I consider anthropogenic global warming, AGW, a failed theory, but it still shuffles on like an animated corpse sustained by money, politics and the faithful. The faithful keep publishing junk science. I put a list together of the 10 worst climate science research papers in September 2008 [1]. I added to this list in April 2009 [2]. There was more by me published at Jo’s AGW ‘science’ has fallen over a cliff. Now I’m adding another ten papers to the worst list, so I guess it’s the ten recent worst.
Regards, Cohenite.
1. Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. By Magdalena A. Balmaseda, Kevin E. Trenberth and Erland Kallen. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, 2013. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
Kevin Trenberth and his researchers have never been able to find the ‘missing heat’. Trenberth still insists it is at the bottom of the ocean. This is despite sea surface temperatures declining, demonstrable reasons why back radiation, the Deus ex machina of AGW, cannot heat the oceans and the top 700 meters of the ocean not warming, at least since the accurate measurement of Ocean Heat Content [OHC] began in 2003, as David Evans has shown.
Trenberth ignores all this and the basic point of how the bottom can heat while the middle and top don’t and explains why the deep ocean heat content is increasing: “Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”
So has there been increasing wind variability in the surface winds? Not according to the data!
2. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. By John Cook et. al. Published in Environmental Research Letters, 2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
The consensus is the mainstay of AGW ‘science’. According to Cook et. al. and many others it’s always the case that AGW is true because the majority of scientists say it is. But this is not science! It only takes one contradiction to disprove a scientific theory as Karl Popper’s swan analogy shows. John Cook’s latest paper promoting the ‘consensus’ has been critiqued by Jo, Watts, some German guys and by Lucia. Lucia and Brandon Schollenberger analyse Cook’s methodology and Guidelines for classifying climate papers into ‘support’ and ‘reject’ AGW categories and find that Cook’s paper disproves the consensus. That is, analysis of Cook et. al. suggests that more climate papers reject AGW. So has Cook disproved the consensus theory of AGW?
3. Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS, Classifications. By Charlotte Wickham, Judith Curry, Don Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Robert Rohde, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele.Unpublished. http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
It has been claimed that Richard Muller was once a ‘sceptic’, before seeing the ‘truth’ about AGW. But Muller was never a sceptic. At Berkeley, Muller and his team have self-published a number of papers on temperature and other aspects of AGW. Peer review on these papers is incomplete, so in effect they are draft papers but they have had great influence even head-lighting the options at wood-for-trees. Major defects ranging from statistical methodology to ignoring or not allowing for UHIE have been levied against Muller. So what does his latest paper do? It purports to show there is NO UHIE. This is ridiculous. In a contemporaneous draft paper Watts employs the updated Leroy method to account for UHIE. Leroy 2010 used a new criteria for heat sinks based on their total surface area rather than distance from them. This gives a truer representation of UHIE since as urban centres grow the surface area of the heat islands increase. Muller however, simply attempts to distinguish between rural and urban areas. The problem is, as the incomparable Willis Eshenbach describes, Muller’s distinction between rural and urban is meaningless since his criteria classifies airports as rural; that is, some if not most of his rural sites are urban sites with UHIE.
4. Global Temperature Evolution 1979-2010. By Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf. Published in Environmental Research Letters, 2011. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Continuing the theme of meaninglessness Foster and Ramstorf’s 2011 paper was meant to be the last word on climate sensitivity to CO2 increase. They removed all the natural factors that may have contributed to temperature increase and were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1 as the ‘pure’ AGW forcing. This rate was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing. But it seems that their methodology was also flawed. By including a linear trend for warming in their analysis as an independent variable, Foster & Rahmstorf have demonstrated that global warming is well correlated with global warming. Futhermore Bob Tisdale shows Forster and Ramstorf were wrong to consider ENSO as an exogenous factor and to exclude it from their analysis.
5. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
By Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix. Published in Science, March 2013. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract?sid=a53ce5ae-7d84-4a54-bdf1-bdee207e8d7f
Climate scientists have attempted to establish that the current climate is exceptional by constructing hockeysticks. McShane and Wyner have demolished what was left of Mann’s hockeystick. But like a weed different forms keep regrowing. Two recent hockeysticks have emerged and they are true to type. The first was by Marcott and his team including Shakum, who we’ll get too soon. Marcott has it all: incorrect splicing, cherry-picking, inverted proxies, wrong signs, all the problems Mann had and then some including the fact that Marcott’s PhD thesis was almost identical except it did not have the modern day temperature ‘uptick’ or hockeystick blade. Still Marcott remains in print.
6. Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium. By Joëlle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Steven J. Phipps, Ailie J.E. Gallant, David J. Karoly. Submitted to Journal of Climate http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Aus2K_JoC_Manuscript_and_Supplementary_April_2012_final.pdf
Another hockey stick was created by Gergis et. al. but quickly withdrawn because Gergis et. al. had only selected proxies which correlated with modern temperatures; however that selection process involved detrending both the modern temperature and the proxies. In other words they created proxies that confirmed the exceptional modern day temperature. As Nick Stokes showed when the detrending was removed there was no correlation and in fact significant difference between the proxies and modern temperature and therefore no way of knowing whether modern Australian temperature was exceptional. Gergis et. al. is the statistical equivalent of not being able to count to 10.
7. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. By Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C.Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard. Published in Nature, Volume 484, pages 49-54
An insurmountable obstacle to AGW is that there is overwhelming evidence that CO2 does not move before temperature but at best as a response to it or arguably with no correlation at all; this is shown over all timespans: geological, 20thC and 21stC. So to argue as many do, that CO2 causes a temperature increase, is to argue against the data. That has never bothered AGW ‘science’ so we have two new papers saying either CO2 rises before temperature as Shakum does, or that there is synchronicity between CO2 and temperature as Parrenin et al argues. Shakum is easily dismissed because he bases his conclusion on a massive cherry pick of the only period in the last 20,000 years where CO2 appears to rise before temperature.
8. Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming. By F. Parrenin, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Köhler, D. Raynaud, D. Paillard, J. Schwander, C. Barbante, A. Landais, A. Wegner, J. Jouzel. Published in Science, Volume 339, pages 1060-1063
Parrenin et al. makes the same mistakes as Shakun but says carbon dioxide and temperature rise together. However, as Lansner’s brilliant [non-peer-reviewed] analysis of the ice-core data shows in Figure 5, over the 20,000 years since the last glacial equal levels of CO2 are at times correlated with both decreasing and increasing temperatures and high and low temperatures. The right cherry pick can disguise that complete lack of causal relationship which is what AGW ‘science’ in the Shakum and Parrenin papers has done.
9. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation. By Ray Finkelstein QC. Published by the Australian government, March 2012. http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/independent_media_inquiry
The Finkelstein’s enquiry was not primarily about climate science but its recommendations into press censorship comes down in favour of AGW on the basis of a gullible underclass being susceptible to a subversive media. The example used by Finkelstein is the press coverage of AGW and it’s associated issues like the carbon tax and in particular too much consideration being given to the sceptical position. What Finkelstein clearly indicates is that AGW is an elitist concept with our betters doing what is best for us even if that involves garden variety censorship.
10. Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan. By Beyond Zero Emissions [BZE], 2010. http://media.bze.org.au/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Synopsis_v1.pdf
This plan claims to present a mechanism for Australia to transition to 100 per cent renewable energy within ten years. This report, like the Finkelstein report, is also peripheral to the issue of climate science, but it plainly shows AGW is not scientific but a social and political ideology. BZE are an advocacy group for renewable energy. I used to think there may be something in renewable energy but then I grew up. The BZE plan was critiqued by Peter Lang and Martin Nicholson: 2 engineers, who agree. The main 2 provisos were that there should be at least a 60% drop in electricity demand at today’s usage that would mean an effective 70% plus drop on a per capita basis, and a cost up to over $4 billion. Both figures are highly conservative and I’m sure both Lang and Nicholson would agree that since 2010 the costs especially have sky rocketed. This is the heart of renewables; much less for much more. All justified by a science theory, AGW, which has no substance at all.
****
Links
1. Ten of the Worst Climate Research Papers: A Note from Cohenite, posted September 18, 2008 http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/09/ten-of-the-worst-climate-research-papers-a-note-from-cohenite/
2. More worst AGW papers, by Cohenite posted on April 25, 2009 http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Congratulations Cohers on assembling this astonishing bundle of garbage. How many millions of dollars did this garbage cost the poor bloody taxpayers around the world?
As I’ve said before I’m sure there must be some small extra warming from increased co2 emissions but I can’t prove it.
But then again who can? But I’m sure that the warming will not lead to dangerous SLR or more dangerous tornadoes, or bush fires or floods or droughts or cyclones/hurricanes or tropical diseases heading north, or catastrophic reef damage etc, etc.
Even the very models used by the IPCC show no dangerous SLR for another 300 years yet this is the main party piece scare for Gore /Hansen plus Flannery and “Robyn 100 metres Williams” blurting forth from the confines of their ABC.
But when will this madness end and govts stop wasting billions $ every year for a guaranteed zero return on taxpayers money?
Neville’s such a whiney little fraud and so good at verballing that he could have a career with many state police forces. The usual rabies infected squealing and outright confected drivel. We have as evidence tornadoes and silly comments from climate personalities. But as Neville always says he’s not a scientist so is easily impressed by sophists. He even gets the meme wrong – I think it’s tropical diseases heading south – but who knows maybe your rabies is heading north.
But give Cohenite his due – he does give good sceptic. Perhaps again again a career in Kings Cross back alleys awaits if things don’t work out. So let’s have a look at the first paper – rack’em up. Sigh … he hasn’t read it.
Too pov to have his GRL membership paid up so he’s reduced to quoting the abstract. “Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”
Cohenite opines “So has there been increasing wind variability in the surface winds? Not according to the data!” – sigh these legal types are experienced in misdirection aren’t they. Didn’t read it – ROFL – no clue …. oh dear …. image of hubcap rolling down the road ….
I stopped reading at that point – time for a music break – with some positive very young people instead of decrepit old white males addicted to sooking on Bolt – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPirCHFpbHg
“time for a music break”
I admit to being a “white male”
as to being “decrepit old addicted to sooking (sic) on Bolt”? I think not.
If you call that noise you pointed to “music” then I’m afraid we are worlds apart when it
comes to the definition of Music.
I’ve read the stupid thing luke; someone sent me a copy.
It’s not my fault that Trenberth and crew present only one mechanism by which heat bypasses the top of the ocean and congregates at the bottom of the ocean and that is an increase in wind variability.
I don’t know why he is fixated on heat being stored at the bottom of the ocean; maybe it’s a tax dodge and the bottom of the harbour wasn’t big enough.
Anyway, it’s nonsense, just like a Mills and Boon novel; except there’s no happy ending here; just tears and some teeth knashing. Knash away.
Still haven’t read it eh Cohers?
Johnathon would probably prefer Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy or Mahler? Snob !
Read and forgotten Puss-in-boots, but don’t stop, dazzle us with your point.
Cohenite: I revised the post you linked about Foster and Rahmstorf 2011. The revised post at WUWT is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/
And the cross post at my blog is here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/01/14/revised-post-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/
I’ve admitted to the errors in my first version of that post, so please replace the link in your post with either of these two. That will enable readers to focus on the meat of the post and not on the mistake at the beginning of the original.
Regards
Poor Luke what a fool you are. But let’s try another way of getting some info from you.
You seem to think this AGW is a substantial problem, so tell us the extent of the problem?
What will change by 2100 that is different than co2 levels remaining at pre industrial levels until that date?
What will the temp be and what will the change in climate be like? You’re the believer who whines about sceptics all the time, so tell us about the changes you expect to see over the next 87 years?
Neville – keep on point – you’re a confessed non-scientist and cheer squad frother. You don’t know what you’re being told or even reading. Your assessment of the whole issue is trivial and irrelevant.
Tisdale illustrates why he desperately needs to get published. Good grief – it’s amateur hour.
AND AND AND Cohenite has the temerity to hold this up as a critique – HE HASN’T READ IT EITHER !! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So Cohers – you cite a complex intricate paper as your first complaint and your critique is one ill placed line. Then citing error ridden bunk in the middle. If you keep this up you’ll have to march down the back at rallies.
But goosey gander Neville has uncritically applauded. What a fool. What a parrot.
Poor Lukey, of all the fraudsters involved in this taxpayer funded industry you must take the cake. You’ve been ranting here for years about your belief that AGW means something.
Yet you can’t tell us what it means to 2100 and can’t tell us how to fix the problems. I know you think it’s a problem but you haven’t got a clue what it means and then how to mitigate it.
You sound just like any other silly believer that believes in any other barking mad religious cult.
BTW McKibben got the fairy floss treatment by Jones on their ABC last night, surprise, surprise.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_climate_alarmism_from_the_abcs_lateline/
But come on Lukey , all those years of ranting and abuse must mean something? Come on tell us, dip in your toe.
“one ill placed line.”
Ok, luke, what method does Trenberth propose to get the heat to the bottom if not wind variation?
Bob, thanks; I agree your point about ENSO is the main point, and that is it is a process which cannot be regressed to a linear factor and therefore removed so as to leave a ‘pure’ AGW signal; the constancy of the AGW temperature trend which F&R found should have alerted them to that.
As to your regression equations, particularly 1, it is true that your lag estimations differ from F&R but the use of F&R of a linear trend being justified because there was linear trend in their study time period, imo, merely restates the point that how can it be that the AGW temperature repose is a constant linear one when CO2 has increased exponentially?
It is also the case, as ferd berple notes from the comments to your post which is the one linked to in the article [and which was not acknowledged in the article] about F&R that:
“By including a linear trend for warming in their analysis as an independent variable, Foster & Rahmstorf have demonstrated that global warming is well correlated with global warming.”
That issue remains regardless of Bob’s ‘mistakes’ with the regression.
Ya gotta laugh. Here’s another mad cultist who claims he believes in the extreme problems of AGW.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/bill-nye-the-clueless-weather-guy-flattened-by-tornado-data/#more-86872
But at least this clueless fool regularly goes on TV and doesn’t seem to mind making a fool of himself over and over again.
This time he’s been pinged by Pielke snr and Watts, and didn’t have the brains to understand Watt’s warning about tornado history.
So many choices, so many…truly a target rich environment.
Our fine Professor Lewandowsky didn’t even make the top ten. And then there’s the amazing papers by Prof S. Matthew Liao be passed up…”the future of humanity – vegan hobbits on drugs”.
Unbelievably some of these climate models just keep getting worse. Pat Michaels explains that some of these models can’t even predict an easy 25% result.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/anti-information-in-climate-models/#more-86853
In fact they actually produce ANTI -information and produce only a 12.5% result.
Question—- how then can these models predict or project or estimate climate and temp for the next 100 years?
Also most importantly these fools agreed with Michael’s finding but went ahead and published anyhow.
What’s happened with our logic and reason over the last 30 years?
Wow, Liao is a kook; the cat’s eyes sound like fun though. This nut is talking about pantropy which is a sub-theme in S-F where humans are genetically altered so as to be able to live on worlds where conditions are not suitable for ‘normal’ humans to live. Here we have some AGW ratbags suggesting pantropy so humans can live on Earth in a way which does not disrupt ‘natural’ conditions.
There is plenty of AGW fringe ‘science’ but I concentrated on mainstream AGW science which is making the running and propping up the policies.
I left out Lewandowsky because I included his mate, Cook’s similar effort. These guys are serious targets because they are influential [Obama reads Cook!]; I’m not sure Liao has registered on the radar yet.
re Gergis et al (Cohenite’s No. 6):
This “paper” was withdrawn/rejected (take your pick, authors and publisher came to metaphorical blows over it) but has been included in the “Progress” section of AR5
See:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/05/09/pages2k-online-journal-club/
In short, a “paper” that was not fit to be published has been included in AR5 as “Progress” 🙂
Thanks cohers for this.
Trenberth et al and the rest of the warmist crew including Luke, with nowhere to go, desperately seek refuge in the bottom of the ocean.
Love that comparison with the bottom of the harbour.
But seriously, they deny their lifetime knowledge of how the system works out of absolute desperation.
Yeah guys, this is pathetic; Gergis in AR5; perhaps they’ll put Lewandowsky and Cook’s surveys [sic] in as well.
We can only hope luke gets back to us with his understanding of Trenberth’s mechanism explaining how heat gets to the bottom of the ocean.
My money is on pixie dust.
Probably the worst video fail is the 10: 10 exploding kids video. This a sicko video made by vile extremists of the left to encourage ????? everyone to reduce their carbon footprint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuh3MF6nN7Q
Probably the best example of leftwing groupthink and mind numbing stupidity to try and promote hate and intolerance towards individuals who think for themselves.
True but you’ve got Morano, Bolt, Jones and Nova – and and and Cohenite – hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa
“vile”, “groupthink”, “hate”, “intolerance”, “mind numbing” – yep the sceptic movement summarised.
Of course Neville gets south and north confused – perhaps he’s lost his moral compass in all the excitement – LOL !
Well, I’m shattered; I spend an hour of my time selecting 10 absolute dud pro-AGW papers, ignoring another 5000 or so prime candidates and the best luke can come up with is…. bugger all.
Gee Lukey I suppose you think that video is simply just a bit of good fun? The sceptic community would never sink to those depths but your side seems to thrive on it.
Not only is the video leftwing sicko nonsense it doesn’t make any sense on any level. BTW Gore made a point about malaria and other diseases moving into cooler parts of the globe because of AGW.
That’s heading north as far as I’m concerned and probably further south as well. Just ask big HIPPO Al.
Of course the dopey fool didn’t understand that the AGUE (malaria) is mentioned in a number of Shakespeare’s plays.
These plays were written during the LIA, at a time when cooler conditions were more prevalent across Europe.
Also malaria was endemic in parts of northern Russia during the early 20th century. Therefore if you want to control malaria you drain swamps where people live and generally improve their standard of living.
Don’t forget when Gore’s AIT sci-fi flick was first shown here the CSIRO claimed “he had the science about right.”
Pity that the UK judge didn’t agree with the CSIRO point of view. He found many faults with the video and his judgement can be found online.
Here’s a good reference to Prof Paul Reiter’s address to a UK parliamentary committee about the geographical spread of malaria during the LIA and 1920s USSR.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/30/mosquitos-malaria-and-the-ipcc-consensus/
In the 1920s 13 million people were infected in places like Archangel etc and some 600,000 died from this disease. The IPCC were also pushing Gore’s mad scare as well. The fools didn’t realise that malaria had existed centuries before all over Europe and northern Russia.
Dengue fever was another favourite promoted by Gore and the IPCC. Cohers I think we should just call him WIMPY Luke from now on, he just hasn’t got a clue.
Neville your good mate Bolta on racial intolerance and free speech would tell you to harden the f up. Oooooo the video shocked me. ooooo oooooo No it didn’t – real wars in the real world are shocking. Or are you that much of a little sook that you’re having nightmares about it.
Reiter’s stuff is just “an example” For a confessed NON scientist Neville you’re such an educated dumb hick. Most poikilotherms go through their life cycle’s quicker if it’s warmer. It’s pretty basic.
“I spend an hour of my time selecting 10 absolute dud pro-AGW papers” – well given you spent sooooo much time, I spent a proportional hour reading the first paper. You haven’t read it.
So what Luke! if that’s all you can come up with stop wasting our time and go back to your video game.
The “mosquito line” heading south! What else? Geothermal energy is relatively new technology…it uses heat from the earth’s core…a couple of kilometres (the core?!) down there the temp is millions of degrees…you need special drill bits that don’t melt when it’s millions of degrees…
And then the malaria claims! Al, in the 1700s Linnaeus wrote his doctorate on malaria – the malaria in bloody Sweden!
It’s all very well to say Gore is just a celeb, but he has a huge staff who could know this stuff in seconds if they don’t know it already. The guy stood on a stage with Pachauri and accepted a Nobel. I know that Alfred Nobel was himself a complete sicko, but that prize is meant to go to people who will at least put some effort into seeming authoritative. Even winners who say nothing – like Kahneman – manage to say nothing convincingly.
But Gore!
And never forget the person who was nominated for the prize that Gore won:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
Robert I take it you’re just quoting HIPPO Al on the earth having temps of millions of degrees at the depth of a couple of kilometres or so?
I’d forgotten the loopy fool said that some time ago. But Al is like Flannery, McKibben, Williams, Kennedy, Boxer, Pachauri, etc.
All these loopy fools have said the most bizarre and dopey things over the recent past that it’s so hard to keep up.
You have to wonder are they really that stupid or are they really just hopeless liars?
The special drill bits. That was the thing that got me. The drill bits for the core that’s presumably outside the mantle and is full of hot rocks at millions of degrees. Just down there. The core!
Remember, he uttered this on live TV, after pointing out – with that cloying giggle of his – that he’d just published a book on the subject.
Drill bits suitable for sun mining!
Just to get a few more facts on the table. We know that Gore used Hansen as an expert reviewer for his work on AIT, but few people know that he also used the CSIRO Dr. Graeme Pearman as an expert as well.
http://www.claxtonspeakers.com.au/speakers_profile/1322
You have to wonder what Hansen and Pearman actually told big Hippo Al? He seems so uninformed most of the time and can be relied upon to drop the most embarrassing clangers at the most inconvenient times.
We know that Hansen and Gore put their heads together and dreamt up 6 metres of SLR by 2100.
But what about Dr. Pearman the former head of atmospheric research and chief climate director of the CSIRO? (1992- 2002)
Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to have had much luck with big HIPPO Al and some of their errors in AIT.
But then again the CSIRO did say that “he got the science about right” didn’t they?
“I spend an hour of my time selecting 10 absolute dud pro-AGW papers” – well given you spent sooooo much time, I spent a proportional hour reading the first paper. You haven’t read it.”
Ok, you’re the man; tell us; what other mechanism, other than wind variability, does Trenberth offer to explain heat transfer to the bottom?
Nice work Cohers.
Certainly smoked out the resident “settled science village idiot” that inhabits Ms. Marohasy’s blog from his co2 warmed bolt hole.
Citing the usual ad-homs and abuse that represents the govt. funded pro-tax settled failed climate science these days, the floundering ignoramus then squeals, “You didn’t read it”, and then says, “I stopped reading at that point …”
Displaying the attention span and comprehension of a gnat, (apologies to any gnats), what chance Luke could collate a similar list supporting “fry ’till ya die” UN-IPCC global warming he so comprehensively and convincingly debates here.
Vaguely like the Lord of the Rings, all the idiot Luke needs is “the one paper.”
Geeezzz that’s a bit unfair Cohers. Luke doesn’t like answering questions about problems connected with some of his rants and abuse on this blog.
Perhaps he could ask Gore’s AIT advisors ( Pearman and Hansen) about how all that heat slipped past undetected to now reside in the lower oceans?
I mean they gave such good advice on AIT didn’t they? Carl Wunsch has said that heat from the oceans can remain there for hundreds or thousands of years and then come to the surface to add to a change in the climate.
So how do we know the length of time some extra heat may have remained undetected and when it may come to the surface again?
But you can ask Lukey for more infantile abuse and rants, no problems, but the poor bloke wets himself if you ask for an explanation of present mitigation policies or an estimate of future climate or temp or SLR etc.
The base issue with heat stored in the deep ocean is what warms the ocean. The evidence against backradiation in the IR spectrum is pretty cogent:
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
Good to see handjob is back doing a bit of verballing – poor HJ – mate if you’re gonna sledge at least show some talent. And you forgot to add in rent-seeking.
Anyway Cohers you’re making the case not me – if you’d have READ the paper – but maybe arts grads can’t read – you’d have had something more to say if you did. It’s pretty funny having diddles woofters like you – unpublished – going up against Trenberth – like weally ! What a giggle. Perhaps nobody is advocating the mechanisms that you’re suggesting don’t work. But hey in Cohers arts student world – he’s denying that heat can move through the ocean – sheeeit – I wonder how ENSO and PDO work – a duh ! Might there be complex mechanisms at work or might we take some arts student’s word for it. But hey Neville likes being led around by his nose ring. Surely it’s time for Neville to shout fraud and criminal.
But anyway all so boring …. so now the guys deny that ENSO and PDO exist. We all know that heat can’t move through the ocean – right?? Your logic clowns.
Maybe time for another music break – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1ZRBPA8SK0 aaah ahhh ahhhhhh ay?
@Comment from: Luke May 25th, 2013 at 11:58 am
Quote: “Good to see handjob is back … ”
Thanks for the welcome back and there aint no second prize!
That’s why I chose the name, so dopey people with nothin’ to debate at least have a target that is obvious to everyone else.
Oops. Past the attention span. Here is a song about handjive …
Hey Luke tell me why I don’t believe that the PDO exists? Years ago I linked to NOAAs reconstruction of the PDO for the last 1000 years.
I guess that includes ENSO as well, don’t you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg Sort of means that ENSO and or PDO exists doesn’t it?
But what it does show is extreme NATURAL climate change over the last 1000 years can occur. In fact much more extreme climate than we experience today due to your so called AGW.
Luke?
Is this seriously your idea of either a science based rebuttal of Cohenite and/or a science defence of the Trenberth et al paper?
…….
Anyway Cohers you’re making the case not me –…… and….
It’s pretty funny having diddles woofters like you – unpublished – going up against Trenberth – like weally ! What a giggle. Perhaps nobody is advocating the mechanisms that you’re suggesting don’t work.
But hey in Cohers arts student world – he’s denying that heat can move through the ocean – sheeeit – I wonder how ENSO and PDO work – a duh ! Might there be complex mechanisms at work or might we take some arts student’s word for it…..
Apparently in answer to this question?????
Ok, you’re the man; tell us; what other mechanism, other than wind variability, does Trenberth offer to explain heat transfer to the bottom?
Just to make it clear Luke….this is what Cohenite posted re this issue……
Trenberth ignores all this and the basic point of how the bottom can heat while the middle and top don’t and explains why the deep ocean heat content is increasing: “Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”
Is there some new definition of ‘largely responsible’ that I am unaware of?
No one is disputing and/or denying our understanding of ENSO and PDO Luke….I think you’re using one of those straw man thingies again?
The question in this particular instance refers to Trenberth’s assumptions about surface wind variability in relation to AGW and particularly heat in the ocean.
Well gee Debs – you could (choke) read the paper. Unheard of for Debs as she’s so gullible as to take anyone’s word for it. YOU HAVEN’T READ THE PAPER MY DEAR – you never do ! So don’t come on here and bung on the “Trenberth ignores all this”
How does ENSO and PDO work if heat cannot penetrate the ocean.
“The question in this particular instance” you’re just crapping on. RTFP or put another load of washing on.
“Anyway Cohers you’re making the case not me”
I’ve made the case numbnuts.
“he’s denying that heat can move through the ocean”
Wrong. I’m showing that IR can’t heat the bottom. Solar can heat the crap out of the ocean; and PDO is a proxy for ocean heat as the Tung paper in my sequel, best anti-AGW papers will show.
You can’t heat water from above due to surface tension.
Try applying heat from a paint stripping heat gun to the surface of water and you will find that the heat is emphatically rejected.
This is what happened to Trenberth’s missing heat.
You cannot store heat in the ocean.
The only energy to enter the ocean is via radiation not physical heat.
Solar activity has recently declined so its getting cold because there is no backup heat because of surface tension.
Sorry Luke,
It’s actually not me who is ‘just crapping on’.
Go back and read your own efforts.
Only answering your own interpretation of your own imagined questions.
NOONE repeat NO ONE has stated that they deny the mechanisms of ENSO and PDO. . . . oh wait! ! ! !. . . except for LUKE! . . . who claims that people are denying those mechanisms.
Very boring Luke. . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Projecting and constructing those strawman thingies. 🙂
Have you actually read the paper?
Just asking
So here we have it – an arts student has had a spruik. Debs and handjive parrot what they’ve been told.
“You can’t heat water from above due to surface tension.” BARP ! thanks for playing !!! It’s DRONGO HOUR ! Must remember that next time I go for a swim in a still body of water. Ding a ding. Call out the clowns.
Well Debs heat can’t penetrate the ocean – so how does ENSO and PDO work – please explain.
It’s very very very simple Debs – Cohenite has panned Trenberth et al with one line. How piss poor. But what do you expect from arts students these days? Yes I have read the paper but you’re the one’s opining – SO PLEASE EXPLAIN. I’m all ears …. don’t wus around Debs just give us a serious critique or get off the the thread. Stop being a no content cheer squad member.
Don’t ask another question Debs – let’s see you give a some serious input or sod off. Or perhaps Debs you could address us on the many mechanisms of oceanic circulation?
How does heat get to the ocean bottom; consider this:
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
The graph shows the surface penetration of the spectrum. Now this:
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
This graph shows the relative amounts of energy penetrating the ocean surface from the solar spectrum, on the right side, and the IR spectrum, allegedly from backradiation or the Greenhouse effect on the left. The IR is negative which means more is being emitted than being absorbed; the solar high energy frequencies are readily aborbed in comparative enormous amounts to depth in the ocean and then cause vertical and horizontal mixing gradients.
IR doesn’t rate; neither does Trenberth’s pathetic paper or luke’s D&D rubbish.
Cohenite – you’ve posted the same chart twice.
That’s right John; luke is a 1/2 wit so you’ve got to do everything twice.
ha ha !!
cohenite: Thanks. I had forgotten about ferd berple’s comment. That was one of my all-time favorites. In fact, I’ll repeat it:
“By including a linear trend for warming in their analysis as an independent variable, Foster & Rahmstorf have demonstrated that global warming is well correlated with global warming.”
Regards
Well it is the clown show isn’t it – the blind leading the blind – good grief. All good fodder for my 10 silliest denialist performances.
Perhaps some educumuckation is needed. If one can educate dickwits.
https://pangea.stanford.edu/courses/EESS146Bweb/lctr.html
Let us ponder a few lessons
Perhaps the gooney birds might start thinking about gyres, subduction, overturning and the dominance of wind stress on heat transport. You have half wits know NOTHING about oceanic circulation and heat transport. You’re fools. Twits. Trenberth must just laugh himself in a fit at idiots like Cohenite. What a pretentious boofhead.
Yup – it’s the clown show Luke – not sure who’s the clown.
http://ecowatch.com/2012/forests-logged/
Trenberth and his disciple Luke embrace the principle that when you can’t observe, measure or model something like deep OHC, you just make it up. Assume it happens. Even though it defies everything you ever learnt in physics, everything you ever observed in the real world and everything you know from your life experiences, there just MAY be something that we missed.
If you can drum up enough consensus you can win the day and it will be hard to prove otherwise.
But it’s a slim branch and if it breaks, the clowns will look even sillier.
Spangled knowledge of oceanography = 0.0. Just more tiresome bunk.
“everything you know from your life experiences,” like never doing any science …. yuh
More clowns-at-work:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/domino-makes-carbon-free-cane-sugar-its-certified/
But hey let’s pick another one of Coher’s great papers such as #4 and this is Cohers cite as to why the paper is wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
AND AND AND it says this …. in UPDATE 3 !!!
“I displayed my very limited understanding of statistics in this post. This was pointed out to me a great number times by many different people in numerous comments received in the WattsUpWithThat cross post.The errors in that initial portion of the post were so many and so great that they detracted from the bulk of the post, which was about the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Please disregard this post and the WUWT cross post, and any other cross posts that may exist.”
COHENITE ARE YOU ACTUALLY MENTAL !! this is your reference – this your standard – a citation where the author says he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
LIKE UNREAL MAN !
So obviously you’re a similar level dope? Dope cites dope. (and why Bob might need to get published and some peer review – but hey who’s got time to do that when you can rave on and then say you’re clueless)
“The errors in that initial portion of the post were so many and so great” WOWSY WOW WOW
“everything you know from your life experiences,” like never doing any science ….
Luke old chap, I have sought alternative energy on the ocean all my life. My current boat which I designed and built does not have an engine of any kind and yesterday I was in a race involving power and sail combined and I happened to be faster than all the others.
Now tell me what sort of ocean science you have involved yourself in?
Relevance to deep ocean heat and oceanography = 0.0
The is something here that really is quite bizarre. I can well understand that heat flows into the ocean as well as the air, indeed I would expect that to happen. But what simply does not happen in the real world is that today the heat all flows into the air but tomorrow it somehow decides to all flow into the ocean instead. When air temperatures were rising in the 1980’s and 1990’s they claimed this was proof of CAGW. Now that air temperatures are no longer rising the excuse is that the heat is going into the ocean instead. If it is going into the ocean now it should have been going into the oceans in the 1980’s and 1990’s and if it was going into the atmosphere in the 1980’s and 1990’s it should be going into the atmosphere today.
What possible mechanism could one day direct the energy into the atmosphere and the next direct it into the oceans. If one is going to make a claim so utterly bizarre it requires some serious and well documented justification yet I have seen no such justification. Quite frankly, the fact that the air temperature is not rising implies that the ocean temperature is also not rising. Do they really suggest the heat is all flowing into the ocean and at some undetermined future point it is all going to flow out again into the atmosphere like a dam bursting.
To put this in perspective its about the same as claiming that petrol only burns on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays and is non flammable on the other days of the week. In both cases one has to ask oneself what could possibly bring that about. Its too bizarre to even be useful as a science fiction plot.
Had a look at your link luke; thanks for reminding me, I studied the Taylor-Proudman effect in my first degree.
Refresh my memory further by reminding me how it or any of the other impressive scientific principles in the link can move surface heat to the bottom and keep it there.
Not strictly on topic but while I am here:
How come the National Academy of Science published a graph in the 1970’s showing 0.7C of northern hemisphere cooling between 1940 and 1970 yet UEA today publishes a graph showing no northern hemisphere cooling over the same period. Both are based on exactly the same historical data. Who got it so wrong? Could it be something to do with the fact that in the 1970’s the scare agenda was global cooling whereas now it is global warming?
How come successive global land sea temperature plots from NASA GISS show with each revision even lower temperatures before 1970 and even higher temperatures post 1970. Rewriting history?
How come the USHCN record from NOAA published in the late 1990’s shows the late 1930’s warmer than the 1990’s yet the same plot published around 2003 shows the 1990’s 0.4C warmer than the late 1930’s. More rewriting of history?
How come Keihl and Trenberth claim there is only 40 watts of energy radiated from the surface of Earth to space with a further 30 watts/sqM from cloud tops yet when I look at the Nimbus data it shows radiation to space emanating from a surface with a temperature that matches the temperature of Earth’s surface at that latitude of around 140 watts/sqM? The surface is the hottest point in the atmospheric column so the Nimbus data shows this is emission can only be coming directly from the surface to space. It corresponds to the atmospheric window and is even labeled as such. Then when I go through the K&T paper in detail I cannot find any justification for the 40 watt/sqM figure – it appears to have been plucked out of the air. Don’t believe me? Integrate planks law from 8 to 13 microns at a temperature of 14C and see for yourself what total emission you get. Its easy to do numerically using Excell.
How come there is intense focus on arctic sea ice yet no focus on Antarctic land ice. Arctic sea ice comprises 0.01% of ice on Earth whereas Antarctic ice comprises 70% of ice on Earth. Don’t believe me, look it up on the web the data is easy to find from multiple sources. 0.01% is so much more important than 70% or could it be something to do with the fact that most reports show ice in Antarctica as a whole is increasing not decreasing and most of the increase is ice on land although even the sea ice seems to be increasing.
Then again, when one looks at the plots of arctic sea ice what stands out is that ice extent is only lower over about 4 months of the year. There is little if any change over the remaining 8 months. I would have expected a year round reduction, reducing in summer with each winter increase not quite making up for the summer loss but no, the ice fully recovers each winter. Global warming over only 4 months of the year from a year round increase in CO2?
In response to comments from skeptics, it has been pointed out the tropical tropospheric hotspot predicted by models is not a marker for temperature rise due to increasing CO2. Absolutely true, it is a marker for positive feedback from water vapour from any source of warming whether CO2 or not. However the fact that the hotspot is not there means that the models are wrong or that there is no positive feedback from water vapour. Yet the claim of positive feedback from water vapour is the basis of CAGW. Without that positive feedeback the temperature rise per doubling of CO2 is less than 1C.
Wherever I look I find superficial claims couched in alarming terms but the deeper I look the more things I find that are utterly inconsistent with established physics, things that are glossed over instead of being addressed. Yet I have no right to be skeptical – REALLY!!!!!
Cohenite tries bluffing. What utter crap.
This is tedious and I’ve already been kicked off OLO for insulting the daisies; just answer the question luke: if Trenberth doesn’t rely on wind variability to explain movement of heat to the ocean bottom then what explanation does he proffer?
Then we can move on to Foster and Bob’s ‘mistakes’.
“Relevance to deep ocean heat and oceanography = 0.0”
Luke, as with land involvement we are still waiting for you to reveal how involved you are in any ocean hands-on science to do with your understanding of all things climate.
Being at sea observing cloud formations, how heat always rises, convection systems over oceans, the direction and velocity of winds from clouds and how to plan and take the best advantage from weather patterns tends to give you a good fundamental understanding of the physics involved.
As opposed to pondering statistics while having a pedicure.
So please convince us, but not the Trenberth way.
Quote Luke May 25th, 2013 at 8:51 pm:
“You can’t heat water from above due to surface tension.” BARP ! thanks for playing !!! It’s DRONGO HOUR ! Must remember that next time I go for a swim in a still body of water. Ding a ding. Call out the clowns.”
Whoa! Nice fact laden comeback, science boy.
You can’t disprove what you quote with your junk climate science so you go for the abuse.
Nice play.
If you had a clue, you might reply-
~ Link to RealClimate claiming that GHGs heat the ocean by decreasing temperature gradients between ocean and atmosphere:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Then I might reply with something like this:
“The only paper they could find shows the relationship between sea surface temp and LW forcing is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1.
In other words, a doubling of CO2 concentrations [alleged to cause 3.7 Wm-2 forcing] would increase sea surface temperatures by .0074 degrees – essentially zero.”
And, with a link with lotsa links, graphs’n’stuff: Why Greenhouse Gases Won’t Heat the Oceans
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html
Send in the clowns Luke? They’re already here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi6vAXv0KrA
PS. Free OH&S advice for Luke: When swimming in a still body of water, keep to the shallow end.
There’s no escape Cohenite – your hastily concocted list has a 1000% pure crappola cite. Which basically says yourself and Bobby T are clueless. BARP – next !
Handjive – your leading quote “You can’t heat water from above due to surface tension.” well a swim on warm day in any lake puts paid to that one….. that’s what you said – your long tedious rant is simply wrong.
And this elegant empircal experiment shows your deniers crap is simply wrong on longwave http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Toodle pip.
The fact is that there are plenty of mechanisms of gyres, subduction and overturning as to how heat penetrates the deep ocean and Trenberth’s point shows that different basins are responding differently due to these mechanisms. Cohenite thinks an under-grad course 100 years in geography is a substitute for state of the art oceanographic knowledge. The blogs level of sheer stupidity on this point exposes what utter frauds you all are.
Good afternoon comrade.
luke, I’d like to trade insults with you, it can be fun, but as I say I have already been warned at OLO for describing your fellow AGW travellers as dopes, so I’ll pass here, but one day if you want to get down and dirty wander over to Catallaxy and I’ll gladly accommodate you.
Meanwhile here in sedateville your link to 2006 RC, is as usual, a joy.
Their model of heat transfer to the deep requires “temperature increase in the upper ocean”.
I’ll post these graphs and you can tell me what I missed; SST:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend
To 700 meters; the unadjusted ARGO data is in blue, the adjusted in red and the model predictions in green, from 2003:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/04-argo-era-raw-v-adjusted-ohc.png
Deep ocean, ARGO data, from 2005:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-v-2000m.gif
They are the facts, the data.
Stop dribbling luke, admit you’re in free fall and move on to Foster; what was your beef there?
Toodle Pip! Yeah, I’d leave too after that.
If you honestly believe that towing a float behind a ship that is disturbing the surface in order to measure the top <1mm to 0.01k accuracy is going to give you reliable measurements….
But then there's always those gyres, gimbles and wabes.
90% of the ocean is ~ 3c. Only the top 10% is warmer than that and the average is ~ 4c. Any tiny change that this mob think they're measuring is much more likely to be due to natural variation than ACO2.
Nope – you are a pig ignorant on this issue. No expertise. And no science ability. You have no idea of heat transfer into the lower ocean. There’s a whole literature of oceanic heat transfer and you are ignorant of it.
“Their model of heat transfer to the deep requires “temperature increase in the upper ocean”.’
Nice try shonky-tonks – however, the article says no such thing.
Woody trees is such fun – here’s mine http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1950/trend
Don’t bother quoting Tisdale any more on here after his confession. Who knows if he’s made another of his “great many” errors’. Who can tell?
Not sure why you’re quoting Jo’s pinched graph – illustrates my point well.
“These are the facts” Cohenite the great unpublished geographer opines. Pullease. What a shoddy little non-analysis.
You’re an unpublished bunk artist with too big a mouth.
Well how stupid can you be Spangled – the trend of very many samples is obvious – you may not even need Bob’s missing stats skills to work it out.
“Any tiny change that this mob think they’re measuring is much more likely to be due to natural variation than ACO2.” THIS COMMENT TAKES the cake – they said it wasn’t measuring changes in CO2 – are you that simple?? I’m amazed how stupid you lot are. And can’t even read.
http://www.locean-ipsl.upmc.fr/Cirene/Documents_files/RSMAS_instruments.Cirene_2007.v2-2.pdf – and they can use instruments from the front of the ship if needed giving similar results
““Their model of heat transfer to the deep requires “temperature increase in the upper ocean”.’
Nice try shonky-tonks – however, the article says no such thing.”
Well, let’s look at it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
The final box in the box model on the right hand side of the article is plain as is this from the article:
“The figure below shows just the signal we are seeking. There is a clear dependence of the skin temperature difference on the net infrared forcing. The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy. This corresponds to increased greenhouse gas emission reaching the sea surface.”
With more backradiation, which is what should be happening with CO2 increasing exponentially the ocean skin temperature should be increasing; it isn’t since 2003 when ARGO came in.
I’m not interested in pre-ARGO measurements and the fact you revert to them shows how desperate you are.
But you can’t admit you’re wrong that Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ being found paper is a dud.
Just admit it and move on to Foster
From the malignant pen of the Resident Dipstick:
“The fact is that there are plenty of mechanisms of gyres, subduction and overturning as to how heat penetrates the deep ocean and Trenberth’s point shows that different basins are responding differently due to these mechanisms”
Gyres are circulating ocean currents generally attributed to combinations of winds underlain by the Coriolis effect. Nino/Nina, anyone ? CO2 doesn’t get a look-in, unless it can change the planet’s rate of spin (undetected, of course)
Subduction is the “sinking” of spreading oceanic crust underneath the continental masses back into the mantle. Measured in millenia to millions years. Atmospheric CO2 concentration sure is a mighty powerful force, controlling the planet’s tectonics. Or perhaps not, just takes opportunistic advantage of the tectonics to heat that there deeeeep ocean while we watch (Argo doesn’t agree, but maybe Jason does)
Differing rates for these processes in different oceanic basins have been known and measured for a really long time now. Trenberth did not discover this
The Resident Dipstick falls flat on his beer barrel when he ventures into geological science … every time
“they said it wasn’t measuring changes in CO2”
Who is it that can’t read?
“and they can use instruments from the front of the ship if needed giving similar results”
Except that they didn’t.
You’re a very confused little lukie. Here’s a site to get your mind right:
http://obrl.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/global-chill-already-cometh.html
Cohers and everyone else I think you’re wasting your time trying to get any sense out of Luke.
He’s in deep denial about his pet CAGW theory yet probably thinks he’s so smart. The whole rotten mess is falling down around their ears and yet they still think they can win somehow.
Here’s a quiz from the Daily Mail, but is probably too easy for most here. Would be great to see a paper in OZ produce a similar local quiz to stir up the silly dingbats here and prove what a load of junkscience we’ve all been subjected to over the last 20+ years.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/global_warming_the_quiz/#commentsmore
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
This is me laughing.
Answer the oft repeated question Luke!
It’s the same question.
You say you have read the paper (and claim that others, including Cohenite, haven’t). . .
OTHER than the bleeding and well documented obvious (ocean currents). . . What are YOU claiming that Trenberth is claiming and modelling re heat?
WARNING!
We are all acutely aware of natural phenomenon. (including you!)
ianl8888 – mate you’re not very good are you – subduction in the ocean not crust – enter the low dunce level – BARP – thanks for playing. Jeez Ian is that your standard? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Spangled – still on about CO2 – are you dense – it’s irrelevant – it was about changing levels on longwave – BARP ! thanks for playing
As I said the float at low speed is irrelevant – the trend of temperature vs longwave flux is compelling – BARP thanks for playing
Neville – good call – avoid the issue and lay smoke. Don’t expose you know zack all about any of this. Continue to be a trained parrot. Never ever think – half point for not getting caught with your pants down and exposing your stupidity.
Luke is doing one of the best Black Knight impersonations yet.
This is a blast.
Thanks, Luke.
Well Debs – I’d be crying at your stupid mates performance here – the answer Debs is that it’s clearly subduction of water along isopycnals.
Spanglers – I forgot to add that they are surface following floats NOT ship following floats ! BARP !
Quote Luke May 26th, 2013 at 1:16 pm:
“Handjive – your leading quote “You can’t heat water from above due to surface tension.” well a swim on warm day in any lake puts paid to that one….. that’s what you said ”
What ever it is Luke feels when he swims in ‘any lake on a warm day’, it sure aint Trenberth’s missing heat. As you have identified this phenomenon yourself, puts paid to that.
That’s what you said.
Lame Luke.
Maybe you should go back to trying to making failed, unoriginal comments about my name.
Then again …
luke, “it’s clearly subduction of water along isopycnals.”
Isopycnal mixing does not require exogenous energy, such as from AGW, to keep it going; diapycnal mixing does, which is to say the inverted heat profile caused by pressure to create Isopycnal mixing is inherent whereas diapycnal mixing depends on the former which can vary spatially and seasonally.
But, as I say neither are AGW related and neither were part of Trenberth’s scenario. But carry on.
Michael Hammer, thanks for your comments.
Reckon this would make Luke’s list of worst papers?
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/global_warming_the_quiz/
Well well well – we’ll take that as a backdown with parting slap from HJ. Of course going for a swim ain’t the missing heat. And oceans aren’t lakes either (Although unfortunately for you they sometimes overturn).
Cohenite – nice phone a friend – you’re catching on and starting to sweat – but I didn’t say they were AGW related either.
Hey Luke here’s a good one for you and a good belly laugh for the rest of us. It seems 400 PPMV co2 now gives the weather a mood and a personality.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/26/claim-400-ppm-co2-gives-the-weather-personality/#more-87078
These loopy loons must have been reading and watching our GAIA brain Timmy Flannery. More ammo for silly Lukey to throw about.
Looks like Briffa is belatedly coming clean on his Yamal data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/26/briffa-yamal-reputational-damage-and-all-that/#more-87074
“nice phone a friend”
No, made it up myself; not sweating either, this winter is going to be a cold one.
What’s wrong with Foster, or from your vantage, what’s right?
Boy the temp certainly changes quickly with this CAGW scare. Just two months ago Karoly was telling us that there could be up to 7C warming by 2100.
But today we learn from their ABC that Karoly thinks it could be 2C or above. Who knows give this silly fool another couple of months and he could be down to 1C or less.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/comedy-s-hot-new-duo-manne-and-karoly
It sure is a comedy of sorts but what an embarrassment to OZ to even listen to these loonies. If all this fraud and corruption didn’t include the loss of billions $ for the Aussie taxpayer for zip return it might serve as light relief, but I don’t think too many people are finding it funny anymore?
Hi Luke,
Maybe I misunderstood, but I took Ian18888’s subduction reference to be about Continental Plate subduction. the Cocos subduction , for instance, is squeezing out magma on the ocean floor East of the Americas, as it is subducted from the West side.
I am not an expert on isopycnals , but if you put the kettle on the gas you may comprehend what this magma does.
Whether to a small or large effect has probably not been scrutinised to the extent CO2 has. You can’t tax magma, so why waste money there.
Gillard’s Labor is back in the terrible twenties in Qld according to the latest Galaxy poll.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/galaxy_gillard_gone_and_palmer_no_chance/#commentsmore
But 2PP vote is 59% Coalition to 41% Labor. If this holds up until sept we will witness a slaughterhouse right across OZ.
But the greatest losses will come from Qld and NSW.
Neville trying the big diversion doesn’t wash …. I could gish gallop you back – stay on topic or go off to your open thread.
Cohenite – I’m not even discussing Foster when your attack cite is totally compromised. Goes to the heart of your non-existent quality process and lack of due diligence.
Ian T – I wasn’t talking about continetal plate subduction
Debbie – please check the open thread.
“Cohenite – I’m not even discussing Foster when your attack cite is totally compromised. Goes to the heart of your non-existent quality process and lack of due diligence.”
Bob confused a linear time trend with a linear trend.
That has nothing to do with F&R treating ENSO as an exogenous factor or how F&R found a constant linear trend for pure AGW caused temperature when CO2 has increased exponentially over the same period. The trend constancy cannot be due to feedbacks because F&R have obstensibly removed them. In addition F&R have used GISS temperature as both a linear trend [produced by AGW] and an independent variable; how can it be both?
Trenberth’s paper is dead; tell us why we shouldn’t burt F&R as well.
“burt”
That should be ‘bury’; although people are welcome to burt the paper as well.
Lukey you are a real hoot. Bob Tisdale came here and admitted a mistake and I admire him for it.
This is why the sceptic sites have so much more credibility compared to some of the so called scientific studies. Some of these prominent scientists ???? cowardly try to cover for their mistakes and are aided and abetted by some of their fellow travelers.
They use every trick in the book to avoid close scrutiny by McIntyre, McKitrick, Hughes etc and withhold dubious data that doesn’t hold up to proper unbiased review.
Of course these scientists???? are financed by the taxpayer and should have to release all the info, data and inputs involved in their studies. No excuses.
Bob, Willis , Steve, Ross etc have to spend their own time and money to pursue these people and it’s a wonder at times they have the heart , time and money to carry on. Probably the biggest giggle was when Phil Jones replied to Warick Hughes that he only wanted his Temp data so he could try and find something wrong with it.
Geeezzzz do ya reckon Phil? What a weak ,gutless and stupid reponse coming from the most prominent climate scientist in the UK.
Just shows the clueless state of mind that these people have developed over the years. In fact they seem to live in a taxpayer funded cocoon.
Of course if all these sceptics were really so hopelessly uninformed they would readily release their data etc and hunt them down and demand a debate on national TV to prove their case.
Some chance because they know they would be easily beaten and the game would be up in quick time.
Certainly mitigation would fall at the first hurdle and taxpayers all over the globe would start to save wasted billions $ straight away.
Well yes Luke. . . YOU didn’t say it was AGW related or plates etc. . . BUT . . . The question was in relation to Trenberth. What does Trenberth say?
You are claiming that he has been misinterpreted.
Here is Bob Tisdale’s latest post on OHC. I think the last few sentences make a lot of sense.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/26/nodc-provides-1st-quarter-2013-ocean-heat-content-update-alarmist-writes-science-fiction/#comments
New paper on ENSO from the Uni of Hawaii. Trouble is it’s paywalled and could be just more wall to wall fancy modeling again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/26/new-el-nino-causal-pattern-discovered/#more-87121
Debs – anyone with a scintilla of ability would have known I was not talking about continental crust plates. “isopycnals” should have informed anyone with nouse. Goes to the heart of your credibility to comment.
Trenberth (well we should say Balmaseda et al.) hasn’t been “misrepresented” – he hasn’t even been presented ! He’s been hit with Cohenite’s usual poorly prepared sophistic slurs (see his mess with the Tisdale cite as another) – Trenberth has taken the trouble to get a complex paper processed in a serious journal. If yourself or Cohenite want to make a critique be serious and expansive. Glib one liners don’t cut it. If you’re really serious write a refutation to the actual journal which won’t get published as you’re clueless – but just for a laugh publish here the response and show how you’ve been wronged !!!
Basically you both don’t know what you’re on about. Just shoddy Debs.
Neville – a very simple question – how would you propose to investigate complex non-linear interacting processes without modelling. It’s not a trick question. No gotchas. Please answer. I think it could be a tad difficult myself.
Anyone else can chip in? Don’t be shy.
And wind bursts triggering El Nino is not an unknown concept. Been around for a while. But one gets into which comes first chicken or egg style debates.
Steve writes a comment on his blog about dendroclimatology science ????? and one scientist????? involved in this science?????
Great bloke/ great scientist that Esper, Luke’s sure to be impressed.
Steve McIntyre
Posted May 24, 2013 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Reply
Briffa’s exclusion of Khadyta data reminds me of Esper’s wonderful dictum:
“However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology”
Could Gergis and Karoly et al have told porkies when submitting their now withdrawn paper?
Here’s an interesting reference again in comments on the Briffa Yamal 2013 study.
Kenneth Fritsch
Posted May 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Reply
“SteveM , the Briffa paper and SI that you have linked here have an interesting (to me) side story. The withdrawn paper coauthored by J Gergis on reconstructed Australasian temperature claimed to have used the Melvin/Briffa signal free Regional Curve Standardisation (SF-RCS). When I emailed Melvin concerning this claim he told me that the Gergis paper could not have used the signal free version since he had not made the code for doing it available to anyone and in fact told me he would provide it to me when it was in proper shape to make it public.”
So if Melvin and Briffa didn’t make the code available to anyone how could the Gergis Karoly et al authors claim they used that very code?
If true shouldn’t Karoly and Gergis be asked to explain? Also why wasn’t this picked up in Luke’s oft quoted wonderful peer review?
“And wind bursts triggering El Nino is not an unknown concept.”
Well Tisdale is an expert on ENSO, only a misery-guts would deny the guy has done his homework on that issue. And speaking of chicken and egg choices, Tisdale argues the ENSO causes SST:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/drought-hurricanes-and-heat-waves-2012-in-perspective/#comment-1191658
While counterpoising that is the argument that ocean Gyres cause ENSO:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18003
The basis of the argument here is the ENSO phase change does not correlate with either solar or atmospheric heating; alternatively Tisdale has answered this objection with his discussion on the ’emergent’ properties of ENSO:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/the-reemergence-mechanism/
Alternatively again, Meehl et al correlate solar and ENSO:
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_solar_science_2009.pdf
In any event Trenberth doesn’t feature.
Well I’d be a misery guts – unpublished and self-confessed not very good with stats is your bloke. Fails every aspect of due diligence and you know it? Your expert witness eh?
@michael hammer
Good questions Michael, alas you will not get a response.
You see your questions are reasonable and need a clear, definitive and concrete answer, not mambo jumbo, angels on a pin head variety.
I mean,
do you really expect a warmist to be able to answer a sensible question like that?
They simply ignore it an hope you go away.
I read part of the paper in question and I thought the main conclusion arrived at depended on computer modeling.
Sorry that’s not good enough for me.
@Luke maybe I’m a music snob, maybe not, I like some of pop as well, prolly not the ones you do.
As to Mahler? He is OK I guess but he was a populist and after the money [nothing at all wrong with that!!], bit too schmalzy for my taste, just check out Synph. No. 2.
F&R’s problems are independent of what Bob did; and as I said above:
“Bob confused a linear time trend with a linear trend.
That has nothing to do with F&R treating ENSO as an exogenous factor or how F&R found a constant linear trend for pure AGW caused temperature when CO2 has increased exponentially over the same period. The trend constancy cannot be due to feedbacks because F&R have obstensibly removed them. In addition F&R have used GISS temperature as both a linear trend [produced by AGW] and an independent variable; how can it be both?”
Bob confused a linear time trend with a linear trend, which has no bearing on the listed complaints against F&R.
Adress those issues or move on, anything other than the feeble gripes about peer review; fair dinkum after the emails anyone who carries on about peer review must have their head in a jar of pixie dust.
You can’t bulldust your way out Cohenite – unpublished and a self confessed stats ninny. Your credibility is in tatters. Would this be the expert you’d call to defend sceptics – woo hoo !
“I read part of the paper…” hahahahahahahaha good one. Get serious.
“Would this be the expert you’d call to defend sceptics – woo hoo !”
Yeah I’d call Bob; especially if you were the alarmist’s expert. Bob has done good work on ENSO.
But I can see we’re not going to get any sense out of you so maybe Jennifer will put up the recent best anti-AGW papers.
Luke: “Fails every aspect of due diligence and you know it? ”
And I suppose the “peer reviewed scientists” who “lost” the data and dont make code available are the masters of due diligence?
Yes – so where is your list of the Ten Top best papers Luke as Jennifer requested?
Cohenite has put forward his, where are yours?
Another possibility for the ENSO is discussed in our new paper:
Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the Southern Hemisphere
Ian R.G. Wilson and Nikolay S. Sidorenkov
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2013, 7, 29-54 29
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V007/TOASCJ130415001.pdf
Apologies for the poor quality of the posted paper as it a e-publication ahead of schedule.
The final paper should appear soon. At least it is free to download.
Abstract
*******IMPORTANT PART******
Finally, an N=4 standing wave-like pattern in the MSLP that circumnavigates the Southern Hemisphere every 18.6 years will naturally produce large extended regions of abnormal atmospheric pressure passing over the semi-permanent South Pacific sub-tropical high roughly once every ~ 4.5 years. These moving regions of higher/lower than normal atmospheric pressure will increase/decrease the MSLP of this semi-permanent high pressure system, temporarily increasing/reducing the strength of the East-Pacific trade winds. This may led to conditions that preferentially favor the onset of La Nina/El Nino events.
Well John – that would take some consideration due to the huge number to choose from and some due diligence unlike Cohenite’s back of truck dumpster run.
sp tries to change the subject 🙂 ! …. heeheeheee
Surely you can easily come up with just ten Luke – otherwise you are just bullshitting us.
Sorry Jen of the O/T but this is important
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
Looks like the rise in temp since 1880 is not statistically significant.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html
Also looks like the Met office and the IPCC have been lying to us for decades. They tried to duck and weave to avoid answering the question for ages , but gave in after being asked for the sixth time.
Wow – I finally got a letter posted in the extreme lefty Byron Shire Echo. I’ve tried before but to no avail.
here’s the letter.
Good letter John; from your GM link:
“GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers”
That is just a lie.
Neville are you kidding me – what hilarious denialist unadulterated crap – you love being led around by the nose ring don’t you fool. Hey Neville some deniers said the sky is yellow ! Rush to print. hahahahahahahaa
And Sayers writes fairy tales to the Byron Echo – John what a wank. Again you’re just another non-science parrot like Neville busily recycling rot.
“This is a far cry from the hysterical predictions of our Climate Commission of 3 – 6C and clearly demonstrates that the sceptics have been correct in claiming that the doom and gloom predictions are exaggerated and unsupported by science.” What verballing malarky – opinion – no facts !
And why would you trust a peer reviewed journal – your ilk has claimed that journal is flawed (well ALL journals – can’t trust any peer reviewed literature – has McIntyre checked it for you? ), so why are you now quoting it? Touch of rabid hypocrisy perhaps?
And are you that stupid that you haven’t read your own quote “So this study is about as authoritative as you can get. It uses the most robust method, of analysing the Earth’s heat budget over the past hundred years or so, to estimate a “transient climate response” – but you lot reckon the heat budget is bogus. NOW IT’S AUTHORITATIVE AS YOU CAN GET !
Any previous publication by Myles Allen would have been panned but NOW IT’S AUTHORITATIVE AS YOU CAN GET !
Transient and Equilibrium climate sensitivity are dubious concepts and I look at them in part 2.
As I’ve said before we’re arguing with the silliest dummy of all time. Even Karoly is starting to wake up and changing his mind, but not silly Luke.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/remember_when_doubting_a_6_degree_rise_made_you_a_denier/#commentsmore
Just a few months ago it was 6C or 7 C and now only about 2C. As I said give it another few months and they could be close to Lindzen, Christy, Spencer and Carter. Who knows with these fools losing so many degrees in just a few months we could be anywhere by Xmas.
Whether silly Lukey likes it or not the game is changing and even some of the former extremists are sounding less certain and looking like fools.
But little Lukey won’t answer anything about mitigation or degrees C increase in the next 50 or 100 years because he understands he could be swept away by the rate of change in a matter of months or years.
Afterall if Ozs most prominent scientist ????? can lose several degrees C in just a few months anything is possible.
So everytime your fingers strike your keyboards always remember you’re arguing with a true outlier personality and his dopey extremism just isn’t worth the time.
Neville – you are a bald faced liar and a total fraud.
“Just a few months ago it was 6C or 7 C and now only about 2C. ”
So Neville why are you writing total fabricated lies? Why are you making stuff up?
Is you level of science – oh that’s right – you’re a confessed non-scientist who doesn’t know what he’s reading – I forgot. Newspaper clippings that have been through the 60 minutes editor.
Quote the assessment report – quote the RANGE.
“because he understands he could be swept away by the rate of change in a matter of months or years.” change in months eh? what amazing drivel …. climate is now in months – you moron.
Luke can’t you read? I’ve given you the quotes from Karoly etc. Here’s todays headline from the Australian quoting from the SMH of May 8 2001. Repeat 6 degrees C
As the years roll by, the climate boffins seem to be cooling off on six degrees of warming by:
SOUNDS as if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is sure about only a 2C rise now.
Six degrees of warming. The Sydney Morning Herald, May 8, 2001:
THE CSIRO has dramatically increased its projections of the extent of global warming, suggesting average Australian temperatures could rise as much as six degrees by 2070.
The CSIRO projections said it could rise by 6C by 2070, that’s even more extreme.
Also Karoly’s quotes are only a few months ago. Wake up. Why have they changed in such a short period of time?
.
Just to further enlighten poor little Lukey. When I said that you could be swept away in a matter of months or years I was OBVIOUSLY using the extremist projections back at you.
This is not something that I believe in you fool. I’ve always said that we could have up to 1C by 2100, but it’s your side who like several degrees warming or cooling over very short periods of time. Wake up.
Luke – it was Matt Ridley who said “NOW IT’S AUTHORITATIVE AS YOU CAN GET !” and he stated:
“The contributors include 14 lead authors of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report; two are lead authors of the crucial chapter 10: professors Myles Allen and Gabriele Hegerl.”
Seems pretty authoritative to me.
As I said Neville why do you continue to make bogus claims. Why do you lie? Quoting Bolt’s 60 minutes style journalism is NOT a science report. It’s not an appropriate citation in the slightest and NOT what the original article even said.
Do you think fraudulent behaviour is appropriate?
could is not would. The range of climate sensitivies has been a long feature of predictions. Why are you misrepresenting the truth? Are you simply an advocate with no standards?
John Sayers – yes I know it’s Ridley – but why are you suddenly quoting scientists that you lot have previously disparaged. Because they now have a closer view to your biases? Hardly objective and so hypocritical.
In fact Neville the blatant liar – the article said “The current forecasts are for warming of between 1C and 6C.” THAT IS ONE AND SIX !
I am quoting them because they are finally saying what Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and others have been saying for years! you know, the guys you have been ridiculing for years.
Luke you’re having a lend of yourself again. The CSIRO in 2001 says the rise could be up to 6C by 2070.
Also Karoly was saying there could be up to 5C to 6C of warming just a few months ago. He’s an IPCC lead author and Prof of atmospheric science at Melb Uni.
So doesn’t he read the CSIRO research, and if his estimate of 5C to 6C was too high only months ago why didn’t the CSIRO say he was wrong?
“GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers”
That is just a lie.
I had a conversation with a beekeeper recently and was asking about these new neonicotinoid insecticides Europe claims is killing bees. Canada and Australia also use the same chemicals but they have no problems.
He said the chemical that is killing bees is roundup – he nearly lost his hives recently when a farmer sprayed a paddock where the bees were gathering pollen without telling him – he managed to get them away in time but probably lost a couple of thousand bees. He says the bees take the pollen from sprayed plants back to the hive and feed it to the larvae which kills them!
Neville after exposing your fraudulent sophistry of selective quoting you have ZERO credibility. You’re basically a liar.
Again checking the source Karoly was snipped making an additional comment right at the end – with the words “if” – who knows what the journo left out as well http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/six-degrees-of-devastation-20121207-2b1d5.html
Denialist scum love to misquote and snip – shame on you !
So John you’re now in the habit of quoting sources that you lot have previously derided?
Luke – I’m quoting Matt Ridley. I have no idea who the people involved in the paper are.
The boys are getting a bit agitated over irrelevancies…. stirred up by the resident agent provocateur.
Perhaps they should cool off, and read some Costello reality.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/silence-of-labor-lambs-facing-carbon-tax-reality/story-fni0cwl5-1226651614950http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/silence-of-labor-lambs-facing-carbon-tax-reality/story-fni0cwl5-1226651614950
When they have done with that, have a read of how we rank in the global energy stakes
see: “Electricity Prices in Australia : An International Comparison”.
And where are we in these rankings?… pretty well near the top for every state. ie the most expensive power prices in the world.
Not bad hey.
Its taken Labour and their idiot bed fellows the Greens, plus a cadre of puffed up academic nit wits, and their NGO mates, less than 4 years to destroy all of our competitive advantages, and lower our standards of living.
We now have one of the highest power costs and high labour costs, and the time taken to get anything done is getting longer and longer …
Its all over guys …Australia has lost. ..the collective incompetence of Labor- Greens-and academics have won.
Oh yes to underscore it all …. public servant Flannery on $180k pa, and his cabal of fools, have swanned off overseas to another Grande Tour, too cowardly to face a Senate inquiry.
What an absolute farce.
Fair dinkum Luke who do you think you’re kidding? Her’s what he said just a few months ago—-
Quote.
According to David Karoly, an atmospheric scientist at Melbourne University and a lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global projections may not give a true picture of how we will experience global warming.
“The problem we have is that, even if our best estimate is 4 degrees of warming this century, that is a global average and most of the globe is water,” he says. “Four degrees on average means probably 3 degrees over the oceans, and 5 or 6 degrees on average over the land.”
So this is 5C to 6C in Dec 2012 and today he has reduced that back to a certainty of 2C or a drop of 3C to 4C in just 6 months. Why is that do you suppose? Ding ding ding, wakey wakey.
So at that rate he’ll be back to zero by Xmas 2013, what a hoot. Yes and we all know about the ifs, maybes, probably, could, might, may etc, anything to cover their backside.
I’ve told you before I couldn’t care less what you think of me and again I’ve been proven right or can’t you understand simple english?
Don’t worry about luke John; the Otto et al paper, as I said, will be dealt with in part 2; luke can blow his pooffle valve then.
In the mean time Jo has a look at it here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/major-30-reduction-in-modelers-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity-skeptics-were-right/
Anyone with half a brain would have realised the CS to CO2 is low as this paper showed some time ago:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
Luke is in poor form; I would have thought he would have at least dragged Trenberth or Foster over here for a sermon from the mount; perhaps his influence is waning which is why he feels he has to bash up Neville and the rest of the lads.
“Time for another geography course back in the 70′s.”
Today of course its all politically correct claptrap based on Al Gore printouts and IPCC circulars.
“stats ninnies”
As opposed to stats minnows like yourself.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, real science is being done:
Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides in the Southern Hemisphere
Ian R.G. Wilson and Nikolay S. Sidorenkov
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2013, 7, 29-54 29
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V007/TOASCJ130415001.pdf
Congratulations on getting your letter published John!
Interesting paper Ian; the effect of the Moon on the Earth’s climate has been around for a while; see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.783/pdf
The Moon’s effect on human behaviour is also well known and is well shown by luke on this thread.
Thanks Ian and Cohenite – The Byron Bay Echo is about as far left as you can get. Mungo MacCallum writes a weekly column which normally consists of him attacking Tony Abbott, the Editor, David Lovejoy, recently wrote an article castigating climate change sceptics for being flat earthers and our old mate Lewandowsky even had an article or two published.
The BTW was referring to a letter to the editor the previous week where the comment that our climate is on the “brink of total collapse” was made and is typical of other letters to the editor.
Carbonite,
Yep, Norman Treloar’s 2002 paper was the inspiration for much of my work.
If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which said heat only transfers from hot to cold – a “law” which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium “spontaneously evolves” and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.
Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.
When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.
This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus – or that at the surface of Earth.
The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.
The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.
The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.
Hi CSR; you will be interested in this thread:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/#comment-4403
And in particular this exchange between Mait and Dr Weinstein where Mait begins:
“I have a feeling that an equlibrium state of our model atmosphere is at neither thermal nor ‘convective’ equilibrium. Or to put it in another way, it is at dynamic equilibrium. The reason for this comes from the following assumptions (for an atmosphere with defined mass):
* In order to be convectively stable (no mass transfer), the pressure profile must be set by the gravity field. Or to put it in another way, if we look at a certain level in the atmosphere, the pressure under it has to equal the ‘weight’ of the gas above it. Otherwise pressure vs gravity is not equal and we would have movement of mass either up or down depending on which is higher – gas pressure below or weight above.
* If we consider that in an atmosphere, pressure is determined by large part by the mass of air above it (weight again), we will also have a certain density profile that would be needed to achieve this pressure profile (otherwise the change in mass above wouldn’t change the way we need it to in order to achieve the pressure gradient).
* As we have defined two of the three variables in the ideal gas law, pressure and density(density is considere to be n/V*R at the moment) the third one, temperature, ought to be a function of those two. While it is possible (I haven’t done any calculations) that it would give us a constant temperature, I believe it to be somewhat unlikely.
An important thing to note here is that if we remove all methods of heat transfer besides convection we can have an equlibrium state which is not isothermal. There is no violation with the zeroth law because top of the atmosphere and bottom of the atmosphere are thermally isolated. In order for the zeroth law to make any sense there has to be heat transfer and as we’ve shown that convection doesn’t happen any more, there is no heat transfer.
Now to more realistic situation where there is heat transfer.
If my guess is correct and the corresponding temperature profile is not constant we would get a situation where all static solutions would be unstable, as long as there is any amount of heat transfer. The reason for this lies in the ideal gas law and second law of thermodynamics. Ideal gas law says that we can’t change the temperature without messing up density and pressure, which means that any change in temperature will cause convection and the second law says that the temperature will change (Heat *will* move from hotter to colder areas). So we have the situation where neither is happy with any given solution and hence the stable one is determined by the balance between the speed of convection and the speed of thermal heat transfer.
So my understanding of the situation at the moment is that we have two extremum states between where the actual temperature profile lies. The first state is convectively stable state (no convection) which is achieved if thermal conductivity is zero, and the second state is isothermal, which requires thermal conductivity to be infinity (which is ofcourse impossible as well as things can’t really move faster than the light, at least in this context).
I must admit something seems terribly wrong with this line of logic at the moment, so I would very much appreciate where I’ve gotten lost.”
Cheers