Our Malicious ABC Science Show
Posted by jennifer, October 3rd, 2010 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory. The famous philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, would describe AGW as the current dominant paradigm because this is where the majority of professional scientists claim their allegiance. Of course there are dissenters, commonly referred to as sceptics or deniers, and Kuhn would have correctly predict that these individual would be excluded from the scientific community as evidenced in the Climategate emails.
It is particularly evident from the Climategate emails that a group within the scientific community will go to great lengths to deny so-called sceptics the opportunity to publish in the peer-reviewed literature including through the removal of editors and stacking of review committees.
Nevertheless, outspoken sceptic Bob Carter has managed, over his distinguished career to amass a long list of publications in the peer-reviewed literature including publications of direct relevance to climate science in the best international peer-reviewed science journals.
I make specific mention of Professor Carter and his publication record, because yesterday, on the ABC Science Show, it was repeatedly stated that Professor Carter has a very poor publication record.
Robyn Williams’ introduction to the interview explains:
“Bob Ward says those who seek to reinterpret the science of climate change often have minimal publication records. Publication involves peer review. This process weeds out experiments and papers which are sub-standard. By contrast, anyone can write a book, write a newspaper article, or address public meetings. Bob Ward mentions a paper by Bob Carter, saying it contains false quotes and numerous examples of inaccuracy. Bob Ward says the Carter paper is the worst that has ever been published about climate change.”
Worst, in the actual interview not one specific, substantive error of science is raised by Mr Ward, or Mr Williams, to illustrate the general accusation.
While it is generally acknowledged that Mr Williams is hopelessly biased when it comes to the issue of climate change, his malicious treatment of Professor Carter is beyond anything reasonably acceptable on a science show broadcast by the ABC.
While an apology is in order, in addition I suggest that Mr Williams dedicate a show, within the next month or so, to an interview with Professor Carter to discuss the science in his new book ‘Climate the Counter Consensus’.
*********
Update October 11th
From: ABC Corporate_Affairs13, Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 10:42 AM
To: Jennifer Marohasy Subject: FW: Complaint Re. ABC Science Show
Dear Dr Marohasy,
Thank you for your email to the Chairman of the ABC regarding the 2 October broadcast of The Science Show. Your comments have been noted by the Chairman and forwarded to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs for our records.
I understand you have also written directly to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs through the ABC Contact online page. I can advise you that your concerns are being investigated and you will receive a substantive response in due course.
Following is a link to the ABC’s Code of Practice for your information – http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.
Yours sincerely, Kirstin McLiesh, Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs
Ian,
There’s all sorts of data that confound the Global Climate Distortionist narrative.
For instance, the experience of persons who live on Hispaniola. They recently suffered an earthquake. Those on the poverty-stricken side, Haiti, suffered massive casualties. On the other side of the border, in the Dominican Republic, managed quite well.
Take-home message: affluence alleviates the effects of catastrophe.
Then there’s the experience of Germany. Germans, being affluent, reproduce less than others; the disappearance of indigenous Germans has been forecast.
Take-home message: affluence reduces the birthrate.
Other take-home message: the best response to ‘looming climate distortions’ is affluence.
Everyone who doesn’t want to be affluent, raise your hand please.
G. Foster
Tempo Analytics, Westbrook, Maine, USA
J. D. Annan
Research Institute for Global Change, JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan
P. D. Jones
Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
M. E. Mann
Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
B. Mullan
Climate Variability Group, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand
J. Renwick
Climate Variability Group, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand
J. Salinger
School of Environment, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
G. A. Schmidt
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
K. E. Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Oh btw Prop 23, my little ballot initiative to scrap the global warming law in California, it’s leading in the polls.
Luke, just a thought, seeing as how you are so knowledgeable about back radiation and all. AND the uncanny way that you have infinite access to everything ever published.
Might the whole back radiation thing be proved once and for all by making a large quantity of heavy CO2, releasing it at an appropriate spot in the atmosphere and then taking spherical distribution measurements of the IR which would be radiated at a different frequency than normal CO2?
What are your thoughts?
Derek,
Luke has a terrible allergy. Anything that involves actual experimental research, he runs for the hills.
His freaky notion of back-radiation, for instance, utterly fails with the ‘solar refrigerator’, or the gig with the IR thermometer.
It’s good to have Luke around, though, to remind us of the shoddy science behind anthropogenic climate distortion.
So Derek our resident sceptic troll – Schiller, the great anti-science advocate of this blog – a veritable cherry-picking quote-mining blog-bilge recycling automaton now demands experimental data.
Funny that he rejects measurement by a radiometer in clear sky night as evidence. Look Mum – no hands !
And Schillers’ logic also sez that the Osram IRC light bulb violates the second law of thermodynamics. (obviously Osram in on the BIG fraud – ho ho ho)
And of course there’s always Roy Spencer solar box…..
It’s always great to have Schiller around to remind us of the sceptic mind at work.
Affluence will reduce the world’s population, I agree with Schiller.
el; for a decent outline of the poverty (v affluence) issue, see “Eliminating poverty in our lifetime” via the Drum
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/30118.html
“So Derek our resident sceptic troll “………..um Luke, you must have gotten sidetracked before you had a chance to answer my actually serious question. If anyone can find out if such an experiment has been carried out, you’re the man(or men?, whatever) but seriously, please see if you can find anything.
Gavin, interesting piece. I was also quite impressed with what Noel Pearson had to say on counterpoint the other day. You can here it here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/3026903.htm and even follow the link down the page to his full speech.
Cheers.
Luke,
Cleverness is a poor substitute for understanding, something you exemplify in abundance.
I accept the IR thermometer readings as conclusively destroying the notion of CO2 ‘back-radiation’ as an important factor in climate/weather.
I utterly reject your claim that the Earth is like a light bulb with a silvery coating, the claim is so goofy not even Hansen would put it forward. And clearly you don’t understand Spencer’s solar box.
I suspect you’re a victim of the Trenberth syndrome… If the data don’t fit the model, the data are wrong. Sorry, bub, that’s totally backwards.
Schiller – mouthing off with no content – rhetorical bluster – is a poor substitute for understanding, something you exemplify in abundance.
I didn’t say the earth is like a silvery bulb – I said the bulb illustrates why your 2nd law of thermodynamics theory ruse is bunk. The bulb can’t work given your claims that nett radiation doesn’t exist.
And don’t just mouth off – DO TELL how a pyrgeometer “destroys” the notion of CO2 back radiation – this should be good.
And do explain Spencer’s box ! DO TELL why the box doesn’t get incredibly cold.
Failure to step comprehensively here – and any obfuscation will be a sure sign of you copping out (again). Chicken !
Derek – the resident sceptic troll be Schiller Not you.
Anyway – what do you mean by “heavy” CO2. Over what area. What thickness. What height. How do you propose to position the 3D sphere of measuring sensors in mid-air? Simply asking !
Are you measuring during the day and/or night. What do you expect to see? Why?
You would have then make calculations as to the back radiation contribution received from the atmosphere above and below the measuring point.
All good questions Luke.
Heavy CO2 is like heavy water, doped with heavier nuclei of oxygen, say O18. The difference in mass changes the rotational and vibrational frequencies of the CO2 molecule thus moving the IR spectrum of the heavy CO2. This would give a clearly detectable fingerprint signal for the target gas in the atmosphere.
As for your other questions, smarter people than me would have to figure them out.
What I would expect to see is a definitive measurement of the spherical distribution of re-emitted IR from the target molecule.
What I would like to know is; has anybody, anywhere tried it yet?
On reflection, this could probably be set up in a lab, even with normal CO2.
Derek,
I can give you the results of three experiments regarding back-radiation: the directional IR thermometer, the Spencer box, and the solar oven.
All three experiments yield the same result: when aimed at a clear night-time sky, they result in lower-than-ambient readings/ results. The directional IR thermometer registers lower than ambient; the Spencer box goes colder than ambient; and the solar oven — directed at a clear night sky — actually acts as a refrigerator.
The basic message: CO2 and whatever else there is out there that’s alleged to be a ‘greenhouse gas’ is not raising temps above ambient. The sole important source of back-radiation is from the surface — terrestrial solids and the oceans.
As for that goofy bit about the light-bulb: It uses a silvery surface (which does *not* behave like non-silvery, non-reflective CO2) to re-direct IR onto the bulb element, raising the temperature of the element above what it would be without the silvery bit. This results in more light for the same amount of electricity. The silvery-bulb/CO2 argument only works for people who are desperate and will accept even the most broken model if it fits their narrative.
The rest of the basic message: if the climate distortionists can’t get the physics right, it’s scarcely worth listening to anything else they have to say.
Schiller if that is you understanding you’re even dumber than I thought.
The bulb simply demonstrates the principle of net. The reflector is cooler than the filament – so on your understanding it cannot increase the temperature of the filament but it does. Schiller goof #1
Of course the pyrgeometer measures less than ambient. But Schiller sez back radiation doesn’t exist. So here now by this comment you admit it does. Goof #2
Spencer’s solar box proves the point – of course it gets cold as it can pick up not retained warmth from rocks, soil, trees as is contained in the real world. . But not that cold. Does get to making dry ice. Doesn’t get to absolute zero. NO – WHY – back radiation. Schiller Goof #3
So Schiller here claims to have overturned the entire knowledge of greenhouse theory. Isn’t it AMAZING that he knows this – yet it isn’t published – a Nobel Prize awaits our Schiller.
And if you’re sure – ask Roy !
“can not pickup retained warmth” – erratum
Derek – well yes it can be setup in a lab – and the fact you can talk about rotational and vibration frequencies, and dipole moments are the results from that spectroscopic investigation.
There is a very simple experiment that shows CO2 acting as an absorber.
So the question for you is where does the energy go once absorbed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
BUT for Schiller – an intelligence test – what’s wrong with these
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY&feature=related
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=ai4idlxhjo0&feature=related
Luke, yes, nice video. I did my own IR absorption experiments when I was at Uni but I haven’t seen anything on re-emittance. If you could direct me to a youtube video that demonstrates that I would be grateful.
Luke, as for the other 2 videos, what’s wrong with them is this: the specific heat capacity in kJ/kgK of atmospheric gases at 300K are as follows; N2 1.040, O2 0.918, water vapour 1.864, CO2 0.846.
This means that CO2 has a much lower capacity to store energy than the other major gasses in the atmosphere. In both of the experiments shown, the increase in CO2 concentration was dramatic, possibly into the 10′s of %. All that those videos show is that with high enough concentrations of CO2, there is a direct warming effect on the immediately surrounding air. There is nothing in either of those segments that demonstrates the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
Top marks on specific heat Derek – but you should have left it for Schiller’s education. Remember Schiller denies everything.
Re-emittance – one would have to resort to spectroscopy.
Finally got Luke to fess up on the behavior of CO2, back-radiation and AGW.
If CO2-induced warming via back-radiation worked as the distortioners claim, the three experiments mentioned above would yield ambient temperatures at least. They do not, and in fact demonstrate a net cooling cooling instead. Absolutely fatal to the distortioners’ claims.
Also utterly fatal to the claim that CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating. It’d be interesting to know who dreamed that one up.
Huh? No they would not. Schiller you lose for failing to step up. I asked you a question and no answer. Of course the temperature will drop in the solar box – it’s called lack of sunlight. And you seem to have forgotten the role of everything in the surroundings that was warmed by the sun during the day.
AGAIN Schiller – why is the temperature drop so low !!
And Schiller – wouldn’t you think this would be Nobel prize winning stuff? Wouldn’t you think Watts and Nova would be going crazy with it? Spencer himself would have published.
And from your comment you didn’t even understand what Derek said. (LOL)
And I did not say CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating.
You clueless clown.
Luke,
You’ve gotten things confused. Here’s your dead give-away: “Of course the temperature will drop in the solar box – it’s called lack of sunlight.” So you’re admitting the primacy of insolation? “drop in the solar box” — the temperature should go up to ambient or above if back-radiation was being the big element in GW. So you don’t get that, either.
“the role of everything in the surroundings that was warmed by the sun during the day.” — Exactly. The significant ‘back-radiation’ is from the ground up, certainly not from the atmosphere down. Unless you’re talking about clouds, but that’s water vapor. Dude.
This is not Nobel Prize stuff because it’s commonly known and proved by persons too numerous to nominate.
Derek’s observations are obviously subsumed by current observations regarding the behavior of CO2, so exactly what is your problem?
And yes, you actually did say that “CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating.” That’s why you said it was a model for climate dynamics.
Oops! You know, it’s very possible, being Luke Desk, that another Luke said something about light bulbs that you weren’t aware of. Yet another failure of conspiracy theory.
Good article from David Evans on the long history of climate change at Jo Nova’s.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-4-past-temperatures/#more-10966
Neville,
Good link. If there’s anything obvious from the climate records, it’s that, the warmer things get, the more likely they are to cool down, and vice versa.
“And yes, you actually did say that “CO2 acts like a piece of glass with a silvery coating.” That’s why you said it was a model for climate dynamics.”
NO NO NO
What I said Schiller is that the light bulb is a simple example of why your 2nd law ruse is a STUPID. That’s it. Net radiation. Conservation of Energy.
I’m sorry Schiller you’re fun to play with being such a dope. Not even your beloved Roy Spencer agrees with you and in fact fully supports my position. LOL
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Note the effect of clouds on Spencer’s graph. Come in spinner Schiller and thanks for coming out on the end of plank. What a sucker.
Luke,
The reflective light-bulb coating is reflective. The coating doesn’t absorb and emit, it reflects. I doesn’t do convection. If you regret bringing that up, so be it. If not, admit you don’t understand the 2d law.
Spencer agrees completely with my refutation of your bogus climate model. Clear-sky back-radiation is net negative, not net positive, so it’s not ‘baking the planet’ and so forth. If this planet relied on CO2 back-radiation for our warmth, we’d be entombed on an iceball.
And of course clouds do the back-radiation boogie. You are not the first to notice that.
So, are you going to abandon the CO2 narrative and protest against water vapor? That’s about all you have left.
I sent a version of the above to the ABC as a complaint and also as a letter to the Chairman. Response follows:
From: ABC Corporate_Affairs13, Sent: Monday, 11 October 2010 10:42 AM
To: Jennifer Marohasy Subject: FW: Complaint Re. ABC Science Show
Dear Dr Marohasy,
Thank you for your email to the Chairman of the ABC regarding the 2 October broadcast of The Science Show. Your comments have been noted by the Chairman and forwarded to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs for our records.
I understand you have also written directly to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs through the ABC Contact online page. I can advise you that your concerns are being investigated and you will receive a substantive response in due course.
Following is a link to the ABC’s Code of Practice for your information – http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_codeofpractice-revised_2008.pdf.
Yours sincerely, Kirstin McLiesh, Head, Audience and Consumer Affairs
Well done Jennifer; and good luck with the “Kafkaesque” machinations of the ABC complaint system.
Actually, looking at Bob’s publication record, I wonder if it is complete; I couldn’t find this excellent paper listed:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
No Schiller – your logic sez the cooler reflector can’t warm the filament. Sorry it does.
No Schiller – not net negative or the box would be extremely cold.
And you have no problem with water vapour being a greenhouse gas but you do with CO2. Same physics principle my friend. So clouds are allowed to do back radiation – coz Schiller thinks than can but nothing else. Selective physics.
Amazing Schiller. Amazing. Which is why we treat you lot with derision.
Gosh Schiller it seems your EPA estimates that the restictions on GHG’s will reduce the temp by a massive 0.006 of a degree over the next 90 years.
How many trillions of $ will it take to record this massive non measurement of temp I wonder?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-s-own-estimates-say-greenhouse-gas-r
Jennifer; you are going to enter the lion’s den [Q&A] next week; good luck!
Luke,
Check the physics of reflectors.
Meaningless attempt to escape Schiller – you say it’s not about nett – colder can not have any impact on warmer – yet it does. No escape from your own logic.
Luke,
If you understood the 2d law you would notice that it’s about absorption and emission — and not reflection.
A reflector changes state only to the extent that it’s not an efficient reflector.
Now, once you’ve sorted that out, you’ll have to retract your suggestion that a shiny light bulb has something to do with climate modeling.
Nope – you’re just squirming – tripe. The simple comment you have consistently said is that cold can’t warm. And it’s not about nett. You’re dreaming when you also feel that extra warmth coming from a brick wall (non-reflective too).
Schiller if the back radiation was not there Spencer’s box would be making dry ice.
“Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory” – sounds like you’ve gotten confused between the colloquial use of “theory” and the scientific theory. Not a good look for someone who touts their scientific credentials.