ACCORDING to the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, a scientific theory, for example, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is likely to be based on a particular set of experimental and theoretical techniques for matching it with what is observed in the physical world.
The hard core of AGW theory is embodied in the law and mathematical expression described by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius over one hundred years ago. In its original form, Arrhenius’ law states that if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression. Dr Arrhenius calculated values for the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric carbon dioxide and speculate that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause a global temperature rise of 5 – 6 °C.
It wasn’t until 1988 that AGW captured significant political attention. That was when climatologist James Hansen, in his testimony to US congressional committees, claimed a 4.2°C global temperature increase would result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Since then estimates have been continuously adjusted down.
In the 1995 IPCC report, for example, a doubling of carbon dioxide was predicted to cause a 3.8 °C increase and then in 2001 a 3.5°C increase and in 2007 a 3.26°C increase.
In 2008, twenty years after his initial influential testimony, Professor Hansen issued a statement to the effect that his central estimate of lambda was now 0.75, requiring a further reduction of the official climate sensitivity estimate by one quarter, to 2.5°C degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide.
Even leading skeptical scientists Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer agree to a reduced sensitivity for a doubling of carbon dioxide.
Do all these adjustments indicate a problem with the hard core of AGW theory?
The late mathematician and philosopher Imre Lakatos claims that scientists who subscribe to a particular scientific theory, also known as a paradigm, will tend to work to ensure its hard core is unfalsifiable.
********
This post builds on, and synthesizes, many of the comments provided by readers at: The Need for a new Theory of Climate (Part 1). http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/10/the-need-for-a-new-theory-of-climate-part-1/?cp=all
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
BURN THE WITCHES AT THE STAKE!!!!!!
If this signals ‘a problem with the hard core of AGW theory’, the problem would well be summarized as: ‘The more we study CO2, the less of an effect it appears to have.’
‘Even leading skeptical scientists Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer agree to a reduced sensitivity for a doubling of carbon dioxide.’
Actually, they are just being polite, anyone with half a brain knows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Willie Soon and Bob Carter support my theory that CO2 is a benign trace gas.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/552190/201010291911/Disputing-The-Skeptical-Environmentalist.htm
A competent AGW theory would explain the world’s climate without any human influence, forming a baseline from which the effects of human influence can be explained and predicted.
Since the former is unavailable, the latter completely lacks any empirical basis.
El Gordo – what a clown – They have said CO2’s warming potential is NOT CONTESTED ! Try to stop bulldusting eh.
In a remarkable attempt to address the actual thread – Jen suggests that the sensitivity is decreasing as “alarmists” back off. Not really – most likely value has been 3C for years? What’s new?
A much wider less selective history here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
It greaves me to say it, but Lindzen and Spencer are wrong.
From comments at
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/10/29/ministerial-meetings.html
“Here is the piece referred to by Confused, above. Dellingpole put it in the Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100060540/happy-climate-fools-day/
I recommend it.
And below, a commenter called Cerberus makes the following declaration:
“I hope one day to aspire to the the status of denier.
To that end I deny that there is one single shred of empirical evidence to support the Great Global Climate Fraud.
I deny that humankind is causing catastrophic warming.
I deny that CO2 is a pollutant in any way shape or form.
I deny that windmills are anything other than an absolutely insane waste of taxpayers’ hard earned cash.
I deny that even doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere could cause more than a one degree rise in global temperatures.
However I do not deny that CO2 is a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere that is absolutely indispensible to the well-being of all plant and animal life.
I do not deny that CO2 is so harmless that even twenty times as much in the atmosphere would not affect human beings in the slightest.
I do not deny that, out of 35,800 molecules of air, mankind contributes just one of CO2.
I do not deny that for every 35,800 molecules of air there are only 33 molecules of CO2.
I do not deny that doubling atmospheric CO2, if it could be achieved, would result in a wholly beneficial greening of planet Earth leading to greatly increased crop yields.
I do not deny that CAGW is anything other than a wicked fraud that has enriched many undeserving crooks and charlatans.
I do not deny that the “environmentalist ” policies of the IPCC and the EUSSR will result in economic disaster if they are successfully implemented.
I do not deny that for much of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been ten times as high as they are today and previously to that, even higher.”
Oct 29, 2010 at 3:38 PM “
As we can’t accurately asses what the warming effects of 6 billion people’s land use changes amount to, it is reasonable to say that our current warming due to ACO2 is so small that the AGW Theory, if not falsified, is certainly not verified.
Silly comment Spanglers – land use change more often that not brightens the surface. Net cooling effect?
Are you serious Luke?
You’re saying that if we removed the 6 billion people that the planet would be warmer?
Are there any studies being done on changes in water vapour content in the atmosphere over time, in the same way CO2 is being measured at various points around the globe? And what of any changes to water vapour content in relation to changes in CO2?
It seems to me as an interested layman observer that the main manifestation of any effects from changing climates will be most evident in the rate at which water changes the characteristics of its presence at any location – ie from fluid (earthbound) state to airborne state (vapour or steam to cloud) to snow to ice and back to fluid.
And since our atmosphere is a closed environment, the most dominant and influential variable of its compostion (ie water vapour) would be the one to focus most attention on, and thoroughly understand, before we vest major decisions on what could well be minor influences (eg CO2)?
Or is it the contention of CAGW promoters that human-contributed CO2 controls and dominates the cycles of water content in the atmosphere?
Please enlighten me.
Mick,
This may be of some help:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/23/water-vapor-mischief/
“Abstract. Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth’s climate system, but their direct impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention. Here we examine and advance a theory as to how condensation influences atmospheric pressure through the mass removal of water from the gas phase with a simultaneous account of the latent heat release. Building from fundamental physical principles we show that condensation is associated with a decline in air pressure in the lower atmosphere. This decline occurs up to a certain height, which ranges from 3 to 4 km for surface temperatures from 10 to 30 °C. We then estimate the horizontal pressure differences associated with water vapor condensation and find that these are comparable in magnitude with the pressure differences driving observed circulation patterns. The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds. Our estimates suggest that the global mean power at which this potential energy is released by condensation is around one per cent of the global solar power – this is similar to the known stationary dissipative power of general atmospheric circulation. We conclude that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics.”
Luke is just being silly. Anyone who walks barefoot from a lawned area onto beach sand on a hot summer day knows which one gets hotter even though sand is more reflective.
I’m thinking that “luke” might be the anglised name for Loki, the norse god of mischief eh?
Thanks for your info Spangled Drongo.
Curry’s last sentence seems to confirm my lay observation that we’re not vesting enough focus on the major influences on our climate mechanisms.
The CO2 disciples are dominating the agenda ?
Derek – what utter gobstopping bunk – are you guys that daft – what if the sand is black – it’s hotter, black car – hotter than white, black roof – hotter than white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Forests being darker have lower albedo
Surface Typical albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04
Worn asphalt 0.12
Conifer forest
(Summer) 0.08,[2] 0.09 to 0.15[3]
Deciduous trees 0.15 to 0.18
Bare soil 0.17
Green grass 0.25
Desert sand 0.40
New concrete 0.55
Ocean Ice 0.5–0.7
Fresh snow 0.80–0.90
And strangely dear Derek – the lawn is cooler coz it’s evapotranspiring. See what happens when a crop runs out of water – the leaves get hotter. In fact infra-red thermometers are used for irrigation scheduling.
SD; when I asked up or down? up front I could have said black or white and named half a dozen pairs of absolutes for a narrow scepitic window frame but I see you are about to give us a burst of complex theory with that curry link.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/math-sci/bics/papers/
Recall; more energy retained at surface = more dynamic systems. Poping more water into the cyclone gives more latent heat for the differential and so on. Guess what? We are just starting!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/areas/dynamics/next-generation
http://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_168706.htm
Jennifer; nothing in nature is black and white!
SD; water vapour “mischief” is hardly news is it?
A surface’s heat can’t be solely based on albedo; it’s emissivity and convection must also be considered:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/emissivity-vs-wavelength-various-substances2.png
Urban sites may have lower albedo but they have higher emissivity than some natural surfaces; evapotranspiration is also a product of the strength of the insolation; to illustrate this perhaps luke can tell us which surface will be warmer under an equivalent insolation; black cement covered in water or foilage/grass?
Luke,
You’re away with the fairies again.
Just compare cities with country areas, tin roofs with grass, roads with bushland, asphalt with snow, central heating pipes in Siberia with permafrost tundra or just put a mob of cattle on the Sturts Stony Desert to eat the Mitchell Grass down to the gidgee stones.
And it’s not just reflectivity. The texture of mans improvements have hard surfaces compared with the air and moisture trapping surfaces of organic material. Look at your average affordable housing village. A sea of roofs so close together that any open space has to consist of completely paved areas. Nothing to provide any cooling so that it must be artificially air conned and these exhausts heat the area even further. These incredible urban heat islands that are multiplying exponentially in the name of afforability.
I check my max temp every day with BoM centres and nearly every day I have the lowest in the state mainly because my thermometer isn’t in a UHI.
If you removed us 6 billion it would probably show that CO2 caused cooling!
Sigh – poor analogy Spanglers – black clays are beneath Mitchell Grass not gibbers. In this particular instance it would be hotter from both black soil and lack of transpiration.
In general however overgrazing increases albedo.
Evapotranspiration is a function of radiation, wind run, vapour pressure deficit (humidity) and temperature – and water availability – get it right.
Spanglers – simply put – cities have lots of black surfaces called roads and heat sources.
Totally forest the world and it will be hotter from an albedo perspective – they’re darker !
Luke,
Listing albedo averages and relying on only those to talk about climate impact is a bit naive.
I am certain that at least some of you have walked in a forest during summer.
You have probably also walked in open grassland and desert.
Can you at least entertain the idea that the issue of albedo impact is more complex?
You seem to know about biological processes and potential for changing temps. Can you take another step in this?
Luke,
You’ve obviously never been to the Sturts Stony Desert and surrounding gidgee stone downs country in far SW Qld. For example, Kerry Packer’s old property “Nockatunga” is Mitchell grass covered gidgee stone downs.
You’re talking about Longreach country and even parts of that are gidgee stone. Anyway, when overgrazed, the blacksoil would possibly be even hotter.
And as cohers points out and I said too, it’s not just about albedo. Try crossing a highly reflective desert, or a less reflective savannah, or again an even less reflective forest and you’ll find that the least reflective is the coolest.
But it is mainly in the close inhabited areas where the greater heat really is.
Wow – the boyz are actually trying to communicate with me. I feel all warm and fuzzy.
Spanglers – but you’re adding in evapotranspiration. Try white sand vs black sand.
Light trees vs dark trees.
There is no need for a new Theory of Climate. The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with the original one – the Theory of Climate Chaos … a climate that is unpredictable; undeterminable; overly-complex; very misunderstood; logically chaotic; undeniably self-driven; and forever changing.
I have been building just such a new theory for some three years now and it is developing nicely:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6482
Comment from: Luke October 31st, 2010 at 7:49 pm
” See what happens when a crop runs out of water – the leaves get hotter.
In fact infra-red thermometers are used for irrigation scheduling. ”
Interesting comment Luke.
So, IR ain’t enough to cool the plants, and neither would conduction and convection be either.
So, that leaves (good pun eh…) the latent heat of water vapourisation.
But of course it does, IR IS A MINOR PLAYER, within the atmosphere.
(Yes “it” comes in by SW solar input, and “it” leaves by LW IR, but
why assume it is the major factor inbetween….
AND, who has yet proven any sort of radiative balance anyways….)
Conduction and convection of sensible heat is quite a bit larger than IR.
BUT, the daddy IS the latent heat of water vapourisation.
Funnily enough, LH of water vapourisation don’t show up too well on global energy budgets, but it wouldn’t the “theory” is crock.
I do beleive “we” don’t radiate heat too well, conduction and convection is pretty good,
but hey throw some sweat in, then “we” really cool.
Does this not show the reality of the situation “we” can all feel everyday. ?
I really do wish people would start to put LW IR into perspective, AND,
stop giving radiation intensities some imagined vector, it does not have.
But hey, there would be no greenhouse effect then would there.
Yup, it is time for a new “theory”,
one that does not over egg IR beyond reason and physics,
that actually when we think about it we can actually observe.
Preferably in both our own bedrooms and bathrooms.
What do you mean you have never considered the fact that there is no greenhouse effect,
(bedroom simile)
or,
seriously taken into account surface heating, retention, and varying later release.
(bathroom simile)
Just for good measure – how much of an anomaly does this leave for “greenhouse” to explain. ?
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg
I say virtually, or rather completely NONE,
because there is no “greenhouse effect”,
it was simply invented by giving a radiation intensity a vector it does not have.
BTW – Arrhenius, first paper 1898, second paper 1906. Second paper revised his own figures DOWN to 0.5 C for CO2, 2.1 C including water vapour.
BUT, he also did not take LH of water vapourisation into account in any meaningful way either…
Time IS telling.
The King is dead, for real scientists.
The politicised ones, well that’s a different matter.
“Funnily enough, LH of water vapourisation don’t show up too well on global energy budgets”
Sorry it does
But mate your jpeg is brilliant – when is your paper coming out in Nature?
NEXT !
No it does not, not in any realistic amounts or manner, you obviously do not know or understand what you are looking at.
You say that my jpeg is pretty good, I thank you for that,
but it regards a matter of science.
So it won’t be allowed, and I wouldn’t want it to be in such a journal at present, given the editorial standards at present, in many journals, such as but sadly not only Nature.
Next, you need to understand even just some of the basics you profess to understand,
but patently do not.
IR is a bit part player, you do not understand for instance.
Gavin Schmidt gave a radiation intensity a vector, and hence the greenhouse effect was invented you obviously also do not have a clue about.
Look, here’s the old NASA energy budget,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/NASA/NASAradiationbudget.gif
then Gavin gave a radiation intensity a vector…
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/NASA/global_energy_budget_components.png
Con complete – imaginary effect created.
Finally Luke, cut the debating techniques (they are negative in intent), and actually try discussing (which is positive in intent),
but you will not and can not, can you.
Derek; Imo Schmidt’s models are more mature than most
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/index.html#coam
Comment from: Derek November 1st, 2010 at 4:44 am
Just for good measure – how much of an anomaly does this leave for “greenhouse” to explain. ?
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg
I don’t think that the presence of oceans has that much to do with it. It’s more about the length of day.
Do you really think that Earth’s range would still be +10 to +20 if it had the same length of day as the moon? By how much does a point on the moon’s surface heat up in the first 12 hours of daylight compared to the other 14 or so days of continued sunlight?
What would be the differential if the Earth if it were tidally locked and always has the same side facing the sun?
I find it rather tiresome reading the comments from the folks who are wiggling their toes in the cool grass or hopping on hot sand. Jennifer presented the hard core of the theory that supports AGW. She observed that over the course of a few years, Climate scientists have adjusted the expected temperature rise to half of the effect that Arrhenius had proposed. Then she asks the question, “Do all these adjustments indicate a problem with the hard core of AGW theory?”
My answer is a loud “Yes!” I’ll admit that I haven’t studied the papers to assess the scientist’s application of negative and positive feedbacks to arrive at their adjusted temperature rise but I assume that they devoted many tedious hours to come to their conclusions. What more adjustments are coming? What more provable negative feedbacks are going to be programmed into the models? Jennifer’s point is that if the theory is changing, how solid can the theory be?
I’ll make some brief points as to why I am sceptical of the theory and why I am not concerned about any change in the climate.
1. It is undisputed that the climate has been warmer and colder than the present. Therefore there are natural causes of both warming and cooling. I have seen no evidence that the warming episodes were preceded by a rise in CO2.
2. There is undisputed evidence that climate has cyclical components. These cycles are both very long and very short and overlay each other. Some relate to solar cycles, others to changes in the earth’s orbit and the earth’s axis tilt.
3. Since life flourished during past periods of a warmer climate, why should warmer be bad? If warm is a good thing and we are contributing a small part, shouldn’t we be pleased with ourselves.
4. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not too far above the starvation point for plant life. A doubling or tripling of CO2 from current levels and even higher levels have occurred in the past with only beneficial results for plant life. Those higher levels did not warm the planet did not result in ocean acidification and kill off all the shelled creatures.
5. I believe that the AGW scare has such an appeal to extreme environmentalists because it fits with their belief that that we are pillaging the planet of non-renewable natural resources and scarring the planet in the process, therefore we must stop the use of fossil fuels and the mining of minerals and metals. We should insist that proponents of such absurdities live their lives without the benefits of what others have extracted from the earth.
A bit of a rant there at the end, but I couldn’t stop myself. My ‘backspace’ and ‘delete’ keys aren’t working. The points are central to my belief system. There are many more points that I could make but those you all have heard before and are not specific to Jennifer’s topic.
Jerry F,
Thanks. You summarise my post and provide some relevant comment.
Given the extent to which other commentators seemed to miss the point of my musing/or perhaps were just not interested, I was wondering whether or not to continue with this series.
I was next going to consider the non-hard core parts of AGW theory and whether any of them had been falsified/could be falsified.
I like the rant JerryF, couldn’t have said it better myself.
Jen, methinks an ‘open thread’ would be a good idea, to allow wider news and comment.
What an amazing load of codswallop – the olde sceptic ruses that fail to die.
(1) the ye olde Milankovitch cycles CO2 follows the temp ruse (and why wouldn’t it?)
(2) cycles ? it does – like what? and evidence is?
(3) Pity most of the life forms are now extinct eh?
(4) Ecophyiosiological nonsense – FACE experiments show real limits. System will run out of N or water. As has been recently shown in field research. Get real. And the PETM did kill off ocean creatures – get updated.
(5) blah blah – just verballing and framing
Derek’s assurances have meant that all the physicist measuring radiation must have been measuring fairies.
Jen – your analysis of the warming story being adapted is fanciful. Indeed little has changed 3C is still the number. Here’s a well referenced essay on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
OK. I’ve just opened a new ‘open thread’ as requested.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/11/first-open-thread/
And apologies for being a bit cranky…
And to Schiller Thurkettle and others who did make on topic comments early in the thread.
” I don’t think that the presence of oceans has that much to do with it. ”
I am not going to attribute that to anyone, it is so unbelievable.
Specific heat of water is…………………….
Let me put it simply, the oceans have 800 to 900 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere..
“being a bit cranky”
Couldn’t of put it better myself.
” She observed that over the course of a few years, Climate scientists have adjusted the expected temperature rise to half of the effect that Arrhenius had proposed. Then she asks the question, ”
His first or second paper on the subject please. ?
Even Wiki mentions the second paper these days……….
Probably after Connolly was got rid of. 🙂
“Do all these adjustments indicate a problem with the hard core of AGW theory? ”
Errr, yes, there is no greenhouse effect,
AND,
where is the proof of a radiative balance. ??????
Life uses energy, this planet ain’t dead, so there is no radiative balance.
But you may keep “quibbling the figures” only if you wish to here,
it won’t get you far.
But that’s what it’s supposed to do, get you nowhere.
Comment from: Luke November 1st, 2010 at 9:30 pm
” Derek’s assurances have meant that all the physicist measuring radiation must have been measuring fairies. ”
Come on then Luke, what were they measuring, and how. ?
Because it sure is NOT measurements that make up almost all of the global energy budgets.
They are guessimates mostly (pretty large and rounded ones at that),
BECAUSE they can not be measured,
BECAUSE radiation has no vector…
Derek, excellent work; contrary to what luke is spluttering about Schmidt and AGW DON’T model water well if at all; when the dust settles on the new condensation paper that will become more apparent; the role of the ocean is dominant and the inability of LW/CO2 to affect OHC in any meaningful way means that CO2 is a bit player. As an adjunct to your posts the temperature history of the Earth is remarkably consistent given the wide range of circumstances which have prevailed:
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8615/allpaleotemp.png
If CO2 were dominant we would either be Venus or a snowball by now.
Gee Derek – dat’s a hard quessshun ….. might it be with a “net radiometer”. On ya bike mate.
Cohers – models well enough for Dessler to dispatch Lindzen – yeeeesss …. you guys crack me up.
Luke, you just will not answer will you.
That’s because you have no answer.
I love the way you keep on telling me to go away, your that scared you will not discuss,
exactly as I said earlier that you would not.
BECAUSE you can not.
BECAUSE radiation has no vector.
BECAUSE without a radiation vector THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.
One simile to “explain” the power of “back radiation”.
Mount a gas fire on the ceiling of your living room.
Lie on the floor directly beneath the fire.
Bask in the “back radiation”.
Now, tell me honestly, what chance does a cloud have of heating the earth’s surface…….
cohenite – Thank you, spot on, AGW does it’s absolute best to dismiss THE main factor in the atmosphere, the latent heat of water vapourisation.
As for the global enegy budgets, well I and a few others, far, far better than me covered them pretty well in this thread.
Luke, mate, for your own safety, don’t read it – you’ll explode.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-609.html
On second thoughts, Luke, please read the above thread.
Derek,
The issues you describe have thoroughly been investigated in the wake of James Clerk Maxwell’s proposal of an entity which could contradict the second law of thermodynamics. [1]
A similar mechanism, the notion that the atmosphere acts as a ‘heat pump’ has been similarly debunked. [2, 3]
As I keep saying, if the Climate Distortionists can’t get the physics right, everything thereafter is wrong.
—–
1. http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm
2. http://www.climategatecountryclub.com/profiles/blogs/influence-of-co2-on
3. http://www.solarcooking.org/radiant-fridge.htm
Derek – gee I find Johnny come lately’s like you tedious. How many times have we been over this sceptic trash. Derek pls get some ELEMENTARY help with your physics. Atmospheric radiative physics has been very well studied and some upstart like you wanders on here doing a Galileo – pullease.
In fact your good sceptic mate Roy Spencer has well demonstrated the GHG effect from clouds in a simple experiment.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
Check the effect of clouds moving through. Woo hoo !
For heavens sake Derek – don’t read too widely or your brain will explode.
Derek – try this at home (But given you’re a bit of a dope maybe not – wouldn’t want to see our sceptics get fried – we need them to mock relentlessly) http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/09/light-dawns-there-are-styles-in-science.html
Look no hands !
Or even worse try Schillers fav – the humble osram bulb – can’t work can it?
http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Tools_%26_Services/Calculators_and_Consultants/IRC_Saver_calculator/index.html
and as we know the 2nd law of thermodynamics is THE greatest Skanky sceptic ruse of all time.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/08/radiation-basics-and-the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Off you go now matey – try to not run into obstacles. Easy does it. I know reality is a bitch.
Luke, my old mate, what a nice, but completely belated and misguided reply.
I have been at Roy Spencer’s blog in the past few months of occasion. Infact I posted in his “Virginia” thread asking him (politely I may add) if he had taken surface heating, retention, and varying later release into account.
That would obviously effect the sensors under the trees, but not so much the sensor in the insulated box.
He obviously found this a rather inconvenient question because he has not responded to it…
He also “moderated” many other people’s replies that he found “awkward”..
AND,
What the clouds you referred to showed was the reduced conduction and convection meaning more water vapour stayed around at lower levels for longer…..
That’s all. But how or why this is, and the effect it would have, will be completely missed by you.
The above is all mostly because you have still not even considered THE FACT that radiation does not have a vector.
Just before I “leave” Spencer’s ramblings, just a note, it would be nice when you use ideas others came up first with to at least admit it..
[IMG]http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/Slide5-55.jpg[/IMG]
He has since done the same with another plot I did before him as well.
Arrh well, great minds think alike, others seldom differ I suppose..
But this Johnny who has SUPPOSEDLY come late on the scene, has probably not come so lately “on the scene” actually.
As for the rabbit’s experiment, what of it. ?
The source of the light (filament) is at what temp. ?
I suppose the real question is, is the glass of a bulb a better conductor of heat to air, than aluminum foil.
It would appear so. I ain’t seen that one before, but it does look rather suspect to me.
I wouldn’t expect owt less from “the bunny”.
Now, luke, let us get back to my oh so simple question you continually avoid.
Does radiation have a vector. ?
My fire on the ceiling simile may be useful in this respect…
Anyways, AGW says it does, see.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg
BUT IT DON’T. Not according to any text books I have seen. read, or am aware of.
This is new to science Luke, the contention / complete reliance upon radiation having a vector.
(I know it MUST have a vector, but that’s not the same thing is it…..)
You have proof I assume, please be good enough to share it with us.
As for the second law abused so much by AGW, tell me why EVERY other heat flow we can see is RELATIVELY absorbed,
but IR radiation is SUPPOSED to be positively absorbed.
Why is radiation SO DIFFERENT.?
There is not a single explanation / thought experiment yet that stands up to examination that supposedly supports such a ridiculous notion.
Tell you what Luke, I’ll go away when you can show radiation has a vector.
(Actually the overall effect (direction of movement) upon photons is up in the pressure gradient of this planet’s atmosphere, simply by chance of absorption alone. – but you can’t have that can you, it is exactly the opposite of what greenhouse says happens, AND the above linked to “global energy budget” SUPPOSEDLY “illustrates”…)
Pulls up deck chair, gets comfortable, falls asleep.
I’d also remind you that merely dismissing or ignoring points raised is, well, rather weak.
So, don’t forget life’s use of energy as far as the “budgets” are concerned and,
proof of the assumed radiative balance please…
Schiller Thurkettle
Given the to an order of magnitude (probably at least) ignoring of the latent heat of vapourisation of water,
I can not agree with you much, if at all.
As for “the physics”, who knows what MODTRAN and the GCMs model..
Nature certainly does not know what they model.
Pathetic response Derek. Simply pathetic. Come back when you have something of substance.
I can see you don’t have answers to real world MEASUREMENTS. Of course your personal publication in GRL with data will convince me otherwise.
Yet another eccentric sceptic twit droning on ….
(BTW didn’t like the alfoil – try the Osram – night night)
Look radiation doesn’t have a “vector” – each photon might – and the 3D probability distribution would be even in all directions. In which case 50% roughly would be downwards. And funny that you can go into your backyard with a pyrgeometer on a cloudless night and measure it. And you can even do a total energy balance on all 4 components SW down, SW reflected, LW up, LW down and graph it – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_radiometer
Perhaps you need to publish the ultimate paper explaining to all those people involved in the baseline surface radiation where they’ve goofed http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/home/bsrn/
What’s in a Trenberth diagram is a gross oversimplification of what is modelled in a GCM.
LOL “In which case 50% roughly would be downwards. ” You get that result if the radiation is being emitted by something nearly hemispherical, with the somewhat flat part on the bottom. With an actual sphere, only one point on its surface is oriented fully downward.
Sticking with Luke’s bizarre claim yields another result: bisect the sphere vertically instead, and nearly 100% would be sideways!
LOL Luke you’ve made my day.
Yes drongo – and sideways in this case has up and down. Sound of crickets …. chirp chirp …..
(duh I diddun tink of dat says Schiller dragging his hairy knuckles on the ground)
In fact why don’t you get out your crayons – draw the Earth – and top of atmosphere to scale. Pick a point at noon at the top of the atmosphere to scale and draw draw your little sphere.
Actually – don’t do it – your brain will explode.
If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.
The prediction is not true.
Therefore, the theory is not true.
Karl Popper
Comment from: Luke November 4th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Look radiation doesn’t have a “vector” – each photon might – and the 3D probability distribution would be even in all directions.
Thank you Luke, a sort of answer at long last…
But, errr, now you have illustrated my point very nicely – for that I thank you.
We agree, or rather you have admitted I am actually correct. As I have stated numerous times so far in this thread, radiation does not have a vector.
Excellant, now Luke back to the global energy budgets, specifically “back radiation”.
1) “Back radiation” is dependent upon radiation having a vector, BUT IT DOES NOT, AND
2) some assumed and unproven magical photon “protection” amounting to
“you will not absorb me till I hit the ground” property..
(I doubt it gets ore than a few metres mostly below the clouds)
Both are patently absurd. Both are unphysical. both are assumed to happen by AGW.
Without both there is no “greenhouse effect” nor is there AGW either.
The suggested / modeled “greenhouse effect” is a (and an assumed, plus unproven) physical impossibility.
You ain’t mentioned 3) life and the global energy budgets yet, I am pretty sure this planet ain’t dead.
Thought the space between your ears clearly qualifies as such.
4) Then there is the totally absent proof of radiative balance that you have also not mentioned.
5) Luke you have also not even vaguely attempted any explanation of, nor taking into account (as Dr. Spencer did not – he ain’t a skeptic btw he is an AGW stooge)
surface heating, retention, and varying later release.
6) Where is latent heat of vapourisation of water accounted for in anything like realistic terms in AGW ??
Every wisp of cloud in the sky is the direct result of energy (heat) being taken aloft by water, redistributing energy by, unlike any other atmospheric constituent, change of state.
Between the earth’s surface and the clouds where does this energy movement show up in AGW.?
It does not, because it is not radiation……….Until it is released, then it is magically pt back on the earth’s surface, in an amount equal to the sun’s initial input – pull the other one, it has got bells on.
Yes, energy comes in as short wave solar radiation, and yes, it leaves by long wave IR,
but inbetween most is NOT moved by radiation. What a stupid assumption / misconception / misdirection.
Points 1 to 6 Luke will be presented and represented to you, untill you come up with actual answers.
Reality really is a bitch, (when you believe rather than observe) ain’t it Luke.
Settles back down into deck chair,
cracks a beer open,
and enjoys watching the last dying rays as the sun sets on AGW “theory”.
So stupid that I’m stunned – ” Dr. Spencer did not – he ain’t a skeptic btw he is an AGW stooge” Golly gee Derek – he’s a hell of an an AGW stooge http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4
“I doubt it gets ore than a few metres mostly below the clouds” – Derek taps his radiometer – “this radiometer doesn’t seem to be reading right – says there’s back radiation” ….. gurgle
So when’s your Nobel prize winning paper coming out Derek. May I have a preprint.
You’ll be famous Derek – it was Derek Walter Mitty all along. He saved the world from the green hordes with his breakthrough vector concept.
Now off you go Derek – I note you had no answers to my rebuttal. They’ll be round with your meds at the home soon enough. You just sit there and have a nana nap.
I remember the day Spencer had a guest post at Watts and mentioned that he believed CO2 was causing global warming. The troops went quiet for a moment, not knowing how to respond.
Spencer has unusual views on other matters too, but let’s not loiter, he is wrong about the impact of CO2 on climate change.
El Gordo – well Lindzen and Bob Carter have said similar things too. I’d suggest that they’re “luke warmers”. LOL !
Carter quote please?
According to Bob Ward it appears Carter said “human emissions are one of the main causes” in his 2008 paper. I will go seek.
Your on the right lines here Luke, though you won’t like it.
Yes, the majority of “mainstream” sceptics ARE lukewarmers,
they merely quibble the figures,
rather than question the principles of AGW.
Most skeptics merely quibble the figures, is really the original intended “direction” of this thread.
They are missing the forest because they are staring at just one tree at a time, far too closely.
Being sucked into the ever deepening rabbit hole of AGW non-sense. The foiled bulb simile Luke gave earlier is a case in point.
Sceptics SHOULD be questioning the principles of AGW.
All the points, and more, I mention above,
that AGW proponents so obviously now avoid answering reasonably.
Comment from: Luke November 6th, 2010 at 10:07 am
” “I doubt it gets ore than a few metres mostly below the clouds” – Derek taps his radiometer – “this radiometer doesn’t seem to be reading right – says there’s back radiation” ….. gurgle
So when’s your Nobel prize winning paper coming out Derek. May I have a preprint. ”
You don’t need one Luke, and I don’t need to write one
(they have already been written anyway).
It is simply a case of by chance of collision and absorption alone.
The mean free path length of a photon in other words.
Consider it, even just for a few moments,
in a pressure gradient atmosphere it is obvious which way the photons will go.
(UP towards lower pressure, NOT down.)
There are many ugly facts now destroying the beautiful AGW “theory”.
– The deniers of these ugly facts are simply growing in number.
Comment from: Luke November 6th, 2010 at 10:07 am
He saved the world from the green hordes
Nope, the world is doing that itself, I merely observe and comment.
Luke have you seen the UK Channel 4 documentory about what the greens now admit the green movement got got wrong, aired this week in the UK (Thursday 4th november). ?
Apparently “they” now admit they got “global cooling”, GM, and DDT wrong.
The documentary seemed to omit mentioning acid rain, or Ozone though…
Nor did it mention what the EPA did to Ed Krugg, just because he showed beyond doubt acid rain was a scam.
http://sppiblog.org/news/rear-mirror-the-epa-vs-ed-krug-over-the-acid-rain-scare
The EPA now calls CO2 a pollutant, and destroys anyone who says otherwise that is in their employment – Carlin for example.
Does this look familiar to anyone, the same old, repeated “pattern”..
Unsurprisingly the documentary continually referred to “global warming” which the greens say is completely, and unquestionably correct.
Given their track record, which is in part what the documentary is about,
does this not seem somewhat at odds with itself….
“We” got all this wrong, but not “global waring” you can be assured about that.
Yeah, right.
Oh, and a nice little teaser for you Luke, which was the first political party to openly adopt, endorse, and promote “green” policies – and smoking bans come to think of it…
The politics of “green” were never about the environment, they were, are and always will be about control.
Global warming is merely a political vehicle to an end, it is NOT about science.
Comment from: el gordo November 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
I remember the day Spencer had a guest post at Watts and mentioned that he believed CO2 was causing global warming. The troops went quiet for a moment, not knowing how to respond.
Thank you for your comments el gordo, spot on.
If I may elaborate a little on what your (and my comments also) elude to so far.
The “mainstream” sceptics are that because they hold (mostly) positions held widely in high regard.
Most of these positions are in no little proportion political appointments / positions.
So, “we” hold them in high regard, but they must also tow the line.
In short, there is a conflict of interest, between their “scepticism” and their “political position”.
“mainstream sceptics” can only question certain “things” in certain ways, otherwise like Krugg, Carlin, Miskolczi, etc, etc, etc, they will no longer be allowed to hold or retain their position.
I genuinely do feel quite a degree of sympathy for many of the people on these positions.
Most buckle to the pressure, but some do not, their are the real heroes.
Historically we could easily add to this list of science first heroes, Gallileo, Darwin, Wegener, Bellamy, Krugg, Carlin, etc, etc, etc.
It seems at present we will also be adding Judith Curry to this list.
I greatly appreciate, and applaud her actions, and her courage in the face of such adversity,
but not the reactions she is experiencing – they are NOT science.
In the end the political paymasters control who is in the positions of political significance,
and we receive the politically beneficial and correct version of said, “science”,
but real science does not recognise any of this.
Real science recognises observation, hypothesis (hunch), experiment (testing hypothesis), theory, and maybe eventually law.
AGW
Sorry – hit wrong button. – Ooops.
AGW is patently politically beneficial and politically correct, the IPCC, the UN, Cap and Trade schemes the world over are testament to this.
That most “mainstream sceptics” hold positions held in high regard, at the behest of political paymasters is THE problem with the AGW climate science, and the greenhouse effect paradigm.
It is simply limiting discussion, and questioning, so that we are left with,
“debating with Luke”……………
Quibble the figures,
DO NOT question the principles of AGW.
or,
be left out high and dry to,
“debate with Luke”.
“Reality” at present really is a PC bitch.
I know from various sources, both direct and indirect that now, many leading names do not believe in “greenhouse” any longer,
the dam is about to burst.
By Christmas 2010 many people, both big and small, known and unknown will have changed their answer to this oh so simple, and absolutely central question.
Is there a “greenhouse effect” ?
The answer is no.
Derek
Popper would have seen Luke as a ‘scientific socialist’, sort of literate but unfortunately has swallowed the green pill which distorts reality.
Little will be achieved until the media begin to question the AGW dogma and this probably will not happen until the weather changes dramatically.
Recently at a family gathering I said in a quiet way that ‘CO2 does not cause global warming’ and was vilified. It will take time and a reactivated Third Estate to bring the people to their senses, because the masses are not all that interested in climate.
The cool weather in south-east Oz gives me the opportunity to argue my case with the rank and file, who are very upset by this unseasonal blight on the landscape, but mostly I say nothing and just nod sagely.
‘There is truth, and there is untruth. To be in a minority of one doesn’t make you mad.’
Winston Smith
See http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/two-wrongs-only-go-so-far/
particularly the cartoon
Yes you do need to write a paper Derek or you’re not serious. This could save the world from the green hordes and wasting trillions – but you’re “too busy”.
Weak as water. You just aren’t able to step up to the plate with real physicists. Instead squeaking around on some back water blog with the rest of us.
I don’t think global climate policy will be persuaded by some “blog pers. comm.”
So spare us the ranting Derek and start writing. I look forward to your published paper of how observed evidence is wrong.
BTW – as soon as you mention Galileo – you’re a wanker. It’s Luke’s Theorem. Real Galileos simply don’t know they’re ahead of the pack.
El Gordo – don’t worry about green pills and reality – you’re the one who is denying what your radiometer tells you.
BTW Derek – is that UK documentary – this one here – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/what_channel_4_got_wrong.php
That would be that bit of nonsense that Deltoid et al just shat all over – what a load of utter bunkum. Why don’t you go over there and give them a history lesson and a ruddy good punch in the rhetorical nose.
And again El Gordo – you worry about green pills and reality. ROFL.
Fred Singer thinks the green bubble is about to burst, on the basis that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_green_bubble_is_about_to_b.html
Commercial reality is a lot more acute in the US of A.
Singer – snort, giggle ….
All in good time, brother. The warmists are doomed.
As the paradigm shifts to cooling the scientists (who have squeezed a comfortable lifestyle out of global warming) will have to adapt to a new way of thinking.
The hard core is falsifiable, but the scientists will be the last to move.
” So spare us the ranting Derek and start writing. I look forward to your published paper of how observed evidence is wrong. ”
Climategate shows the futility of attempting such a paper.
A simple plot all can understand is enough.
I’ll come back to the real point of the plot in a minute – “black body” radiation and temperature IT IS JOKE.
Firstly Luke, you wrote,
” BTW – as soon as you mention Galileo – you’re a wanker. It’s Luke’s Theorem. Real Galileos simply don’t know they’re ahead of the pack. ”
Luke – Those that insult, self define themselves.
As for the “moderation” around here….
Anyways, I ain’t ahead of the pack, as far as I know.
Back to “black bodies” – guff, complete “rollocks”, that what it is, because in one word,
VOLUME.
That’s it, plain and simple VOLUME, therein is the misdirection and misconception.
“Black body” makes you think of only the surface heating,
not the heat absorbed, and at varying rates, by varying methods, later release.
It is so simple to understand, in one simple word VOLUME.
That is THE point of my plot, THE VOLUME of heated water, which is why no “respected” “science” “journal” will publish it,
even if I bothered to write it up. It does not need writing up however,
just go in your bathroom, run a hot bath. What have you got, for how long……
Luke yet again you avoid ALL the issues but merely try to “debate” and “insult”.
As I keep saying AGW has no reasonable answers,
AND “it” will not ALLOW the reasonable answers AND questions to be published.
Climategate gave plenty of evidence of exactly that happening.
Ghandi said words to the effect,
First they mock you, then they laugh at you, then they engage you.
THEN they loose.
The answer to my little teaser for Luke by the way is,
the National Socialist party in Germany, before the second world war.
Luke, do you care to challenge me on that, or “black bodies”… ?
Luke you also keep on telling me to go away,
what’s up, doesn’t the “bully” like loosing……..
To plain, simple, obvious, and understandable
OBSERVATION.
You can observe a lot in a deck chair, of a pleasant evening,
watching the sun set, with a nice cold beer or two to hand.
Yawn, settles back in chair, takes a pleasant long gulp of beer.
So essentially you’re not up to it. What a pussy. No conviction. Piss weak.
Welcome to the great global list of sceptic wannabes. Who whinge but always run away when it comes to it.
Climategate gave evidence of nothing except what evil creeps sceptics are.
I think after denial of direct measurement and experimental verification – you need to put up more than a rant about “a vector”.
Interesting posts Derek, dont give up your arguments, i must digest them a little more but you certainly dont seem to have been rebutted very well.
Scientific zealots will fight tooth and nail to protect the hard core.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story
Hi Jen, i noticed Luke had posted a comment just prior to mine but it has now gone? I may not agree with a lot of what Luke writes but I doubt we would get the sort of detailed comment that Derek has given in this link without him “debating” with somebody. To this extent we need the believers to express their thoughts.
His deleted comment for instance made some comment about climate gate and what a beat up it is.
Now to me this is a classic example of the problem we all face. What appears to me to be blatant fraud/ incompetance/ cherry picking etc is of no concern to Luke. How he reaches this opinion is beyond me, but it gives an interesting insight into the belief structure attached with CAGW!
Luke,
Derek has devoted a lot of time making his OWN detailed reports and posted most of it in my forum.He has tried to discuss some of it with you and you offer him mostly wind and piss in return.I have yet to see evidence that YOU made similar effort on your own,just cut and paste other people’s work.
Here in this link are his archives presentations:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-675.html
Not a single time has any AGW believer taken on Derek at my forum about his several presentations.He has to come to places like this blog to discuss any part of it.It would be nice if you at least gave him consideration for his trouble
Derek has been banned in several AGW believing forums for the sheer GALL of presenting a different explanation.They like you give him a lot of scatter shot replies and think that is a mark of sober science discussions.It is not and he comes back to my forum.The only place where he is fully respected for all the trouble he has to deal with elsewhere.I do not completely agree with everything he presents,but he has my respect for what he does.
The AGW hypothesis died long ago,but people like you never seem to notice it in your hurry to make gob smacking replies that does not truly address the discussion at hand.Most people like you are tolerated,because we find that your feeble counterpoints are amusing and thus help create more skeptics.
Jennifer Marohasy recognizes that the AGW hypothesis is invalid and thus requires a new hypothesis to take it’s place.When will you do the same?
Toby
I thought the comment from Luke not up to standard, he can be very thoughtful. But anyway it has been reinstated.
Comment from: jennifer November 9th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
” Toby
I thought the comment from Luke not up to standard, he can be very thoughtful. But anyway it has been reinstated. ”
Earlier in this thread I posted,
” That most “mainstream sceptics” hold positions held in high regard, at the behest of political paymasters is THE problem with the AGW climate science, and the greenhouse effect paradigm.
It is simply limiting discussion, and questioning, so that we are left with,
“debating with Luke”…………… ”
Seems an appropriate reply.
Luke, apparently is “very thoughtful” according to Jennifer – ROFLMAO.
(Did I mention this sunset also has great comic value…)
Thank you for the posts Toby, El Gordo, and Sunsettomy.
Not so long ago, there were never any such replies, subtle or othewrwise.
As I also said earlier the dam is about to burst.
“bully” Luke, is there anything in this subject area you would actually like to DISCUSS.?
Thx Jen, I commented because recently I noticed Luke make a comment that implied some of his comments were not being posted.
I respect your right to delete any comment especially if rude, pointless etc, but I do think many of these posts give an insight into his thinking and also stimulate comment from others. Without Luke we would usually be “talking” with people of a similar mindset, interesting but self serving as well.
I certainly find it amazing that people are willing to gloss over “climategate” as if it shows nothing of significance! Interesting what people are prepared to excuse if it suits their paradigm. Luke would probably say the same of me/ us!
cheers T
Luke Desk and his ilk should be heard, for the sake of balance.
Here’s a set of hypotheses that just showed up today:
1. Is the Earth is getting warmer?
2. If so Is the increase due to an increase in atmospheric CO2?
3. If so Are human activities substantially the cause of the temperature increase?
4. If so Will temperatures continue to increase?
5. If so How much will they increase?
6. If so Will there be negative social and economic effects from the increase?
7. If so Will reducing CO2 emissions slow, stop, or reverse the increase?
8. If so Will reducing emissions in Australia slow, stop or reverse the increase?
9. If so Will introducing an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax in Australia reduce emissions?
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~imcfadyen/essays/Big%20Lie%2001.htm
One of the best, most complete, and understandable explanations of climategate and it’s importance I have seen.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
OK, back to the subject in hand, what is wrong (I’ll limit myself to just one point..) with the present paradigm in climate science ?
AND,
is there a possibly better explanation of what we observe. ?
As I said to Luke earlier in this thread, “black body” is a misdirection, and misconception, because objects, ie, the globe, have volume.
Volume means that not only surface heating but also heat retention, and varying later release HAVE TO BE taken into account.
Heat retention and varying later release are NOT taken into account.
(That’s why Dr. Spencer would not reply to my post in his “Virginia” thread)
Please see the present genre of “global energy budgets”.
ie,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/NASA/global_energy_budget_components.png
Although the budgets are of figures supposedly compiled over a year, and expressed as per second energy flows, the surface of earth is treated as a “black body”. Absorbing and emitting all it’s received energy.
This is patently absurd because the earth HAS volume.
There is also the addition of geothermal heat to the surface from below, which across the deep oceanic abyssal plains must be very large.
The Pacific alone is 50% of the earth’s surface – that’s a big abyssal plain.
(Please consider, and then take into account the universal increase in temp with depth in mines, usually described as 1 degrees C per 10 metres increase in depth…)
OK, so we have a globe with volume, does this plot now make (more) sense in regard of surface heat retention and varying later release.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/Dailywaterjacketsized.jpg
How much of an anomaly is left to be explained by “greenhouse” once surface heating, retention, and varying later release is realistically taken into account. ?
OK, so what about the bit of the atmosphere between the earth’s surface and the upper troposphere.?
Radiation is the slowest way an object in the lower earth’s atmosphere can loose heat.
Conduction and convection (powered by gravity) are far more powerful.
Radiation is “limited” by the Planck curve,
conduction and convection are not limited in such a manner.
Then, there is THE elephant in the room.
The latent heat of water vapourisation, water vapour incidentally makes air lighter, increasing convection.
I’ll not bore people with quoting figures, you can easily check them for yourselves,
the engineers toolbox dot com is as good a site in this repsect as any.
It is suffice to say that, the latent heat of water vapour heat (energy) movements is
at least an order of magnitude larger than radiation, and probably,
at least five times larger than conduction and convection of heat (energy).
The above is easily observable, for example.
Standing in a field on a warm day it will immediately become apparent to you that,
a) You do not loose much heat by “radiating”, although you are undoubtedly radiating heat according to the Planck curve.
b) You noticeably loose heat by conduction to cooler things, or air, which is either blown away by the wind, or simply rises away from you, convection.
c) If you sweat however (see nature has always known this..) or are dampened in soe manner with water, you will loose far more heat, far more rapidly.
Nature however has had a wonderful, and confusing “trick” up her sleeve.
“We” can not “see” the latent heat of water vapourisation as it rises.
It IS there, and in massive amounts but “we” can not “see” it.
This fact the AGW crowd have played upon mercilessly, inventing radiation “measurements” to show the heat being “radiated” about, when it is not (mean free path length of a photon).
Every cloud in the sky is the result of heat (or energy if you prefer) being taken from the earth’s surface, by water vapourisation, and released upon condensation higher up in the atmosphere.
Maybe that’s why nature made clouds “grey” of occasion, as a hint to where the elephant in the room really is.
It is floating above you.
I humbly suggest this one post is a better explanation of what we can observe of the earth’s climate system,
than the whole of the present AGW and it’s “climate science” CO2 caused warming obsessed paradigm (scam).
Sunset – Derek has been frothing about radiation not having a vector – if you read back in the thread I have made great number of points (1) how come I can measure what doesn’t exist (2) how come there is a whole program of science measuring what doesn’t exist (3) Spencer’s solar box (4) the 2nd law ruse discussion and so on ….
But Derek has simply dug in – he has “special knowledge” – so publish it and stop pissing around. Let the world see. His pathetic excuse is that “it’s simply obvious”. Ah ha – hmmmmm yes
Toby “blatant fraud/ incompetance/ cherry picking” – there is eh? and how has this warped your understanding of AGW – what’s different? after all this climategate banging?
But Toby – seriously thanks for the personal support (well I think it was) – lack of philosophical agreement is fine – and I am kind to animals and small children.
I stick my neck out on Schiller’s questions:
1. Is the Earth is getting warmer? – YES
2. If so Is the increase due to an increase in atmospheric CO2? – YES
3. If so Are human activities substantially the cause of the temperature increase? – YES
4. If so Will temperatures continue to increase? – YES
5. If so How much will they increase? – UNSURE
6. If so Will there be negative social and economic effects from the increase? – YES BUT NOT THE TEMPERATURE ITSELF SO MUCH
7. If so Will reducing CO2 emissions slow, stop, or reverse the increase? – DUNNO NOW
8. If so Will reducing emissions in Australia slow, stop or reverse the increase? – NOPE
9. If so Will introducing an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax in Australia reduce emissions? – NOPE – WELL NOT BY ITSELF UNLESS OTHER NATIONS ACT TOO
I’ll join you on this one Luke, – time will tell.
1. Is the Earth is getting warmer? – Depends on time period “cherry picked”.
Over the Holocene (present interglacial), no it has fallen, since Roman times temps have fallen, heck since the Viking period temps have fallen (Eric the red wouldn’t name Greenland, Greenland now would he..).
But since the little ice age temps have risen.
Choose your own “cherry”.
Overall this interglacial appears cooler than some previous interglacials.
2. If so Is the increase due to an increase in atmospheric CO2? – Unknown, unproven. See above answer to Q1, human explanation does not explain previous temp changes.
3. If so Are human activities substantially the cause of the temperature increase? – No proof. Again, does not account for previous natural variations on any, many time scales, and magnitudes. More, and less temp variation seems to have happened previously, on many time scales, and these changes, all perfectly naturally, have been both slower and faster than recent changes, whatever the cause. Present variations are all well within known previous perfectly natural variations.
4. If so Will temperatures continue to increase? – I’ll assume you have “cherry picked” an AGW favoured (very short – ridiculously short climatically speaking) time scale. We do not know, but it seems most likely temps will fall (they are already). Some say the real question is how much will the continuing present fall in temps be, and for how long.
5. If so How much will they increase? – My best guess is that they are not increasing at present, and will not increase for some time to come, at least 20 years.
There again, after the climategate “investigations” gave the few “blessed protection” who knows what the official records will show.
6. If so Will there be negative social and economic effects from the increase? – Human history shows beyond a reasonable doubt that, overall, warmer periods are good for humans.
7. If so Will reducing CO2 emissions slow, stop, or reverse the increase? – Where’s the proof human CO2 emissions increased temperature. ? CO2 is a result of temp / biology / oceans, not the cause. CO2 levels will fall if the earth cools, but if the earth only warms a little, then life could well take up the “slack”.
Human emissions going up or down won’t really make much difference at all. Since the start of the industrial revolution CO2 has (supposedly) risen from 275ppmv to 400ppmv(ish) now. That’s a “massive” increase of (0.0275% to 0.04% = 0.0125″) 0.0125 (at most). No one says humans are responsible for all the rise, only some of it…. Maybe 0.006% at most.
A total (unproven) human effect so far of 0.006% at most……………….
8. If so Will reducing emissions in Australia slow, stop or reverse the increase? – NOPE – Heck, I agree with Luke….I think CO2 levels will fall perfectly naturally anyway, as the oceans cool.
9. If so Will introducing an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax in Australia reduce emissions? – Probably, as such schemes will cause economic collapse, therefore less human activity.
Though the burning down of so much in the resulting riots due to the economic collapse may well in the short term increase emissions, which will make plants grow better.
Which incidentally is about the only proven effect of increased atmospheric CO2 levels…
In reply to some of Luke’s “thoughtful” comments.
Luke – ” Derek has been frothing about radiation not having a vector ”
Which we all know I am correct about. Do you deny this ?
Please give us the 50% up and 50% down explanation again,
we could do with a good laugh at your expense.
Luke – ” – if you read back in the thread I have made great number of points ”
I have answered the ones that you made, directly and indirectly, not one still stands.
You have yet to make a great point though.
Luke – ” (1) how come I can measure what doesn’t exist ”
You believe in AGW don’t you, it’s up to you to explain your visions not me.
The last one you attempted resulted in much mirth.
Luke – ” (2) how come there is a whole program of science measuring what doesn’t exist ”
It’s good for their careers, and their political paymasters.
Luke – ” (3) Spencer’s solar box ”
Which he and you refuse to consider the fact that, or admit to is explained by heat retention and varying later release, as I have already explained at his bog, that he and you have ignored..
Luke – ” (4) the 2nd law ruse discussion ”
You are the one “ruseing” not me.
Luke – ” and so on …. ”
You certainly do go on, and I ain’t going away.
Observation rules.
Luke two questions for you.
1) Do the K&T genre “global energy budgets” treat the earth’s surface as a “black body” ?
2) What is the proof of a global and presumably “annual” radiative balance. ?
I think it worth repeating,
A total (unproven) human effect (upon CO2 levels)
since the beginning of the industrial revolution of 0.006% at most……………….
NOUGHT, POINT, NOUGHT, NOUGHT SIX PERCENT………
OK, so maybe 0.007% or 0.008%, but certainly not as much as 0.01%…
It is probably far nearer 0.003% or less actually.
ie, about as much sense as Luke makes in percentage terms.
Do froth on Derek – it’s all you’re doing. Ranting like a deranged banshee. Impact on the global debate by Derek =0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Derek who? Papers by Derek ? Let’s just take Derek’s word for it.
And here’s the sure fire wanker threshold test “Which we all know I am correct about” Say no more !
Tell me Derek – what long wave upward and downward pyrgeometers in net radiometers are measuring. It’s a very simple question.
“6. If so Will there be negative social and economic effects from the increase? – Human history shows beyond a reasonable doubt that, overall, warmer periods are good for humans.”
You Euro-centric clown – tell that to the millions that died in MWP mega-droughts
Luke it has warped it a lot. I dont trust much anymore and thats sad. Maybe its because i am getting old ( ish 45) but i am far more cynical and sceptical of things I am told. Ive always believed in “self interest” as a dominant paradigm but I did kind of hold scientists up on a pedestal of “honesty and integrity”. sadly i do not now. Too much dodgy science around to justify any number of things.
If I thought anything we did without new technology would actually be worthy on a cost/ benefit basis I would support it. But all i see is greenwashing and bullshit. Basically everything we are “doing” is crap, at enourmous cost that are/ will lower living standards.
I have no problems with granting Rand D tax incentives and large prizes for ideas that pay off, or even funding organisations like the CSIRO to find alternative energy sources because if we find them the pay off is enourmous. I would rather private enterprise used their money because they are more likely to use it efficiently.
I know you have said ( and rightly im my opinion) that we wasted billions on iraq. That doesnt make the waste ok though or make it ok to waste money elsewhere. ( i debated bolt by private email for 2 months …we walked away disagreeing still, but i admire him for taking the time to respond to my critiscms of his views with detailed ( several page) responses.
I see a world where people living in cities increasingly believe the end of the world is approaching whilst those that live in the country are far more optimistic. I see people voting green for mostly stupid reasons.
fraud is a strong word, maybe its just incompetence and “seek and you shall find”. But Climate gate is a scandal that has been glossed over. That is disturbing. Lies about thouands of scientists putting teh IPCC papers together do nothing for the credibility of the science. Deleting or ignoring serious comment from contributors on the grounds it doesnt suit the paradigm are a disgrace and I have no doubt that the IPCC IS A POLITICAL BODY WITH POLITICAL INTENT. HENCE I TRUST NOTHING THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH.
15 years ago if i read what i had just written i would have thought i was mad to dare to challenge what scientists were telling me. So i do sympathise to some extent with believers who just defer to what they are told.
Luke:
“Sunset – Derek has been frothing about radiation not having a vector – if you read back in the thread I have made great number of points (1) how come I can measure what doesn’t exist (2) how come there is a whole program of science measuring what doesn’t exist (3) Spencer’s solar box (4) the 2nd law ruse discussion and so on ….”
Is Back-radiation the same as radiation having a vector?
Back to Luke:
“But Derek has simply dug in – he has “special knowledge” – so publish it and stop pissing around. Let the world see. His pathetic excuse is that “it’s simply obvious”. Ah ha – hmmmmm yes”
Typical deflection from discussing it HERE.
Why not just discuss it here where it is here NOW.Not wait up to a year to see that “paper” you want to see.The ones that are already available at my forum as I pointed out earlier.
What it really means that you do not want to go into it for long,because you will quickly run out of reasons why you dispute it.
Try this novel idea.Explain WHY you think he is wrong.And cut out the name calling crap.
The real problem YOU have Luke,is that the AGW hypothesis still lives only in climate models.It is not found anywhere else.And that is why so many AGW believers have been resisting open discussion on the science and data.
Luke – ” And here’s the sure fire wanker threshold test “Which we all know I am correct about” Say no more ! ”
Which when correctly quoted reads,
Luke – ” Derek has been frothing about radiation not having a vector ”
Derek replied,
Which we all know I am correct about. Do you deny this ?
It seems Luke forgot he wrote this earlier in the thread.
Luke – ” Look radiation doesn’t have a “vector” – each photon might – and the 3D probability distribution would be even in all directions. ”
Those that insult, self define themselves.
Luke – ” (1) how come I can measure what doesn’t exist ”
You believe in AGW don’t you, it’s up to you to explain your visions not me.
The last one you attempted resulted in much mirth.
To which Luke “replied”,
” Tell me Derek – what long wave upward and downward pyrgeometers in net radiometers are measuring. It’s a very simple question. ”
I repeat,
You believe in AGW don’t you, I’ll add, I DO NOT BELIEVE,
it’s up to you to explain your visions not me.
The last one you attempted resulted in much mirth.
I asked you two questions, before the above fro you, you have not even acknowledged let alone attempted to answer.
Discuss them first, then after CO2 “residency time”, I might just consider answering your “question”.
I probably won’t actually, it is something I am working on, which when I’m ready I’ll share, not at a time, or demand of Luke’s.
BTW – Are you paid to try your best to make this blog a “back water” Luke. ?
Do you consider yourself successful, and doing a good job, in that respect. ?
Do you have morals, or any standards of decorum, and decency. ?
What do you describe the word “discussion” as meaning. ?
Luke, if you can only insult, why not visit a site such as this,
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
and learn how to debate with some aplomb.
Although I think it fair to warn you that it might just help you to start seeing through the fallacies your AGW belief is based upon.
Luke you might like to read this letter and consider if when when the facts change you change your mind or not?
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/best-shot
his main points being CAGW relies on an event 55 million years ago( that is debatably co2 related) and arctic ice extent. The guy was sceptical , then a believer and now sceptical again as he sees the facts changing.
One thing is for sure their is doubt and we are wasting money.
Derek until my reports are finished i can not do justice to what you have written. I will however spend time in Decemeber so please dont consider your efforts here wasted because you are not being debated/ quiried or supported ( other than sunsets obvious respect and support)
No answer from Derek – juts reams of hand waving blabber – piss weak sceptic. Derek is very scared of what one can measure.
Thank you Toby, no problem, I am patient.
Incidentally, observation is something many have a problem with..
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/hide-the-incline/
It took great restraint on my part, but I actually resisted commenting….
(another site where my views are portrayed as 180 degrees from “reality”….)
Luke – I have already replied,
obviously things take a little repeating to sink in for you, so,
I’LL REPEAT,
” I probably won’t actually, it is something I am working on,
which when I’m ready I’ll share,
not at a time, or demand of Luke’s. ”
There is plenty more for “us” to discuss here luke, but
you will not acknowledge that, will you.
NIZKOR, Luke, NIZKOR…………
YOUR EXPOSED LUKE FOR WHAT YOU ARE.
Comment from: Luke November 12th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
(moderated by Derek)
” No answer from Derek – just reams of hand waving blabber.
Derek is very scared of what one can measure. ”
Derek replies,
Thank you for going on about this particular issue Luke. You have helped me go about explaining it from a different angle, than the one I am working on.
So, with the direct aim of answering your “vision”, what you call “measurements”, and remembering the lessons from the below linked to thread, at Jeff Ids the air vent blog.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/hide-the-incline/
I will start, with some observations, I think are commonly misinterpreted, or used to explain misconceptions, AGW belief is utterly dependent upon.
The so called “Greenhouse” effect.
Hmmm, have you ever seen a thermal image of an actual greenhouse. ?
The greenhouse will be warmer than it’s surroundings, so it will be a brighter image
(unless Luke, AGW, etal, are saying the Planck curve / law is wrong).
I do not think Luke means to say the Planck curves are wrong, nor the second (and first actually) laws of thermodynamics are also wrong – but for what he and AGW says is correct, then these curves and laws must be wrong.
Luke et al say the greenhouse is warmer because it traps radiation, YET the thermal image will clearly show beyond doubt that the greenhouse IS radiating MORE than it’s surroundings (with the same solar input).
What does this show. ?
It shows whatever is cooling the surroundings is far more powerful than radiation, AND
that it is not radiation doing most of the cooling
(otherwise the higher radiating greenhouse would be cooler than it’s surroundings).
If one opened the doors and windows in the greenhouse, especially on a breezy day, the greenhouse would soon reduce it’s temperature to that of it’s surroundings.
Logically the temperature difference was removed from the greenhouse to the surroundings or aloft by air.
Air transporting sensible, and latent heat (of water vapourisation), I would suggest.
When the doors and windows are closed it logically follows that the increase in temperature inside the greenhouse is due to the reduced transport of sensible and latent heat (of water vapourisation) from inside the greenhouse to the surroundings.
Obviously even wit the doors and windows of the grenhouse shut, some conduction and convection at the greenhouse glass surfaces occurs, and this explains why a greenhouse remains warmer than it’s surroundings for some time after sunset.
So, as a first point towards answering your “question” Luke, no I am not scared of answering it, but I will not be rushed into short statements Luke can twist, or misinterpret deliberately .
OK, so hopefully I have illustrated that a greenhouse works by reducing conduction and convection, NOT by “trapping” radiation.
Next obvious point, commonly misinterpreted, warmer cloudy nights show that clouds “back radiate” energy to the earth’s surface.
On a clear night there is nothing to stop conduction and convection of heat from the earth’s surface to space (even the mythical properties attributed to CO2 in an open and mixed atmosphere).
On a cloudy night clouds act as a blanket REDUCING convection. Heat (energy) released at the earth’s surface simply hangs around for longer, or convects slower, because of reduced convection, due to the presence of clouds aloft.
There is no need to “employ” imaginary “back radiation” from clouds (that SUPPOSEDLY reaches the earth’s surface), as AGW, Luke, “Greenhouse” does.
Reduced convection due to the presence of clouds alone simply explains what we observe.
These two points are probably enough for most to realise at present, let’s discuss them.
Then we can proceed with many more elementary observations towards answering Luke’s question in regard of “measurements” that support his preferred AGW “vision”.
These are a series of deliberate misinterpretations, misconceptions, misdirections and fallacies, as will become apparent to all.