Home/BlogTexas A&M Prof. Andrew Dessler has decided to campaign against skeptics with claims we believe in an “alternate reality“. The video of his NCAR lecture entitled “The Alternate Reality of Climate Skepticism” also includes a factually incorrect claim that I am the only one who looks at the data and sees negative feedback.
He also cites the 97% of all scientists agree claptrap, which as I have testified in congress is so malleable that I might also be considered part of the 97%, since I think it’s entirely possible that half of the warming in the last 50 years has been human-induced (and, therefore, half natural…which leads to a climate sensitivity of only 1.3 deg. C).
(By the way, where is the natural warming in the 100+ climate model runs? Hmmm?)
Dessler further uses the ad hominem claim that my science is politically motivated, as if the IPCC and climate research centers are not dominated by Liberals.
Hmmm….
Andrew Dessler working in his non-political role supporting political policies.
So, let’s just stick to the science, shall we Andy?
How about we have a live public debate on the subject of whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative? You and I both have published on the subject.
I’m not interested in another of our blog debates, where you disappear for a day to seek advice on how to respond to my immediate responses before sending yours.
We will find a politically neutral forum (if that’s possible), where the moderator doesn’t have to worry about keeping your mentor and IPCC gatekeeper Kevin Trenberth happy, or about having to resign because he allowed an alternative (peer reviewed) explanation of the data to see the light of day.
If the evidence I have that cloud feedbacks might be negative (and that global warming might well be benign) is so crazy, you should have no trouble refuting my evidence in a public forum.
Now, let the flaming begin. 😉
It never ceases to amaze me how those most loudly making accusations of separate realities parade their garish and obsequious realities for all to see.
If he has so much expertise and data at hand, he should be able to whup you fair and square. How can he resist?
He is Dr. water vapor feedback himself… his claim to fame is the 2009 Science paper about the Earth’s sensitivity to the direct warming from CO2. He is probably freaking out right now bc the global temperature data is not supporting him so he is getting defensive. This would be awesome!
That paper was really awful. He assumed an instantaneous response, when the data clearly indicated a substantial lag.
A good ol’ fashioned showdown … Except, where is Andy ???
Only a coward would not come out from behind his comfy little keyboard to address this challenge.
Will he be a man or a wimp?
Wimp.
Historically, the mainstream strategy has been to use the pretext that arguing with deniers gives their views false equivalence to avoid getting beaten up in debate. It is interesting as the Pause continues to see how many cling to this excuse and for how long. It has already occurred to some (Tasmin Edwards for example) that this strategy isn’t going anywhere.
Amen!!
I don’t care whether Andy is a Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Communist, or even Libertarian. The science stands on the science.
It’s too bad Andy dislikes our constitution, though, which never intended for our government to grow so large that it kills people through perpetuating (and now worsening) poverty.
I know who I work for, the public. I don’t think Andy knows who he works for in his ivory tower.
He claims to be guided by only the science. Yet he worked at the White House in the Clinton administration. What was his “job” there?
In contrast, I have not been involved in any political campaigns or presidential administrations.
Now, he no doubt will claim his political activism is an outgrowth of his science.
Yet he assumes my science is an outgrowth of my political “activism”?
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, September 29, 2014 at 8:14 AM:
“Now, he no doubt will claim his political activism is an outgrowth of his science.
Yet he assumes my science is an outgrowth of my political “activism”?”
Well said 🙂
Hear hear!!
Bravo indeed!
Roy
over at Bishop Hill Kasabian makes a strong argument in an essay for those who know what’s going on, both in and out of the field, to get off the fence
If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
it’s time
Dr. Roy Spencer your blog is important in the debate and I thank you, that you see the real data.
Dessler is a coward and competes with Mann to be the most childish, disrespectful, and unprofessional ‘scientist’ on twitter and elsewhere.
Here’s a couple examples where he said nobody would shake John Christy’s hand because it was covered with gravy, and another where he asks if anyone takes John Christy seriously because Christy dares to compare temperatures to model ensembles. How much more anti-scientific could he possibly be?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%40hockeyschtick1%20%40andrewdessler&src=typd
Dessler is a fool, and not sincere.
AGW theory is going down by the end of the decade so this will soon be irrelevent
Thank you for the link to Dr. Desslers talk, I had not watched it before.
Dessler is correct in that (1) almost everyone studying the topic of climate change agrees on the broad fundamentals, as for example presented in the IPCC reports, (2) the tactics used by Heartland and other skeptic lobbying organizations are eerie matches to those used by those who disagreed with science on tobacco, on ozone, on acid rain, etc., (3) the same ‘experts’ (Michaels, Singer) keep appearing, (4) a great deal of effort is put into denigrating actual expertise, etc.
And perhaps most importantly, (5) that arguments against AGW all seem to be connected to arguments against _government_, such as “It’s too bad Andy dislikes our constitution, though, which never intended for our government to grow so large…”.
Those are _political_ arguments, not objective reality as outlined and constrained by the data. It’s unfortunate that political arguments seem to put blinders on evaluation of science, and even more so to drive attacks on what we actually know…
KR, this is a heap of rubbish. The failed models have proven the science wrong. Before you claim all these things, make sure the science has been verified…
Model means average out short term variations, but the bounds on model variations contain the current observations. There are excellent matches when including ENSO variations (Risbey et al 2014), not to mention almost 100% matching if using recent actual forcings for solar, volcanic, aerosols, etc. (Schmidt et al 2014).
Actually, the models are surprisingly good.
OMG…”the bounds on model variations contain the current observations”?
THAT’S your evidence for success?
Have you noticed the IPCC’s projections are based upon the AVERAGE model projections, not the NATURAL short-term variations in the models which happen to sometimes reach as low as the observed temperature?
Arguments this weak are exactly what demonstrate how the model-based arguments have failed.
Next we will be told there there is a parallel universe where the models and observations actually agree…so we should believe the models.
Note that the models have never claimed decadal accuracy, wherein modeled variations of acyclic phenomena like ENSO won’t be in phase with observations, and that they are intended for longer term projections where those variations average out.
Arguing against models on decadal scale variations is wholly inappropriate.
I’ve seen a lot of explanations for the “pause” (from the alarmist camp who apparently think the decadal scale matters). Someone has counted 52. And now you argue that it doesn’t matter anyway. #53?
KR,
‘Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, [Phil] Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ (Phil Jones)
‘They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.’ (Ben Santer)
‘The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.’
(Met Office)
It’s never been clear to me what justification (other than hand waving) the IPCC had for the confidence intervals on their multi-model ensemble mean, but <a href=http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-or-ar5-models-doing-end-of-2013/ last time Lucia checked at least 15 of 17 models had blown their 95% intervals.
oops.
last time Lucia checked at least 15 of 17 models had blown their 95% intervals.
Modellers claimed decadal accuracy right up until the point where it was determined they had no decadal accuracy. That’s why IPCC AR4 predicts an average of 0.2C warming per decade, and IPCC AR5 ducks the question.
“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
There is little point reading what KR writes, because he just makes up nonsense.
Right. Because we know what aerosol forcings are, because we can tell by computing the number that’d make climate models accurate. Nothing circular about that reasoning.
Lol, I think I may have further down made the same point.
Just when do models become science? When all influencing parameters are known with certainty, and when all known parameters have been quantitatively evaluated through empirical observation and measurement.
I live in doubt that this will ever be true for climate science.
According to ipcc contributor Hans Von Storch the models have FAILED. They under represent climate variability and over represent climate sensitivity. He even says models do a poor job representing cloud formation (which is Dr. Spencer’s field of study). In model simulations, he also says, the current hiatus in warming only occurs in 1 OUT OF 50 TIMES !!! So even if warming should resume, according to Von Storch, the models still have failed…
Crap!Tell that to Richard Betts at the UKMO.
19 years is not “short term”.
KR says: “Actually, the models are surprisingly good.” but one must ask, by whose standards?
“Farmers’ Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models” Posted 02/21/2014 06:14 PM ET
“Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year’s harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can’t even predict the past.
Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers’ Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.
The Maine-based Farmers’ Almanac’s still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.
The winter has stayed cold in 2014, and snowfall and snow cover are way above average. USA Today reported on Feb. 14 that there was snow on the ground in part of every state except Florida. That includes Hawaii.”
Anyway KR, it really looks like how many times a dog turns around before it lays down and how wide the stripes are on a caterpillar gives a more accurate forecast than the billion dollar computers that NASA is able to use.
KR, you completely miss the point that natural variations are long term as well as short term. The models at some “well placed” period of years that fits an average proves nothing if you can’t verify the reasons why the changes occurred. Natural Variations are playing out in my short term, medium term, and long term cycles. Do you have no concept of ENSO, AMO, PDO, and Solar cycles (there are many of them)? The heat content of the ocean takes a very large amount of years to change that don’t show up “instantaneously” as you seem to accuse natural variation of doing. The models so far have been abject failures. Go back to the drawing board, it seems you are not even close considering the models have been off by a factor of anywhere from 2-9. And your mention of aerosols? I know that the science on their input at this point is still just a wild guess.
and KR, if you want to read a full breakdown on the absolute failure of Climate Models to hindcast anything from 30 years ago to 100 years ago you should read Bob Tisdale’s “Climate Models Fail”. He shows quite well how bad the models are, in long term, short terms, and regional. The regional observations compared to the models are not even in the same universe most of the time, and this is with them even knowing the outcomes beforehand. They have tweaked the last 30 years to fit their assumptions, but when those calculations try to recreate the more distant past they are exposed as a fraud.
My apologies, messed up links. The two from my previous message are:
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~jclub/Risbey2014.pdf
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Reconciling%20Warming%20Trends.pdf
KR where do you live?
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2014/650x366_09291637_hd31.jpg
In “la la land”…
KR, you are clearly misinformed. Some of the issues have genuine disagreement. Yes smoking causes cancer, it killed my father and cousins…but second-hand smoke is another issue altogether.
The science of acid rain WAS demonstrated to be weak, officially, through the NAPAP program. Yet, the desires for government expansion did not care.
I can equally claim that Dessler and his cohorts are distorting the science to increase the size and influence of government to support his science and achieve his political ambitions. The argument cuts both ways. They ignore the failure of models. They ignore published science that doesn’t support their view of ever-expanding governmental control and energy policies that will kill millions.
Therefore…”It’s unfortunate that political arguments seem to put blinders on evaluation of science, and even more so to drive attacks on what we actually know..”
I dislike the use of personal anecdotes when discussing science – those are out of place. But in the context of policy, I will note that one of my relatives worked for years as a tobacco company publicist specifically to denigrate the science on second hand smoke. Shortly after starting he gave me a copy of Thank You For Smoking (now a film), stating “This is my job. I _am_ Nick Naylor”. In short, his job was to amplify confusion and uncertainty in public opinion, to prevent anti-tobacco policies and regulations. Straight out of the Tobacco Institute playbook. That’s a very a poor counter-example on your part.
You have stated that “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government”, and in this thread add “…the desires for government expansion did not care…”. I stand by my comment above.
well, I dislike being lumped in with those whose job was to obscure the science on smoking.
You obviously assume that all other environmental issues are on an equal footing, evidence-wise, as the smoking-cancer link. So I stand by my comments that you are misinformed.
I’m not the one who worked for Clinton to change policy…Dessler did.
I understand your relatives’ position. But you miss that there is both government and industry behind the global warming idea.
Politicians are happy to expand their government at any opportunity. The US Government, alone, is spending ~$3 Billion a year on climate research and an additional ~$17-20 Billion a year on climate-related technologies, outreach, subsidies, and other fun things.
You might note that all of the pushing for “reduction” is in the form of taxes (or “fees” in the sphere of carbon trading.) This won’t reduce carbon emissions at all, but it will bring in more money to the government. The UN is also pushing hard for taxes because, like the carbon tax that was recently abolished in Australia, it has received and likely will receive a portion of these taxes to “help the third world” with their carbon output.
You might notice that when reviews are done, like with the recent review of EU spending on third world contributions, a lot of the funds marked for Africa or other places don’t actually reach Africa for a wide variety of reasons.
Energy producers that can’t possibly hope to compete with oil or natural gas are getting huge subsidies to provide “Carbon Free” power. The solar industry, if all of the subsidies disappeared, wouldn’t exist. It’s a niche market at best. Wind farms certainly wouldn’t exist because, while they have a better ROI, they are still a very long way from the sort of return that natural gas and oil get.
You may notice that the densest form of energy possible, nuclear energy, is always dismissed as a possible solution to our carbon emissions. Why? Because of excessive lobbying by other energy sectors to keep the lid on nuclear with a plethora of weak arguments.
These “Clean” energy sectors have formed an unholy contract with government leaders all over the world and, with huge spending to their benefit, have done nothing for the public good. Germany is a very good place to seek for this effect. Massive subsidies for solar and wind which is causing prices for energy to inflate very heavily, as well as destabilizing their electric so much that they are starting to burn lignite, which is the form of coal with some of the highest carbon emissions.
This is exactly like Tobacco was – the public should subsidize a private business (tobacco vs health care; energy vs high costs) for no other reason than they have political connections.
The curious position you take, with outfits like Heartland supposedly being the tobacco companies, is quite the opposite and turns a completely blind eye to what’s actually happening and what has happened in the last 30 years to push the Catastrophic climatology movement to the forefront.
There used to be wild predictions for the year 2000 in the early 1980s. At the end of the 1980s, it became “2020” to “2050” and then in the first half of the 1990s, it became 2100. How convenient.
Note that all of their predictions for the year 2000 failed. Their predictions for 2030 are in the process of failing, and I’m seriously skeptical, based on this historical failure with no change in their story for 40 years, of their 2050 and 2100 predictions to bear fruit, either. And note that it wasn’t “Oh, we made a mistake and here are the corrections that should fix that mistake.” it was no mention of the mistake at all, just “We are going to die by 2100.”
On top of this, you have unchallenged opinions from *everyone* both in and outside of climate science saying that short-term dates are “tipping points” and giving dates for catastrophic events that are supposed to be happening. But they don’t happen because there is very little understanding of how a molecule like carbon dioxide will interface with a huge, dynamic, chaotic, open system like the atmosphere.
It’s craziness akin to me saying the truth that “Oxygen(atomic) is a component of Ozone, which is poisonous, therefore Oxygen(molecular) is also poisonous.” The basic details are true. The extrapolations are not only false, but ridiculously so.
I apologize, Roy. This was meant to go under KR’s statements.
Well said, Roy
“Yes smoking causes cancer, it killed my father and cousins…but second-hand smoke is another issue altogether.”
It’s also rather like lumping together genetic evidence for evolutionary theory and eugenic theories about inferior races, and declaring that if you object to any of the sum total of the claims you’re “anti-science”. Science deals with complex issues, so the first tool of the activist is to try to give their preferred claims the same footings as better established claims.
My argument to Dessler or anyone would be like I have presented below.
The argument is not if a increase in CO2 will cause the temperature to increase ? The answer is yes.
The argument is what will cause CO2 to increase and does it lead the temperature?
According to historical climate data it suggest CO2 will increase as a result of the climate because it always follows the temperature.
So this study which tries to show how much of a temp. increase a doubling of CO2 would have just done recently is bogus because it has the cart before the horse.
Another point to ponder is at the end of each inter- glacial temperatures were warm/CO2 concentrations were high. So if CO2 were leading the temperature and not a result of the climate why did the warming not continue instead of all of a sudden reverse back to glacial conditions when in the midst of an inter- glacial ?
What happened to reverse everything?
Back when the sum of CO2 in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere was largely constant, CO2 content in the atmosphere canged in response to global temperature. Notably, this was a positive feedback mechanism.
Nowadays, on a yearround basis, the atmosphere is gain less CO2 than human activity is producing. Nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
If not for human activity, the natural component of the warming of the past century would have caused CO2 to increase, but not nearly to the level it is now.
This is poorly reasoned. Nature removes both anthropogenic and natural emissions. More to the point, natural sinks expand based on the total of forcing from both sources.
So, it is not enough to say that “Nature is removing CO2 from the atmosphere” to proclaim Nature a net sink. You must prove that Nature would still be removing CO2 from the atmosphere if human inputs had not caused sink expansion.
This is really a very elementary closed loop feedback principle. People pushing the line above are naive and untutored, and you should not accept their assertions at face value.
Bart, I don’t think anyone is really claiming that the anthropogenic equilibrium sink would still exist in the absence of human emissions. If it did then ice cores would clearly be proven false. People pushing that line, imnsho*, are not naive and untutored, rather they are devious and sinister! The mass balance argument is a great talking point used to stifle debate as to whether the observed rise is natural or anthropogenic…
*in my not so humble opinion
By the way, I really appreciate the comment you made a while back in reply to my mini debate with a mr. gavin. You ‘made’ my birthday! Thanx…
Glad to have done so. You did a great job. I have tangled with that guy before. He’s a computer science guy with delusions of understanding complex phenomena.
It’s like trying to explain the Monte Hall problem to someone who just doesn’t get probability. You try to make them understand, but it just sails right over their heads, and they keep insisting, even pompously so, that they are right, when they are comically wrong on a jarringly elementary level.
There should be a study done which shows how sensitive is CO2 to climate change instead of how sensitive is climate change to CO2.
Agreed!! I’ve been saying for a long time that the oceans exchanging CO2 with the atmosphere may vary depending on temperature and may be a bigger factor in the PPM that is saturated in the atmosphere during any given year.
[snip] try being a little less obscure, Mr. Knight.
sorry! I got carried away from my support for Roy.
I am not holding my breath. He won’t do it.
Dr. Roy Spencer last year I wrote about the attack of winter in South Dakota. Now you can see a similar anomaly in the stratosphere ozone. Be repeated in North America previous winter. It is completely natural, cyclical changes.
Is America prepared?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-94.64,82.13,318
I’m watching Dessler’s presentation with a sense of relief. He tells me, a non-scientist, to listen to scientists. And I do that already, listening to Lindzen, Michaels, and, of course, Dr. Roy. 🙂
Maybe he will debate. You just can’t be in the same room at the same time.
🙂 I remember that too. Funny! 🙂
Offer to debate on his home turf, the Texas A&M campus. He’ll have faculty in his corner and you’ll have the student body and everyone else.
Hi Roy,
You stated:
“We will find a politically neutral forum (if that’s possible), where the moderator doesn’t have to worry about keeping your mentor and IPCC gatekeeper Kevin Trenberth happy, or about having to resign because he allowed an alternative (peer reviewed) explanation of the data to see the light of day.”
It seems more than very sad that some in the CAGW community apparently promotes the myth that censoring conflicting views and other POLITICAL techniques should be proper scientific protocol. However, it there seems to be nothing new about the process.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Carl von Clausewitz
Is this a joke?
I’m not interested in another of our blog debates, where you disappear for a day to seek advice on how to respond to my immediate responses before sending yours.
God forbid that one should do some fact checking before posting.
Right, because a scientist who’s confident enough in his position to claim that scientists who disagree are living in alternate realities shouldn’t be expected to already have the facts at hand. How unreasonable would that be.
golly, did that need a sarc tag?
Dessler a has published response to Spencer’s cloud feedback paper. The scientific debate, such as it is, is taking place in the literature as it should.
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf
In the lecture Dessler (starting in minute 34) uses Spencer’s cloud feedback paper as an example of the impact of contrarian scientific literature being magnified for political purposes. That is, he contends that it’s used to create an illusion of more debate in the scientific community than he feels exists in reality. Whether you accept his argument or not, Spencer’s call for a “scientific debate” on the topic is pretty ironic in context.
SPENCER’s work magnified for political purposes?!?
Ironic indeed.
Of course you’re right, I can hardly turn on the TV but I’m inundated with the works of climate contrarians such as Spencer. Stuff like walrus haulouts being indicative of global warming, and climate change affecting fertility in Japan, and how melting ice changing the very gravitational field of the Earth.
Damn contrarians with their magnified works clogging the airwaves and the network bandwidth for political purposes, right? It’s disgraceful no less.
You know, of the two scientists (Spencer and Dessler) one of them has a federal agency and a sitting U.S. President championing their viewpoint, and some twenty billion dollars of our annual federal budget for the next few years to be spent out of concern for their views. One of them does not. Have you considered that perhaps your concern about scientific literature being magnified for political purposes might possibly be misplaced.
I’m just relaying the viewpoint Dessler expresses in the lecture that prompted this post. He makes a case that contrarian science is used as fodder for political debate using Spencer’s paper as his example. Clearly, as you say, this is true of partisans on the AGW side as well. I’d contend that some work makes it into the scientific literature more for it’s value as fodder for political impact than for it’s scientific value. Cook’s 97% Consensus paper is one obvious example seeing as it explicitly says in the paper itself that it is a reaction to (in their view) skewed public perception of the topic and it has predictably appeared in the popular debate disproportionately to any scientific value it might have.
Examining the specific case of interest here, Spencer and Dessler have both published on cloud feedbacks. Dessler has, in fact published a paper specifically addressing what he sees as shortcomings in Spencer’s paper. The relevant experts can read these analyses, evaluate them on their own merit, and proceed as they see fit. It’s not clear what scientific purpose would be served by a live debate between these two that wouldn’t be better served through the standard publication channels. So if the point of such a debate isn’t to improve scientific clarity, it’s hard to see the debate challenge as anything more than grandstanding for the partisans.
Fair enough.
Dessler has “Phone a friend” options in the debates, and Spencer does not?
It sounds to me more like that he does not have a very good understanding of the underlying science. Roy appears to have a much better grasp of the arguments as they arise, likely because he is much more well read on the subject.
Isn’t Dessler the guy that used balloon velocity as a proxy for temperature instead of the temperature sensors on the balloons?
In noticed this in a thesis last week.
“In fact the magnitude and even the sign of the cloud feedback is highly uncertain in climate models and monthly comparisons of the cloud feedback suggested that it is likely positive, and contributes an extra 0.54±0.74 W m−2 per degree of warming (Dessler, 2010). In reality month-by-month comparisons are too short to draw conclusions, however, reliable longer term data are unavailable and hence there is still a large uncertainty in cloud feedback.
As mixed-phase clouds have a cooling effect on the Earth (Hogan et al., 2003a) then an increase in the amount of cloud in the mid-latitudes at mid-levels and lower level polar clouds as predicted by some climate models (Tsushima et al., 2006) would constitute a negative climate feedback (Senior and Mitchell, 1993).”
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~gc903759/phd/ABarrett_Thesis.pdf
Looks like some of the new comers might be a bit skeptical?
For “some climate models…” I always read “Anyone want a cherry?”.
The models early success was based on extrapolation of a global warming trend that occurred coeval to increasing CO2. The warming was assigned to the correlation despite the fact science knew warming from CO2 was not strong enough to explain the amount of temperature increase. So feedbacks to the increase of CO2 were added to the models. However now that the relationship has broken down and the earth has stopped warming (and CO2 has continued to rise), I cant understand why the question of feedbacks should not be reevaluated? The only reason I can imagine some will not entertain the idea is political. The sceptics foundation is that the certainty is gone because the models have performed poorly, so lets consider other possibilities. The elephant in the room for me is that the sun just switched to a less active phase, perhaps cosmic rays change the nature of the cloud feedback from warming to cooling depending on the state of the sun in relationship to the amount or water in the atmosphere (Svensmark). So both Dr. Roy and Dr. Dessler are correct depending on another variable, the sun. Idk if this could be right, but that is the point we need research in more directions bc the science is not settled.
Aaron, I think it’s funny that for years the ipcc has said “it’s not the sun, it’s not the sun, it’s not the sun”… and yet now that there is no warming they’re saying “it’s the sun” !
Many good points here Aaron. They built the models with the “assumption” that all the temperature increase was due to CO2, without ever really knowing. They have no plausible understanding or modeling in their models of internal non-radiative forcings that play out over decades from the oceans. A point I made awhile ago on a different post was that we don’t have enough data to understand the long term equilibrium changes between the ocean and the atmosphere. The ocean has a very long memory, and is running on cycles that play out over centuries. The heat content in the entire atmosphere is equal to the heat content in just the first 3 meters of the oceans. That tells me that there are cycles to be played out from the ocean that have been long in the making. Those thing take time.
The Charlotte Observer carried the linked article (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/28/5197106/hurricane-effect-a-big-case-of.html#.VCn14-8tB9A)
It is about coastal estuaries being stirred by hurricanes and releasing CO2. If anyone would take the time to read it, I would appreciate a short opinion.
Thank you all,
And Dr. Roy, don’t you think you could get a position as an advisor to Pr. Obama?
Question is, would he want one?
It was a joke.
Lack of smiley face.
This is what ought to be debated …
All the models and radiation calculations assume that there would be an isothermal troposphere in the absence of water vapour, CO2 etc and that radiation is instantaneously raising all temperatures to what is observed. The reality is that thermal energy from the Sun has been trapped under the gravitationally induced temperature gradient over the life of the planet, and the whole thermal profile is maintained at the level where radiation balance occurs. But it maintains the temperature gradient (because that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and so the surface end is warmer.
Hi Doug,
You chimed:
“The reality is that thermal energy from the Sun has been trapped under the gravitationally induced temperature gradient over the life of the planet, and the whole thermal profile is maintained at the level where radiation balance occurs. But it maintains the temperature gradient (because that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and so the surface end is warmer.”
Hmmh! I dare say if solar energy can be “TRAPPED” mind you under some gravitationally induced temperature gradient so can energy from any other source.
Have a great day!
Thanks, Dr. Spencer. That would be a debate I would pay to see. I think Dr. Dessler will not agree to participate in it.
He will never, ever, in a million years debate you in real-time Dr. Spencer.
These guys are all cut from the same cloth.
They will not face any learned expert in a fair fight… the chances are too great that they would be embarrassed and that would be far too damaging to the CAGW meme.
They simply don’t have the guts.
Fonz exactly. I use simple deterministic models all the time and then when they are tested, we do lookbacks comparing the actual data to the anticipated model prediction. If the data are outside the range of the model then you know something needs adjusted. We just had to add new variables and greatly increase our uncertainty bc a series of data was outside the P1 for the models we were using. It is part of the process and to assume a broken model is still working is just the arrogance of men, and no longer science. Models are hypotheses to be tested and not the answer.
Dr. Spencer,
Regarding the 1.3C climate sensitivity if 50/50… that must be based on the GISS temperature record which has been heavily adjusted. What would it be based on the satellite record? Wouldn’t it be closer to about 0.8C?
Dr Spencer you are an optimistic man to believe the settled science facts are up for debate.
Take him on Dr. Spencer. He is a coward who hides behind the IPCC, this administration and all of the liberals and socialists who want to redistribute or destroy wealth in the world. They are so arrogant, that the fact that their policies will kill people doesn’t even register, or they ignore it, because it doesn’t fit with their political views.
Calling on Andy, calling on Andy, where are you chicken Andy? Afraid hiding in your closet? Debate Roy at Texas A&M University. Moderator is Dean of Science, Joseph Newton. What do you say Andy?
Howdy I am so grateful I found your blog page, I really found
you by error, while I was searching on Askjeeve for something
else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and
a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design),
I don_t have time to read it all at the minute but I have book-marked it and also added in your RSS
feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do
keep up the excellent b.
If some one wants expert view on the topic of blogging and site-building afterward i advise him/her to visit this website, Keep up the good job.
continuously i used to read smaller articles or reviews that
also clear their motive, and that is also happening with this article
which I am reading at this place.
Wasn’t it Schmidt who was so chicken-livered, that he refused to stay in the same room to debate Dr Spencer?
Says it all about them.
Hey Roy, let’s you and I “debate live” here on this thread.
(1) The Sun’s direct radiation to a planet’s surface cannot be used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine what the surface temperature ought to be. If you think it can be, then show me your calculations (or input and output data) for Earth and Venus.
(2) Absolutely all climate change is all natural. If we were back in Roman times, but we had the technology and knowledge of today, we could have predicted the Medieval Warming Period, The Little Ice Age and the current warming period which is to be followed by 500 years of long term cooling, starting in about 100 years from now. Yes, we could have predicted even the peaks in the 60 year cycle around 1940, 2000, 2060 etc and for all these predictions we would have used the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and nine planets. See what I wrote about this back in 2011, and my predictions archived in August that year near the foot of my home page on my earth-climate dot com site.
Doug: Obviously I can’t compete with RWS, but I did crank through some numbers on one of your challenges – lunar surface temperature. Various websites yielded the following:
Surface temperature: -250 to +250 deg F (116 to 394 K)
Albedo: 0.12 (apparently we have a very dull moon)
Emissivity: 0.90 (couldn’t find moon dust so I used lime mortar)
Incident solar: 1367.6 W/m^2 (same as earth’s)
Applying SBL to the square meter directly under the sun, I get 1203 W/m^2 absorbed, 1230 W/m^2 radiated. Seems close to me.
I can play the same game with earth if I use a temperature half way up through the troposphere-by-height/atmosphere-by-mass (an average of the troposphere/atmosphere – they both occur about 3.5 miles up?)
I also have a question: Does the “gravitationally induced temperature gradient” explain the 500 deg F variation between the lunar dark and lit sides?
Just a nit, but I think that there are currently only 8 planets.
Yes, 1203W/m^2 absorbed (with absorptivity 0.9) gives 392K which is an accurate estimate of the maximum temperature on the Moon’s surface. If you then divide the flux by 4 (because it’s spread over a sphere) you get 277K (colder than Earth’s surface even though the Moon’s surface receives nearly twice as much incident solar radiation (a mean of 300W/m^2) as does Earth’s surface which receives a mean of 161W/m^2.
The gravito-thermal effect explains why the core of the Moon is far hotter than the maximum surface temperature. If there were not so much energy trapped by gravity beneath the surface of the Moon it would get far colder on the dark side.
Is there anything else you would like to know about the mechanisms which explain all known and estimated temperature data throughout the Solar System?
PS: Although Pluto is no longer classified as a planet, I believe they included it in the calculations of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and planets, though its effect would be very small of course.
“The Sun’s direct radiation to a planet’s surface cannot be used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine what the surface temperature ought to be.” – Doug Cotton 9/30/2014
That’s what I just did. And although it’s hard to figure out what you’re saying, it seems you agree.
Jim,
If you assume 0.12 for the albedo then you must take the emissivity to be 0.88.
Reflectivity + Absorptivity = 1
…and …
Emissivity = Absorptivity (Kirchoff)
…and….
anything that Mr.Cotton says can be assumed to be complete rubbish
Different wavelengths. Albedo at visible, emissivity at IR. Otherwise, I agree with you completely. Including unfortunately Mr. Cotton. I tried.
Agreed that Stefan Boltzmann calculations don’t determine what the surface temperature ought to be. Those calculations determine the effective temperature. Because of the very high albedo of the sulfuric acid clouds of Venus, it’s effective temperature of about 235 K is less that earth’s, despite Venus being much closer to the sun. Venus’ cloud top temperature determined from analysis of near-infrared carbon dioxide bands is about 240 K, very close to the effective temperature.
Hey Doug, I have asked you this before but how do you explain plate tectonics and mixing mantle with heat flow outward from the Earth’s core with your model? I am trying to understand your idea better in a context I know.
There is actually no valid measurement of the rate of thermal energy supposedly coming out through the outer crust. Just because there is a temperature gradient we cannot assume that the energy flow is outwards. A very small reduction in the magnitude of the gradient could mean energy is flowing inwards, restoring thermodynamic equilibrium. Of course there is an inward flow when direct solar radiation warms a region of the solid surface on a sunny morning, and that extra temporary energy comes back out at night. I suspect that a lot of the thermal energy release in volcanic activity and thermal springs etc has entered the crust this way. The Earth’s core would be just as hot even if there were absolutely no creation of energy from matter. See my comment here about the temperature of the core of the Moon and consider why it is so hot.
Ignore Doug he’s insane. He’s talking to Venus every night.
KR left me laughing. Ignore the actual data and instead believe the models seems to be his stance. I also loved the decadal excuse made for the models being wrong. Right now, we are almost 2 decades of the models being so far off they are useless. As someone who works with computer modeling every single day, if my models were off this much they would be considered useless. Yet, KR and the alarmists just double down on them. Computer models will predict whatever they are programmed to predict. If they are programmed to predict warming no matter what then they will predict warming. To think that, somehow, a man-made computer model can somehow accurately predict the future is truly astounding as well. I call this the “crystal ball syndrome” alarmist possess. The alarmists would scoff at future predictions made by human beings but believe computer models created by the same human beings. We are supposed to accept these models because they were created by “scientists” as if scientists have never been wrong about anything ever.
I need to remember to use the “crystal ball syndrome” term in the future. I think I may have said some similar things further up in the thread. Their long term hindcast regional predictions are terrible. So bad, that these algorithms fail spectacularly. Anyone ever notice that the word algorithms begins with Al Gor… I just did 🙂 Someone needs to make a good joke from that
Al Gore’s speech does have an odd rhythm? … Naw.
I heard the tale of gloom and doom chanted in Al Gore rhythm? … No. Keep trying.
What a stuff of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious familiarity concerning unexpected emotions.
Scientifically a debate on cloud feedbacks is interesting since it concerns some of the most uncertain parts of climate projections, but for a public debate it seems odd to limit yourself to debating only that part of the climate system. It assumes that the audience is familiar with all the other stuff on water vapor feedback, lapse rate etc. A discussion of the net effect of all feedbacks seems more relevant.
IPCC Fig 9.43 might be a good starting point where you can start by describing what parts you agree with and where you disagree.
Well I’m familiar with the fact that real world temperature data proves that water vapour cools Earth’s surface, probably by about 10 to 12 degrees below the temperature of about 300K which the gravito-thermal effect would support in very dry air. Does that help? If you don’t understand thermodynamics and thermodynamic equilibrium or convection towards the surface then maybe the explanation based on valid physics in my book will help.
I was going to say something about the Elephant Walk but I can’t think how it applies. Oops. 🙂
Doug,
I was not clear, sorry. The mantle is not stationary it is highly dynamic and has a convection cycle. So any slow process of warming the core from the crust to core would get mixed up through time. At a minimum this requires the rate of warming to greatly exceed the rate of the mixing by convection cycles. Then you have the issue of what drives the convection, and it is driven by the internal heating from the core that creates less dense warm material. Also you would have to show the heat balance where all the heat lost to surface via the sum of volcanoes (mid ocean ridge) can be replaced. Mantle convection and plate tectonics make it clear heat is escaping the core throughout geologic time. There is abundant literature on this. For an overview see:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection
But Aaron the heat transfer I am talking about is by convection. The direction of convection is such that it is causing entropy to increase and the system has a propensity towards thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient in solids, liquids and gases.
Aaron – you need to consider very carefully (as I did about 3 or 4 years ago) just why it is that temperature readings in boreholes all over the globe always extrapolate to a temperature which is close to the minimum temperature at the surface. How does all that thermal energy which you think is generated in the core of Earth (and presumably every planet and satellite moon, including our Moon) just happen to be the right amount and the right temperature, and how does the conductivity just happen to be the right value also – all this so as to ensure that the temperature plot breaks out at the surface at the right temperature which supposedly is propped up to the observed value only because of water vapour, carbon dioxide and their colleagues in the atmosphere, “unknown” to the mantle and crust?
It doesn’t work that way. The temperature plot on Uranus, for example, is anchored by the radiationg temperature (colder than 60K) at the very top of its atmosphere. From there the thermal profile has built up down through the troposphere to 320K at the base thereof, then further down to the small solid core (55% the mass of Earth) where it reaches 5,000K. None of this is to do with any internal energy generation, because there is no huge energy discrepancy at TOA and thus no convincing evidence of net energy loss. Nor is there convincing evidence of net energy loss from Earth at TOA, as there would have to be if our hot core were in fact cooling off, or generating energy from matter. Planetary surfaces cool in their nighttime, but warm back up by the same amount in their sunlit hours. Think on that.
As I have said, the existence of a temperature gradient in the outer crust does not tell us that there is necessarily heat transfer out of the crust. All the studies to which you refer are incorrect because they ignore the gravito-thermal effect, as do climatologists.
So you tell me …
(1) How the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus in oredr to raise its temperature by 5 degrees (723K to 737K) during the course of its 4-month-long day.
(2) How the necessary energy gets into the surface of Earth’s oceans in non-polar regions in order to maintain the observed temperatures.
Sorry – “in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees (732K to 737K) …
There is nothing mankind can do to control climate. Climate is governed by natural cycles which are based on the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and the planets. The correlation is too good to ignore.
If the greenhouse conjecture were correct then moist rain forests would be about 40 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. They aren’t: they’re cooler.
NCAR should be shut down. It provides nothing of import except for being the home of highly theoretical climate wazoos.
Talk about a gravy train.
Hi there to all, how is everything, I think every one is getting more from this web site,
and your views are fastidious for new visitors.
I don’t know Venus and am not picking up a new hobby. I am not clear what you mean by your 2nd question. Do you want me to explain how water warms from sunlight? For example why a thermocline exists in closed lakes and reverses in winter at mid latitudes?
Back to the Earth’s mantle. Convection drives the mantle plums upward to the surface where some of the heat escapes then the now cooler material returns deeper. The rate this occurs exceeds the rate I can envision any sort of equilibration. Can you provide the time required for your model? The earth is not a rigid body at geologic scales it is dynamic w heat flowing outwards from the nuclear core. As far as heat flow goes in the crust you have zero idea what u are talking about bc there is so much data in the oil industry related to this field. Crustal heat flow varies regionally and is very important for the temperature at a given depth, which is critical in finding hydrocarbons. This is something that has been studied greatly. I can provide literature if you want.
(1) The higher a planet’s troposphere is, the higher the temperature at the base thereof, and the temperature of any surface there.
(2) The greater the acceleration due to gravity the higher the surface temperature.
(3) The greater the weighted mean specific heat of the gases the lower the surface temperature
(4) The greater the radiation between molecules in the troposphere, the lower the surface temperature
(5) The greater the mean incident solar flux the higher the temperature at all altitudes in the troposphere and in the surface and the subsurface regions.
With which, if any, do you disagree, and why?
Aaron.
The solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface (which has a mean of 161W/m^2) would only support a temperature of 235K in an asphalt covered globe, because absorptivity of asphalt is indeed close to its emissivity of 0.93. You can check this with an on-line SBL calculator easily found with Google.
Clearly the transparent surface layer of the ocean does not absorb anywhere near as much solar radiation, and we all know that a road getts hotter in the Sun than does ocean water or even a swimming pool. So yes, you can try to explain “how water warms from sunlight” but if your calculations using incident solar radiation alone give a result anywhere near 288K then you have made a mistake therein.
You don’t know that convection in the mantle is towards the surface just because there is a very shallow temperature gradient (often less than one degree per Km) because the specific heat gets very high at those temperatures. You don’t know and cannot prove that heat transfer towards the surface in the mantle would be causing entropy to increase\ and unless that happens there is no such heat transfer in that direction. I have good reason (explained in my book) to reject your assertive statement which displays a lack of understanding of thermodynamic equilibrium.
The time required is not a problem. These planets have been around for billions of years.
The oil industry has no idea of what I am talking about, and nor do you, but it’s all expalined with valid physics in my book.
Until you think about how the newly absorbed energy in the upper troposphere of Venus (where it’s below 400K) gets into the surface (where it’s 735K) and raises the temperature of that surface when the Sun is shining, then you will have no understanding of Earth’s heat transfer processes above or below the surface. So I will not continue arguing when I know you can’t explain Venus surface warming with the mere 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation that reaches its surface.
In other words, Aaron, if your knowledge and understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is restricted to the school-boy concept that heat flow is always from hot to cold, then you apparently don’t realise that this 19th century claim is only a corollary of the Second Law and requires certain prerequisites, the most relevant being that garvitational potential energy does not alter. In other words, it is only a correct corollary for conduction and convection in a horizontal plane, not a vertical plane in a force field like gravity.
The core of the Moon is well over 1,000C and that does not require any nuclear energy generation. If it did, considering how much the surface cools on the dark side, there would have to be a hell of a lot of nuclear power generation.
Those who persist with concepts about solar radiation heating planetary surfaces to the observed temperatures should consider the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere where it’s 320K – hotter than Earth, yet 30 times further from the Sun and not receiving any solar radiation through 350Km of troposphere anyway, nor having a surface there to collect the non-existent incident solar radiation – and not having any convincing evidence of long term cooling or internal energy generation converting mass to energy.
As Prof Julius Sumner Miller used to say in our physics lectures back in the 60’s, “Why is it so?”
Perhaps some people who are more interested in discussing their own theories of how the climate works than any subject Roy Spencer brings up in his threads would be better off running their own blog instead…
+1
I sort of wonder why Dr. Spencer leaves all the cotton lying around. His blog his rules of course, but it clutters the place.
Hi Doug,
I admit that maybe I dont fully understand your theory, but I agree with you about the gravitational imposed lapse rate.
By the way, I don’t understand who negates that point and knows that it is that natural phenomenon which triggers the nuclear fusion on the Sun:
http://www.universetoday.com/42270/why-is-the-sun-hot/
And still doesn’t accept that that very same gravitational field fixes a thermal gradient on Earth atmosphere.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
What they don’t understand, Massimo is that it builds up from the top down as convective heat transfer conveys thermal energy to the base of the troposphere and into the surface as it restores thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient. I coined the term “heat creep” for this process. The only theory involved is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Hi Doug,
again, I’m not sure I understand well what you mean (I’m just an electronic engineer).
Anyways I don’t believe it needs any energy from the top to be build up the thermal gradient. On the Sun the gravity builds the temperature by itself and the nuclear fusion cools by light radiation keeping the system in equilibrium.
That is, the Sun doesn’t need any energy from the outside to heat up, it just needed (in ancient times) to aggregate sufficient hydrogen to reach the sufficient mass that started the stabilizing nuclear fusion.
IMHO our globe temperature is established by the sum of the natural lapse rate fixed by Earth gravity (maybe very little, I don’t know) and the Sun’s radiation.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
KYODO
SEP 30, 2014
Rescue workers who witnessed the aftermath of Saturday’s eruption of Mount Ontake said they were tormented by a sense of helplessness and powerlessness before Mother Nature.
Gravitation (pressure) determines the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=27.38,96.32,418
Close to the truth, yes, but pressure is merely a corollary, not a cause.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the inevitable conclusion that gravity forms ..
(1) a density gradient
(2) a temperature gradient
each being evident in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature, so its gradient is a corollary of these gradients.
You simply cannot escape this inevitability, because the Second Law stands up to all challenges. If you disagree then you are in disagreement with the Second Law, and that’s your problem.
Sadly Roy hasn’t yet come to grips with this.
Roy, you wrote:
“I think it’s entirely possible that half of the warming in the last 50 years has been human-induced.”
No Roy it is not at all possible, as I have been explaining in the comments in this thread. All that carbon dioxide does is have a net cooling effect of the order of 0.1 degree. If carbon dioxide did warm Earth’s surface, then each 1% of water vapour would be warming by perhaps 10 to 15 degrees. That’s ludicrous, Roy, and totally unsupported by any empirical evidence. All that real world data shows is that water vapour cools, and I provided you with the data and results of my study on this in a thread here several months ago.
Ozone and water vapor are the most important greenhouse gases. Both gases absorb solar energy directly and are able to give it back, regardless of the surface temperature.
Evaporation requires energy from the surfacetherefore surface is cooled.
Back radiation cannot slow the rate of evaporative cooling, or conduction, diffusion or convection. Nor can it slow the rate at which thermal energy is conveyed to the depths of the ocean by convective heat transfer DOWN FROM THE SURFACE in non-polar regions. All these processes can and will accelerate to compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling. The ocean surface layer acts nothing at all like a black or grey body because of these other energy losses and the transmission of solar radiation. Hence you simply cannot claim that SBL could be used to determine its temperature. And that’s obvious if you try.
This is the biggest single glaring error in the GH conjecture.
The Sun’s direct radiation does not even come close to explaining the temperature of the surface layer of Earth’s oceans, let alone the 735K temperature of the Venus surface, or the 320K temperature at the base of the Uranus troposphere.
Satellites show that the largest energy absorption occurs over the oceans.
Yes of course – that’s where the water vapour is at its highest level in the lower atmosphere. Did you have some point to make about this well known fact?
Let’s see the actual energy absorption.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
You can see that cloud has the meaning reducing the absorption.
You can see that cloud has the meaning reducing the absorption.
Here you can see how ozone warms the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2013.gif
In the above graphic it is clear that the temperature in the troposphere is strictly dependent on the pressure (the gas is expanded).
No it is not dependent on the pressure. The pressure is dependent on it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that thermodynamic equilibrium evolves. That equilibrium has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. Pressure is just a corollary, being proportional to the product of temperature and density.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/26/week-in-review-28/#comment-634017
Debate on feedbacks…
The following has been quoted before with zero impact – but here it is again:
“The fact is that the concept of ‘feedback’, so simple and necessary in certain elementary cases, becomes artificial and of little use when the interconnexions between the parts become more complex. When there are only two parts joined so that each affects the other, the properties of the feedback give important and useful information about the properties of the whole. But when the parts rise even to as few as four, if every one affects the other three, then twenty circuits can be traced through them; and knowing the properties of all the twenty circuits does NOT give complete information about the system. Such complex systems cannot be treated as an interlaced set of more or less independent feedback circuits, but only as a whole.”
Introduction to Cybernetics, W R Ashby, 1956.
I would imagine that within a very few minutes Dessler and Spencer would be tossing umpteen theoretical feedbacks at each other – and would therefore, according to system theory – both instantly be talking gibberish.
I can’t explain the sense of the term when climatologists use it (something like deviation from expected), but I think it is different from the engineer’s sense.
It is difficult to appreciate the unusual point of view (that of a cybernetician) from the short extract. The whole, brief, book – which is free in an internet archive – is extremely worth reading.
In the words of Professor F. Heylighen, of The Free University of Brussels and Director of the interdisciplinary group “Evolution, Complexity and Cognition”:
“[After fifty-eight years], still the only real textbook on cybernetics and systems theory.”
Doug I agree with another post that it would be best to create your own blog. The only reason I engaged like I did was bc you challenge to debate Roy on a non sense issue is distracting from the point of the post. And id like to see this debate happen.
Yes you are right, I tend to stick with the basics… like the measurement based numbers that state the emissivities of water and asphalt are .96 and .88, respectively. Hey if you have new physics then great but i am not the man to review them. But i can cite that the fission inside the earths mantle creates over half of the earths heat based on neutrino detector measurements (Nature Geoscience 4, 647-651). Now for the other half that is a bit of a mystery and perhaps you are on to something… write it and publish it then the theory will get the respect you desire.
No Aaron the other half of the energy is not a mystery any longer. I have explained in my book that the nuclear/fission energy is indeed probably not sufficient to maintain the Earth’s core temperature. The difference is made up for by “heat creep” wherein solar energy creeps up the temperature profile, yes, all the way to the core.
In the article Roy claims half of all climate change is human induced. This is a hoax and easily exposed as being incorrect, which is what I have done in very relevant comments on this thread. I will not tolerate the promulgation of false physics by Roy or yourself, and why should I when lives and huge sums of wasted money are at stake?
What I wrote here is also relevant to yourself and Roy. And, by the way, I have maintained two climate websites for nearly five years now, and also have two Facebook groups about climate, and am a member of over 150 such climate groups on Facebook.
I can’t include the URL’s for my dot com websites but I own the domain names starting with earth-climate (with 39,837 hits) and climate-change-theory with 56,447 hits.
Roy, in the article, is talking about cloud feedbacks. Well, what do you, Aaron say the sensitivity is to each 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere? Under the old 20th century greenhouse radiative forcing paradigm, it is water vapour (as the most prevalent GH gas) that is supposed to be warming the surface from -18C but in fact it should be from something colder than the -35C for an asphalt paved globe, because grass and water don’t get as hot in the Sun. When you have you answer about the sensitivity to 1% of water vapour, tell me how much hotter that makes a rain forest compared with a desert.
I’m not going to argue over the difference in various measurements of the emissivity of asphalt paving. I’m happy to use your 0.88 which, with the NASA estimate of solar flux entering the surface being 161W/m^2 gives us (using SBL) a n surface temperature of 238.3K (-35C) for an Earth fully covered in asphalt.
So, as you stick to your basics, I take it you can gloss over this little discrepancy – this “little non sense issue” can you? We don’t need to explain it do we? Out of sight, out of mind? Send Doug elsewhere so we can get on with promulgating the hoax and killing people in developing countries. Maybe, just maybe, some totally different paradigm is what we should be looking at when discussing Roy’s belief that mankind has caused half of all the warming.
Roy, have you considered becoming a member of UPFSI in the spirit of diversification?
H. H. Swami Chidanand Saraswati looks like he would be a lot of fun after a few cocktails.
http://www.upfsi.org/members/
Roy,
No response from Dessler on this?
Dr. Spencer wrote;
None of the 97% consensus papers show that 97% of scientists believe half the warming was human-induced. The Cook et al study data only shows that 97% (actually 98%) of the abstracts that took a position on climate, explicitly or implicitly imply that humans have some non-zero effect on climate. His numbers show only 0.54% of the abstracts (64 out of 11,968 peer-reviewed) claim humans have caused more than 50% of the warming since 1950.
So a scientist who believes that humans caused 10% of the warming since 1950 is part of the 97% consensus. That ‘consensus’ includes almost all skeptics. But this is a gross misuse of the word consensus, since the word means agreement. A scientist who believes humans caused 10% of the warming (soot on snow, UHI effect) does not agree with a scientist who believes humans caused 100% of the warming since 1950.
See http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
“…the word means agreement…”
From the Latin ‘consentire’ to agree. Its meaning in English is restricted to GENERAL agreement. Since the word ‘general’ is vague it has no place in Science, and, therefore, nor does the word ‘consensus’. ‘Partial agreement’ or ‘some common ground’ would be acceptable.
Yes! Finally something about does whole foods have flowers.
This is within response to your recent request
for a letter of recommendation for [name]. If you are force to create, you’ll gain outright another hardships
once you’re back into writing. www (http://Www.i-am-bored.com) edible arrangements free shipping code 2012 These four requirements are listed
below: appropriate and accurate, short refining, appropriate extension and content and excellent eye-catching.
For us it exposed a completely different structure to
organization and potentially added new revenue streams.
Check sale and clearance prices with the above stores and search
online for your best deal. When you see a puppy running around having
a mouthful of leaves, take them off and develop
discipline. Ingestion can result in drooling, vomiting, diarrhea,
lethargy, and even just death.
Once you’ve got selected a color scheme for your DIY calla
lily bouquet, choose other flowers and foliage for the
bridal bouquet. They tend growing very quickly and will adapt to
different types of soil conditions.
If you are able to’t think of much to create in your letter other than “Hi. Online websites sell various types of clothing and so are the best location to start. whether [lilyerex.gamerdna.com] calla
lily bouquet photos The narrative writing prompts may be fictional
or non fictional – depending on the choice in the person who provides prompts.
Please enter in the characters that you just see within the picture in the field below.
Within a time of two weeks the complete show came together with the support
of thousands of people who are from law of attraction groups
through the nation. He carries a masters
in metaphysics and is also certified like a life coach.
baofeng tdr-ab energy
If you spent Pat Benatar, for example, you’ll probably receive more songs with a strong female vocal lead.
Cosmetically, the UV-5R has an extremely more solid case, by
incorporating interesting trim features. Baofeng jack In addition also these cars are available in various
shapes and designs; these are generally meant to
enable the users to select the best from on the list of ones in the market.
Most from the providers provide extra batteries and chargers with their products.
It will offer the links of your respective business websites and
ensures good traffic of maximum clients. Content writer job description is about every single aspect that is certainly concerned while using end result
of any written material. second (vox.com) We all realize that writing is
one of the most important facets of academics all night .
the basic familiarity with creative writing prompts for kids is often a good
start. After choosing your topic, the following step is to figure out what point you are trying to make.
best cordless phone 2013
The writer need to have a clear understanding from the paper
so that they can perform research as outlined by the topic in question. another side,
Inno – Tab comes with MP3 ipod, photo viewer as well as
video player; however, it requires the choice of capturing and recording videos.
overall; svbtle.com, cordless hand vacuum reviews Web content development companies please take a
closer look on the article a great deal of features company lets you an insight within their quality and magnificence.
And within the process, you have established your unique target area and target
population, which will be important when setting measurable
objectives for your program.