dennislmay

APS and the Global Warming Scam

Recommended Posts

Bob,

What is the point of your speech in the post above?

Alerting you to a post of mine re ether which I suspect you missed in the subsequent glut of posts about climate:

post #34.

---

Meanwhile, Naomi has thoroughly given herself away as having nothing to go on re AGW but faith in what she thinks scientists are saying, while she doesn't even know what either the real ones or the so-called ones are saying.

A case study in scientism.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW [...].

Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that supports it, only the assertions that there are thousands of papers which do support it and none which don't, coupled with the admission that the asserter has read none of the papers herself and doesn't know enough about the science to understand the papers she hasn't read.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply did not grasp the essential meaning of what Einstein said.

I think it's you who don't grasp that with your insistence on limiting the meaning of "ether" to an "ultra stiff elastic gelatinous goo that fills all of space that serves as a medium for electromagnetic waves."

That is exactly how the physicists of the 18 th and 19 th century defined aether. An elastic -substance- that fills space. In order for light to travel at its known speed, the substance would have to be a million times stiffer than steel but so non-dense as to permit the planets to move in their orbits around the sun. In short, it was a fantastic substance which could not be observed.

Which is why physicists no long assume there is such a thing. Since our theories work perfectly fine without aether there is no point in assuming it exists and even if it was finally detected it would make no difference in the theories we use.

Back in the day, physics was done in substance mode. Aether was assumed. Heat was assumed to be a weightless substance that flowed from high temperature bodies to lower temperature bodies spontaneously. That was the caloric theory of heat. Caloric was the heat substances.

Physics has now advanced to the point where non-observable substances are no longer embedded in the theories. The only requirements on a theory is (1) internal logical consistency and (2) correct predictions to within instrumental error. Nothing else matters. A theory does not have to weigh lightly on "common sense" nor does it have to be intuitively easy to grasp. All that counts is correct predictions or correct independent retrodictions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However AGW is sound science done by honest scientists. A proponent of science respects the work of scientists and the scientific method.

Quoth the Raven, nevermore...

"Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting--

"Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!

Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!

Leave my loneliness unbroken! -- quit the bust above my door!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!"

Quoth the raven, 'Nevermore.'"

I think you should read this one Naomi...

Climate Change Catastrophes in Critical Thinking

This is to be a work in progress. As I collect more interesting evidence, I'll be sure to add it.

Abstract

This article explores the phenomenon of global warming, climate change, and the extraordinary consequences popularly speculated. As a hypothesis can only be scientific if it is testable, this article tests key assertions of climate change Catastrophism against the facts of the geological record. Finding that, climate change Catastrophism lacks scientific support, the implications of neo-catastrophist behaviour with special regard to global warming is considered and in this light, the proposed remedies for global warming are examined against contemporary crises and opportunities. This article finds that the impact of excessive land clearance is of far greater concern.

The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect". Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)

Consulting Geologist

First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13

Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07

Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded. Abstract

This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

This is an extensive analysis, the next section is:

1.0 Introduction: What on Earth Is the "Greenhouse Effect"? Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition

Although the "Greenhouse Effect" is of crucial importance to modern climatology and is the putative cornerstone of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, it lacks clear thermodynamic definition. This forecasts the likelihood that the name is misapplied. Even general descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" may seem confused when compared to one another. In the first year university geology text by Press & Siever (1982, p. 312) we read:

"The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and carbon dioxide, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the 'greenhouse effect' by analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat loss."

This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly contradictory, as impermeable materials cannot absorb on the minute to minute timescale that applies to the "Greenhouse Effect", even if such an impermeable material has a very high fluid storage capacity or porosity. According to Press & Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to the presence of clouds and carbon dioxide, which are part of the atmosphere. How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption? Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability is a product of the 19th century pseudoscientific notion that heat was actually a fluid (called "caloric"). This led to a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the scientifically illiterate when it came to the findings of Fourier (e.g. Kelland, 1837). We may compare this description of the "Greenhouse Effect" with that of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18), which lacks the misplaced 19th century usage:

"The incoming solar radiation that the earth absorbs is re-emitted in the form of so-called infra-red radiation - this is where the vital 'greenhouse effect' begins. Because of the chemical structure of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they absorb the infra-red radiation from the Earth, and then emit it, into space and back into the atmosphere. The atmospheric re-emission helps heat the surface of the Earth - as well as the lower atmosphere - and keeps us warm."

This explanation describes the "Greenhouse Effect" as "vital", perhaps because, as Whitaker points out, it warms the earth's surface. Wishart (2009, p. 24) explains that this "Greenhouse Effect" is useful for a completely different reason:

"The Moon is another excellent example of what happens with no greenhouse effect. During the lunar day, average surface temperatures reach 107ºC, while the lunar night sees temperatures drop from boiling point to 153 degrees below zero. No greenhouse gases mean there's no way to smooth out temperatures on the moon. On Earth, greenhouse gases filter some of the sunlight hitting the surface and reflect some of the heat back out into space, meaning the days are cooler, but conversely the gases insulate the planet at night, preventing a lot of the heat from escaping."

In Wishart's explanation above, the Greenhouse Effect" is no longer a warming mechanism but a thermal buffer that moderates the extremes of temperature. In fact, Plimer (2001) uses the term "greenhouse" to denote interglacial periods (e.g. Plimer, 2001, p. 80). In describing the conditions when life evolved on earth 3800 million years ago, Plimer (2001, p. 43), like Wishart, is more reminiscent of Frankland (1864) and Tyndall (1867):

"The Earth's temperature had moderated because the atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide and water vapour created a greenhouse."

The above quotes demonstrate a confusing array of "Greenhouse Effect" definitions, including the first one which seems to contradict itself. Plimer (2009, p. 365) really describes this situation very well when he writes:

"Everyone knows what the greenhouse effect is. Well ... do they? Ask someone to explain how the greenhouse effect works. There is an extremely high probability that they have no idea. What really is the greenhouse effect? The use of the term 'greenhouse effect' is a complete misnomer. Greenhouses or glasshouses are used for increasing plant growth, especially in colder climates. A greenhouse eliminates convective cooling, the major process of heat transfer in the atmosphere, and protects the plants from frost."

The "Greenhouse Effect" was originally defined around the hypothesis that visible light penetrating the atmosphere is converted to heat on absorption and emitted as infrared, which is subsequently trapped by the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared. In Arrhenius (1896, p. 237) we read:

"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground."

This quote from Arrhenius establishes the fact that the "Greenhouse Effect", far from being a misnomer, is so-called because it was originally based on the assumption that an atmosphere and the glass of a greenhouse are the same in their workings. Interestingly, Fourier doesn't even mention hothouses or greenhouses, and actually stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier, 1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12).

In spite of Arrhenius' misunderstanding of Fourier, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Edition) reflects his initial opening description of the "Greenhouse Effect":

"
Greenhouse Effect
noun
the trapping of the sun's warmth in the planet's lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface."

These descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" all evade the key question of heat transfer. Given that the "Greenhouse Effect" profoundly affects heat transfer and distribution, what are the thermodynamic properties that govern the "Greenhouse Effect" and how, exactly, is this "Greenhouse Effect" governed by these material properties? Moreover, all of the elements expressed in the preceding quotations can be found in Arrhenius' proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect". While Arrhenius credits Tyndall with the thermal buffer idea expressed in Plimer (2001) and Wishart (2009), he then goes on to express the more complicated idea described in Press & Siever (1982) and Whitaker (2007). The "atmospheric re-emission" that "helps heat the surface of the earth" of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18) is the key to Arrhenius' original proposition, which revolves around the backradiation notion first proposed by Pouillet (1838, p. 42; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 61). However, Pouillet used this idea to explain rather than add to the thermal gradient measured in transparent envelopes while, as we shall see, Arrhenius treated backradiation as an addition to the conductive (i.e. net) heat flow indicated by the thermal gradient.

It gets better, the author, apparently a geologist, his resume is on the site, concludes that:

4.0 Conclusion: a Greenhouse with neither Frame nor Foundation Cannot Stand

In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning.

The Hothouse Limerick

There was an old man named Arrhenius

Whose physics were rather erroneous

He recycled rays

In peculiar ways

And created a "heat" most spontaneous!

Timothy Casey, 2010 Since its original proposition by Arrhenius, the definition of the "Greenhouse Effect" has been chaotic and, as such, has successfully obfuscated the weakest and most important part of that proposition. Namely, that terrestrial heat radiated into the atmosphere is there absorbed and re-emitted back to earth to raise surface temperatures beyond what is possible from the incident radiation alone. In fact the physics, as we have examined them, only allow compositional changes to redistribute heat within the absorbing mass of the earth if no change in mean incident radiation occurs. This predicts that atmospheric warming due to increased opacity can only result in surface cooling, which effectively does no more than alter the thermal gradient, thereby redistributing the heat without adding or subtracting from it. This was confirmed by observations of surface cooling during eruptions that ejected ash and carbon dioxide into the stratosphere (Angell & Korshover, 1985) and by observations of stratospheric warming as a consequence of these same eruptions (Angell, 1997). The "Greenhouse Effect" would predict that backradiation from this warmer stratosphere would instead warm the surface significantly. Evidently, this did not occur. If the power recycling mechanisms that typify the "Greenhouse Effect" really existed, we could build cars that ran on nothing but their own recycled momentum and free energy machines could be built to create energy out of nothing more than spent energy. With a viable "Greenhouse Effect" a windscreen would not need a demister as the heat back-radiated by the glass would prevent ice and water drops from condensing and double-glazed windows filled with carbon dioxide would be self heating. In reality, heat flows and is conducted via two modes of heat transfer. One mode of heat flow is by contact transfer, and the other is by radiative transfer. By taking the radiative transfer part of conductive transfer and adding it to the total amount of conductive transfer between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere, Arrhenius (1896) duplicated a portion of the existing heat pro rata to the degree of absorption by carbon dioxide when, in fact, this portion of radiative transfer is already included in the conductive transfer figure.

In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, Naomi has thoroughly given herself away as having nothing to go on re AGW but faith in what she thinks scientists are saying, while she doesn't even know what either the real ones or the so-called ones are saying.

A case study in scientism.

Ellen

Well, I and most other people have never read Newton's Principia, but that doesn't mean that we are not justified in believing in the laws of mechanics, nor that we have to accept Newton's claims on faith. Do you even understand why scientific authority is authoritative?

No, I'm not going into this on faith. My local library has a wonderful little textbook called Global Physical Climatology by Dennis L. Hartmann, which is an excellent advanced introduction to climatology and AGW.

Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW [...].

Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that supports it, only the assertions that there are thousands of papers which do support it and none which don't, coupled with the admission that the asserter has read none of the papers herself and doesn't know enough about the science to understand the papers she hasn't read.

Ellen

Ummm.... actually yes I have. First of all, I pointed to the fact that just about every climate research organization on Earth supports AGW. Secondly, I'm also referring you to a nice little book that is accessible to anybody who can do differential equations.

The fact that you choose to bury your head in the sand and simply ignore all scientific research on AGW doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All you have to do is look at publications by actual climatologists to see that it does.

Meanwhile, you have failed yet again to present any data which contradicts AGW. It's simple. If AGW isn't real, then why can't you find even a single reputable source which refutes it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm closing this thread.

Demanding others to "prove a negative" is not a substantive discussion. And there is just too much repetition of this crap.

Low level non-substantive discussions are OK up to a point since people have to be able to work through their ideas, but the reader has enough information on this thread to come to his or her conclusion without having to read 300 posts all saying the same thing.

Naomi's posts on this thread are a perfect example of what I call preaching.

OL is discussion forum, not a preaching pulpit.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I acted too abruptly. No apologies re quality control, but there is something I just ran across and a thought crossed my mind.

See this article I just caught on Drudge:

Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?'

The Obama administration is preaching the climate stuff directly (and follow the money, folks--it's thick).

So if I shut down the preaching here on OL, it will appear that everyone essentially agrees with this crap since there will be no voices raised in opposition.

That's why I'm unlocking the thread.

Sorry for the inconvenience. I just got tired of looking at the same old crap for the 50th time or more. The people who support this stuff never change and their discourse never gets any better.

But at least others have to be able to say they are full of it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect". Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)

Consulting Geologist

First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13

Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07

Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded. Abstract

This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

The author misrepresents mainstream climatology.

While it is true that a change in the composition of the body alone cannot change the mean temperature, that is not how the Greenhouse Effect works. A change in the composition of the atmosphere changes the way that radiation from the sun is absorbed and re-emitted. That radiation can certainly change the mean temperature of the Earth.

"The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and carbon dioxide, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the 'greenhouse effect' by analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat loss."

This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly contradictory, as impermeable materials cannot absorb on the minute to minute timescale that applies to the "Greenhouse Effect", even if such an impermeable material has a very high fluid storage capacity or porosity. According to Press & Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to the presence of clouds and carbon dioxide, which are part of the atmosphere. How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption? Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability is a product of the 19th century pseudoscientific notion that heat was actually a fluid (called "caloric"). This led to a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the scientifically illiterate when it came to the findings of Fourier (e.g. Kelland, 1837).

There is so much wrong with this part that it's honestly hard to know where to even begin.

First of all, the impermeability of a material to radiation has nothing to do with its fluid storage capacity or porosity. Rather, the absorption and reflection of radiation depends on the absorption spectra of the molecules in the material and their concentrations. Thus, there is no contradiction in saying that a material is both impermeable to radiation and absorptive of that radiation. That's part of what "impermeable" means. If radiation is neither reflected nor absorbed, then it is permeable. So, if it is impermeable, it follows that radiation must either be absorbed or reflected or both.

Additionally, "thermal permeability" is irrelevant in this context because no one is claiming that the sun is in direct thermal contact with the Earth. Heat is transferred from the sun to the Earth via radiation.

Namely, that terrestrial heat radiated into the atmosphere is there absorbed and re-emitted back to earth to raise surface temperatures beyond what is possible from the incident radiation alone.

Here he misrepresents his opponents yet again. No climatologists claim that the greenhouse effect causes a rise in surface temperatures beyond what radiation from the sun can account for. On the contrary, it is precisely this incident radiation which is the only source of heating caused by the greenhouse effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a commercial thought.

I wonder how much the Tides Foundation or some other similar organization would pay me to recant and start preaching climate change...

OL is small, but we do have an elite readership. That's gotta be worth something for selling out.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story..."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051614-701249-climate-skeptic-lennart-bengtsson-paper-suppressed.htm#ixzz32DhwvleW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story..."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/051614-701249-climate-skeptic-lennart-bengtsson-paper-suppressed.htm#ixzz32DhwvleW

Completely biased journalism, even according to Bengtsson himself:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:

“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.

“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.

“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”

Here are a few other sources which don't quote Bengtsson out of context and give a more detailed account of what happened:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/19/another-manufactured-climate-controversy

And from the publisher itself:

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely biased journalism, even according to Bengtsson himself:

. . .

Here are a few other sources which don't quote Bengtsson out of context and give a more detailed account of what happened:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/19/another-manufactured-climate-controversy

Lemme see the picture at the start of that unbiased news story:

c9ab9a05-b2b3-4df0-9848-4ace773d1ca8-460

Now that looks like an article I can trust. Not biased at all.

:smile:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely biased journalism, even according to Bengtsson himself:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/

A scientist caving into peer pressure when a media storm erupts on his head NEVER happens...

Oh no...

:)

At that link, there's a lot of blah blah blah by scientists patting themselves on the back and tut tut tutting. There is only one quote I found interesting:

“In the interests of transparency and informed debate, Professor Bengtsson’s paper should be made public along with reports from the referees and editor."

That certainly would show if sleaze were behind the media storm.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely biased journalism, even according to Bengtsson himself:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/

A scientist caving into peer pressure when a media storm erupts on his head NEVER happens...

Oh no...

:smile:

At that link, there's a lot of blah blah blah by scientists patting themselves on the back and tut tut tutting. There is only one quote I found interesting:

“In the interests of transparency and informed debate, Professor Bengtsson’s paper should be made public along with reports from the referees and editor."

That certainly would show if sleaze were behind the media storm.

Michael

Bengtsson's draft will never be made public unless he decides to release it to the media himself. As for the reports from the referees and editor, they are in the third link I provided. Here they are:

REFEREE REPORT(S):

Referee one:

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.

- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology

- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.

- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)

Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.

One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.

And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

Referee two:

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

I would be interested in learning whether or not there are internal inconsistencies in estimates of climate sensitivity and forcing in individual studies and in learning if there are substantial differences among the studies. I would be even more interested in understanding why any apparent inconsistencies and differences might exist. On this second point, the manuscript has little to offer (other than some speculation that aerosol forcing estimates have changed). And unfortunately on the first point, the authors have only superficially demonstrated possible inconsistencies. Moreover, in addressing the question of “committed warming”, the authors have inexplicably used the wrong equation. For all these reasons, I recommend the paper be rejected.

The authors use the wrong equation to calculate the "committed warming". In their equation 3, they should use the equilibrium climate sensitivity, not the transient climate sensitivity. This would then yield the climate system’s eventual equilibrium temperature increase (relative to pre‐industrial temperature) for a given forcing, which they take to be present day GHG forcing. Since the transient climate sensitivity is quite a bit lower than the equilibrium climate sensitivity, they have substantially underestimated the committed warming.

Even before making this error, there is a troubling shallowness in the arguments describing apparent discrepancies in estimates of forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Here are a few suggestions on how to improve this part of the manuscript.

  1. The casting of ECS in the odd units of K/(W/m**2) is completely unnecessary and not only is confusing, but makes it difficult to check some of the numerical values reported. ECS should be reported in K since it is a temperature change in response to 2xCO2 forcing. Instead of equation 1, simply write ECS = F(2xCO2) * delta-T/(F – N).
  2. The present manuscript is unacceptably unclear about exactly what values are used in constructing fig. 1. For the 4 cases considered (AR4, AR5, Otto et al., and the CMIP5 models), you should construct a table (source of info. vs. value of each parameter) providing all the values (or range of values) used for ECS, delta-T(2xCO2), F(2xCO2), F, and N. Indicate which values (if any) were not reported by the referenced study itself, but were adopted for use from some other source. With this information you might be able to convince the reader that there are in fact differences and inconsistencies in each of the studies. As the manuscript stands, I am left wondering whether the apparent discrepancies might actually be explained more by differences in ocean heat uptake values used as opposed to uncertainty/differences in forcing and ECS. I note that many of the discrepancies disappear if AR5 assumed a somewhat larger value for N than in the other studies.
  3. For clarity (and strict correctness), log-log plots should show the relationship between non‐dimensional quantities only (because taking the log of a dimension yields nonsense). So fig. 1 should show log(ECS/delta-T) as a function of log( (F-N) / F(2xCO2) ). This will also make it easy for the reader to understand the meaning of the numerical values plotted: the ordinate indicates by what factor the GMST equil. response exceeds the temperature difference between some perturbed state and the control (preindustrial) states (in this case warming since pre‐industrial times). On the abscissa, F-N would appear normalized by 2xCO2 forcing. An equilibrium climate with 2xCO2 will by construction be plotted at the origin (i.e. ECS/delta_T(2xCO2) = 1 ).
  1. In the current manuscript, important assumptions are that uncertainty in delta‐T (obs) and N(obs) is negligible and that the values should be the same for use in all 4 studies. I’m not sure this is valid, since the estimates of “present‐day” forcing are for different time periods (I think). Moreover, it does not seem consistent to evaluate N over the period from 1971 to 2010 and GMST change from 1850‐1900 to 2003‐2012. For this to be an appropriate comparison, you must assume the rate of ocean heat uptake is the same during 2003‐2012 as it is during 1971-2010. You also must assume that in the period 1850‐1900 the system is in equilibrium (with N=0 during that period). I note that Otto et al., assume heat uptake of 0.08 +‐ .03 W/m**2 for their reference period (1860-1879). I suspect for 1850-1900, the comparable number might be somewhat larger, which would reduce your N by a non‐negligible fraction. In any case N is highly uncertain, and you should discuss how this affects your results. Similarly, you need to consider uncertainty in GMST. Although this quantity is reasonably well measured over the historical period, we cannot expect it on short time‐scales to necessarily exactly be related to net radiative flux by a constant. These and other uncertainties lead to the range of values shown, for example, in Otto et al. (for the decade 2000‐2010 values range around delta‐T = 0.7 K with a standard error estimate of about 20%, at least as best I can determine from their fig. 1). Again how these uncertainties affect each of the 4 studies you consider should be discussed; it’s possible that the discrepancies could disappear if different studies used different values of N and GMST change within the accepted uncertainties.
  1. One way to better indicate uncertainties on your graph would be to replace your log‐log plot with a plot of (F-N)/F(2xCO2) along the ordinate and 1/ECS on the abscissa, perhaps labeled non-linearly with values of (1/6, 1/5, ¼, ½, and 1) so the reader could directly read the temperature. On this plot you could then indicate the region compatible with temperature observation uncertainty by plotting a couple of lines emanating from the origin with slope equal to different values of delta-T [nb. delta-T /ECS = (F‐N)/F(2xCO2)]. You could also indicate how the uncertainty in N affects your projection lines corresponding to the current diagonal lines in your fig. 1 by plotting at their central point a vertical error‐bar line (vertical because recall I’ve put F‐N on the y-axis). This figure would resemble fig. 1 of Otto et al., but with their obs. change in GMST replaced by 1/ECS and their shaded diagonal lines of ECS replaced by GMST. You would probably only have to display 2 diagonal lines indicating the uncertainty in obs. GMST change.
  1. In your current discussion you imply that differences in F‐N across different studies are attributable to differences in F, but N could also be responsible.
  1. The study would be much more valuable if it attempted to also begin to address the 4 questions posed in the conclusions. I suspect the answers are really quite mundane, although the tone of the discussion implies otherwise.

I have highlighted in red the sentence which caused all the ruckus. Bengtsson's only complaint was that that statement might be misconstrued to give the impression of an ideological motivation on the part of the referee.

It is plain as day to anyone with a functioning pair of eyes and brain hemispheres that the article in the WSJ was quoting Bengtsson selectively to make it appear as if he is saying that he is being silenced by the journal, when really nothing of the sort has occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect". Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)

Consulting Geologist

First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13

Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07

Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded. Abstract

This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.

The author misrepresents mainstream climatology.

Stop right there:

Source that statement.

Define climatology.

Show us some studies that confirem what mainstream climatology concludes is it's mainstream.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop right there:

Source that statement.

Define climatology.

Show us some studies that confirem what mainstream climatology concludes is it's mainstream.

A...

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

What is the Greenhouse Effect?

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water. Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.

The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less common. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect. In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater. The same is true for the cold, dry upper atmosphere where a small increase in water vapour has a greater influence on the greenhouse effect than the same change in water vapour would have near the surface.

Several components of the climate system, notably the oceans and living things, affect atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. A prime example of this is plants taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and converting it (and water) into carbohydrates via photosynthesis. In the industrial era, human activities have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests.

Adding more of a greenhouse gas, such as CO2, to the atmosphere intensifies the greenhouse effect, thus warming Earth’s climate. The amount of warming depends on various feedback mechanisms. For example, as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle. This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.

Additional important feedback mechanisms involve clouds. Clouds are effective at absorbing infrared radiation and therefore exert a large greenhouse effect, thus warming the Earth. Clouds are also effective at reflecting away incoming solar radiation, thus cooling the Earth. A change in almost any aspect of clouds, such as their type, location, water content, cloud altitude, particle size and shape, or lifetimes, affects the degree to which clouds warm or cool the Earth. Some changes amplify warming while others diminish it. Much research is in progress to better understand how clouds change in response to climate warming, and how these changes affect climate through various feedback mechanisms.

faq-1-3-figure-1.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop right there:

Source that statement.

Define climatology.

Show us some studies that confirem what mainstream climatology concludes is it's mainstream.

A...

I have read those documents.

Now that you avoided answring, shall we try this again?

Define climatilogy. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Show us some studies that confirm what mainstream climatology concludes is it's mainstream.

You have referred to studies numerous times, studies, not cartoons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read those documents.

Now that you avoided answring, shall we try this again?

Define climatilogy. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Show us some studies that confirm what mainstream climatology concludes is it's mainstream.

You have referred to studies numerous times, studies, not cartoons.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+climatology

Wow... that was hard.

From wikipedia:

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1]

You don't need a study to show that a claim made by a mainstream source is a claim made by a mainstream source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have highlighted in red the sentence which caused all the ruckus. Bengtsson's only complaint was that that statement might be misconstrued to give the impression of an ideological motivation on the part of the referee.

Here's what I know.

That is "Bengtsson's only STATED complaint" after the fact.

Here's what I think. I think Bengtsson is afraid of losing future funding and other scientist world goodies. Easier to back off than to stand. Speculation, granted, but in this context, it is pretty good speculation.

From what I read on your link, there was a crap-load of tut tut tutting...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have highlighted in red the sentence which caused all the ruckus. Bengtsson's only complaint was that that statement might be misconstrued to give the impression of an ideological motivation on the part of the referee.

Here's what I know.

That is "Bengtsson's only STATED complaint" after the fact.

Here's what I think. I think Bengtsson is afraid of losing future funding and other scientist world goodies. Easier to back off than to stand. Speculation, granted, but in this context, it is pretty good speculation.

From what I read on your link, there was a crap-load of tut tut tutting...

Michael

Stand on regard to what? He never said what the WSJ article claims he did. The whole thing is pure fabrication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the dude's afraid right now. A media shit-storm is traumatic for a scientist.

I also think he's consulted several people on what to say so he won't ruin the life he has constructed.

Since his paper will not come out, that's pretty convenient.

Your charge of "the whole thing is pure fabrication" is speculation at best.

At least he's sitting down and shutting the hell up like his masters are telling him to.

Speculation, of course.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1]

You don't need a study to show that a claim made by a mainstream source is a claim made by a mainstream source.

OK, we can agree on the above definition of climatology as the study of weather.

So we can use all the experts on weather as our data pool on AGW.

No where are the studies?

Your evasion and question begging does not work here. Question begging being defined as:

...Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

  1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
  2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

You could never be subtle.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1]

You don't need a study to show that a claim made by a mainstream source is a claim made by a mainstream source.

OK, we can agree on the above definition of climatology as the study of weather.

So we can use all the experts on weather as our data pool on AGW.

No where are the studies?

Your evasion and question begging does not work here. Question begging being defined as:

...Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

  1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
  2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

You could never be subtle.

A...

It's not question begging to say that A is A.

If a mainstream source says "x", then "x" is what the mainstream source says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate is NOT weather. Weather is short term conditions. Climate is long term trends in the state of the atmosphere and the oceans. The ice age lasted 100,000 years. Last winter's snow storm lasted a day or two.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...