And you want me to treat you as more than a barometer reader with an unsupported opinion post like that? One that not only ignores vast swathes of climate science but shows no cognisance of basic physics underpinning that science?
the vast swathes of climate science shows nothing except that the climate is changing. none of it proves that mankind is the driving factor.
What we observe is that in pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 ppm. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100ppm. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by 15 gigatonnes every year.
Further confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity come by analysing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions
When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
Embarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGEEmbarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians
25
03
2010
I was meaning to write about the cringe-inducing website called “Skeptical Science” and today’s Revkin’s piece at dotEarth finally pushed me forward.
I feel embarrassment for John Cook, Skeptical Science author, for two reasons (neither concerning his rather disturbing photograph). First of all the very existence of such a site seems to be a loud scream at all that has gone wrong with the IPCC. If Mr Cook feels it necessary to spend as much time as he does on the topic, obviously he should be the first one to agree that the IPCC has been a communication failure.
(not that he’s really any better himself at that: by stating that “eventually, the scientific reality will be so in our faces that inaction will be impossible“, Cook is confirming that “the scientific reality” is currently not “so in our faces” as his scholarly lists of scientific papers appear to suggest)
The second reason I find Skeptical Science a disaster is that all it is ever going to tell us is that AGW is a self-consistent theory and there has been plenty of papers written on the topic. That can only highlight what will forever be missing: the science that was prevented to be published, the open questions, the competing claims within AGW orthodoxy.
In fact, one of the comments at dotEarth (#15) pretty much reveals the kind of person that would find the Skeptical Science site of high interest. The point is not to understand the world as it is, but to accumulate evidence for one’s own rationalization of what the world is presumed to be. Hence no space for any doubt whatsoever of any sort, not even for competing AGW interpretations, let alone for non-orthodox scientists (by definition, their work is “crap“).
Simplicius (*) would have been proud of that. “Science” it is not.
(*) the defender of the Aristotelian (geocentric) view of the world in Galil
Climate Change Dispatch - The NewI was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.
The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.
Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.
Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.
I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.
For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.
Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.
Oops — if so then that means that Dr. Hansen’s theories should be discarded, since he is a physicist!
Further, if Mr. Cook is saying we should listen only to specialists, and if Mr. Cook is not a specialist in climate science, what is his authority for reaching such a conclusion? Should I also ask my barber who to listen to?
You do realize the irony here of your using one man's personal crusade site to bolster your arguments for AGW don't you?
Embarrassing “Skeptical Science” or The Return Of The Aristotelians « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change Dispatch - The New
Notice how nothing you posted actually addresses any of the science on his website? He links to all sorts of peer-reviewed science journals to back up what he says.
Unlike you.
Do you not realize the irony of not posting any evidence of anything you've claimed about climate? Literally all you've said is that "climate always changes." What, therefore mankind cannot possibly affect it? That's completely flawed logic.
CO2 Charlatanism.There is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because the radiation gets used up in the first ten meters (Heinz Hug's Measurement). More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature.
Several technical rationalizations are used. One is that the absorption bands supposedly widen with increased CO2. It doesn't, because a change in energy state of the molecules is required for widening the absorption bands (explained here).
Another assumption (pretense) is that reduced density on the shoulders of the absorption bands allows some radiation through until the density is increased through the addition of more CO2. But the increase in CO2 can only shorten the distance radiation travels before being absorbed, which is not an increase in temperature. Shortening the distance creates extremely slight increases in temperature by moving the heat to lower levels, but the quantities are extremely miniscule, not the catastrophic levels being claimed. (Explained on Crunching the Numbers)
A "denier" (authority, scientist) will say, the simple math is beyond question showing that doubling the CO2 will result in a 1.2°C temperature increase, the only question is whether water vapor will increase it through "forcing."
Then an "alarmist" (authority, scientist) will say, there is no question of the laboratory measurement showing a 1.2°C temperature increase with the doubling of CO2.
They both use the number 1.2, but one says it is derived through simple math, and the other says it is produced through a laboratory measurement. There are no connections between a simple calculation and a laboratory measurement. If the number is so unquestionable, why can't they determine where it came from? A fake curve is used, and it is phonier than a three dollar bill.
There is no such number in reality, nor anything close to it. The impossibility of making a real calculation or measurement is a quagmire beyond the ability of any scientist to unravel. It is common to write crazed equations as if they had some meaning, but they all run into conflict with each other, besides having no basis in objective reality. That doesn't happen without charlatanism replacing science a long ways back.
So it's important to understand the difference between the overwhelming charlatanism and the missing science. And it's important to realize that the reason why both sides can be so far apart on supposed science is because there is nothing resembling valid science behind the arguments on the official side, and opposing views are not allowed within science.
Producing valid science is about the most demanding task humans attempt. Probing the unknown is so difficult that the task has largely been abandoned and replaced by development of technology, which tends to look the same. Then when science is really needed, as with global warming, there is no real science to fall back on.
The most important element of real science is a body of knowledge which evolves over time. No one can arbitrate it; it just evolves. Anyone can question any part of it, and real scientists normally do.
This means that every element of science is just worth whatever it is worth. It's not a push-button machine which spits out yes or no answers for ignorant fools. What any element of science is worth depends upon all elements of the complex process.
One of the most obvious things about the global warming argument is a complete absence of the evolved knowledge of science, if not a total contradiction to it. A few examples are informative.
When fakes talk about ice melting in the Arctic, they pretend that the 0.6°C claimed increase in global average air temperature is the cause. Supposedly, the warm air is melting the ice. Such a miniscule temperature increase does not have the slightest ability to melt a slight amount of Arctic ice. Air has little heat capacity compared to water, and a massive amount of heat is needed to change the state of ice to water. And heat does not go downward, it goes upward. For these reasons, only warm ocean water could be responsible for the Arctic ice melting. None of these basic principles of science are evaluated by the charlatans—on either side of the issue.
Another example is the claim that all heat on the planet can be accounted for. It supposedly must be either in the atmosphere or oceans. What about the rocks. Well, we could do a little adjusting for that. And then they will say, we aren't sure how much heat escapes into space or at what rate, but just ignore this little technicality. They also forgot to consider how much solar energy entered the oceans and accumulated. There is no concept of how long solar energy should accumulate in the oceans or at what rate it would escape or where to or how. And then they forgot to account for the geothermal energy which continually moves upward from the center of the earth, which would accumulate in the oceans for thousands of years.
If there were a real science involved, none of this would have been missed, and the conclusion would have to be that we don't have the slightest idea how much heat there is in the oceans, where it came from or where it is going. But none of that matters for charlatans; they just want you to think they are unquestionable gods who could not be wrong having the tools of modern science at their disposal.
The frauds are not being held accountable for any of this, because all the public gets is a few trite quotes from authorities who no one has heard of. So journalists pick their favorite authorities to quote, and the two sides try to overwhelm each other through propaganda.
Fake Equations — where the number 1.2°C came from
Hacked files expose the fraud at it's source — Tim Ball
None Dare Call It Fraud — Paul Driessen
Yes, the ice sheet loss isn't as bad as previously calculated. This is good.
edit: Also, it's freaking crazy that there's enough ice there to compress the earth's crust. Imagine the force necessary to do that!
Notice what it does NOT say? It does not say that global warming is not happening - simply that we overestimated the ice loss because of the flexing of the crust.
As deuce says THIS is how science works - now THIS datum will be included in future IPCC reports
People with no understanding of the scientific process commenting on a scientific issue are fun
yeah. I happened to have a MS in chemical engineering and I took several courses in environmental and atmospheric chemistry. but apparently I still don't know how scientific issues work. gotta love it.
Once again - show me you can differentiate between a peer reviewed research article and an opinion blog and I might listen.
Nobody says global warming hasn't happened.
The fact that there WAS an Ice Age, and now there ISN'T is proof of that.
What isn't happening is the Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's a hoax made by dishonestly parsing evidence to craft an imaginative little tale that doesn't reflect the real world.
Well, Climategate pretty much told us your side is trying to eliminate the honest reviewers and replace them with people who will promote your agenda regardless of what truth is, or, more precisely, despite what the truth is.
How can we "hoax" the following?
Rising Co2 levels
Changing ratios of carbon dioxide isotopes reflecting the increased amount of Co2 derived from fossil fuels
changing levels of long wave radiation escaping the Earth's atmosphere
How many parts per million per year is the CO2 rising?
How many parts per million per year is the CO2 rising?
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
How many parts per million per year is the CO2 rising?
Nobody says global warming hasn't happened.
The fact that there WAS an Ice Age, and now there ISN'T is proof of that.
What isn't happening is the Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's a hoax made by dishonestly parsing evidence to craft an imaginative little tale that doesn't reflect the real world.
Well, Climategate pretty much told us your side is trying to eliminate the honest reviewers and replace them with people who will promote your agenda regardless of what truth is, or, more precisely, despite what the truth is.
Oh Ho! are you one of those that does not think the greenhouse effect can be engendered by "such a small amount" of CO2?
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
CO2 can only absorb so much. I think I've yes, yes I have all ready posted the debunking of CO2. So, carry on with your blog site lol.
Can you link the post where you did this?
Also, a few parts per million may not seem like much, but we're talking about in a very, very large atmosphere and this is an accumulation over time. It will only increase. PART PER MILLION! ZOMG SO SMALL! Except it's gigatons per year. Wait, now it seems like a lot!
Maybe you should post some evidence of how much absorption that might cause? Seeing as how you've already "debunked" CO2. (debunked what, I wonder? it's infrared absorption capabilities?)
The present rate is closer to 2ppm. I think your 1.43 number comes from the average over the last century.
Maybe you should actually read that "lol blog site" because it's linking more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies on that page alone.
CO2 can only absorb so much. I think I've yes, yes I have all ready posted the debunking of CO2. So, carry on with your blog site lol.
It's 1.43 last time I did the numbers.
Really. 1.43 PART PER MILLION.
Think about that for a while folks.
No, I can't link the post. I've done it a half dozen times. You always seem to miss it then demand to see it later.
I've told you, I'm done wasting effort with you. NO link is good enough, no science legit, no paper peer reviewed properly, no evidence meets you exacting standards... well at least if it counters your AGW stance.
CO2 Absorption Spectrum Explained.Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide saturates (absorbs to extinction) at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at the peak frequencies after 10 meters. If then there is a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance of absorption reduces to half, or 5m. A reduction in distance is not an increase in temperature. Convectional currents stir the heat around removing any relevance for distance.
Scientists who promote the global warming hype try to work around this fact by claiming something different happens higher in the atmosphere, which they claim involves unsaturation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. (See Disputed Zone.) The difference due to height is that the absorption peaks get smaller and sharper, so they separate from each other. Near the earth's surface, the absorption peaks for water vapor partially overlap the absorption peaks for CO2, while there is less water vapor high in the atmosphere. Supposedly, separating the peaks creates global warming. There is no credibility to that claim. It is nothing but an attempt to salvage global warming propaganda through fake rationalizing of complexities.
What it means is that climatologists admit there is no mechanism at lower levels of the atmosphere, and their rationalization for higher up is phony.
It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation. Temperature determines frequency. This means that most of the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.
Heat leaves the planet through long wave infrared radiation.
Absorption Peaks
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.
Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders. The total range of infrared radiation is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?