.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Bob,

The warming effect you describe is NOT what people are talking about in saying that "global warming is a hoax."  They're talking about supposed runaway catastrophic warming specifically caused by human "greenhouse gases" emissions, especially CO2 - the AGW scare, which you don't buy yourself judging from many of your posts.

On the "blanket" analogy, which I've seen you use several times:

Have you ever read Dick Lindzen's "Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously"?

As Lindzen writes in the Introduction to that paper:

Ellen

There is no way the Earth will become Venus until the sun becomes so hot that the insolation from the hotter sun at our distance  matches what Venus is getting now  at its distance.  Even if the nasty positive feedback  effects the climate panic squad  predicts did occur,  we never will get as hot as Venus is now if the Suns out put remains  as it is.  As I said eventually the sun will get hot enough to cook the earth CO2 or not CO2.  In about 1.5 billion years the sun should be 15 to 20 percent hotter than it is now.  Why?  Because the hydrogen will be mostly turned into helium and when helium fuses it fuses at a higher temperature.  So no real runaway heating for another billion years or so.  However it is possible to raise temperatures sufficiently to change growing seasons for crops,  to speed up desertification and to change the frequency and intensity of storms.   But this assumes some radical positive feedbacks  which are possible  but for which we have no evidence that they are happening now. 

I think we should take a prudent cautious approach which is to moderate our output of CO2 by introducing different power production technologies.  We are not within a decade of utter destruction and doom and the panic squad implies,  but we should not put off reducing our CO2 overload forever.  If we reach 500-600 ppm CO2 concentration we are likely to get some bad weather and real honest to go melting of the land ice cover which -will- raise ocean levels eventually.  None of this needs to happen if we manage our atmosphere reasonably.  Another hundred years of heavy coal burning could bring about some unpleasant consequences.  Even so,  the Earth would not become Venus in the short or medium run.

But what we must do strive to get better models of our climate system and we need to collect lots of data.

The earth climate system is thermodynamically complex.  It is non-linear,  the mathematics necessary to describe it is intractable or nearly so, even with very high speed computers approximating  solutions to some of the relevant differential equations.  Right now our best model for chaotic system involving flow of gas and liquid is the Navier-Stokes equation.  We do not have a numerical approximation for solutions to the Navie-Stokes equation that works at all scales. In fact there is currently a one million $  prize being offered to anyone who can come up with a general method of approximating a solution to Navier-Stokes equation.  On top of the mathematical complication that idea that a system as complex as the earth climate can be reduced to one parameter,  the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere  just strikes me as absurd.  I just don't believe it.  But this is not to say that human activity does not affect climate. It does, but we do not know exactly how much and in what manner just yet.  That is why we need better models. 

Right now the Boys in Brazil are affecting weather and climate but destroying the Amazon Rain Forrest. Trees absorb  atmospheric CO2 (as food). Deforrestration can have some rather unpleasant effects on both climate and weather.  Large amounts of once arable land in China is becoming desert because the Chinese  destroyed many of their forests to create farm land.  Unfortunately that land is fast becoming desert.  So you see Man can have an effect on weather and  climate.  But it is more complicated than how  much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

... I don't want to leave a possible implication through saying nothing that I consider Santer honest.

Ellen,

I read the transcript above and all my warning bells went off.

A few bells clanged when I saw a so-called scientist call an opinion by a politician "fake news."

News in this specific cultural context is presented by news organizations, not by individuals in other professions. "Fake news" is a jab at news organizations and newscasters. You would think a scientist would know something that elementary. Cognitively, he is terrible at basic identification. It makes you wonder if he identifies correctly what he tests and measures.

But when he said "teachable moment" two times in a row, I wanted to run for cover.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There is no way the Earth will become Venus until the sun becomes so hot that the insolation from the hotter sun at our distance  matches what Venus is getting now  at its distance.  Even if the nasty positive feedback  effects the climate panic squad  predicts did occur,  we never will get as hot as Venus is now if the Suns out put remains  as it is.  As I said eventually the sun will get hot enough to cook the earth CO2 or not CO2.  In about 1.5 billion years the sun should be 15 to 20 percent hotter than it is now.  Why?  Because the hydrogen will be mostly turned into helium and when helium fuses it fuses at a higher temperature.  So no real runaway heating for another billion years or so.  However it is possible to raise temperatures sufficiently to change growing seasons for crops,  to speed up desertification and to change the frequency and intensity of storms.   But this assumes some radical positive feedbacks  which are possible  but for which we have no evidence that they are happening now. 

I think we should take a prudent cautious approach which is to moderate our output of CO2 by introducing different power production technologies.  We are not within a decade of utter destruction and doom and the panic squad implies,  but we should not put off reducing our CO2 overload forever.  If we reach 500-600 ppm CO2 concentration we are likely to get some bad weather and real honest to go melting of the land ice cover which -will- raise ocean levels eventually.  None of this needs to happen if we manage our atmosphere reasonably.  Another hundred years of heavy coal burning could bring about some unpleasant consequences.  Even so,  the Earth would not become Venus in the short or medium run.

But what we must do strive to get better models of our climate system and we need to collect lots of data.

The earth climate system is thermodynamically complex.  It is non-linear,  the mathematics necessary to describe it is intractable or nearly so, even with very high speed computers approximating  solutions to some of the relevant differential equations.  Right now our best model for chaotic system involving flow of gas and liquid is the Navier-Stokes equation.  We do not have a numerical approximation for solutions to the Navie-Stokes equation that works at all scales. In fact there is currently a one million $  prize being offered to anyone who can come up with a general method of approximating a solution to Navier-Stokes equation.  On top of the mathematical complication that idea that a system as complex as the earth climate can be reduced to one parameter,  the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere  just strikes me as absurd.  I just don't believe it.  But this is not to say that human activity does not affect climate. It does, but we do not know exactly how much and in what manner just yet.  That is why we need better models. 

Right now the Boys in Brazil are affecting weather and climate but destroying the Amazon Rail Forrest. Trees absorb  atmospheric CO2 (as food). Deforrestration can have some rather unpleasant effects on both climate and weather.  Large amounts of once arable land in China is becoming desert because the Chinese  destroyed many of their forests to create farm land.  Unfortunately that land is fast becoming desert.  So you see Man can have an effect on weather and  climate.  But it is more complicated than how  much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. 

Coal produces half the power generated in this country. The only practical way to significantly reduce it is through the use of natural gas or nuclear power. However, one assumes--I have to through personal ignorance--that more natural gas means more CO2 output too and reducing coal for that only means reducing fine particle air pollution. If we also assume "equilibrium" why the assumption that humans can change that--in competition with the sun if not water vapor--by injecting significant more amounts of this trace gas into the atmosphere? It's one thing to additionally benefit plant and animal life, quite another to effect temperature. To assume the latter is only a foundation for building an economic disaster through gross productive energy conservation.

It is also speculation to use argumentum no CO2 = general warming for there's no getting there from here so it doesn't support Tyndall. Just as Dr. Frankenstein might make his monster doesn't mean he would then populate the earth with them or we'd even have luke-monsterism.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Coal produces half the power generated in this country. The only practical way to significantly reduce it is through the use of natural gas or nuclear power. However, one assumes--I have to through personal ignorance--that more natural gas means more CO2 output too and reducing coal for that only means reducing fine particle air pollution. If we also assume "equilibrium" why the assumption that humans can change that--in competition with the sun if not water vapor--by injecting significant more amounts of this trace gas into the atmosphere? It's one thing to additionally benefit plant and animal life, quite another to effect temperature. To assume the latter is only a foundation for building an economic disaster through gross productive energy conservation.

It is also speculation to use argumentum no CO2 = general warming for there's no getting there from here so it doesn't support Tyndall. Just as Dr. Frankenstein might make his monster doesn't mean he would then populate the earth with them or we'd even have luke-monsterism.

--Brant

Natural gas produces 1/6 the CO2 effluent per joule of energy produced by combustion  than that of coal.  So Natural Gas will heat up the surface region at 1/6 the rate of coal.  Coal is used as much as it is because of the money sunk into coal fueled heat generating plants.  It would very expensive to convert all the coal burners to gas burners.   But if the account rules could be change to write off the coal plants quicker and there were a tax incentive to do so that conversion could be made sooner.  That catch is we would all be paying a high prices for our heat.  In the long run the cost of conversion must be borne by the consuming public.  By the way if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere today, twenty five percent of the overload  would still be in the atmosphere (hold on!)  1000 years from now.  Easy in, Slow out.   The only solution is plant lots, and lots and lots of trees and for God's sake stop wrecking the Amazon Rain Forest.  Trees will take the CO2 out the atmosphere .  Other plants will also,  but trees are the champion CO2 eater upper.  

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  We will have to pay for a lower carbon civilization. BUT.... if we do it rationally we can spread the costs over a longer time period (we do have some time, contrary to what the Chicken Little  with their god damn  2.0 deg C  decree says), during which we can develop many other productive technology that would produce value added wealth to compensate the costs of conversion.  However the longer we wait the more expensive the conversion will become.  So let us behave reasonably, rationally  and not panic.  We have the brains and the guts (if we focus) to turn our planet into a great place to raise children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Natural gas produces 1/6 the CO2 effluent per joule of energy produced by combustion  than that of coal.  So Natural Gas will heat up the surface region at 1/6 the rate of coal.  Coal is used as much as it is because of the money sunk into coal fueled heat generating plants.  It would very expensive to convert all the coal burners to gas burners.   But if the account rules could be change to write off the coal plants quicker and there were a tax incentive to do so that conversion could be made sooner.  That catch is we would all be paying a high prices for our heat.  In the long run the cost of conversion must be borne by the consuming public.  By the way if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere today, twenty five percent of the overload  would still be in the atmosphere (hold on!)  1000 years from now.  Easy in, Slow out.   The only solution is plant lots, and lots and lots of trees and for God's sake stop wrecking the Amazon Rain Forest.  Trees will take the CO2 out the atmosphere .  Other plants will also,  but trees are the champion CO2 eater upper.  

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.  We will have to pay for a lower carbon civilization. BUT.... if we do it rationally we can spread the costs over a longer time period (we do have some time, contrary to what the Chicken Little  with their god damn  2.0 deg C  decree says), during which we can develop many other productive technology that would produce value added wealth to compensate the costs of conversion.  However the longer we wait the more expensive the conversion will become.  So let us behave reasonably, rationally  and not panic.  We have the brains and the guts (if we focus) to turn our planet into a great place to raise children.

Now you're assuming standard today-type nuclear plants can't do the job. In the US the cost of building them is up by a factor of maybe three because of excessive regulations and lawsuits by environmentalists. Won't more CO2 mean more plant life mean more plants eating CO2? Now look at your second sentence: "So natural gas will heat up the surface region at 1/6 the rate of coal." What does that mean? A heat island? Okay, I guess. BFD. AGW? The conclusion doesn't follow. More CO2 doesn't mean more retained heat and even Litzen saying doubling CO2 is generally thought to raise global temps by 1 degree C. is no established fact. When we get there--when?--it might be zero, one degree or two. He doesn't know. Nobody knows or can know.

Humans can adapt to warming much easier than cooling if we assume cooling, not warming, could trigger the next ice age. But the adaptation will be much harder if humans are much poorer because they are denied "access to energy."

Anyway, the political debate is about over. (There goes the money, honey.)  AGW was tossed out by the environmentalists because it was too hard to defend in favor of CC. They are now finding out the weaker term has no punch at all. CC was a strategic retreat but the retreat will continue. There's no way to reverse direction if for no other reason the other big non-western emitters never gave a good God-damn about the environmental ruckus over here except how it benefited them economically and weakened us.

I look forward to the environmentalists kicking out the fascists and getting back to true environmentalism.

--Brant

save the whales, save the fishes, save the oceans (from plastic)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...