Scroll ahead to 2:35 to hear “What an A**hole”.
Whether you agree or disagree with Andrew Watson hearing this live is a hoot!
Hat tip: DC Republican Examiner
231 thoughts on “Morano called A**bomb on Climate Gate Show.”
Comments are closed.
Scroll ahead to 2:35 to hear “What an A**hole”.
Whether you agree or disagree with Andrew Watson hearing this live is a hoot!
Hat tip: DC Republican Examiner
Comments are closed.
I hate these shows where each side gets 2 minutes. I also hate that the two sides are always “believes in climate change” and “doesn’t believe in climate change.” Completely ignores those of us that think that climate change is happening but (1) some of the claims appear exaggerated and (2) there are significant holes in our knowledge that we need to remedy before making trillion dollar policy decisions.
I have a new hero.
The science is paramount with honesty, openess and dialogue.
Let’s ignore that several of the most influential scientists that I agree with have totally ignored these necessary ingredients. And, by the way, the guy yelling because they have corrupted the science is an A*******.
Perfect hero for Boris AND Bugs!!
Is it better to have an asshole as your hero? Think about it.
Also, aren’t you a creationist? Please don’t talk about corrupting science, okay? Thanks.
Ken–
I agree that the news shows where the host seems to have found two people with the most extreme views possible ignore the vast majority of opinion which is more nuanced.
Boris,
yes I am a Creationist whatever that means in relation to Climate Science. you would need to tell me you definition for us to be sure. There are many definitions for Denier, Sceptic, Warmer, Creationist… In fact, I am a Young Earth Creationist. Do YOU believe in anything besides AGW??
I guess you never check into the beliefs of many great scientists through history. Even in modern times when everyone KNOWS the Big Bang is the Consensus and Evolution is Consensus, and AGW is Consensus there are Creationists doing good science.
Then there are the guys being supported by the man calling names. Funny how Leftists seem to be the ones pulling out insults, profanity, ad homs, and threatening violence at a much higher rate than us evil, ignorant Creationists. What do they say about using personal attacks instead of logic and facts??
Boris,
who do you think I have as hero?? Marc Morano??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I liked Morano more before I saw this video, but Watson really lost it. He confirmed all of the negative stereotypes I had about the UEA / CRU crowd. It was embarrassing to watch him.
Daryl M–
Agreed on both counts. If Morano is going to appear on tv, he might do well to find an image consultant to teach him how to be assertive without appearing way to overbearing. (Some people on tv can do this. It’s a skill.)
Watson also needs an image consultant. He needs to learn how to say things in a reasonably concise manner and avoid going on and on and on and on before finally getting to some point. (Some faculty members get so used to captive audiences and lose the skill of getting to the point.)
Of course, Watson ending with the a**hole bomb was pure icing. I’ve watched this three times, and the more I watch, the more it looks like he knew the tapes were rolling!!!
“Daryl M (Comment#26382)
December 5th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I liked Morano more before I saw this video, but Watson really lost it. He confirmed all of the negative stereotypes I had about the UEA / CRU crowd. It was embarrassing to watch him.”
Watson came off well, and demonstrated entirely what a medai war will always be lost to the likes of Morano. He is the same every time I watch him, and he is an a****. Watson stuck to the facts, which wont’ get you anywhere.
bugs,
” Watson stuck to the facts, which wont’ get you anywhere.”
especially when those “facts” contradict reality!!
nothing wrong with the science
character assasination
“especially when those “facts†contradict reality!! ”
What would they be?
He confirmed all of the negative stereotypes I had about the UEA / CRU crowd.
i think this is the most revealing statement that i have seen in a long time.
and the stolen e-mails also confirmed the negative stereotypes that you had about them?
could we please stick to the facts and to terms used in their standard meaning?
the publishing of the stolen mail is character assassination.
calling someone an a****** is NOT ad hom.
sod,
Publishing the leaked emails is not character assassination, it’s more like assisted suicide.
why don t you let us take a look at your e-mails over the last 10 years?
wouldn t someone be able to easily compile a selection, that would very much assassinate your character?
most of us would at best look boring, if someone could read what we wrote over such a long time. pretty few of us would look really smart and nice.
i assume that “sceptics”, who also always only write perfect computer code, would fair much better, than the average Joe. (or even worse those corrupted climate scientists)
Sod,
CRU directives require their employees to write all mails in a professional manner since all mails can be the subject of FOI.
Phil jones commited character suicide. Who ever published the mails was merely assisting him. more of a euthenasia
I love metaphors.
sod nobody claims to write perfect code. thats why the professional software people here keep clamoring for I V&V. duh.
“Phil jones commited character suicide. Who ever published the mails was merely assisting him. more of a euthenasia”
He didn’t. Given the number of emails, “hide the decline” is the apparently the best, when the divergence problem was always discussed as a problem. The problem is the seething demand for blood out there. Reminds me of “1984” and the crowds baying at Goldstein.
“steven mosher (Comment#26413) December 6th, 2009 at 3:10 am
sod nobody claims to write perfect code. thats why the professional software people here keep clamoring for I V&V. duh.”
The scientists go one better, and completely build independent systems, this ‘audit’ scam is not really about auditing. If it was, it would telling us all about what is right about the IPCC report as well.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/explained5.html
Three completely independent research centres, completely independent code and databases, come to remarkably similar results.
Lucia I don’t know if you have been watching the data analysis (programs etc) this is where its really devastating (much worse than the emails).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/
So, CRU, GISS and NCDC are the only ones calculating GMST? What about the satellites?
The thing about CRU and the e-mails which appear to have been leaked by a whistle-blower, is that they confirm that the Hockey-stick is rubbish; with the HS refuted it really doesn’t matter what is happening with modern temperature trends because unless they are exceptional AGW is junk; AGW relies on a relatively flat temperature history up until 1950 which the HS had provided; with that gone so to is AGW.
That’s great, cohenite – all it needed was a couple of emails and now radiative physics is debunked!
Simon,
Nobody disputes radiative physics.
The issue is attribution – i.e. how much of the recent rise can be attributed to CO2. If natural variations are larger than expected then that means some portion – perhaps most – of the recent rise could be attributed to some unknown mechanism. This would mean that effect of CO2 would likely me much less than currently claimed.
Simon Evans (Comment#26431) Your version of radiative physics was debunked 100 years ago: http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml
Raven,
Well, if we agree on radiative physics then a given increase in GHGs will necessarily give rise to a given forcing. That would be true entirely regardless of whatever natural variation was afoot. So, it might be argued that unknown mechanisms of warming/cooling are at play, but even if there are such unknowns they don’t remove the fact of the GHG forcing. Actually, if you attribute most of the recent rise to natural variation then you’re left with the expectation of the GHG rise being still in the pipeline!
To gainsay the expectation of positive feedbacks also calls for positing unknowns – or at least unfigured/unestablished – negative feedbacks to counteract.
Of course, there may be a ‘Factor X’ at work. I see no good reason to presume that is more likely than that it is not. Why do you think so? How would you explain the climatic changes over ice age cycles, for example, without the involvement of positive feedbacks?
MarkR – great link!
Simon,
The radiative physics only allows us to estimate to no-feedback forcing for GHG which is too small to worry about.
The trouble is we don’t have a clue what the feedbacks for GHG forcings are. We can guess but without the ability to conduct experiments in the real world we have nothing but guesses.
If other effects contributed to the recent rise then it most likely follows that the total feedback for GHGs is smaller than thought and there is no ‘warming in the pipeline’. In fact, the lack of warming in the oceans is pretty good evidence that there is no warming in the pipeline and GHG sensitivity is low because the same radiative physics says the energy must be going somewhere and if it is not in the air it must be in the ocean.
There are plently of things that provide positive feedback during the ice ages that can explain the rapid transitions (ice albedo, vegetation) and these are more plausible because thet are naturally limiting (i.e. all the ice eventually melts). Of course, we have no data so people can cook up whatever estimates they want and assign a high sensitivity to GHGs but that does not mean the estimates have any connection to reality.
For those that can’t follow a link: “The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909,…”
http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml
Raven,
The radiative physics only allows us to estimate to no-feedback forcing for GHG which is too small to worry about.
Well, let’s put aside for now whether or not we think a no-feeedback response to potential GHG levels by the end of the century is too small to worry about. I think there would be consequences we should consider from that alone, but this isn’t the main point.
The trouble is we don’t have a clue what the feedbacks for GHG forcings. We can guess but without the ability to conduct experiments in the real world we have nothing but guesses.
No, it is not just guesses. The guess is that there will be negative feedbacks to counteract the positive. WV feedback is clearly theorised, and there is strong evidence of it from satellite records, summarised here:
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf
If natural effects contributed to the recent rise then it most likely follows that the total feedback for GHGs is smaller than thought and there is no ‘warming in the pipeline’.
Well, ‘if’, then maybe. Show some evidence. You may not think much of what I’ve linked to above – perhaps you think the satellite record is too short to be sure of long-term response – but it is evidence. What’s yours?
In fact, the lack of warming in the oceans is pretty good evidence that there is no warming in the pipeline and GHG sensitivity is low.
What lack of warming in the oceans? If the oceans haven’t warmed then how do you account for the continuing rise in sea level? Are you going to argue that’s all down to melting ice instead?
There are plently of things that provide positive feedback during the ice ages that can explain the rapid transitions (ice albedo, vegetation) and these are more plausible because thet are naturally limiting (i.e. all the ice eventually melts). Of course, we have no data so people can cook up whatever estimates they want and assign a high sensitivity to GHGs but that does not mean the estimates have any connection to reality.
Of course we have data! We know sea levels, from which we can derive ice albedo. And we know CO2 levels. You seem to assume, quite wrongly, that all things are ‘unknown’. I suppose you can take any point of view if you really believe that.
MarkR,
We can follow a link. The article is ridiculous. If you want to know why, go ask Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen. Or heck, even Anthony Watts.
Simon Evans,
WV feedback has mixed support. Sometimes it shows up as expected by the theory, others it does not. More importantly, cloud feedbacks are completely unknown and are potentially large enough to cancel the WV feedback.
Sea level has been rising about 4ft/century for the last 10,000 years so the fact that it continues to rise it not evidence of warming. The OHC from the Argos after being heavily adjusted still shows almost no warming.
The ice albedo effect is not so easily calculated because of the feedback from effects such as vegetation, ocean salinity or even clouds (because vegetation affects cloud formation). All of these calculations are guess work and that is why the IPCC range for CO2 sensitivity goes from 1.5 to 4.5.
In fact, a sensitivity of 1.5 would be within the IPCC raneg and give us less than 1.5 degC of warming even if we went to 800ppm over the next century. A 1.5 degC rise is nothing to worry about even by the IPCC’s own logic.
Raven,
Of course there are uncertainties – mostly in clouds, which accounts for most of the range in IPCC projections – and of course we have to consider them. But your default seems to be the bottom of that range, and you haven’t told me what evidence you have to support that. If my default was the top of the range, would you not expect me to argue why? You seem to be suggesting that uncertainty implies that the least effect is the most likely. Why?
Sea level has been rising about 4ft/century for the last 10,000 years so the fact that it continues to rise it not evidence of warming.
We can estimate the gain from ice melting and the remainder is theremal expansion. What else can it be? Anyway, where do you get your strange statement of 4ft/century for the last 10k years from? Sea level is understood to have stabilised some 2 to 3 thousand years ago, before rising again in the late 19th century. Your figures would have put the sea level some 80ft lower at the time of Christ!
A 1.5 degC rise is nothing to worry about even by the IPCC’s own logic.
That’s your belief, not the IPCC’s. But even if so, please tell me what evidence you have to suggest that low end sinsitivity is more likely than high end (I’d suggest 3C as having the highests probability, of course).
“What do they say about using personal attacks instead of logic and facts??”
I was joking with my “hero” comment, obviously. Although is Morano’s case I would argue it IS a fact. 🙂
On the creationist angle, most people who have studied science would agree that creationists are liberal with the scientific method. So its kind of ironic that you are allied with the skeptic/denialist side. Still possible youa re right, though. I just like irnoy.
I didn’t mean to insult your beliefs, though. (This is sincere though it may come off as jerky on the internet.)
cohenite (Comment#26429) December 6th, 2009 at 6:55 am
“So, CRU, GISS and NCDC are the only ones calculating GMST? What about the satellites?”
The satellites calculate the lower troposphere, the next door neighbor of the surface.
Yeah Bugs, that’s true, AMSU measures the near surface, so what?
Simon; no warming in the pipeline;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10/plot/uah/from:1994/to:2010/scale:0.1/mean:10
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/
Basically OHC is not increasing; the rate of sea level rise is decreasing; Lindzen and Choi have found an increase in TOA outgoing LW; Paltridge, Arking and Pook have found SH is decreasing and optical depth has basically not moved in 60 years. And Simon you may disparage the Wood experiment but please elighten me, how does extra CO2 thermalise the Earth?
Simon Evans (Comment#26442) I’m guessing you don’t have a proper answer to the experiment that shows trapping IR emitted from the surface has zero effect on atmospheric temperature. That’s usually the case when someone says the answer is “over there somewhere else”.
MarkR (Comment#26496)
You’re guessing wrong, Mark – I’m simply not going to take the time to explain the atmospheric greenhouse effect and how it differs from air trapped inside a glass greenhouse where convective cooling is prevented. You could start here if you want to – it has a section on the distinction (and refers to Wood 1909) –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
IR isn’t really trapped, btw – it’s absorbed and re-emitted. But really, if you think that GHGs have no effect then I doubt there’s anything I can say to persuade you otherwise.
Simon Evans (Comment#26499) I make no comment on Greenhouse Gasses generally, but specifically, your AGW theory says say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping (or absorbing and re-emitting)IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe. Do you have an experiment to show otherwise?
Mark, John Tyndall demonstrated it experimentally in the 1850s –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work
“IR isn’t really trapped, btw – it’s absorbed and re-emitted. But really, if you think that GHGs have no effect then I doubt there’s anything I can say to persuade you otherwise.”
Maybe he could ask Lucia?
Simon Evans (Comment#26502) Your Wikipedia ref says “Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation.”
But Wood has shown by experiment that trapping IR in an atmosphere has no effect on the atmospheric temperature, therefor whatever CO2 does with IR is irrelevent.
Do you have an experiment which says otherwise?
Sod,
“could we please stick to the facts and to terms used in their standard meaning?
the publishing of the stolen mail is character assassination.
calling someone an a****** is NOT ad hom.”
“Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person’s reputation. It may involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.” (Wikipedia)
Publishing the emails with no commentary was manipulation or exaggeration in what way??
Actually, we all know people we think are A******. When we hear someone called an A******* we tend to think of those peoples qualities rather than the specifics of the person currently being called the name. Unless the apellation is correct, it can be both character assasination AND ad hom!!!!
MarkR,
If you want to deny radiative physics can I gently suggest that you find another place to do it. I’m going to resist labeling your position, but I’m just suggesting that you won’t get much constructive interaction here, except perhaps from people kind enough to point you at some links where you can improve your understanding. You could also go to RC and get the basics over there.
In fact, I am a Young Earth Creationist. Do YOU believe in anything besides AGW??
Well, thanks for that. Kinda puts everything in perspective.
bugs,
“Three completely independent research centres, completely independent code and databases, come to remarkably similar results.”
If everyone is so darned independent, why are the NZ climate types claiming they only do the same adjustments as everyone else??
By the way, they all get their data from the same sources also. Not really independent at all, AND CAN’T BE unless they want a fight with the IPCC and other Instutional Climate Community scientists and Administrators.
Remember that “Peer Reviewed Literature??” Isn’t this where the LAW of Adjustments is set for the Community?? That is, Hansen or Jones or whomever writes a paper about how to handle site moves and everyone discusses it and decides whether they will use it or not. Eventually a paper will become the GOLD Standard for the particular issue and everyone goes along with it. Eventually siting, UHI, instrument change and everything else of import has been set by the Consensus through Peer Reviewed Papers or discussion within the community.
Sorry about those guys who didn’t get their papers published. They just weren’t good enough!!
So bugs, exactly how independent is all this again??
Simon Evans,
“IR isn’t really trapped, btw – it’s absorbed and re-emitted. But really, if you think that GHGs have no effect then I doubt there’s anything I can say to persuade you otherwise”
So, if it is absorbed and reemitted there is not net increase in the energy content of the GHG. If it eventaully makes its wat to TOA there is no net increase in energy in the atmosphere.
So just how does Radiation Physics tell us that GHG’s are going to heat the atmosphere??
steven mosher (Comment#26507) Steve, unless you’ve got an experiment which shows Wood was wrong, you’ve only got an opinion. And it was the others earlier on this thread who brought up the hand waving “it was radiative physics what done it”, but Wood’s experiment shows that trapping IR makes no difference to atmospheric temperature, therefor the CO2 IR AGW theory is wrong. Please show me an experiment that proves Wood was wrong.
greenaway,
“In fact, I am a Young Earth Creationist. Do YOU believe in anything besides AGW??
Well, thanks for that. Kinda puts everything in perspective.”
Are you attempting to imply that there is something in my religion that causes me to distort the facts I try to deal with?? What would that be??
Are you also implying that you allow your beliefs to distort your view of science so expect this in others?? If not, why should I??
Bugs:
Three completely independent research centres, completely independent code and databases, come to remarkably similar results.
1. They are not completely independent. Or rather, that independence is something to be demonstrated not asserted. You do this by looking at the code.
2. The database ( GHCN ) is largely SHARED. there are potential issues with the quality of data in that database. For example the US portion relies on adjustments made in version 2 by Menne. When Anthony visited Karl and Menne at ashville I asked him to request the adjustment code. Probably need to follow up on that in due course.
3. “remarkably similar” what a lovely arm wave. If you look at the Lukewarmer position you will see that it hinges on nailing down the historical record with more transparency than we currently have. especially in regards to UHI. So, we might be looking at .1C to .15C contamination in the land record. In SST the big issue is the decline in the post WWII era. You’ll find that this has been my consistent position since I first actually ran some analysis on the US data.
So you have 3 roughly independent computational approaches ( if you take the papers at their word) working off one roughly similar database, using 3 different approaches for handling UHI, yielding 3 slightly different indexs.
Sounds like we should take steve McIntyre’s suggestion: turn the index over to a standards body and produce 1 index. Open and free. It really is a daunting task done right. Its a lot of bottoms up science. Tedious detail oriented work. Its work for an accountant type of science.
MarkR,
I’ll have one more go, though I agree with Steven Mosher’s comment.
Wood was not wrong, but the conclusion drawn in the article you linked to is wrong. Wood showed that the heating in a glass cold frame was overwhelmingly the result of restricting convective cooling, and thus that IR absorption was of virtually no significance in slowing the cooling in a real greenhouse. He did not demonstrate anything about GHGs in the atmosphere, where the addition of further CO2, for example, is most significant at higher levels where water vapour is much closer to zero.
There’s a pretty good rundown here of the history of developing understanding:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
HTH, but I probably won’t say on more on this for now.
Are you attempting to imply that there is something in my religion that causes me to distort the facts I try to deal with?? What would that be??
Are you also implying that you allow your beliefs to distort your view of science so expect this in others?? If not, why should I??
No, I’m simply thanking you for letting me know. Now, when you post, I’ll know what to do. You see, if you can allow your religious beliefs to reject certain sciences — evolutionary biology and geology — why not global warming as well? Like I say, now I know what to do when you post. 🙂 Thanks!
MarkR and others.
I will tell you what I tell everyone else. Present me with Woods data and his calculations. Then we can assess his claims. Until then all you have is words on a page.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
And not that many words at that.
You ask for an experiment to prove Woods was wrong. You get the burden of proof wrong. Woods drew conclusions beyond the scope of his experiment as Simon has pointed out and as Stoat W. Connelly points out. Like Simon that’s all I have to say on the matter.
The deniers could have made no better choice for a spokesman or back-room architect than Morano. Swift Boating is quite the tactic. He’ll be high on my list of important characters in this whole matter.
I agree with Watson.
Australian Royal Commission into Climate Change
Quote;
I have proposed a Royal Commission to investigate the science behind
climate change and whether or not man made carbon dioxide emissions
are responsible, and the Productivity Commission to look into the
economics of an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction
scheme.
Steve Fielding
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/
steven mosher (Comment#26523) No. Wood published his experiment in the Philosophical magazine. If you want to challenge the data, look it up. No one has done an experiment that proves him wrong, and as the Warmers are proposing spending Trillions on a theory, I would suggest that the burden of proof is most definitely on them.
I don’t know why you would seek the opinion of Mr Connolley as an independent arbiter, and he may not agree with Wood that “This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.” But that would again just be Connolley’s opinion.
I’d like to see an experiment showing otherwise. You don’t have one do you?
“He’ll be high on my list of important characters in this whole matter.”
greenaway,
Are you making an Enemies List? It’s a popular thing to do among leftists, so I am curious.
Andrew
No, actually. List of notable players.
And FYI, politically, I’m a fiscal conservative, social liberal.
greenaway,
I see. I made a Christmas List. 😉
Andrew
steven mosher (Comment#26523)
Like Simon that’s all I have to say on the matter.
I have more. Greenhouses are warmed by IR blocking, even if it isn’t the biggest effect. In fact, it’s part of routine parctical greenhouse economics. This pamphlet describes IR-opaque plastic covering materials which, they say, can reduce heating costs by up to 20%. They are on the market, and someone is presumably buying them, though they cost more.
Personally I found both Watson and Morano to be ill equipped to discuss the actual matters at hand in the emails. Watson’s attempt to characterize this as “character assasination” was laughable. They shot themselves in the foot. That meme has no legs whatsoever. morons. And Moronic is the worst spokesperson for the denialists, or actually a good one from my perspective. The sad thing is that the Lukewarmer voice doesnt get represented in these things. In a nutshell, this is very like the Piltdown Mann episode. ( except there is no actual fraud or hoax) So, greenway you want a historical precedent for how science gets tangled up in politics and religion and the social forces at play, and tribalism, and such.. look at Piltdown. oh ya, give me credit in your dissertation.
Nick Stokes (Comment#26531) Not really a scientific experiment.
greenaway
He’s not exactly back room, is he?
greenaway (Comment#26529)
December 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
In my experience, that usually means a Democrat who wants to raise someone elses taxes in order to pay for the social programs they want to expand.
And greenaway, as long as were drawing insight from issues other than climate science in order to cubbyhole others, might I ask what your stance is on things like genetically modified crops, alternative medicine, animal experimentation, nuclear energy and the careful use of DDT to control malaria.
All of those areas have a “consensus of scientists” on one side, and I’m wondering if you’re with the “consensus” on each and every one of them.
Steven Mosher, I’m still cringing when I read those emails. But from the point of view of someone doing a policy review or analysis, this is ripe. The leakers/hackers/illegal releasers — whatever — clearly say this as a political move and I am sure the fact that these were released in advance of Copenhagen is no accident. I did read somewhere on another blog that we do not have all the emails and code — we have only the ones that appear discreditable. I’d like to be privy to all of Jones’ emails and documents, not just the ones the leaker/hacker/illegal releaser selected as I expect those are meant to lead us readers to a particular set of conclusions — which they do quite well.
Has anyone actually seen a demonstration or a calculation of the radiation physics?
Modtran produces some estimates but I have never seen any actual calculations using quantum physics or the Stefan Boltzmann or other physics formulae. (other than Arrhenius who didn’t know there was such a thing as a photon – Hansen produced some estimates and Myhre as well but they don’t follow the standard physics formulae).
I’d like to see it because I can still be convinced of 3.0C per doubling with some kind of outline that can be tested. Until I do, I am going to stay with the empirical evidence which shows the value is only 0.8C to 1.5C.
The just trust us, the science is settled, argument certainly does not fly anymore because the emails showed we should no longer implicitly trust the scientists who made these statements before. Just trust the radiation physics argument is in the same boat without a better demonstration.
JohnM
Oh? I’m also a fiscal conservative. I’m not for raising taxes for social programs. I’m for keeping the government’s nose out of people’s private lives, strong protection for individual liberties, recognizing same sex marriage, but keeping taxes low and the number of government funded programs rather limited.
I sometimes vote for Democrats and sometimes vote for Republicans; the choice depends on the position of the individual candidate. (Some Republican’s want the government to intrude too much into private lives– as do some Democrats– but on different issues. Many Democrats want to raise taxes– but so do some Republicans; they just make different spending choices.
In my experience, that usually means a Democrat who wants to raise someone elses taxes in order to pay for the social programs they want to expand.
As opposed to a Republican who cuts taxes and raises spending — which I believe have been the only kind around lately.
No, it’s the kind of person from either party or no party who believes you don’t spend it if you ain’t got it and that what happens between consenting adults is none of the government’s gd business.
Greenaway, as long as were drawing insight from issues other than climate science in order to cubbyhole others, might I ask what your stance is on things like:
1) genetically modified crops
I eat them every day and think that development of them is inevitable but there are some problems I’ve read about and no guarantees that problems can’t arise due things like gene transfer. Caution is advisable, thorough safety reviews and strict regulation to ensure public safety.
2) alternative medicine
Use some of it every day and some of it is a crock. If there is no regulation of the industry, there is no way to know if cheap Chinese “fillers” like melamine might not get used instead of other more expensive ones, let alone lead and other toxins.
3) animal experimentation
OK where necessary but alternatives are a good idea where possible.
4) nuclear energy
The future
5) the careful use of DDT to control malaria.
Mosquito nets with DDT on them save lives.
All of those areas have a “consensus of scientists†on one side, and I’m wondering if you’re with the “consensus†on each and every one of them.
Hey, I don’t know the consensus on any of them. Those are just my opinions. But thanks for asking.
” Just trust the radiation physics argument is in the same boat without a better demonstration.”
They are coming out of the woodwork now.
greenaway-
This theory can’t be quite right.
There was certainly editing, but it didn’t merely remove emails that were not discreditable. There are tons of neutral boring emails in the set.
The set is missing the sorts of really personal emails one might expect to see in almost anyone’s in box. Who doesn’t occasionally get an email from their spouse saying: “Honey, could you pick up some milk on the way home from work?” Or, for example, I sent Jim the email about Popsie Wopsie to Jim’s work email. Jim’s in Boston, and he almost never checks the personal one, so I sent it to the email he checks.
Since the thousands of emails really don’t have any of these emails that are absolutely, positively entirely personal, I think they must have been filtered. ( Some mention some personal stuff when that’s mixed in with work stuff. For example, if someone write “Hi, Glad to read Mary and the kids are doing fine! Now about that paper we’re working on… blah, blah blah… ” That sort of thing seemed to stay in– provided some “work” type content was included in the email.
So– the set does contain plenty of “not discreditable” stuff. But it’s also clearly filtered in some way.
JohnM,
“And FYI, politically, I’m a fiscal conservative, social liberal.”
Like Governor Schwarzenegger??
He’s not exactly back room, is he?
No, you’re right, he’s a frontman, but I suspect he would be sly in the backroom as well — a good advisor I would think for those inclined to his politics.
greenaway,
and that what happens between consenting adults is none of the government’s gd business.
Cool! That means I ought to be able to use any type of lightbulb or TV I want to!
And it looks like your a luke-frankenfooder-quacker-dog killer-nuker-pesticider!
Hey, luke-nuker, that’s a keeper.
The set is missing the sorts of really personal emails one might expect to see in almost anyone’s in box. Who doesn’t occasionally get an email from their spouse saying: “Honey, could you pick up some milk on the way home from work?†Or, for example, I sent Jim the email about Popsie Wopsie to Jim’s work email. Jim’s in Boston, and he almost never checks the personal one, so I sent it to the email he checks.
I think the set is also missing their personal and professional views on the threat they perceive is posed by global warming. I assume they do believe it is a threat and they believe that their research shows that. I don’t think they are hoaxers.
greenaway–
As a political strategist, the amoral Dick Morris would outflank Morano anyday. (Well.. until he embarrasses the president by getting caught letting prostitutes listen in on calls to the President. Isn’t that what finally severed the tie between Clinton and Morris?)
Cool! That means I ought to be able to buy any type of lightbulb or TV I want to!
Of course, I mean consenting adults in the bedroom. Outside of it is a different story. 😀
And it looks like your a luke-frankenfooder-quacker-dog killer-nuker-pesticider!
Hey, luke-nuker, that’s a keeper.
I’m just generally lukewarm I guess.
greenaway–
That’s not in there, but I doubt if they actually wrote each other many of these.
I agree that they believe AGW is a threat and that the research shows that and that they are not intending a hoax. I lean toward confirmation bias, and tribalism. The two together results in deviating from some conventional standards in science resulting in a tendency to over sell a bit and misrepresent uncertainties. I also think they fooled themselves as much as anyone else.
Despite that, I doubt if they exchanged many emails explaining their views on all the threats they see in AGW to each other. I’m trying to figure out how to explain why I think they would not have, but I would have been surprised if they had exchanged many of these.
greenaway (Comment#26537),
I agree that the emails were carefully selected. Whoever selected them excluded all the personal stuff (no arguments with the spouse, no comments about dinner plans). Everything was related to work. Whoever made the selection, it was someone who has a) really unhappy with the content of the emails, and b) appeared to know where to find the skeletons. That is why I think it was almost certainly an insider/whistle-blower.
The selected emails no doubt were designed to show jones (and others) in a poor light… and they do! But I think the point is that these emails are shocking to many because they show just how badly many of these folks behaved when they thought it was off the record. These guys should be ashamed of themselves. The really damning issue is not just the emails, but that the whole crew still think everything that when on was perfectly OK.
It wasn’t. Most of them ought to be asked to find other career opportunities.
lucia (Comment#26542)
December 6th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Good for you!
But I’m just recounting my personal experiences, usually at the cafeteria lunch table.
I do remember the one poor soul though, whose idea of “fiscal conservatism-social liberalism” on welfare spending went something like this.
“I’m all for spending on social programs to help poor people, but they can’t just keep cranking out those kids. After two of ’em, they should be sterillized.”
Bill Illis (Comment#26539) December 6th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“Has anyone actually seen a demonstration or a calculation of the radiation physics?
Modtran produces some estimates but I have never seen any actual calculations using quantum physics or the Stefan Boltzmann or other physics formulae. ”
Better than that Bill I actually used Modtran. It’s a standard Model used in doing IR designs for example so the proof is in the pudding. It works. You can get the code if you like. Way back when I worked with Modtran. Made things that go boom.
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7915
Here is other background reading for kicks
http://www.weatherchaos.umd.edu/class…/Hudson_Intro_rad_trans.ppt
I’m trying to figure out how to explain why I think they would not have, but I would have been surprised if they had exchanged many of these.
I work in a field where actions/inactions can lead to death and disability so there are some pretty tricky situations come up. My colleagues and I discuss quite often the problems we see in our work and the consequences and what we think might result. Of course, we are smart enough to keep it verbal rather than write it in our work emails. 😀 But from the looks of it, this crew doesn’t seem to have figured that one out. Naive? Unused to the idea that their work is politically charged? Just plain stupid? I haven’t decided.
I’m not certain of the meaning of the emails I’ve read and am withholding judgement other than to say they really really shot themselves in their own feet. I’m tempted to say just plain stupid. Even if an investigation is to show they did no wrong in a legal sense, they have seriously discredited themselves and their work.
“2. The database ( GHCN ) is largely SHARED. there are potential issues with the quality of data in that database. For example the US portion relies on adjustments made in version 2 by Menne. When Anthony visited Karl and Menne at ashville I asked him to request the adjustment code. Probably need to follow up on that in due course.”
There is only one planet. There are are only the one set of original records, it is problematic. That is not anyone’s choice, that is just one of the contraints forced upon them.
“Sounds like we should take steve McIntyre’s suggestion: turn the index over to a standards body and produce 1 index. Open and free. It really is a daunting task done right. Its a lot of bottoms up science. Tedious detail oriented work. Its work for an accountant type of science.”
That is a non scientific approach. Then you open up the record to undetected systemic errors. Science has a better, inbuilt auditing system, recreating as much as possible the whole process, which is what has already been done with the temperature record. A 0.15C error over a century will be of no consequence, so I don’t know why so much is made of it. The observations of ice confirm it is really warming, and it is really changing environments.
I still think the Harry file has been doctored — maybe Harry is the leaker! I’d like to know from other data analysts if they write documents like that at their workplace. If one of our data techs complained in writing like that about the code created by one of our researchers, they’d get a reprimand for sure and told to clean it up. Where I work, if you have problems with the work of a colleague, there are avenues for raising it that are considered professional rather than petty. But it seems to me that the way things were run suggests there wasn’t a great deal of professionalism in the organization, or at least, there was a great deal of naiveté and sloppiness.
bugs,
Which should mean that alarmists should stop yapping about “independently” confirmed results and admit that there are serious issues with the surface record and they have been overstating the certainty associated with the measurements.
Boris,
“I was joking with my “hero†comment, obviously. Although is Morano’s case I would argue it IS a fact.
On the creationist angle, most people who have studied science would agree that creationists are liberal with the scientific method. So its kind of ironic that you are allied with the skeptic/denialist side. Still possible youa re right, though. I just like irnoy.”
Apologies for misunderstanding your comment. I think Morano was an A** in the video also. Just don’t think it’s appropriate to say it on video if you are attempting to be serious. I probably shouldn’t be saying it on the Net!!
I don’t know many scientists personally, religious or not, so can’t say anything about whether Christians in science tend to be liberal, conservative, young earth… We all have to answer for our own beliefs and actions.
WRT filtering.
There are mails that dont belong. I think the collection is the result of a harvesting program that looked for certain things. I have a theory that I wont share. In anycase the signal to noise is EXTREMELY high which suggests one of two things:
1. Human intervention ( filtering with a backend human screen)
2. An overconstrained filter with no backend screen)
I prefer #2.
Bugs, the global temperature records would seem to be beyond the realm of academia or research institutes and established means of assessing quality in those realms. It would seem to be something of broader value and interest and in need of a more thorough approach to quality control, especially if nations are relying on the findings to craft policy.
Not that they can’t have their own records, but if they are going to publish scientific research on it, they should be faced with the very same requirements of all science — replicability. If they can’t replicate their own work, how could anyone else? If their work is not replicable, how can they claim any confidence in it and reliability for it?
This is why we need a world government so that we can ensure that the record is pure and open and accessible.
.
.
.
HAHAHA!
Gotcha.
Bugs
“That is a non scientific approach. Then you open up the record to undetected systemic errors. ”
The record is not a scientific problem. Its an accounting problem that sometimes requires scientific input. The record isnt opened up to undetected systematic errors. Let me give you ONE simple example. In GISSTEMP Hansen uses a variable called “nightlights” to judge whether a site is RURAL or Urban. hansen likes satillite data. He can look at the bright pixels and call that bright pixel URBAN. If you actually audit nightlights as I did and actually look at some of the “bright lights” places, you will see that some of them are not urban. WTF? hansen uses nightlights, ACTUALLY a 1995 satillite image to judge the population and urbanity of a site. You see that is quick and dirty. is it “scientific? A more mundane accounting is to actually visit the site TODAY, and make an on the ground assessment.
“Science has a better, inbuilt auditing system, recreating as much as possible the whole process, which is what has already been done with the temperature record. A 0.15C error over a century will be of no consequence, so I don’t know why so much is made of it. ”
the impact of .15C error over a century would be a nice sensitivity study. You really dont get the Lukewarmer and McIntyre ethic do you?
“The observations of ice confirm it is really warming, and it is really changing environments.”
Bugs: you win my “RUN FOR THE ICE” award. I first labelled this tactic ( run for the ice ) back in 2007 on the 1934 thread over at RC. When people attack the land record, you run for the ice. That is you run for a record that is SHORTER and more slippery than the one under defense. Congratulations, you’ve tactically retreated to the slippery slope.
Does the ice record support the land record, yes. Is it a tactically sound place to make your defense? no. Try another chess piece.
1. Human intervention ( filtering with a backend human screen)
2. An overconstrained filter with no backend screen)
I prefer #2.
Any particular reason or does it just suit your conclusions better?
I think either is possible, but because I don’t see much of the kind of comment I mentioned above, I suspect it was number 1. If these guys are dumb enough to write each other about deleting emails and avoiding FOIs, they must think that their research is seriously under threat by the other side and that it proves their case about the threat of global warming. I see none of that, which makes me think the leaker/hacker/whatever was very selective.
Of course, it’s just speculation based on nothing. Nor are we likely to be able to decide which is correct.
greenaway (Comment#26566) December 6th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
haha. you obviously see how the threads of the arguments lead to all sorts of funny conclusions.
greenaway (Comment#26561) December 6th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
“I still think the Harry file has been doctored — maybe Harry is the leaker! I’d like to know from other data analysts if they write documents like that at their workplace. If one of our data techs complained in writing like that about the code created by one of our researchers, they’d get a reprimand for sure and told to clean it up. Where I work, if you have problems with the work of a colleague, there are avenues for raising it that are considered professional rather than petty.”
Greenaway, the comments in the harry text are totally normal for research code. One of the clashes in culture you may not see here but which we have discussed for the last two years is the clash between research code ( code written by scientists) and code written by engineers for the workplace. I’m prejudiced in this since as an engineer I inherited reasearch code from NASA and it is quite an annoying sloppy mess. You see in the engineering world your code is not your code. There is no personal IP. it all belongs to the company or the customer. You have coding style guides. Everybody looks at your code.
In reasearch code you really dont plan on others using your code. you code however the hell you want. You didnt take classes for the most part. you dont comment liberally. you dont use SVN. when other guys are forced to clean up your code those guys write nasty shit about your code. Since the code isnt “deliverable” there is no customer driven style guide. When gavin had ModelE posted we found similar kinds of comments. It doesnt mean the code is wrong or climate science is wrong. Its just a different culture. After gavin Posted ModelE and we found comments like this he had people o through and clean the comments up, making them more professional
“But it seems to me that the way things were run suggests there wasn’t a great deal of professionalism in the organization, or at least, there was a great deal of naiveté and sloppiness.”
Yes. They dont have separate QA departments. they dont do IV&V. they dont ( some dont) have style guides. No unit test, no integration test. Its RESEARCH CODE not production code.
greenaway,
“No, I’m simply thanking you for letting me know. Now, when you post, I’ll know what to do. You see, if you can allow your religious beliefs to reject certain sciences — evolutionary biology and geology — why not global warming as well? Like I say, now I know what to do when you post. Thanks!”
Your ASSumptions are amazing. Exactly where do you see me rejecting ANY science soley due to my Religious beliefs??
Again, is that how you operate?? Reject any science that interferes with your Belief in AGW???
Greenaway, the comments in the harry text are totally normal for research code. One of the clashes in culture you may not see here but which we have discussed for the last two years is the clash between research code ( code written by scientists) and code written by engineers for the workplace. I’m prejudiced in this since as an engineer I inherited reasearch code from NASA and it is quite an annoying sloppy mess. You see in the engineering world your code is not your code. There is no personal IP. it all belongs to the company or the customer. You have coding style guides. Everybody looks at your code.
Ok, that helps. I guess where I work there is an assumption that all documents are potentially actionable under FOI and so everything is done with an eye to that. Code is very clean with no comments of the sort I saw in the Harry file.
In reasearch code you really dont plan on others using your code. you code however the hell you want. You didnt take classes for the most part. you dont comment liberally. you dont use SVN. when other guys are forced to clean up your code those guys write nasty shit about your code. Since the code isnt “deliverable†there is no customer driven style guide.
Still doesn’t sound professional, but I have not worked in that kind of environment so what do I know? Just shocks me. Even if I inherited someone else’s mess, I’d think you grumbled out loud but not in print. Just the corporate culture I’m used to.
steven mosher,
“Woods drew conclusions beyond the scope of his experiment as Simon has pointed out and as Stoat W. Connelly points out. Like Simon that’s all I have to say on the matter.”
I have to agree with this.
Do you agree that claiming the temperature difference between a bare sphere at 255k and the earth at 288k as being solely due to GHG’s is a slight stretch also??
Nick Stokes,
” This pamphlet describes IR-opaque plastic covering materials which, they say, can reduce heating costs by up to 20%. They are on the market, and someone is presumably buying them, though they cost more”
That is very interesting. Doesn’t the opaque material also block most of the backradiation???
Your ASSumptions are amazing. Exactly where do you see me rejecting ANY science soley due to my Religious beliefs??
Again, is that how you operate?? Reject any science that interferes with your Belief in AGW???
Sorry — don’t mean to cause you to write so many question marks and all.
You’re a young Earther? You believe that God created the Earth and universe 6,000 years ago?
That would seem require one to reject a number of sciences out of hand, such as evolutionary biology, geology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, anthropology, and I’m sure there are others.
If God created the earth 6,000 years ago, all the science involved in those disciplines must be wrong.
I don’t see how you can hold both a belief in a young earth and many of the sciences which suggest a very old earth and universe.
But I suspect this is not the time or place for a debate about creationism.
greenaway (Comment#26537) December 6th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
“Steven Mosher, I’m still cringing when I read those emails. But from the point of view of someone doing a policy review or analysis, this is ripe. The leakers/hackers/illegal releasers — whatever — clearly say this as a political move and I am sure the fact that these were released in advance of Copenhagen is no accident. ”
The timing of the release probably had more to do with Steve mcIntyre’s FOIA appeal. His reject letter went out on nov 13th. Last mail is Nov 12. read that letter carefully. read mcIntyre’s reject notice carefully.
“I did read somewhere on another blog that we do not have all the emails and code — we have only the ones that appear discreditable. I’d like to be privy to all of Jones’ emails and documents, not just the ones the leaker/hacker/illegal releaser selected as I expect those are meant to lead us readers to a particular set of conclusions — which they do quite well.”
I’ve certainly speculated that there is another shoe to drop for a variety of reasons. The file is not perfect. not all the mails discredit. In fact Andrew revkin ( full disclosure hes a facebook buddy) comes out quite well. Bottomline Its hard to make ANY definitive statement about the hacker/leaker from the INTERNALS. from the EXTERNALS we know that the leaker/hacker used the Moniker FOIA. we also know that right after the last mail was written Mciintyres FOIA request was denied.
Also the hacker refered to “we” This simple attempt at indirection indicates a person acting alone. Just profiling hackers and whistleblowers.. tend to act alone so the reference to “we” is providing a transparent false trail.
kuhnkat,
“JohnM,
“And FYI, politically, I’m a fiscal conservative, social liberal.â€
Like Governor Schwarzenegger??”
OOOPS, that should have been greenaway!!!
greenaway,
” Swift Boating is quite the tactic. He’ll be high on my list of important characters in this whole matter.”
Swift Boating, you mean, using testimony from a majority of a persons associates and his own diary to debunk his LIES for a particular period of his life??
greenaway (Comment#26568) December 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
1. Human intervention ( filtering with a backend human screen)
2. An overconstrained filter with no backend screen)
I prefer #2.
Any particular reason or does it just suit your conclusions better?
Why I prefer #2. Just from an execution standpoint #2 is far easier to implement. I know how I would implement it. I think I could even reconstruct it to test my theory. Maybe later. Also there are some mails that a human screen would most certainly toss out. I’ve shifted ground on this. At first blush I was in camp #1. there is evidence of TWO distinct reworking of the files.
Again, is that how you operate?? Reject any science that interferes with your Belief in AGW???
I don’t reject any science although I may be skeptical of some of its findings. I don’t accept anything and everything that calls itself science nor am I uncritical of science. I’ve studied the history, logic, politics and sociology of science and have some perspective on it in a larger sense.
I don’t have a “belief” in AGW no matter how many ??? you put after it. I tend to look at the preponderance of the evidence because I am not qualified to judge the value of the individual works themselves.
When I read in my own discipline – medicine/health – I read with extra caution works that run counter to established science, withholding conclusions on the findings until further research is done and I do judge based on the methodology of the work, study design, etc.
I don’t think it is automatic that creationists can’t be good scientists, but I do wonder about young earthers. I think the big bang theory of the universe is very amenable to creationism.
greenaway
“Still doesn’t sound professional, but I have not worked in that kind of environment so what do I know? Just shocks me. Even if I inherited someone else’s mess, I’d think you grumbled out loud but not in print. Just the corporate culture I’m used to.”
Even within a corporation the guys who do reasearch code tend to be different animals. just sayin. Funny story, I once put a research code guy on a task with a production code guy. Fistfight. funny as hell. geeks in thunderdome.
“Swift Boating is quite the tactic”
Indeed. That’s how a group of Mean Right-Wing Conspirators derailed the presidential campaign of Superheroes John “Lurch” Kerry and his Prettyboy Sidekick Ambulance-Chasing Little Buddy, The Breck Girl.
Andrew
Swift Boating, you mean, using testimony from a majority of a persons associates and his own diary to debunk his LIES for a particular period of his life??
Frankly, from what I’ve read of the research, it seems the lies were all on the side of the Swift Boaters.
Your suggestions of filtering with and without human intervention makes me think you are suggesting they were intercepts.
Am I misinterpreting??
Are you actually suggesting only that whomever is responsible didn’t have a person read each e-mail? That the filtering after acquisition was automated which would suggest a fairly sophisticated software suite either way?
Even within a corporation the guys who do reasearch code tend to be different animals. just sayin. Funny story, I once put a research code guy on a task with a production code guy. Fistfight. funny as hell. geeks in thunderdome.
LOL. The images.
“Frankly, from what I’ve read of the research, it seems the lies were all on the side of the Swift Boaters.”
Yes. No Liberal/Democrat Politician Ever Lies. That’s what I’ve been told by trusted sources. …and neither do scientists that believe in AGW.
Oh wait… my headset is crackling… this just in… something about a hoax…
Andrew
they both hit like girls.
Simon Evans:
Debunk Lindzen for me. Related: Can you predict what Judith Curry is going to argue in her forthcoming essay?
.
Raven:
Re: heat must be in ocean or air. The heat may have escaped Earth’s atmosphere entirely. The planet is not in radiative equilibrium. And maybe it never is.
The timing of the release probably had more to do with Steve mcIntyre’s FOIA appeal. His reject letter went out on nov 13th. Last mail is Nov 12. read that letter carefully. read mcIntyre’s reject notice carefully.
That is very interesting indeed. So you’re thinking someone got a bit p-d off and decided to release a few emails and code? Hmm.
Still, I think we should see all the emails if we see some. FREE THE EMAILS!
they both hit like girls.
I was going to suggest “windmills” but I didn’t want to insult anyone. BTW, a lot of women now box and so that isn’t entirely true any longer. You should see my sister in law.
greenaway,
“Frankly, from what I’ve read of the research, it seems the lies were all on the side of the Swift Boaters.”
Any links to that research?? I would like to read the other side.
It will be interesting if somehow the 50 or so guys from the unit in Vietnam are all lying instead of Kerry and his, was it 5 or 6, close buddies?
Nice to know you recognise that people can hold their beliefs at bay while they are working with others after your statement that you would automatically hold a bias about anything I write due to my Beliefs!!
Yes. No Liberal/Democrat Politician Ever Lies. That’s what I’ve been told by trusted sources. …and neither do scientists that believe in AGW.
Oh wait… my headset is crackling… this just in… something about a hoax…
You can try to ridicule and insult all you want. I’ve read testimony and yes, it seems like the lies were on the side of the SBers. But that fact doesn’t matter in a battle of public perception which is why such tactics are so successful and adopted repeatedly.
BTW, is there some kind of right-wing checklist that some denier-type people here all carry around and measure each other with? Beause I’m seeing a trend…
Nice to know you recognise that people can hold their beliefs at bay while they are working with others after your statement that you would automatically hold a bias about anything I write due to my Beliefs!!
I could never not be skeptical of you and others who hold your beliefs and to look with doubt and disbelief at anything you might say about science. Sorry, that’s the truth. I admit that without reservation.
Young earthers, in my view, seem to be inherently opposed to much of science. I just don’t and can’t and don’t want or care to get it.
“I’ve read testimony and yes, it seems like the lies were on the side of the SBers. But that fact doesn’t matter in a battle of public perception which is why such tactics are so successful and adopted repeatedly.”
1. Presenting your opinion (“seems like”), is different from presenting facts (of which you have provided none).
2. Did you work for the Kerry/Edwards campaign? 😉
Andrew
50 or so guys from the unit in Vietnam a
Do you know what a “unit” is?
Forget it, just forget it.
Next.
Presenting your opinion (â€seems likeâ€), is different from presenting facts (of which you have provided none).
And neither has anyone else.
Next.
2. Did you work for the Kerry/Edwards campaign?
That episode with the guns and dogs? I still howl at that one.
Politicians…
greenaway,
I lean toward Steve’s #2 over #1 because it’s less labor intensive. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s the correct theory.
It might not. You could filter by who was in “to”, “from”, “cc” and “bcc” fields You could filter by some key words.
These all appear to be Jones emails. Assume Jones is in all of them. After that, you could wrote a filter that looked all emails that named:
* Briffa OR
* Mann OR
* Schmidt OR
* Yamal OR
* McIntire OR
*MM OR
You could also do “AND” if you want.
You create an array of conditions, and just search through a bunch of emails. The PHP script at “www.eastangliaemails.com” already searches for one string. Just put the things you want in an array, search and include what you want. Anyone who knows PHP could put this together quickly– and you could use grep or something else.
No large measure of sophistication required, and it’s pretty fast. After all-look how quickly you can run that script at “www.eastangliaemails.com” to find all emails containing “hate” etc. The script would be… maybe… 30 lines long (if written by someone inefficient!)
kuhnkat (Comment#26575)
That is very interesting. Doesn’t the opaque material also block most of the backradiation???
Yes. But there is more going up than coming down. The nett IR flux is up.
Rare Admin Decree: No discussing Kerry and the real swiftboat controversy. I permit people to go off topic…. but really. That’s just way too far off!
greenaway,
“I don’t see how you can hold both a belief in a young earth and many of the sciences which suggest a very old earth and universe.”
I don’t see how you can do science through a BELIEF. Aren’t you supposed to deal with observations and repeatable experiments?
The closest I can think of would be the initial impetus for investigating a particular area. Such as the Catholic Priest’s possible reason for hypothesizing the Big Bang!! After that, belief doesn’t do much for you except sustain you when you aren’t getting the results you WANT!!
Of course, this can be a direct issue with what we see in the emails. They believe they are correct and felt under pressure to deliver results that can motivate people to save the world, or whatever their actual motivation. That can work if you are right. It isn’t science.
“No discussing Kerry and the real swiftboat controversy.”
OK! OK! 🙁
Sheesh. 😉
Andrew
“Bugs: you win my “RUN FOR THE ICE†award. I first labelled this tactic ( run for the ice ) back in 2007 on the 1934 thread over at RC. When people attack the land record, you run for the ice. That is you run for a record that is SHORTER and more slippery than the one under defense. Congratulations, you’ve tactically retreated to the slippery slope.
Does the ice record support the land record, yes. Is it a tactically sound place to make your defense? no. Try another chess piece.”
I have not retreated. I am offering you what the IPCC did, multiple, parralel, independent streams of research. The ice is the first one that comes to mind.
Chapter and verse as follows.
Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Changes.
Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice, and Frozen Ground
Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level Rises
Couplings bwetween changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Climate Models and their Evaluation
Understand and Attributing Climate Change
A lot more than just ice. Copenhagen has a brief update, supporting the correctness of the science. The ocean is rising faster than predicted. While you bicker about decimal points, the evidence is right there in front of your face.
“I don’t see how you can hold both a belief in a young earth and many of the sciences which suggest a very old earth and universe.â€
“I don’t see how you can do science through a BELIEF. Aren’t you supposed to deal with observations and repeatable experiments?”
I mis-wrote. I meant to write “I don’t see how you can both hold a belief in a young earth and accept the validity of many of the sciences which suggest a very old earth and universe.”
There should be no “belief” in science, except perhaps that it is the best method yet developed for understanding the universe. Not perfect, but better than all previous methods. Belief belongs properly to religion, which is about faith and the metaphysical.
YMMV.
No discussing Kerry and the real swiftboat controversy. I permit people to go off topic…. but really. That’s just way too far off!
Rare participant apology
Sorry!
Somewhere on this thread someone, I think Nick, said that a greenhouse heats by trapping IR; this seems to be channeling eli’s thermal blanket and it is not correct as this exposition explains;
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html
The greenhouse analogy has always been a bad one and is simply not applicable to the atmosphere; contrary to what has also been said here there is no reasonable explanation as to how extra CO2 thermalises the atmosphere; Tyndall is not relevant, Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, is not in the ball park; he believed that glass was impermeable to IR, as was CO2; indeed Arrhenius’s original experiment used measurements limited to 9.7 microns and he was not therefore measuring the effects of CO2; the MODTRAN LBL atmospheric radiative measurements are either contrary to AGW because optical depth has not varied in 60 years [due to variations in the wet lapse rate which Paltridge has confirmed] or inadequate for measuring the greenhouse effect because of convective processes which involve non-emitting LTEs as the Chilingar, Khilyuk and Sorokhtin paper describes. One of the strangest aspects of AGW is the crucial role of back-radiation; without revisiting the controversy of G&T this paper really presents insurmountable obstacles to BR or DLR as Philipona calls it;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
Despite widespread, almost uniform media support for AGW and the usual political cowardice and chicanery, the public have not been shown how extra CO2 heats; it is a junk theory and if there is warming then it is entirely natural.
greenaway–
Apology acceted and not required actually. Lots of climate blogs are strict about straying from the topic, but I mostly don’t mind. But, I can see that topic is just going to veer waaaaayyyyy off and people are going to get really angry over something that has nothing to do with climate. I think this might be the first or second time I’ve cut off a topic.
Nick Stokes,
this woudl appear to invalidate Wood’s experiment.
Here is a paragraph from the link:
Heat Loss
IR and Anti-condensation Treated films
On double poly covered green houses use an IR treated film on the inside to reduce thermal radiation loss
by up to 20%. Condensation on the inside of a poly covered greenhouse can reduce thermal radiation loss
by up to 50%, however condensation also reduces light levels at the plant and the amount of solar radiation
entering the greenhouse. Dripping condensation can also lead to plant quality issues so it is important to
keep greenhouse covers free of condensation. The IR / anti-condensation treated films cost about $0.015
per square foot more than untreated films but reduce energy use by 15 to 20%. In Wisconsin, the payback
on the incremental cost for purchasing IR / anti-condensation treated films should only be a few months.
Darn, water and water vapor intrudes everywhere!!
So the SW is reduced, if there is condensation, reducing plant growth. Less SW would reduce the direct heating in the Greenhouse meaning less IR to be trapped also.
Hmmm, I think it needs some experiments to separate the effects.
greenaway,
“There should be no “belief†in science, except perhaps that it is the best method yet developed for understanding the univers.”
Agreed.
I have not retreated. I am offering you what the IPCC did, multiple, parralel, independent streams of research. The ice is the first one that comes to mind.
Bugs, you miss the point so let me elaborate. I noticed back in 2007 a COMMON PERVASIVE pattern in the argumentative structure of climate science: The minute anybody questions the land record people bring up shrinking ice.
But shrinking ice doesnt even PERTAIN to the issue we are raising about the land record. Let me make it obvious by using an extreme version.
Steve: I think the land record might be off by .00001C
BUGS: look the ice is melting.
Steve: Bugs, over here.. the argument is OVER HERE.
Contrast that with this
Steve: It hasnt warmed one bit since 1980.
BUGS: well, since 1980 the artic ice has gone down quite a bit, and a good portion of that can only be explained by warmer temps.
Steve: oh, good point. its hard to argue no warming when the ice is melting and glaciers are retreating and the sea is rising and and animals are migrating. In fact it makes no sense to argue NO WARMING.
Which dear bugs is why Lukewarmers exists. It makes no sense to argue the case of NO WARMING beacsue there are multiple independent lines of evidence that point to Warming. On the other hand, the argument that there MIGHT BE less warming than the BEST LONGEST record shows, can’t be countered by running for the ice record.
There might be a 10% high bias in the land record
The ice is melting.
Logic fail.
Lucia,
can we give greenaway a ritualistic beating? or at least take away some of his quatloos?
steven–
Greenaway doesn’t have any quatloos yet. He hasn’t even gambled on anything.
Stephen Mosher:
Or even more.
lucia (Comment#26608) December 6th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
LUCIA! stop telling greenaway how its done.
Now, suppose that I want to create a filter or harvesting program that harvests emails that readers of your blog would like? Its very easy to do. I can create a filter that will make it look like it was a person reading mails and picking out mails that are of interest to your readers.
negative quatloos for greenaway! put his butt in the quatloo poorhouse.
Stephen Mosher:
Of course.
Carrick
In either direction. But my money is on over estimating the trend, not underestimating.
“You really dont get the Lukewarmer and McIntyre ethic do you? ”
I get it, alright. It’s the same ethic as the ‘missing fossil’ record from creationists.
bugs:
Shorter bugs:
If you don’t agree with me, it must be because you’re unethical.
cohenite (Comment#26622) kuhnkat (Comment#26624)
Coho, I think you missed my #26531 where I said that IR opacity of covering does makes greenhouses warmer. This is well-known in the industry. I cited commercial advice that heating costs could be reduced by up to 20%, and for this, people were prepared to pay extra for IR-opaque covering.
KK – Here is an experimental study by cornell horti people of IR blocking coverings for tunnels – long GH-like structures. They said IR blocking made them 1-3F warmer (total warming about 10F).
On a demo of GH warming, well of course there have been many. Here is a decent effort by Roy Spencer.
And Coho, your links are complete junk.
Steven Mosher and Lucia,
I haven’t read through that many of the emails. Are there any emails that would NOT have been collected for one of the FOI requests??
bugs (Comment#26636) December 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“You really dont get the Lukewarmer and McIntyre ethic do you? â€
“I get it, alright. It’s the same ethic as the ‘missing fossil’ record from creationists.”
No bugs. The “missing fossil” argument goes like this:
Theory: A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E.
we have instances of A, B, D and E.
Creationist: AHA, C is missing your theory is wrong.
Theory: Logic fail. next.
The Lukewarmer McIntyre approach is this.
Theory: Its warmed 1C give or take a little.
LK: hmm, that seems largely true, lets have a closer look. Opps,
you made a mistake there, it only warmed .95C and its give or take a little plus a smidgen.
Nit pickers. detail guys. process guys. ever wonder why a great portion of CA and exploit and airvent readers are engineers?
sheesh.
One problem you have bugs is discerning argumentative structure. can I suggest a philosophy class for you. Or watch greenaway, he is all over the structural aspects of this thing.
kuhnkat (Comment#26641) December 6th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
WRT FOIA requests.
yes there are mails and documents that have no bearing on the FOIA. Start reading you will see. They appear to have been selected because of a keyword.
steven mosher,
thank you.
Nick Stokes (Comment#26640) December 6th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Thanks nick. In the future I will just send people who deny radiative physics your way. they annoy the hell out of me.
and you know how I get when i get annoyed.
kuhnkat
I think the answer to this is yes. I searched for “lunch” and found this:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=167&filename=957536665.txt
It’s difficult to believe this would have been pulled into an FOIA request. But if the person searching included “EXXON”, “MOBIL” or “ESSO”, it would get pulled in.
Here is one that, as far as I can tell, is not remotely “discreditable”:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=415&filename=1087589697.txt
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link
2. http://www.e-clat.org/
3. http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/
I have no doubt these things were filtered. The question is: Who filtered them? What were they looking for? I suspect an actual human looking to filter out all “non-discreditable” stuff would have not included the second one. They aren’t all FOI related.
So, I lean toward some sort of filter. If so, those who posted the “unauthorized disclosure” may post something else after they have more time to go through manually.
Steven Mosher–
Have you run a word frequency count?
Here kuhnkat
Dear member of the ECF steering committee,
The next telephone conference takes place on Monday, 2 July 2001 at
17.00-18.00 CET. The agenda is as follows (it may be modified at the
beginning of the meeting):
1. Minutes of previous telephone conference (Draft sent by email on
14.6.2001) (5 Min.)
2. ECF preparatory meeting in Brussels (15 Min.)
(Agenda, Inputs: project descriptions, Outputs: workplan, sketch of a
position paper)
3. ECF as an Association and/or Foundation (15 Min.)
4. Three priority projects (15 Min.)
5. Varia (10 Min.)
Important!! Please check that the telephone number where you want to be
called is correct.
For more clues as to how this can be done, see the mails that are actually posts to listsevers.
Lucia,
No I havent run a frequency count. Right now I’m just using the human brain to reverse engineer. Speed reading, scanning for the unusual. So like the mails that dont belong. Then intuiting a filter that would have captured it.
For example keyword “bristelcone” look at all the listserver mails.
The occurance of mails that manefestly dont belong ( pure noise) suggests no human filter. The chronological ordering, the number sequence of the text files. the re dating of files. It just feels like the output of a program that tried to “emulate” what a reader of CA would find interesting ( like using the CA glossary as a filter constraint).
But two passes were made through the files, i think. cant prove it, but good circumstantial evidence. you have to examine the document folder to see that. The document folder is very signal poor.
Nick Stokes,
I would need more info on the Horti experiment. With the temps criss crossing in the afternoon it is not clear to me what is happening. The night where the IR cover maintains a steady higher temp than the clear appears to support your contention.
There is no info on the water vapor though!!
Now, explain what this has to do with CO2 in the atmosphere assuming it is the plastics IR effect we are seeing and not water vapor??
Spencers little blurb was simply a rehash of consensus.
steven m-
I lean toward your theory of a filter. It’s just that I know you have run word frequency count programs in the past and wondered if you had in this case.
But if you are correct, I think the probability of a second zip file appearing is about 80%. Who ever it is will run with several other filters and do a “human sort” at their leisure.
A bit late, I know, but I feel compelled to follow up on sod’s posting of Dec 6 at 3:00 am, in which he states:
“why don t you let us take a look at your e-mails over the last 10 years?
wouldn t someone be able to easily compile a selection, that would very much assassinate your character? ”
sod,
My emails of the last 10 years, and more, are all subject to FOIA. Work-related emails, anyhow. And all these emails we are discussing are indeed work-related, as they came off the CRU servers.
Unlike the CRU conspirators, I am aware of the fact that all my emails are the property of my employer and should only be used in accordance with their policies.
The CRU emails are not email from private accounts. If you wish to suggest they are you are phenomenally misinformed.
Finally, if I was a lying deceitful conspirator in my emails, and publishing them revealed that I was a lying deceitful conspirator, then that is hardly character assassination. You’ll never convince me that someone hoisting themselves with their own petard is character assassination. Yes it is a shame that their venal comments and actions have been revealed. Perhaps they should have refrained from said venal comments and actions. Did you EVER think of it in that light? If not, why not?
Bugs:
“There is only one planet. There are are only the one set of original records, it is problematic. That is not anyone’s choice, that is just one of the contraints forced upon them.”
Do you even know what you are talking about. Let me give you a research topic and you come back with the answer. It should take you all of 1 minute.
GHCN ( a NOAA product) contains records from USHCN the us historical climate network. CRU uses GHCN
OK? so when you pull data for alabama from GCHN you are pulling a USHCN record.
how are USHCN records created? are they raw data? processed?
hmm more than one version..
So when GISS ( for example) say they use USHCN Raw data is it really raw?
or is USHCN raw data actually processed data? or selected data?
hmm daily data or monthly? homogenized or not? hmm lots of fun
Oh WTF you’ll never find it.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/daily_doc.html
Go read.
See all that neato QA work they did? see it? kool huh? Guys like McIntyre and other data freaks we love that shit. Makes us wanna check their work.
get it? we are an untrusting bunch of data freaks who love finding other peoples mistakes. Oh, ignore my spelling mistakes they dont count. get it. The sooner you understand our culture the better off you are. So just give us your data and code, let us check your work and we will stop bugging you.
Nick,
about the needing more info, the greenhouses were passively vented. Position and winds or varied sizes/positions of the vents could have caused one to vent more than the other.
With no meterological data, except temps, or recording of actual insolation in each greenhouse (one got more cloud then the other?) it is a definite maybe!!
Several days data would have been preferable. They mention the thickness of the Clear but not the IR plastic. We do not know if there was a draft on either sensor although they DID have them in vented enclosures. We do not know if the sensors were calibrated together. We do not know whether anyone was working in the enclosures causing drafts from doors. Again, the night data would be more consistent due to this.
Lucia, I would bet on a second shoe. But then when 9-11 hit I also bet on a second shoe dropping.
Yeah Nick, I’ve read Roy’s little greenhouse primer; this reasonates;
“Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists.”
The point is that everything does change and water always dominates, and feedbacks must be negative; a lot of so-called experts are mischieveously denouncing negative feedbacks by saying they would cause a snowball Earth which is stupid because if the feedbacks are negative they will work against cooling as well as heating; this homeostatic quality of the climate system is ignored by the spruikers for AGW and it is evident from the e-mails that the perps spent their time trying to camouflage that manifest phenomenon or being surprised by it: “it’s a travesty”!This doesn’t mean that radiative physics are being denied; quite the contrary; it just means that radiative physics don’t work the way that AGW supporters want them to work. I do hope that annoys Mr Mosher because I don’t know how he gets when he’s annoyed and I’m curious.
Re: Simon Evans (Comment#26441) December 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am
When in situ measurements (Argo) show no significant upper ocean warming (recently) and in situ measurements (tide gauges + CTD) and altimetry show marked disagreement, then you have to admit there’s a bit of mystery.
How does this follow?
Re: kuhnkat (Comment#26513) December 6th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Re: Bill Illis (Comment#26539) December 6th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Yes.
The 3.0 C number comes about with the addition of water vapor feedback, not from the radiative physics of CO2 alone.
Re: cohenite (Comment#26622) December 6th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
The glass greenhouse analogy is probably a bad one, but the second assertion that there is no reasonable explanation with respect to CO2 in the atmosphere does not follow.
Re: kuhnkat (Comment#26624) December 6th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
…but if you open the doors of your nice, warm greenhouse wide in the middle of the winter, it will cool down nice and fast — more than 20% heat loss! (IOW Wood’s experimental result stands).
Nick Stokes (Comment#26640) Your link to the plastic sheet experiment shows that the IR protection doesn’t have any material effect on the greenhouse in the daytime, so tell me the story again how sunlight (daylight) reaches the Earths surface, and is then changed to IR Radiation and re-emitted, and that stopping the re-emission warms the atmosphere?
Not on the basis of your link it doesn’t. Your link reenforces Woods.
Do you have an experiment that disproves Woods?
Oliver,
Woods experiment showed that IR did not affect the temps if convection was restrained. It showed no difference between the temps of a greenhouse with and without IR trapping. You should also know that the rocksalt greenhouse in Woods experiment heated noticeably faster until he used a piece of glass above the salt to filter the IR.
If the IR plastic was a good experiment it DOES invalidate the conclusion of Woods as it got different results. Remember a theory only needs ONE failure to be shown false.
No, opening the doors does not disprove that there is actually warming from trapped IR (which GHG’s does not do). All it proves is that convection works very well to move heat thankyou.
Without a better controlled experiment there is no strong evidence one way or the other.
For interesting experiments in this respect see:
http://landshape.org/enm/science-experiment-at-home-to-disprove-global-warming-theory/
Not definitive due to basic materials and controls, but, very suggestive. He did some more with multiple glass layers and side by sides later!!
So Nick, yes, it would appear that SOMETHING raises the temps in a Greenhouse, to a max and no more. If we are already at that max, then how much more can we get??
Obviously the consensus needs to get off its duff, stop trying to prove their theories, and start doing real investigations of the atmosphere, climate, and radiative physics again!! If they aren’t interested they should find regular jobs!!
greenaway,
a couple of these pictures should answer one of your rhetorical questions:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=5799&id=100000229631425&l=a52eabc86c
This is what I prefer doing:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=5377&id=100000229631425&l=64e04e3047
This is what I prefer doing:
Oh wait, cant post that here.
cohenite (Comment#26661)
Roy is correct in saying that statement is not controversial. He then controversially says that feedback may not even be positive. But while negative feedback generally stabilises some equilibrium state, the question is, what state? Imagine a GHG-free atmosphere, surface at -18C. Then you start introducing GHG. IR impeded, and the temp starts to rise. How much? With lots of neg feedback, very little. Whatever state is reached in that sequence, is also the state we would revert to if feedback were negative. So yes, a snowball.
It isn’t as simple as that, though. Feedback is a linear system response to perturbations of the current state. With a big perturbation, the feedback factor would change. Water vapor feedback (the big one) depends a lot on how much water there is in the air. At -18C, there is very little. At 15C there’s much more, and even more if it warms further.
Ok… I admit it
I smoke cigars… interpret that evil greenaway.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1456770&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=100000035525134&id=1495299958
MarkR (Comment#26664)
I’ll leave Roy to explain the GHG. But as to the day/night thing, it all depends on what the meaning of IR is. As I said to KK above, there’s a nett flow of thermal (far) IR upwards, and the plastic blocks that, which generally warms. However, it may (unlike GHG) also block near IR (I don’t know the properties of this plastic). Sunlight has a lot of this (and very little far IR). So if you include part of the near-IR range too, the nett flow of blockable IR would change, and may be downward during the day. Then the effect would be much less warming, or even cooling.
cohenite:
Why do you think that?
“See all that neato QA work they did? see it? kool huh? Guys like McIntyre and other data freaks we love that shit. Makes us wanna check their work.
get it? we are an untrusting bunch of data freaks who love finding other peoples mistakes.”
Nothing wrong with finding other people’s mistakes, carrying on like a pro-wrestler about cheapens science, and degrades it. The scientists worked out long ago, keep the emotion out of it. Especially when there is a big debate about some of the ‘mistakes’ you claim to have found.
“So just give us your data and code, let us check your work and we will stop bugging you.”
Except that when you get the GISTEMP, only one person does.
Bugs,
The emails give lie to the idea that emotion can somehow be removed from scientists. The method which removes emotion is to SHOW YOUR WORK. that means share your data and your methods.
Then I dont care if you are a liberal or conservative or paid by big oil or fascinated by finding peoples errors or a wiccan or whatever. When you share the data and the method and I can repeat what you did then…. then.. (talking slowly so you follow) then your personal quirks are not a part of the result.
Like so: hansen described a method in his papers called the “reference method” We moaned to gavin that the paper didnt describe the method in such a way that we could emulate it. We needed code. The question: does the reference method introduce a bias. Once we got the code then steve could do neat stuff like this
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3215
Also, you need to tweak your sarcasm detector.
Nick Stokes (Comment#26671) That was a spectacularly bad response. “.. it all depends on what the meaning of IR is..” Don’t go all Clintonesque on us. The experiment you cited doesn’t support AGW theory.
“On a demo of GH warming, well of course there have been many. Here is a decent effort by Roy Spencer.” Roy doesn’t do any such thing. Why do you post random links that don’t support what you say?
Do you have an experiment that shows CO2 based AGW?
Bugs, its 10K LOC.
here bugs go help this guy who is finding bugs in some cru code
http://www.jgc.org/blog/
MarkR (Comment#26676)
I never said that the tunnel experiment supported AGW. I said it supported the idea that greenhouses warmed partly by blocking IR, since that had been challenged.
No, no-one has done a full atmosphere experiment to demonstrate AGW. But we’re kinda doing one now.
Carrick, I guess the short answer is MEP, Miskolczi, and, following Nick’s reasoning, The Younger Dryas.
cohenite (Comment#26680)
following Nick’s reasoning, The Younger Dryas.
??? Not mine. I would say the Younger Dryas was a spectacular indicator of positive feedback, as is the process of Ice Age transition generally.
Nick Stokes (Comment#26679) There have been many full atmosphere experiments with CO2 levels. Any Geologists will tell you every time, a rise in CO2 followed warming not preceeded it. Therefor CO2 has never caused atmospheric warming in the past.
Why do you persist in a theory that has been disproved, not just by Wood, but by the geo-historical record?
Well, this is the issue NIck; “spectacular indicator of positive feedback” by what? Not CO2 because while the sudden temperature drop is visible there is no drop in CO2;
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html
cohenite (Comment#26689)
No, not CO2. CO2 in AGW plays the role of forcer – WV is the main feedback. Conversion of aqueous CO2 to gas is a minor feedback. I believe in the YD the theory is that the main feedback was the sudden draining of Lake Agassiz, and the resulting disruption of thermohaline Atlantic circulation.
CO2 as a forcer has to overcome the lag problem; as for WV; is it a +ve or -ve feedback?
cohenite (Comment#26692)
“CO2 in AGW plays the role of forcer”
The YD wasn’t AGW. It probably played no significant role at all.
WV is a positive feedback.
“The emails give lie to the idea that emotion can somehow be removed from scientists. The method which removes emotion is to SHOW YOUR WORK. that means share your data and your methods.”
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886
It’s because scientists are human they use a formal process. You might catch up with what was worked long ago eventually.
Nick Stokes,
“No, no-one has done a full atmosphere experiment to demonstrate AGW. But we’re kinda doing one now.”
Yup, and current conditions show that at best AGW is overestimated.
kuhnkat (Comment#26665) December 7th, 2009 at 1:41 am
kuhnkat,
The short answer is that one needs to compare the relative contributions of all the “radiative forcing” terms in both experiments to call the prior one “disproven” by the latter.
That was my conclusion as well.
Hey, what do you know, we agree on something!
None of this, however, really says much about the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” since it’s already been suggested (and pretty well established) that the glass greenhouse is a terrible analogy.
Oliver
P.S.: I have read the same letter by Wood (1909).
P.P.S.: I can’t believe that something as funny as the subject of this blogpost needs a very pedantic digression on the old topic of Wood’s glass house.
Yes, the Earth has been warming (punctuated by periods of cooling) — since the Little Ice Age! Thus, what is the evidence that the 0.5C rise in temperature since the 1950s is due mainly to anthropogenic CO2? Why can’t it be due mainly to natural causes? (After all, Mars is warming.)
The predictions of dangerous warming, let alone, ‘catastrophic’ warming, depend on the presence of large feedback effects — without them anthropogenic CO2 could only produce a fraction of a degree of warming by the end of the century. Even *doubling* the total atmospheric CO2 concentration — natural and anthropogenic — would only cause about 0.5C of warming in the absence of feedback effects
WV is indeed a +ve feedback but specific humidity is falling above 850hPa despite AGW theory predicting that it should be increasing at that height; below 850 SH is increasing despite drops in pan evaporation and Stewart Frank’s findings that higher temperatures don’t cause increased evaporation;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2746110.htm
All very odd don’t you think Nick?
cohenite (Comment#26788) December 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It might be more accurate to say that some AGW science has suggested such an increase… there is not a grand unified “AGW theory” that says that (nor does it either prove or disprove AGW)!
a couple of these pictures should answer one of your rhetorical questions:
My apologies. In way of explanation, I thought you were a youngish woman because of the CAPS and quantity of ????s you used.
You obviously know what a unit is. Thanks for your service.
Yup, and current conditions show that at best AGW is overestimated.
I reviewed the Copenhagen Report today and that is not what it concluded. It suggests that current conditions meet or exceed the IPCC’s worst case scenarios for a number of indicators.
Now, granted, those scenarios are premised on modeling which may understate what is expected given the forcings. If so, that’s troubling in more ways than one.
greenaway–
There are some very tendentious tricks in that report! I”m afraid climategate derailed discussion of both the strengths and weaknesses of the argument in that report. It’s would be fairer to say some conditions meet or exceed the IPCC’s worst case scenarios. But some conditions barely fall inside the lower bounds of what is predicted by models and suggest the models may be overestimating the impact of warming.
(That said, at least since El Nino hit, we were spared the surface temperature graph with Rahmstorf’s little end treatment blunder. )
There are some very tendentious tricks in that report!
My grandfather would call you a scallawag for using the word “tricks” so frequently. 🙂
I am not making any claims about the report other than to comment on what it seems to be claiming, which is quite different from what some people here are claiming. The source of the disconnect is of course what makes this so interesting.
Sorry Nick, I missed this;
“CO2 in AGW plays the role of forcerâ€
Is that some sort of concession, an admission that AGW theory and the real world diverge?
Oliver, read Dessler and Sherwood for the definitive AGW position on SH and the assumption that RH remains constant; if SH is declining and RH is not constant there is no AGW.
Scallawag? You must be a southerner.
Yes, there is a disconnect between that report and what many say here. I usually just look at surface temperaures, and what they wrote is not as bad as what Rahmstorf did in the “fishy” graph discussed here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/
But let me ask you this:
When reading the report, do you think it’s fair for some comparisons to be made with the 2007 IPCC AR4 and others to the 2001 IPCC AR3 which sometimes has higher and sometimes lower projections for a condition? And if so, is it quite fair to always compare to whichever choice better serves your claim? And if there is more than one published temperature series, is it fair for the scientists to only compare projections to one– selecting the one most favorable to the case they are advancing?
Flip through and notice some graphs have uncertainty intervals and others do not. Is it quite fair to show uncertainty intervals when those help your case but omit them when they make your case weak?
These are the sorts of tendentious choices I find. They don’t mean AGW is a crock, and I would hesitate to call this fraud.
But I think the report is a bit tendentious. And this is why you find many who are used to presentation of data and who delve into these reports think that the case of catastrophic AGW is juiced somewhat. (Of course, you’ll read others making stronger cases than I do even here in comments. But that’s because I have the most open comment policy in the climate-blogosphere.)
Thanks for the link, cohenite. I would like to point out that I might not buy the “definitive AGW position” even if such an animal existed.
Also it is not strictly true that AGW requires RH to be constant.
I would like to take a closer look at what you mean by:
Do you have a citation handy?
And this is why you find many who are used to presentation of data and who delve into these reports think that the case of catastrophic AGW is juiced somewhat. (Of course, you’ll read others making stronger cases than I do even here in comments. But that’s because I have the most open comment policy in the climate-blogosphere.)
I have read through the report but even so I can’t judge it as to how well it represents the state of the science since I am not well-enough versed and schooled in the science. I read it as an attempt to convey a very complex set of scientific issues to policy makers and the public and to convey a message.
This is a long paper. I only expect the most committed policy researchers, laypeople and journalists will read it. In my experience, politicians do not read this kind of document. That is why policy analysts are hired.
In the movement from the field to the research paper in a journal to the policy paper based on the research to the briefing paper meant for the politician to the press release meant for the public, a great deal of detail gets lost — of necessity.
If people here delve into such a document expecting a different level of detail or a greater expression of uncertainty, I think they are mistaken. This paper has already assumed the existence of global warming, its anthropogenic nature and that it is a threat.
As someone who has written similar documents on other topics in my career, I understand the limitations of such a document. I also understand that it is impossible to convey the kind of uncertainty you seem to want it to convey. Ultimately, even given the uncertainties, when it comes to policy, we need the best “opinions” of the best scientists based on their best understanding of the research. Best isn’t perfect.
I know that isn’t good enough, but that is the way it is.
Well, I’m not necessarily saying it “should” convey that level of uncertainty. That all depends on the purpose of the authors in writing it, doesn’t it? IPCC documents are supposed to be nothing more than a report of the current state of knowledge. Is that true of this new Copenhagen report? Seems to me not– Copenhagen is an unabashedly political meeting. I’m not aware of any rules saying that documented needed to provide a balanced and totally fair report of the state of the science.
As for context of my comments: You pointed out that SteveF (I think) said things that did not seem to agree with the message in that document. I’m expressing my opinion that that document is a big skewed. I probably would have blogged why I think that in some detail– but climategate ensued. But, I haven’t– so I can’t link you to any more details i”ve posted. But I think that report is a bit tendentious.
“All very odd don’t you think Nick?”
From that link
That sounds like a new one to me.
cohenite (Comment#26831)
“CO2 in AGW plays the role of forcerâ€
Is that some sort of concession, an admission that AGW theory and the real world diverge?
No, it’s an assertion that we’re burning 8-10 Gton C per year, and that’s a unique, and very forcing, set of circumstances in the earth’s history. Before we started doing that, CO2 was a fairly passive player, providing minor feedback through its temperature-sensitive solubility.
bugs (Comment#26867)
Yes, that’s very odd!
bugs and Nick Stokes,
Here’s a more extended quote.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/emissions-not-making-rivers-run-dry/story-e6frg73o-1111117458497
bugs (Comment#26696) December 7th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Bugs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc
Thank you John M, serves me right for using the ABC as a reference for anything; the Franks paper will be published soon.
Oliver;
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
Nick, this is the problem; you say the current emissions of ACO2 are causing an unprecedented increase in CO2 and that is a unique and forcing set of circumstances; but CO2 has varied sharply in the past over longer periods;
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww350/infomgr/TempsDriveCO2IceCores.gif
and over shorter periods;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
without demonstrable effects on temperature; if temperature has varied greatly in the immediate past without commensurate increases in CO2 or with no correlation with CO2 as the Lansner graph shows and CO2 has varied greatly over the short and long term without apparent climate effects what is so special about ACO2 today apart from confirming Sage and rubbishing Ruddiman?
IPCC documents are supposed to be nothing more than a report of the current state of knowledge.
I am of a few minds on this. The IPCC is an intergovernmental body and the assessment reports are intergovernmental documents, so it and they are immediately political. Can’t help but be no matter how much they protest the contrary.
You can bet that if governments have to sign off on it, it is not a purely scientific lay of the land. It is the lay of the scientific land that all of them can agree to.
Here is the salient quote:
“Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.”
Is it policy neutral? Only to the extent that it does not prescribe policy directions, but clearly, the documents suggest very strongly that there is a significant risk and that a policy response is called for. Policy is all about managing risk.
The idea seems to be this faith that scientists will not over or understate the science and that by signing the document, governments accept the legitimacy and validity of the science and its findings.
I don’t know if I trust that the IPCC is able to carry off this balancing act.
Having worked in politics before, and having been involved in the policy making process, I just am highly suspect.
greenaway–
When I says the IPCC documents are supposed to be, I mean that the IPCC, the authors etc. all make such a claim. The authors are charged with writing such a document and appear to claim they have.
Whether the goal of writing an a-political document under the auspices of the IPCC is realistic or even possible is another matter.
In contrast, I don’t know what claims surround the Copenhagen document. Were the authors charged to write something that only reports “the science” ? I don’t know. Maybe the authors were charged with writing a document to persuade governments to act. I don’t happen to know. I haven’t really bother to find out because… well… For the past few months, it hasn’t looked like much is coming out of Copenhagen. Plus, I usually just read documents to see if I agree or disagree, think they are tendentious or not. I mostly don’t look into the documents that describe what the authors are charged to write. But in the case of the IPCC AR4, TAR and so on, I happen to know.
Nick Stokes (Comment#26870) we’re burning 8-10 Gton C per year, and that’s a unique, and very forcing, set of circumstances in the earth’s history. Before we started doing that, CO2 was a fairly passive player, providing minor feedback through its temperature-sensitive solubility.
But back in Geological history we had around 7000 ppm CO2, but on multiple occasions this occurred AFTER rises in temperature and BEFORE falls in temperature. Rising CO2 level has NEVER been a leading indicator of temperature increase.
Rising CO2 levels now are not an indicator of temperature increase.
All the justification for CO2 based AGW is based on Modelling the atmosphere, and in Moshers case on MODTRANS. Not one experiment has shown that particular alleged effect of CO2 acting as a blanket to retain IR energy and heat. As the CRU code snippets show, one can make a model do anything if given control of the assumptions used.
MODTRAN: The intent of this lab is to introduce the computer software package known as MODTRAN. This program is a computationally rigorous radiation transfer algorithm that is used to model the spectral absorption, transmission, emission and scattering characteristics of the atmosphere. The program takes a single input file called a “card deck†(historically, the inputs were read from punch cards in the earliest versions many, many years ago). This card deck file contains all the parameters to specify the type of atmosphere the user would like to model…. http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg762/OldLab3/Lab3.pdf
MODTRAN is a computer modelling program and is just as potentially unreliable as the Climate forecasting models. Because of its formulaic deficiencies it MUST be grotesquely unsuited to computing upper atmospheric changes over time based on adjustments to IR transfer at low levels. The variables are too great. As Gerry Browning (sorry Lucia) might say, they are unphysical for the purposes being suggested here.
Wherever models divert from reality, the Warmers choose to deny the reality and stick with the Model. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
UH OH. Real Climate contamination alert.
As usual Steve McIntyre has been down this road before:
the main issue that I wish to draw attention to is that Archer, like Myhre et al 1998, has a rigid atmospheric profile. Thus, the entire impact of additional CO2 goes to downwelling wm-2.
realclimate collaborator David Archer’s MODTRAN calculator.
I want to focus today on the structure of these calculations – or, at least, to do so to the extent possible given that the methodologies are poorly described. In our discussions, many readers have volunteered observations relating to formulas for simple absorbance of radiation by gas. However, what these observations fail to address is that the relevant calculation here requires a detailed specification of the atmosphere, which includes not just CO2 levels, but a temperature varying from surface to atmosphere exit, other radiative gases including water vapor, clouds, etc.
Given this atmospheric profile, the calculations yield downwelling (or upwelling) infrared radiation in wm-2. The Archer calculator provides Java results for a variety of conditions, permitting the calculation of upwelling and downwelling radiation at specified altitudes. (It would be nice to have this algorithm available in a Matlab or R function and probably it wouldn’t be too hard to convert.)
What catches my eye about these calculations is that atmospheric conditions are held rigid – as though it were a coincidence that the CO2 radiation-to-space maximum and tropopause are at the same elevation. My own intuition is that the atmospheric profile is itself affected by presence of CO2. In Lubo� short note on the matter, he took a similar perspective, hypothesizing that additional CO2 would raise the tropopause – a change in atmospheric profile that doesn’t occur in the rigid calculations of Myhre et al and Archer, where the entire impact is concentrated on downwelling wm-2. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2596
MarkR (Comment#26901)
Nick Stokes (Comment#26870) we’re burning 8-10 Gton C per year, and that’s a unique, and very forcing, set of circumstances in the earth’s history. Before we started doing that, CO2 was a fairly passive player, providing minor feedback through its temperature-sensitive solubility.
But back in Geological history we had around 7000 ppm CO2, but on multiple occasions this occurred AFTER rises in temperature and BEFORE falls in temperature. Rising CO2 level has NEVER been a leading indicator of temperature increase.
Rising CO2 levels now are not an indicator of temperature increase.
Mark, you’re missing the point of that quote. Yes, rising CO2 has never been a leading indicator of temperature increase. When the earth warmed (for non-CO2 reasons), CO2 came out of solution and into the atmosphere. Over the time humans have been around, these changes were actually fairly minor.
CO2 now is not an indicator of change – it is a forcer. The CO2 is not coming out of the oceans – we are injecting it directly into the atmosphere. History is no guide here – that hasn’t happened before. Burning forces warming.
You seem to be muddled about Modtran. It isn’t due to Archer – it is long standing military software. Used in conjunction with missile guidance etc. It isn’t modelling software in the GCM sense – it does fairly direct radiative calculations, which can be tested immediately.
Nick Stokes (Comment#26909)
1 It doesn’t matter where the CO2 comes from.
2 MODTRAN calculation for “the entire impact of additional CO2 goes to downwelling wm-2” been tested as well has it?
CO2 is plant food; I just cannot understand the chicken-little hysteria from the increase in CO2 which may have some ACO2 component if you underestimate sink increases as CRU has shamefully done and assume there is no natural increase despite the period from 1979-1982 when ACO2 emissions fell drastically due to the oil shock but CO2 increased at the same rate; CO2 is good;
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119257499/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Below levels of 200 ppm plants don’t grow; even if CO2 did have a heating effect would that be bad?
cohenite (Comment#26894) December 7th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
cohenite,
First of all, thanks for the link.
My initial reaction is that the paper, when taken at face value, does not seem to say exactly what you are asserting, namely that:
and
The relevant passages from the abstract seem to be:
which vastly different from saying that the negative trends are inconsistent with “AGW theory” which in any case is not synonymous with GCMs, and
suggesting that the observations from the NCEP reanalysis indicate a much different sensitivity than the result from the GCMs, which is certainly plausible (noting also that they already produce a fairly broad spread of values).
“Below levels of 200 ppm plants don’t grow; even if CO2 did have a heating effect would that be bad?”
It is good that CO2 has a heating effect, otherwise the world would be colder than it has been. Without GHG’s we would be stuck in a permanent ice age. But all things in moderation.
bugs (Comment#26915) Temperature is proportional to pressere. It doesn’t matter which gas. Adding or subtracting CO2 makes no difference to Temp.
John M (Comment#26874)
bugs and Nick Stokes,
Well, it’s still an odd argument. It’s saying that heat causes moisture to be lost from the soil, so it dries out, and then evaporation reduces because of lack of water. So heat reduces evaporation. Not exactly wrong, but oddly put.
Nick Stokes:
I think that isn’t true.
bugs:
Well that’s the rub.
What constitutes moderation? An 1810-styled glacial period?
We humans have been nothing if not totally immoderate. Enormous numbers of species have been driven to extinction by us, most in the last 150 years, but unfortunately CO2 control isn’t a magic bullet that will fix any of this. Our problems are sums of our individual sins (integration over local environmental insult) rather than collective ones (e.g., anthropogenic CO2).
If I thought CO2 moderation would fix any of this, I would be all over it.
Nick:
Agreed.
The way I’d put it, evaporation processes involve a lot more than just temperature. They involve differences in ground temperature versus atmospheric temperature (more specifically partial pressure of H2O in the atmosphere versus the soil), changing properties of the soil with heating, winds (both steady state and turbulent components), ground cover and resulting transpiration, and so forth.
It’s not obvious to me that overall there wouldn’t be a net increase in humidity though. If somebody could spell out why that wouldn’t happen that would be great. Because from where I’m sitting it sure isn’t obvious.
MarkR, MODTRAN is extremely well tested, and on a daily basis in fact, since it is used (among other things) to predict transmission of electromagnetic radiation through the atmosphere.
This is a dog that will hunt.
CO2 moderation seems likely (to me) to fix “some” of this. Unfortunately, our sins are numerous.
Indeed. This is almost trivially true.
Not obvious to me, other, although it’s equally non-obvious that relative humidity must necessarily remain exactly fixed.
Nick Stokes #26870,
” Before we started doing that, CO2 was a fairly passive player, providing minor feedback through its temperature-sensitive solubility.”
I am sorry, BUT, aren’t we told that without CO2 and the rest of the GHG’s we would be sitting around 255k??? Weren’t we told that CO2 had more effect than water vapor cause water vapor was sometimes a negative feedback??
i wouldn’t call that passive. How much does CO2 actually contribute to that 30k?? Alledgedly it is exponential so it should have had more effect in the last doubling than the current one!!! The next one will be how much again?? Maybe 1C??
It is amazing how the story has changed over the last 15 years!! But then, that is why I just can’t believe the IPCC and friends.
For the record I agree that CO2 has little effect!! Some of it negative like water vapor!!
Cohenite,
ran across an interesting paper. Not sure how much is worthwhile.
He has an interesting take on IR emission altitudes among other things. Have you seen it before?
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/EPA_Comments/Trenberth.doc
Carrick #26919,
” Enormous numbers of species have been driven to extinction by us, most in the last 150 years, but unfortunately CO2 control isn’t a magic bullet that will fix any of this.”
There are no enormous numbers of named species that have been driven to extinction based on actual physical counts. Those ridiculous numbers are extrapolations very poorly framed and executed. Worse than GCM’s by far!!
cohenite (Comment#26894)
Coho, your first pic is a bit diagrammatic, and hard to follow, but I trhink it’s saying just what I have said. Temperatures rise or fall with ice ages etc; CO2 in the air follows, through the solubility dependence. There’s a minor feedback effect. Note the size of the variation – it’s about 190-280 ppm. Exiting an Ice Age, the temp rises about 6C, but the CO2 rises by about the same amount we’ve seen in the last century.
What’s special about ACO2 today is that it’s the driver. It’s new carbon in the system – previously the same old 1500 Gtons or so were just shifting from one phase to the other. And it’s forced – we’re not burning in response to any climate variable – we’re just doing it, fast. And the changes dwarf past IA changes, or will soon.
You say the past CO2 rise had no demonstrable effect on temperature. That isn’t obvious – at that same time the temp was varying enormously. The CO2 contribution probably added a fraction of a C – comparable with the last century. But it’s hard to notice in the post Ice Age rise.
On the Paltridge paper, you should note well his caveat
It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level.
and the observation
The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data.
In other words, the NCEP data isn’t that good, and doesn’t agree well with the satellite data. It’s pretty downbeat.
kuhnkat (Comment#26924)
No, the story hasn’t changed much since Arrhenius. Of course CO2 contributes to our being 33C over snowball earth. But it has been passive in that it hasn’t changed that much (in a 190-280 ppm range), and hasn’t caused much to change, in the last million yrs or so. Just as N2 in the air is important – we’d miss it if it wasn’t there, but it’s passive – doesn’t change much.
It’s different now, because we’re injecting new CO2 directly from fossil fuels. Lots of it.
You’ve got the exponential part mixed up. It’s log, and to the extent that is true, the last doubling will produce the same change (about 3C) as the next.
Nick,
Yup, my tiny little mind got exponential and logarithmic confused. Probably cause the way it was presented 10 years ago it SEEMED like it would be exponential!! ;>)
Wrong as usual. We were told that CO2 was what did the driving and carried the load. Remember Gore showing the early Ice Core data and telling us CO2 drives temps?? Then the higher resolution data came out…
How about Hansen telling us the Hudson would be over its banks by now? Now that was a projection to bank on!!
Remember when 3C was the bottom of the doubling range?? Now it is high!! Since they are screaming that it is worse than we thought at Copenhagen I guess those numbers are going back up HUH?? Or is that just another position of convenience to stampede us sheeple?!?!?!
You can’t win Nick. They screwed you apologists with the changing stories all the time. You look like Baghdad Bob telling the world the forces aren’t in Baghdad when they could be SEEN over the parapet!!
I’ve noticed the science is difficult to bend to their stories. I don’t envy you your job!!
” (in a 190-280 ppm range), ”
Wonder how those rain forests in Brazil managed to maintain themselves at 190PPM?!?!?!?! Sorry, ice cores are right up there with chicken gizzards on CO2!! I almost choked when I read the description of pulling out cores and laying them in a trench to “relax”. When they were used they were no longer the relatively clear ice that they were originally. Wonder what caused all those cracks and bubbles and milkiness?? Think chemistry could have been happening??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
kuhnkat; the K&T diagram has more holes than swiss cheese, although Nick will probably jump to its defence; Mike Hammer did a good alternative analysis of radiative fluxes here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/#comment-87115
The main difference between K&T and Miskolczi is the window quantity; K&T estimate it at 40w/m2, M at 60w/m2; if M is right than the system is homeostatic or self-regulating. Nick has pooh-poohed the Paltridge paper but measurements of optical depth for the last 60 years and the Lindzen and Choi paper on ERBE data to do with outgoing LW radiation all indicate a self-regulating system with low climate sensitivity to increases in CO2; when you combine that with the indisputable increase in sinks you see that the apocalyptic predictions of AGW are really only giving a black eye to the climate research which should be occurring; it really is annoying when the mantra of “the science is settled” is regurgitated.
Oliver the notion of fixed RH has been around for a long time;
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/24/3/pdf/i1520-0469-24-3-241.pdf
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
Although it must be said that Minschwaner has adjusted his values for the decline in RH downwards in a subsequent paper; most likely due to peer pressure from CRU!
Carrick (Comment#26922) See above: 2 MODTRAN calculation for “the entire impact of additional CO2 goes to downwelling wm-2″ been tested as well has it?
MODTRAN may have been tested with regard to a lot of things, but there are obviously fundamental things wrong with it, and which have not yet been identified. In that respect it is in the same category as the climate models.
cohenite (Comment#26932)
“Nick has pooh-poohed the Paltridge paper”
Not at all. I’ve just pointed out their own caveats. You make more of it than they do.
I
Re: heat must be in ocean or air. The heat may have escaped Earth’s atmosphere entirely. The planet is not in radiative equilibrium. And maybe it never is.
Bender has got a winner . As he often does 🙂
Else I didn’t read much of the rest , I found it rather uninteresting .
MarkR:
Like what?
Carrick (Comment#26997) eg MODTRAN calculation for “the entire impact of additional CO2 goes to downwelling wm-2″
MarkR, are you referring to <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2596this?
The limitation of MODTRAN is it assumes a static atmosphere. That is a fundamental limitation only in the sense that it isn’t a full 3-D climate model. But it does get the fundamental physics correct, as far as I’m aware.
In my opinion, it isn’t clear that Steve McIntyre’s criticism of it amounts to anything more than a second-order correction (delta CO2 being a first order one). It would be interesting to modify the code to allow CO2 to affect the profile, but it’s not likely to affect the result very much, at least with the types of CO2 increases that are on the horizon with human activity.
Carrick (Comment#27133) MODTRAN is wrong in the two respects identified by Steve McIntyre above. Apparently, no-one has checked the other assumptions. I do despair of scientists who build fantastic theories atop a mound of unchecked assumptions, and then when reality conflicts with their models, the results of the models are preferred.
Google http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=modtran+checked&meta=