The hacked emails from the East Anglia Climate Centre in the UK have not been a big issue in New Zealand. At least for most people and for most news media. There are, of course, ideological motivated people who wish to promote the issue as a scandal. Who wish to attack our current understanding of climate science and climate change. Or who just have an anti-science attitude in general and attack the integrity of scientists as part of their nature.
Of course, we have been preoccupied here with attacks on NIWA scientists by the ACT party, the Climate Science Coalition, the Climate Conversation Group, conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart, and climate change deniers in the blogosphere. Obviously taking advantage of the climate gate email scandal they made serious attacks on the integrity of these scientists. However, this has also more or less fizzled out as NIWA released information to show the attacks were false.
Conspiracy theories
Of course this doesn’t stop some people. These conspiracy theorists who are presented the emails as evidence of a global conspiracy. They got the bit between their teeth. Believed their own propaganda and started to assert that the Copenhagen meeting would be canceled. That this is the end of the global warming story! The gobal warming conspiracy!
This short video by potholer puts the whole email scandal into context.
It investigates the two most used examples of “fraud” from these emails – the ones talking about “using a trick to hide the decline” an it being a “travesty that we can’t explain the cooling.” The examples that the denier alarmists (conspiracy theorists) have been concentrating on. The ones that have them frothing at the mouth. Poholer pours the cold water of reality over them.
“There are, of course, ideological motivated people who wish to promote the issue as a scandal. Who wish to attack our current understanding of climate science and climate change. Or who just have an anti-science attitude in general and attack the integrity of scientists as part of their nature”
So basically your approach is to poison the well in advance against dissenters fromy uor view and engage in the ad hominem fallacy.
The hacked emails of Climategate are not necessary to show that human caused global warming never was.
A simple, science-based EXCEL model has been derived that accurately (sd = 0.064 C) predicts all average global temperatures since 1895. The model did not need any consideration whatsoever of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.
A description of the model and its development along with an eye-opening graph that shows measured and predicted average global temperature are in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
Well, Glenn – that’s one way of avoiding the issue. Label anyone who bases their analysis on evidence instead of your own preconceived bias. Who is poisoning the well here?
I think the video is excellent. It goes into the two most misquoted emails. If you didn’t see anything there – what do they say: “There are none so blind as those who refuse to look?”
Yes, Cedric. The video is excellent. Short and to the point.
It’s amazing, though, how some people just don’t want to expose themselves to evidence like this. I refer to the phenomenon as an “ideological ghetto.” Where people won’t look outside their strict ideological/theological boundaries. They must always find their “scientific” evidence from approved sources. Like Ian Wishart!
Truesceptic has been looking at the emails in more detail at Greenfyre’s blog.
Some of them are quite blunt.
This is part of an email from McIntyre, where he asserts that engineers have higher standards for data than do academics.
/mail/1104855751.txt
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on
“RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached
it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in
press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things
can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc…
Cedric Katesby:
Regarding the research presented in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true : The methodology and all data sources (NOAA) are there so anyone who is technologically competent can verify it. Others may continue to wonder why it is not getting warmer as the CO2 level continues to increase.
Dan, Cedric has a valid point, if you think this model you are proposing is credible you will of couse submit a paper to an appropriate jounal. This should enable it to be assesed prperly by competent climate scientists.
Personally, I won’t bother checking out your web presentation in the absence of a proper peer review. I don’t have that sort of tome to waste.
The methodology and all data sources (NOAA) are there…
That’s fantastic.
Really great.
Now all you have to do is publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal, overturn the global consensus on global warming and claim your Nobel Prize.
Go for it. There is no time to waste.
Kthxbai.
Cedric Kaesby:
If papers published in “peer-reviewed journals” could predict average global temperature there would not be the present observed SEPARATION between the rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide level, 18.8 % since 2000 of the increase from 1800 to 2000 and the not-rising temperature determined by averaging reports from the five reporting agencies (four since Climategate).
Making sense out of the partisan rhetoric on this issue is a little like trying to figure out the global temperature from thousands of independent measurement stations. The “signal to noise ratio” is VERY high.
I’m happy to say the New York Times science journalist, Andy Revkin, seems to be a person of some independence and integrity. He believes in global warming, but he’s been “accused” of being “not as predictable as we’d like.” He has now been threatened with “the Big Cutoff” by a climatologist who was unhappy with his blog post.
I’ve started reading blog and invite others here to do so as well.
Here’s an in-depth analysis of the internal structure of the CRU data. It fits with my own assessment, so I’ll pass it on. The most important claim (which I believe is VERY hard to rebut) is that the .zip file that was released was originally assembled to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Whether it was “leaked” or “hacked” is NOT clear. But it does seem likely that a person inside the CRU assembled this particular set of documents because somebody made a specific request.
Here’s the write-up, if anyone CARES about WHY these emails were gathered.
On the other hand, who is benefitting from the release of these hacked emails? Who is running with the story as hard as they can? Why, look, it’s the deniers and their media supporters! What a surprise.
Instead of relying on fanciful reports at WattsUp, why not take a look at what The Times has to say:
The computer was hacked repeatedly, the source close to the investigation said: “It was hacked into in October and possibly earlier. Then they gained access again in midNovember.” By not releasing the e-mails until two weeks before Copenhagen, the hacker ensured that the debate about them would rage during the summit.
My sources close to the CRU affair tell me that the entire email database was hacked, and that the released emails amount to less than 2% of the total. No wonder it took the hackers a few weeks to sort out what to release — and they would have had to know what they were looking for. And this was the work of a “whistleblower”? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on…
Gareth, there’s a factual problem with what you’re suggesting. The Oct. 12 date comes from the BBC’s Paul Hudson, who was provided a set of files but refused to do anything with them. The FOIA.zip file hit the Internet on Nov. 17, and contained emails dated up to Nov. 12, the day before Steve McIntyre’s freedom of information request was denied. (Google FOI_99-44 to see various posts on the progress of that request.)
So the Oct. 12 hack could not have “sorted through” the data retrieved and then released it on Nov. 12. It had to be at least two “hacks,” if there were any. Or just one “leaker” who tried to go to a reputable (and “green”) journalist at the BBC before finally sending the (most current) info to the world at large.
The claim that the release in November was timed to throw off Copenhagen is just silly, unless a release four weeks earlier would have also been “timed to throw off Copenhagen.” The hacker/leaker TRIED to go public with the info on Columbus Day.
The claim that “the entire email database was hacked” but only 2% were released is completely consistent with a FOIA response. The emails have been stripped of headers (appropriate in a FOIA response, and just plain silly for a hacker). The emails do not include personal correspondence (again, appropriate for a FOIA dataset but silly for a hacker–if you want to make Phil Jones look bad, why not include the juiciest personal stuff you can find?)
The question of whether the emails were “leaked” or “hacked” makes no real difference to the science of all this. It would seem like this is an interesting little tidbit of a great big story where reality-based people could look at the evidence together and come to some consensus.
What do others think? Do the emails seems “hacked,” “leaked,” or “who cares?”
Scott, this is an issue for the police. I agree the data may have been collected together for a freedom of information request – but so what? We can look ofrward to what the polic dig up and what the enquiry finds. But that will take time.
The real issue is thyat there are people who are promoting an incorrect and extreme presentation of the emails. Obviously in an attempt to damage the scientific case. And, yes, it is obvious the release was time to threaten Copenhagen. The earlier release probably failed because jounralists saw that the emails didn’t have the power the deniers think. The latest release has relied on extremist and emotional poushing of the story.
But why bother with this Scott? Why ignore the NIWA attacks? Surely we have a clear case here. All the data is available, the denier claims are available. It’s easy to understand.
If you are interested in this issue why avoid discussion the NIWA situation? All the elements of the controversy are there.
Ken, I’m avoiding the NIWA situation because I have nothing of significance to say about it. I’ve read through both sides of the argument–one side says the data is suspect, the other side says it isn’t. I don’t have anything to add to that, so I’m saying nothing–which is pretty much what I had been doing on the whole AGW issue until the CRU files appeared.
If “all the elements of the controversy” are present in the NIWA situation, I’d love to look more deeply into it.
You say, “The real issue is that there are people who are promoting an incorrect and extreme presentation of the emails.” I don’t actually care what OTHER people are saying about the emails. I’m more interested in looking through them for myself.
Here’s an “extreme an incorrect presentation of the emails” for you–IPCC Vice-Chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is blaming the “hack” on the sophisticated, unscrupulous oil-rich Russians. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Siberia to sell you. This is the LAMEST evidence the IPCC is in deep trouble yet.
Not interested in science as represented by NIWA.? But interested in rumours and scuttle mongering. Why bring up this specific report – there are just so many others.
If papers published in “peer-reviewed journals” could predict average global temperature there would not be the present observed SEPARATION etc.etc. etc.
I believe you.
I am behind you 100%.
This is vitally important.
Far too important to langish in the comments section of some blog somewhere.
This earth-shattering stuff needs to be published in a peer-reveiwed science paper.
Once published, the inevitable demise of the global warming conspiracy is…(um)…inevitable.
Go forth and write up that paper.
Claim the Nobel prize that is rightfully yours.
There’s not a moment to lose.
Don’t let up the pressure on the conspiracy.
You can reveal the truth to all.
Here’s an in-depth analysis of the internal structure of the CRU data.
No Scott, that’s not an in-depth analysis.
That’s a denier blog.
A particularly bad one.
They are not scientists.
They don’t represent scientists.
Whatever happened to your standard of expecting peer-review? You won’t find anything useful there.
Garbage in, garbage out.
If you stick to the work of actual scientists who have indeed published solid research (and mountains of it) , then the denialists lose.
Think about it!
Would you be prepared to get important medical information from these people?
If you can believe in one conspiracy motivated by politics and greed then it’s really easy to believe in other nefarious conspiracies motivated by politics and greed.
Cedric–what I’ve said is that I accept peer-reviewed climatology without branding it “conspiracy.” I also accept the assessment of a computer network specialist who is reviewing a data file. The fact that he publishes his finding on a “denialist” blog doesn’t bother me, any more than the fact that the peer-reviewed literature appears in a “warmist” journal.
I understand that you take a different position, and reject all “denialist” arguments and data outright. That may be the most effective way to keep from being misled by people with evil motives, but it’s not what I would have expected at “Open Parachute.”
I understand that you take a different position, and reject all “denialist” arguments and data outright…
You’ve created a strawman.
That’s not my position at all.
You are being completely unfair.
I reject arguments from people who don’t know what they are talking about because they don’t do the damn work! I find out if they have done the work by looking at their peer-reviewed track record and their active research.
So based on this I am happy to pay attention to say…NASA. Or the Royal Society. Or the British Antarctic Survey or any one of the many excellent and respected scientific communites on the planet.
Based on this, my first port of call is NOT some no-name blog or op-ed article in some newspaper.
Denialists are conspiracy theorists who are trying to rationalise away the scientific work because they don’t like what they are hearing. The vast majority of them are talking completely outside of their field when they discuss climatology.
Opinions are like buttholes. Every ass has one.
You seem to be willing to listen to absolutely anybody. Anybody at all. It never occurs to you that maybe the guy you are talking to is just peddling nonsense.
It may be reasonable sounding nonsense.
It may be scientific sounding nonsense.
It may be very, very slick and intelligible nonsense.
Yet it’s still nonsense.
You don’t have a mechanism to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
If you want to be a reasonable, informed skeptic then you need a methodology of gathering good information as opposed to accidentally allowing youself to be fed sciencey-sounding crap made up by a professional flim-flam artist.
You need a baloney detection kit.
I appreciate that you are taking a good hard look at the claims of scientists and that you are wanting them to cough up peer-reviewed work.
That’s great.
Yet why the double standard?
Why do you not demand the same from the other side? How come every single no-name Denier blog seems like a good, credible source of information to you?
Would you get your medical information from HIV deniers like the one I linked to in my previous comment? They can publish books and create slick web-sites and they even have some tame doctors and talking heads with PHds to trot out to lend credibility.
Willing to put them on the same level of credibility as, say, the AMA or the World Health Organisation?
Or does demanding that people back up scientific claims with peer-reviewed scientific work sound like religious dogma to you?
Hmm?
“I’ve compared your listing with the science references on the latest UNEP publication « The 2009 Climate Change Science Compendium» published on September 22…
…A total of 438 papers (not including references to Institutional Reports) out of which 133 papers refer to the period 2007-2009…
…What I’ve only found are the names of a handful of scientists (I’ve counted to nine) that appear on both “sides” of the “issue-fence”…
…This is unfortunately a potential proof of the action of an “invisible hand” or “cherry-picking” that is deliberately excluding opposite viewpoints and also excluding the “voice of” maybe hundreds of scientists. The total absence of recent AGW-critical papers in the UNEP-report can not be explained by “hazard”. The numbers are too large…”
This is unfortunately a potential proof of the action of an “invisible hand” or “cherry-picking”…
“Potential” proof?
“POTENTIAL” proof?
Now there’s a qualifier that you don’t hear everyday.
🙂
Fortunately, this amateurish propoganda piece has been picked clean a while ago.
Shockingly, their technique was to actually carefully examine this list and vet it.
Imagine that.
Actually vetting a list before going around posting it on the Intertoobs.
What a concept!
(gasp)
And labeling scientists who disagree as not-really-scientists, bad scientists, or anti-science are not exactly scientific. No?
However, calling bad scientists “bad scientists” and not-really-scientists as “not really scientists” is a very good thing if it happens to be perfectly true, yes?
But how about this though:…
(…awkward silence…)
Um, what about it? If you want to read the tea-leaves on this one then do so.
Also, there’s 450 listed there, just reading it briefly, I don’t think…
Well perhaps that’s because you’ve just read it “briefly”?
A list like that is designed to catch your eye with the “450” number.
The uninformed layman is supposed to think “GOSH!! 450 real, super-duper peer-reviewed thingumy whatsits! That sounds like a big number. Why,…um….well….it’s….it’s TWICE as much as 225. Sounds pretty special to me, I tell you. And it’s all part of a list too. Found it on a web-site somewhere. Can’t get much more scientific that that.”
On the other hand, if you read the list slowly and carefully with a critical eye, you’ll find out that the list is crap.
I’m not familiar with scientific peer review process…
You are not alone. Most people have no idea at all about the importance of peer-review or the scientific process. The creator of the list is banking on that very fact. That’s how they win.
Don’t get played.
It is unfortunate that many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planet’s climate. As a result they have no technological basis to challenge highly politicized (and sometimes paycheck driven) claims by some of looming catastrophe.
Peer review is intended to keep nonsense from getting published. However, all peer reviewers are limited to their individual understanding which may be incomplete or even incorrect. Papers that agree with the peer reviewers pre-conceived perceptions are far more likely to get published than papers that disagree. So-called peer review can become worthless and even an advocacy tool. Biased peer review is de facto censoring. Unfortunately, many papers regarding global warming or climate change have appeared after ineffective peer review.
I agree with that. I mean, it’s all good to use ‘peer review’ as criteria to decide whether a view/idea/stance is more scientific than other. But how many of those peers reviewing the papers are on one side vs the other side? It makes all the difference.
To Cedric,
Sure, calling bad scientists just that might be good, as long as there are clear criteria for calling them so that are used consistently across the board.
And a peer review is not one criteria to be used, because being rejected by a group of peers does not make one a bad scientist.
Like Dan wrote, peer review is to keep nonsense from getting published. I feel like the peer review related to climate gate (just from my observation and perception) was going too far as being used to eliminate competing views, e.g.: preventing some papers from being published.
There also seems to be monopoly on peer review. Evidently some peer review journals are considered ‘crap’, while other not? Is this also part of scientific consensus?
It sounds to me like the scientific community is now operating by mob rule?
Tens of billions of dollars (grants from the deep pockets of governments) have been spent in futile efforts to prove that added CO2 caused Global Warming while an unpaid engineer with a desk-top computer and using simple engineering analysis has discovered what really determined the average global temperature history since 1895.
Also I read on the newspaper (yeah paper! I don’t know who brought the paper in my house but it’s there so I read it), apparently some politicians started to admit that this climate gate is something. A progress from nothing and won’t affect Copenhagen to something that affect the meeting.
Sure, calling bad scientists just that might be good, as long as there are clear criteria for calling them so that are used consistently across the board.
That’s eminently fair.
My criteria is simple.
Do they do the work or…are they just a bunch of posers?
Do they get their hands dirty with actual, current research or do they just sit around and “review” other peoples work?
Are they actually prepared to put their reputaion and research techniques on the line and submit to the process of peer-review?
If they fail on any of these counts, then no reasonable person should give a damn what they have to say.
There are are plenty of real, hard working scientists out there who put in the hard work that science demands and deserve to be listened to without wasting time on the crackpots, has-beens and wannabes.
I feel like the peer review related to climate gate (just from my observation and perception) was going too far as being used to eliminate competing views, e.g.: preventing some papers from being published.
No. The process of peer-review does not eliminate competing views.
If the process of peer-review was set up to do that then…you’d never get any new, radical stuff.
Scientists love new, radical stuff.
That’s how you win Nobel Prizes.
Nobody gets to be a great scientist by just ditto-ing what everybody else says.
You have a skewed version of what peer-review is and how it works. Pleaese check this out.
There also seems to be monopoly on peer review.
And you believe this because….?
Evidently some peer review journals are considered ‘crap’, while other not?
Oh yes. Reputation is everything.
Not all journals are created equal.
Some are very well respected because their standards are very high and they publish only the very best.
One single bad paper can ruin the rep of an otherwise good journal.
On the other end of the scale there are journals which are famous for being shite and will print absolutely anything, no matter how batshit crazy.
It sounds to me like the scientific community is now operating by mob rule?
…an unpaid engineer with a desk-top computer and using simple engineering analysis has discovered what really determined the average global temperature history since 1895.
WOW.
That is so freakingly brilliant.
An unpaid engineer with a desk-top computer.
Whodathunk?
All of those billions of dollars spent by NASA launching all those satellite-thingys and doing all that mainframe supercomputery stuff and for what?
FOR WHAT??????????
Nothing, that’s what.
Shame on you, NASA.
Shame.
It reminds me of my Uncle Vinny.
After lunch and a couple of beers, using only a napkin and a pencil, he was able to show that the Chinese could cause a tidal wave just by jumping up and down in unison.
He sent his idea to the Pentagon but, strangely, they never wrote back.
Whoever this unpaid engineer is, he deserves a medal.
Finally, somebody got to the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A regular folk hero of our day.
People will probably name their kids after him.
Statues will be erected.
Odes will be penned in his honour.
Maybe, just maybe, Oprah will invite him onto her show.
Who knows? The skys the limit with this one.
You rock.
Kthxbai.
Found this link of pretty clear explanation of the climate gate scandal.
I make it a rule to get my science information from actual science sources.
I’m sure that “Americanthinker” is a fine enough blog for finding out “Americans think” or whatever but I wouldn’t want to get my science information from it any more that I would get my financial or medical information from it.
Here are some better sources.
This one looks at the Medieval Warm Period denierist talking point.
As a talking point, it’s been done to death but as long as people refuse to do any fact-checking then….it will come back again and again and again and again and again and again an again and again.
(sigh)
Don’t understand how scientists use the work “trick”? That’s easy. Ask the scientific community. They’ll tell you themselves.
There’s plenty of sources.
There’s this…
Or the famous science journal “Nature”….
Or the more populist New Scientist magazine…..
Measured average global temperature (agt) anomalies continue to agree with the predictions by the model that I discovered which accurately predicts all average global temperatures since 1895. That model predicts a continuation of the temperature downtrend that started about 2005 and reveals that changes to ghgs have no significant effect.
Hi Ken, I think that comment is pretty low and unnecessary. Whether the government pay the guy or not should not matter. A lot of great discovery were made without government fundings.
I think it’s not hard to find scientists who pass your criteria of good scientists who are also denying AGW.
But I bet you will find other criteria that will exclude them. Either you think the peer-review journal is crap, or that you argue they don’t actually work, etc.
My point is that, from what I’ve been reading, this topic seems to be too politicized rather than real scientific. This is true for both camps.
I don’t believe the science is settle at all. Nor I think science should settle for anything for that matter.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell
Global Warming is happening, IRRESPECTIVE of CO2 levels and human activity. That mankind is completely responsible for global warming is the agenda-riddled universal deceit.
Cedric, the list has not been picked clean, it has not even been touched. Greenfyre’s lies about the list does not make it refuted. Repeating lies about the counting methods used or that certain journals were not peer-reviewed does not make it true.
He posted Blog posts, wikis and Youtube “rebuttals” to peer-reviewed papers. That is not how the scientific process is done, it is done through the peer-review process of comment submission allowing the author to defend the paper with a reply to the comment.
Sorry but Greenfyre is an embarrassment and has done nothing but make himself looked like a fool. The list is intact and more papers are added everyday (now well over 450).
Measured average global temperature (agt) anomalies continue to agree with the predictions by the model that I discovered which accurately predicts all average global temperatures since 1895
Then go forth you champion of truth and honesty, you!
Stop hiding away on blogs and commenting on posts.
Tell the world.
Enter the scientific arena.
Publish that paper.
Claim your Nobel prize.
Kthxbai.
I think it’s not hard to find scientists who pass your criteria of good scientists who are also denying AGW.
Then find ’em.
How hard can it be?
What exactly is your criteria of a “good” scientist.
Is it mysteriously different from mine?
Either you think the peer-review journal is crap, or that you argue they don’t actually work, etc.
Well, either the journal is a crappy journal or..it isn’t.
Word quickly gets around.
Reputations, remember?
That’s very easy to establish one way or another.
It’s not up to me.
Take “Nature” for example.
Doesn’t matter what my personal judgement of the journal is.
It’s as plain as day that any scientist would mud-wrestle their own grandmother to get a paper published in that journal.
Nature is “the big time”.
Doesn’t get more prestigious than Nature.
Even most non-scientists have heard of Nature.
As for their work, well that’s even easier.
That’s also a matter of public record.
Either we’re dealing with scientists that are
doing the work or they are not.
I find out if they have done the work by looking at their peer-reviewed track record and their active research.
That’s what smart, educated people do who don’t want to be flim-flammed.
It’s like buying a second-hand car.
You have to have a system to weed out the lemons.
You have to kick the tyres. Take it for a test drive. Get it inspected by a licenced, independent mechanic. Have the car dealer checked out and see if they are reputable.
Insist on seeing the service logs.
You, however, don’t seem to want to do any of that.
There are always going to be contrarians, nay sayers and crackpots on any scientific topic.
Any scientific topic at all, no matter how mundane or routine.
Vaccinations, HIV, evolution, dowsing, psychics, geocentricism, breathairianism, 9-11 truthers etc.
Shake the tree of any scientific topic, look hard enough and a few outliers will always come out of the woodwork.
How does the average layman objectively sort out the wheat from the chaff?
You don’t have a system or, if you do have a system, you don’t seem to want to share it.
My point is that, from what I’ve been reading, this topic seems to be too politicized rather than real scientific.
Well, that’s probably because you are avoiding scientific sources like the plague and sticking exclusively to political sources for your information.
You are going to places that tell you only what you want to hear.
Hence “Amercianthinker” and the Poptart list of 450 that swept you off your feet and made you feel all warm and runny inside.
You are credulous.
The idea of vetting your sources is an alien concept to you.
When was the last time you got your science information un-predigested by a political pundit?
Why not cut out the middle-men?
Don’t get your science news third-hand.
Think about it.
When was the last time you went straight to the source and found out what NASA thought about global warming?
Or the Royal Society?
Or the British Antarctic Survey?
Or the USGS?
My bet would be that you’re not even aware that these scientific communities even have web-sites set up to inform the general public.
Do a google search. Be daring.
Challange your preconceptions.
Do five minutes of your own, independent research focusing on non-political sources of scientific information.
Go for the most famous, most respected, most hard working scientific communities on the planet.
Find out what they have to say.
There are many credible scientists who do not support AGW alarmism,
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Former Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bioenvironmental Division, USA
Adriano Mazzarella, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Naples, Italy
Aksel C. Wiin-Nielsen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Alexander Gumen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Geology and Geophysics, University of Gomel, Russia
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Science, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Allen Simmons, BSEE, Former Computer Modeler and Weather Satellite Engineer, NASA, USA
Alois Haas, Ph.D. D.Sc. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Amy Kaleita, Ph.D. Professor of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, USA
Andreas Prokoph, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Andrei Kapitsa, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Moscow State Lomonosov University, Russia
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Ph.D. President of the World Federation of Scientists, Italy
Arun D Ahluwalia, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Panjab University, India
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Arthur V. Douglas, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, Creighton University, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Atholl Sutherland Brown, Ph.D. Geology, Former Chief Geologist of the British Columbia Geological Survey, Canada
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Arizona, USA
Benjamin D. Pearson, B.S. Physics, USA
Bill Collins, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, James Cook University, Australia
Bjarne Andresen, Ph.D. Theoretical Chemistry, Professor of Physics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Professor of Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Brian G. Valentine, Ph.D. Chemical Scientist, U.S. Department of Energy, USA
Brian Pratt, Ph.D. Professor of Sedimentology and Paleontology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Bruce Borders, Ph.D. Professor of Forest Biometrics, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, USA
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, Canada
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand
Burt Rutan, B.S. Aeronautical Engineering, D.Sc. (honoris causa), USA
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Health Science, USA
Charles Hammons, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Software Engineer, USA
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Science, University Paris, France
Cliff Ollier, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth and Geographical Science, University of Western Australia, Australia
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Ouachita Baptist University, USA
Colin Barton, Ph.D. Earth Science, Australia
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Mathematical Ecology, USA
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. Wildlife Biology Consultant, Animal Ecology in Arctic and Subarctic Regions Specialist, Canada
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Marine Biology, University of California, USA
David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, USA
David E. Wojick, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, USA
David Evans, B.E. Electrical Engineering, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.A. Applied Mathematics, M.S. Electrical Engineering, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Carbon Accounting Modeller, Australia
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Science, Ph.D. Oceanography, USA
David G. Gee, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
David Gray, Ph.D. Professor of Engineering, Messiah College, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, USA
David J. Ameling, B.A. Physics, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Ph.D. C.Biol. FIBiol. Professor of Botany, Nottingham University, UK
David Kear, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
David R. B. Stockwell, Ph.D. Ecosystem Dynamics, Research Scientist, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Dick Thoenes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, Western Washington University, USA
Don Parkes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Newcastle, Australia
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Soil, Water & Climate, University of Minnesota, USA
Donn Dears, B.S. Engineering, USA
Doug L. Hoffman, Ph.D. Computer Science, Environmental Modeler, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Retired Solar Physicist and Climatologist, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Physics, University College London, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Eduardo Tonni, Ph.D. Professor of Paleontology, University of La Plata, Argentina
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Computational Statistics, George Mason University, USA
Edwin X. Berry, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, AMS, CCM, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, Director of the Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Eric S. Posmentier, Professor of Earth Science, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Germany
Eugene N. Parker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, USA
Everett Burts, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biological Science, Washington State University, USA
F. James Cripwell, B.A. Natural Science (Honours Physics), Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Ferenc Miskolczi, Atmospheric Physicist, Hungary
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Sweden
Frederick A. Michel, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, Carlton Universityy, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Oregon State University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, Lorentz Medal 1966, Max Planck Medal 1969, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Geoffrey G. Duffy, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
George E. Smith, B.Sc. Physics and Mathematics, Lecturer, University of Auckland, Australia
George H. Taylor, State Climatologist of Oregon, Professor of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
George Kukla, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California , USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, M.Sc. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Ph.D. Geology and Paleontology, New Zealand
Glenn E. Shaw, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Physics, University of Alaska, USA
Göran Ahlgren, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, Sweden
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of Alberta, Canada
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Graham Smith, Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Guy LeBlanc Smith, Ph.D. Geology, Australia
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, USA
H. Leighton Steward, M.S. Geology, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, D.Sc. Head of the Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Russia
Hajo Smit, M.S. Environmental Science, Former Member, Dutch IPCC committee, The Netherlands
Hal W. Lewis, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Sweden
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, UK
Harrison H. (Jack) Schmitt, Ph.D. Geology, Former NASA Astronaut, USA
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hartwig Volz, Geophysicist, RWE Research Lab, Germany
Heinz Hug, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Organic Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry, University of Mainz, Germany
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Ph.D. Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D. Biophysics, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Ian Bock, Ph.D. D.Sc. Biological Science, Denmark
Ian D. Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Science and Policy Analyst, U.S. Department of the Interior, Former Principal Author, IPCC, USA
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D. Physics, Nobel Prize in Physics 1973, Norway
J. Floor Anthoni, Ph.D. Computer Science, New Zealand
J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, UK
Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, USA
Jacques Robin, Ph.D. Professor of Computer Science, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil
James A. Peden, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Experimental Physics, Atmospheric Scientist, USA
James Brooks, Ph.D. Geophysics, Australia
James Goodridge, Retired California State Climatologist, USA
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
James R. Stalker, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
James W. Buckee, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Canada
Ján Veizer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jarl R. Ahlbeck, D.Sc. Professor of Environmental Engineering, Abo Akademi University, Finland
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Environmental Science, USA
Jasper Kirkby, Particle Physicist at CERN, Switzerland
Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer, USA
Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia
Joanne Simpson, Ph.D. Meteorology, Retired Chief Scientist,rei Earth Sun Exploration Division, NASA, USA
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, USA
John Blethen, Ph.D. Physics, Nuclear Physicist, USA
John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, USA
John E. Oliphant, B.A. Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Meteorology, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, UK
John Nicol, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Former Lead Author, IPCC, USA
John Reid, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Former Scientist for CSIRO’s Division of Oceanography, Australia
John S. Theon, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Engineering Science, Chief of Climate Processes Research Program, NASA, USA
John W. Bales, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematics and Modeling, Tuskegee University, USA
Jon Jenkins, Ph.D. Computer Modelling and Virology, Australia
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, Former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College, USA
Joseph J. Delgado Domingos, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Kanya Kusano, Ph.D. Program Director of the Earth Simulator, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, Japan
Kary Mullis, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, South Africa
Ken Gregory, B.A.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, Canada
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies, University of California, Davis, USA
Kenneth P. Green, D.Env. Environmental Science and Engineering, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, USA
Kevin Van Cott, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Metrology, Yokohama National University, Japan
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, Germany
Kunihiko Takeda, Ph.D. Professor of Science and Technology Research, Chubu University, Japan
Laurence I. Gould, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Hartford, USA
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, USA
Lee Raymond, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, USA
Len Walker, Ph.D. Soil Mechanics, Australia
Leonard Weinstein, B.Sc. Physics, Sc.D. Engineering, USA
Louis Hissink, M.Sc. Geology, Australia
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Czech Republic
Madhav L. Khandekar, B.Sc. Mathematics and Physics, M.Sc. Statistics, Ph.D. Meteorology, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, Canada
Martin Livermore, B.S. Chemistry, UK
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Mark P. Mills, B.S. Physics, Canada
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, USA
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, USA
Michael E Adams, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Michael Hammer, BE, MEngSc, Engineering Science, Australia
Michael J. Economides, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Houston, USA
Michael J. Oard, B.S., M.S. Atmospheric Science, USA
Michael S. Coffman, M.S. Biology, Ph.D. Forest Science, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Botany, Ph.D. Epidemiology, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, USA
Miklós Zágoni, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
Morgan J. Poliquin, B.A.Sc. Geological Engineering, M.Sc. Geology, Canada
Nathan Paldor, Ph.D. Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Hebrew University, Israel
Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Nigel Marsh, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Nils-Axel Mörner, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nima Sanandaji, Ph.D. Biochemistry, UK
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor of Oceanography, University of Bergen, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Estonia
Oliver K. Manuel, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Chemistry, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Science, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomy, Canada
Pal Brekke, Ph.D Theoretical Astrophysics, Norwegian Space Center, Norway
Paul C. Knappenberger, M.S. Environmental Sciences, Former Climate Researcher, Virginia State Climatology Office, USA
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Science, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, USA
Paul Reiter, Ph.D. Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry, USA
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, Greenpeace co-founder, Canada
Peter R. Odell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of International Energy Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Peter Stilbs, TeknD (Ph.D.) Physical Chemistry, Sweden
Peter W. Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Canada
Philip J. Klotzbach, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Research Scientist, Colorado State University, USA
Philip K. Chapman, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S., Ph.D. Instrumentation, MIT, Former NASA Astronaut, Australia
Philip Lloyd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, UK
R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
R. Perry Glaister, Ph.D. Geology, Canada
R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, Carleton University, Canada
R. W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor Emeritus of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Hawaii, USA
Raphael A.J. Wust, M.Sc., Ph.D. Lecturer of Earth Science, James Cook University, Australia
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics, Germany
Ralph B. Alexander, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, USA
Richard A. Keen, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Colorado, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
Richard S. Courtney, B.A., DipPhil Material Science, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT, Former Lead Author, IPCC, USA
Richard T. McNider, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Virginia, USA
Robert G. Williscroft, B.Sc. Oceanography and Meteorology, M.Sc. Ph.D. Engineering, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Robert H. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Princeton University, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Science, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, UK
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science, James Cook University, Australia
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, UK
Roger A. Pielke Sr. Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Roger A. Pielke Jr. Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA
Roger Bate, M.Sc. Environmental and Resource Management, Ph.D. Economics, UK
Roger W. Cohen, M.S. Ph.D. Physics, USA
Romuald Bartnik, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Organic Chemistry, Univeversity of Lodz, Poland
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, First Director, National Weather Satellite Center, Former Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Sallie Baliunas, M.A. Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, Former Research Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Emeritus Reader of Geography and Earth Resources, University of Hull, UK
Stanley B. Goldenberg, M.S. Meteorology, Hurricane Research Division, NOAA, USA
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, PPE Oxford University, Canada
Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, U.K.
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Horticulture, Michigan State University, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, USA
Thomas P. Sheahen, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA
Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering, Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Ulrich Berner, Geologist, Federal Institute for Geosciences, Germany
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Ph.D. Researcher, Institute of Geophysics, Department of Solar and Planetary Research, Mexico
Vincent E. Courtillot, Ph.D. Professor of Geophysics, University Denis Diderot, France
Vincent R. Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, New Zealand
Vitaliy Rusov, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Odessa Polytechnic University, Ukraine
Yuri A. Izrael, D.Sc. Physics and Mathematics, Vice Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Russia
W. Dennis Clark, B.A. Biological Science, Ph.D. Botany, USA
Walter Cunningham, B.S. M.S. Physics, University of California at Los Angeles, USA
Walter Starck, Ph.D. Marine Science, USA
Warren Meyer, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, USA
Warwick Hughes, B.S. Geology, Australia
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Wendy M. Novicoff, Ph.D. Professor of Health Evaluation Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William F. Smyth, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, McMaster University, Canada
Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer of Earth and Ocean Science, Waikato University, New Zealand
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William Bauman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Forest Meteorology and Biometeorology, Yale, USA
William Happer, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Princeton University, USA
William J.R. Alexander, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, USA
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
William R. Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Ph.D. Physics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, Germany
Zachary W. Robinson, B.S. Chemistry, Professor of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Natural Sciences, Poland
The quality of a journal is purely subjective, fraudulent papers have been published in Nature,
Nature – Jan-Hendrik Schon: Scientific fraud found at Bell Labs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Do not beat around the bush.Any fool knows the climate is changing.Scientist are whores in many cases as atomic bombs on Japan proved.HAARP is the question.Is it also a political weapon.There is reason to believe it is and has been used to cause O Zone depletion,
earthquakes,floods,poles change,etc.Do I need to go further.Were is the logic with half truth.If the fools caused climate change should they also be rewarded for their criminal acts.This is a dilemma.Enslavement of nations for fascist dictatorship.Start using your common sense rather than the fools logic as it makes you one.
Read The Satanic Central Banksters Monetary Enslavement System 3 Sept 09 at Walter E. Haas——————————————– Search
Google.com,or Socia-Economic History Blog-BackType, and my other topic comments to get your heads on right because you seem to have lost
them.Hello.
Walter E. Haas God Bless America, Marry Christmas and Happy New year.
I would like to add some clarity to the Climate Change Discussion. My name is listed in the above list of scientists who do not accept anthropogenic climate change. First, by way of a disclaimer, I would not characterize myself as a practicing scientist. My qualifications for entering this discussion are that in 1981 I spent 13 months at the South Pole in charge of NSF climate data collection. As such, I participated in the analysis, but was not responsible for publishing the results. That was done by the scientists in charge of the various projects.
ALL the data I and may others collected at that time pointed to human caused climate change. There appeared to be a measurable increase in global temperature, and there was absolutely no question that there was a distinct human element in the dramatic increase in CO2. Based on our understanding of basic climate models our understanding was that CO2 and other gases supported an atmospheric greenhouse, so that when humans dramatically increaser CO2, we were directly responsible for any consequent increase in global temperature.
During the following decade something dramatic happened. Deep ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland clearly indicated that historically temperature changes ALWAYS preceded CO2 changes, NOT the other way around, as we thought. Any scientist who has committed himself to following the data has no option but to readdress the entire problem. Since CO2 increases appear to be cause by increases in global temperature, (1) what is the mechanism for these CO2 increases? and (2) what is the mechanism for global temperature increases?
As to the first, the answer came quickly. As the atmosphere warms (from whatever source), the ocean also warms, and gives up some of its stored CO2 – voila! The source for CO2 that follows temperature increases.
As to the source for global temperature increases (and decreases), it turns out that these are primarily driven by four solar cycles ranging from about 1,500 down to eleven years. I won’t go into the details here, but any reader is welcome to email me for further information.
Finally, a recent paper published out of Germany shows unequivocally that there is no atmospheric greenhouse. The entire concept is brought into question in this paper, as the authors clearly demonstrate with relatively basic physics that the underlying model used to explain BOTH a back-yard greenhouse and the so-called atmospheric green house, is completely wrong! Contact me for a copy of the paper – it is an eye-opener. (Science has been wrong in its assumptions before, and will be again. This is just one of those examples.)
The bottom line is that to those of us who are unequivocally willing to follow the data, there appears to be virtually no chance that humans have affected global climate in any meaningful way. Again, I solicit any interested readers to contact me directly for more information.
Robert – I am quite aware of the ice core data and the fact that temperature changes recorded in them precede CO2 levels. That’s all quite understandable and explained.
Climate change deniers often refer to these facts but they are well accounted for in the understanding of climate scientists.
However, it in no way undermines the idea that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are partly responsible for temperature changes.
(Things are never simple, are they).
The German paper you refer to. What about a reference?
Until I read it I can’t rely on your recommendation or interpretation of its content. Especially as your description seems to counter everything else we know about the effect of such gases on our climate.
Ken, no it has not been explained in support of AGW theory but rather excuses have been made for it, mainly at the Fenton Communication’s AGW advocacy website – RealClimate.
Your use of the word denier shows you disinterest in science and instead your ideological beliefs.
The relationship between temperature and CO2 in the ice cores neither speaks for or against anthropogenic climate change. However, deniers often grab hold of it to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been known for a long time – well before ice cores were analysed.
Really, Poptech. it seems to me that you are the one disinterested in science and preferring to use knowledge to arrive at a preconceived belief. Quite contrary to the whole ethos of science.
Actually, Ken, the reverse relationship of CO2 and temperature was a COMPLETE SURPRISE to all of us. The thing you need to understand is that because the variations in CO2 follow temperature variations, CO2 simply cannot be the driving factor for temperature. It’s a pretty simple logical statement, actually.
The whole point here is that CO2 was MISTAKENLY thought to be a “greenhouse gas.” As it turns out (see the paper at the below link), there is no atmospheric greenhouse, and consequently no greenhouse gases.
BTW – I am decidedly NOT a “denier.” I simply go where the data leads me.
For those who are interested, here is a link to the German paper I mentioned above: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 (If this link doesn’t work, email me directly at rgw@argee.net, and I will email you a copy.) The bottom line of this paper is that our understanding of the “greenhouse effect” anywhere – even back-yard greenhouses – is incorrect. We had assumed that the wavelength of incoming radiation lengthened when it was reradiated by the ground and air inside the glass house, and that the longer wavelengths were blocked by the glass. It turns out this is NOT true. In fact, the ground absorbs the incoming radiation, and the air immediately above it gets part of that heat by convection. The reason the greenhouse heats up is that the warmed air can’t go anywhere. Our atmosphere is not so contained, and any warmed air is immediately taken away by currents, and so there is little or no warming from this effect.
It’s a fascinating paper that I recommend you read. If you are intellectually honest (if you follow the data), you will never see this subject the same again.
Thanks for the link Robert. I’ll download the paper tomorrow but the abstract doesn’t impress me. (The reference to entropy for example). Are there any other workers supporting this idea or are these authors the only ones?
I have no problem with CO2 both acting as a greenhouse gas, and also being released by temperature increases arising from other causes. Consequently, the ice core data is not an argument against the greenhouse properties of CO2.
The greenhouse properties of CO2 arise from it’s fundamental physical/ chemical properties which are well known. They have nothing to do with ice cores or it’s release from the oceans on heating. These factors are independent.
I assure you of my honesty. I am quite prepared to critically consider the evidence and adjust my views accordingly. That’s how I have come to my current (provisionsl) acceptance of the ICPP stand (although I think they may actally underestimate the likely effects we will experience in the future).
By the way, I think your arguments about convection are irrelevant. It is the net energy balance of the earth which is at issue and we rely on radiative effects to emit energy, not convection.
Ken – The relationship of CO2 in ice cores speaks to the historic correlation that CO2 has never driven the climate. It raises great doubts about the true greenhouse effect of CO2, especially about any alleged sensitivity of the climate system due to an increase in CO2. Remeber the sensitivity of the climate via CO2 is where the greatest amount of debate is at. The IPCC’s accepted physics of CO2 attribution is a logarithmic function where any increase has less and less of an effect. Standard calculations based on IPCC accepted physics is +0.5 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2. The wild catastrophic temperature increases are all based on subjective computer modeled forcings that have no relation to the real world.
Your use of the word denier is illogical as none of those listed deny climate change or the potential for a human influence. They however all are skeptical of human CO2 being the primary driver or having any significant influence on the climate.
You need to understand this is not a black and white issue. Saying you believe in a human influence on climate is the equivalent of saying that throwing rocks in the ocean has an effect on wave patterns, the question is how much.
In addition, there is a claim that we must act NOW because within 10-20 years we will not be able to reverse this trend. So this is once in a lifetime chance … ever heard that kind of persuasion elsewhere?
I will be leaving this discussion following this post. When a non-scientist says, “…the abstract doesn’t impress me. (The reference to entropy for example)…” I wonder if there is any value in further discussion. If a person cannot understand the basis of an argument, there is little use in pursuing it with him. Or “I have no problem with CO2 both acting as a greenhouse gas, and also being released by temperature increases arising from other causes. Consequently, the ice core data is not an argument against the greenhouse properties of CO2” Ken, the point is that the ice core data illustrate that CO2 does not drive temperature. What do you not understand about the simple fact that CO2 does NOT drive temperature? You refer to the “The greenhouse properties of CO2 arise from it’s fundamental physical/ chemical properties which are well known.” Again, you entirely miss the point. The ” physical/ chemical properties” to which you refer DO NOT imply any kind of “greenhouse” properties of CO2. I have to infer that you mean because of these physical/ chemical properties CO2 is transparent to incoming insolation, but absorbs the longer wavelength radiation emitted by the warmed earth’s surface. It turns out that this simply is not so!
One of the foundational arguments for an atmospheric greenhouse is that the “captured” energy in the greenhouse gases is reradiated from the stratosphere back into the lower atmosphere, resulting in consequential additional warming above that originally supplied by the insolation. The German paper’s entropy argument steps in here. The universe does not work that way. In the real universe energy always flows from a higher state to a lower state; a heat pump (for this is what we are discussing here) can never move heat from a lower reservoir into a higher one without the application of external work. This is why a refrigerator works. We apply external work to force heat from a lower reservoir (inside the refer) to the warmer outside. But in nature, there is no such external work mechanism (unless you are willing to insert the mystical finger of God into the equation). Try to understand that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for radiative energy to be redirected back into the atmosphere. Actual experiments (several are described in the German paper) demonstrate that CO2 DOES NOT have the “greenhouse” properties claimed for it. Remember, science is not about consensus, it is about data (facts).
The atmospheric greenhouse concept is a mistaken idea, like phlogiston. It underlies ALL the climate models currently used to predict global temperature. This is the reason they are not making accurate predictions.
(As I wrote at the start of this post, this is my last contribution here. I don’t have time to reeducate the Ken’s of the world. Ken – if you truly have an open mind, then prove it by setting aside your entire mindset in this matter. Reexamine ALL the facts, not just those that seem to support a specific belief.)
Robert – I have seen nothing to indicate that molecules of CO2, H2O, CH4 etc., do not have the vibrational modes I learned about at university. I see nothing to suggest these gases have lost their ability to absorb IR radiation.
Your declaration “It turns out that this simply is not so!” is completely unsupported.
Those fundamental properties are not influenced at all by the ice core data.
You are asking us to accept something contrary to basic chemistry and physics – and yet your only support is personal declaration…I will have a look at the paper you referenced, of course, but I am looking for real evidence – not personal revelation.
Poptech – I have never said I “believe” in a human influence on climate change. However, I do accept the evidence I have seen and the basic conclusions of the IPCC from the literature. These are that current global warming appears unequivocal. And that it is most probable (about 90%) that human activity is contributing to this.
This is good enough for governments to take action.
I suspect the IPCC estimation of future effects actually is an underestimate.
And I also accept that new evidence could lead us to draw different conclusions. And we could debate the relative importance of this problem compared with other problems humanity faces.
I have probably see them as I have watched a few of his lately. My feeling is that he does repeat all the tired old arguments. No point in me getting into them all at this stage.
Which of his arguments specifically impressed you?
Ken – what you learned about at the university is again a logarithmic function of +0.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2. Those experiments have nothing to do with the unrealistic and unproven sensitivity based on computer models.
The 90% certaintity is based 100% on computer models. I am a computer scientist and understand the limitations of computer models, this is why I have absolutely no faith in that number.
You have ZERO evidence that the effects are understated except a religious belief.
I am still waiting for the evidence to support the original conclusions!
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.
Although I wrote that I would not post again here, I feel compelled to make several short comments:
Ken: “I have seen nothing to indicate that molecules of CO2, H2O, CH4 etc., do not have the vibrational modes I learned about at university. I see nothing to suggest these gases have lost their ability to absorb IR radiation.” I am not sure what you mean by “vibrational modes,” but this terminology nails down my presumption that you are not scientifically trained. The term “absorption” only applies within the general laws of physics, and in this case, we are dealing with the flow of heat, which can NEVER move from a place of lower heat to a place of higher heat. The question is not whether gases can absorb energy, but what happens to such absorbed energy, and where it goes. On the earth, it is radiated back into space, and is NOT retained. This is the fundamental error of the climate models. Although I did not give specific references in my earlier post, they are all contained in the German paper that I referenced. I have made no pronouncements – everything I wrote is contained in great detail in that paper.
Ken: “Your declaration “It turns out that this simply is not so!” is completely unsupported.” This is NOT a scientific dissertation. I commented that there really is no atmospheric greenhouse, and pointed to the German paper for the details. As I pointed out above, I did not make any “unsupported declarations.”
Ken: “Those fundamental properties are not influenced at all by the ice core data.” You seem to miss the point every time. This is NOT about any “fundamental properties” of CO2. It is about a simple previously unknown fact that O2 apparently is not the driving factor in atmospheric temperature. (Although I did not give any sources, there is a great deal of evidence that it is driven by solar variations. Email me for specific information on this.)
Ken: “You are asking us to accept something contrary to basic chemistry and physics…” I did nothing of the kind. It is you, Ken, who is waving around words like “…fundamental physical/ chemical properties which are well known…” Assumptions like this are what has caused the problem in the first place. Had anyone (me included) bothered to bounce the assumptions of an atmospheric greenhouse against fundamental physics (basically against thermodynamics), we would never have gotten ourselves into this fix in the first place. The German paper does this, and the conclusions are unequivocal – thermodynamics laws prohibit the basic interactions that are assumed and built into the climate computer models. This is a humongous OOPS! I missed it in the early 1980s, and so has nearly everyone else since then.
The ice core CO2 data caused me and a lot of other researchers to question the models, but even then we missed the thermodynamic connection. I am embarrassed, but willing to admit it. A lot of researchers are in complete denial, to their ultimate discredit.
Poptech – my training was in chemistry so I am referring to the basic properties of these gases – not to any climate change model (I didn’t study in that area).
Any prediction of the future effects must of course be based on computer models – and I am quite aware of the inherent problems, having contributed through my research to some of the agriculture nutrient modeling.
I am aware of the huge variability in predictions because of different assumptions, different inputs, etc.,
However, governments are quite used ot working with these sorts of uncertainties. After all they use economic models which, I suggest, are far more unreliable.
My gut feeling of the IPCC predictions being understated have nothing to do with religion (have a look around here – I have no beliefs in religion). It is based on reading and listening to lectures and presentations which suggest to me that we now know more than was considered at the last IPCC assessment. And this new information suggests some effects which were not considered by the IPCC.
Robert – my training is in chemistry. This teaches me that the vibrational modes of these molecules are responsible for their absorption of radiation in the IR region. Nothing you have presented has contradicted this (and I am sure I would have heard about it if any evidence had).
I have downloaded the paper you refer to (it’s very long!) and will have a look at relevant bits. My impression though is that the problem is that it assumes a model (you refer to it as a heat pump) which just isn’t applicable to the situation of the earth. I don’t (yet) see any thermodynamic conflict with current understanding of the effect of greenhouse gases.
Dr. Williscroft has definitely expanded MY horizons. I started in on the German paper, knowing that my German is pretty rusty but hoping I could follow it. I quickly realized (a) it is in English and (b) I don’t have the math to follow it. So here’s my common-sense check of what he’s claiming…
IF Dr. Williscroft is correct about the way the “greenhouse effect” works (or doesn’t work), one would expect the AIR in a greenhouse to be warmer than the GLASS. If, by contrast, a greenhouse works the way I have always assumed it does, the inner surface of the glass in a greenhouse should be the hotter than the air it touches. That is because the GLASS is absorbing infrared radiation, converting it to heat, and warming the air it touches.
Can anybody tell me whether the glass is warmer than the air?
Ken – It is not possible that you are a chemist. Any chemist understands what a heat pump is, and you clearly do not. It is NOT a model. It is a descriptive term that refers to how heat moves in thermodynamic systems, such as our atmosphere. The basic laws of physics do not allow any energy movement from a lower heat reservoir to a higher heat reservoir unless there is some input of outside work to drive things in that direction. Left alone, energy always moves from the higher heat reservoir to the lower one. This is true in a teacup (the tea gets cold – it can only heat up if you add heat to the system), in the oceans (when the air gets cold, the warmer water gives up its heat to the air, and the water eventually freezes), in a refrigerator (the compressor-motor removes heat from inside the refrigerator and gives it up to the outside air, and this works because the compressor-motor adds work to the system), and the earth-atmosphere system (where the CO2 that may or may not have absorbed some radiant IR, is incapable of giving up that energy to the warmer earth’s surface; it can only radiate it into space).
This thermodynamic reality (called the second law of thermodynamics) is one of the fundamental characteristics of our universe. It applies everywhere. Your belief that the heat pump analogy of our atmospheric heat engine “… just isn’t applicable to the situation of the earth…” is ignorant beyond belief. It is the equivalent to believing that it is possible to build a perpetual motion machine.
You think clearly, Scott! Your question is exactly on point, and you will discover that the glass is at the ambient temperature of the outside (or nearly so). This experiment is described in the paper.
You can effectively read the paper without going through the math. A purist would say you can’t really understand it without doing so, but I believe that you are more than equipped to read up to the equations, and then to skip over them to the summations of what they show.
The paper was written with the intelligent layperson in mind. You will find it enlightening.
I did not read all comments,but I did not see mention of HAARP.We know that climate change is caused by man.The question to what degree,and by what methods.I realize that one may be reluctant to talk about HAARP.This is the problem status quo only wants to talk its way.This is the message that no one wants to hear.High tech devices to control weather can cause harm to the climate.This is probable cause as extreme change in short period of time has resulted.O-Zone depletion results in increase radiation resulting in reduction of land mass,etc.We know the weather has change world wide.We know there are cycles.From observation one can conclude the weather has change in extreme as result of industrial growth,over population,and both natural causes,and man made causes by man in some cases involving secret technology which did and did not respond as desired,and this being a dominant factor.Data available by who and for what motive.Other aspects and possibilities not considered is not scientific research in sense of not recognizing unknown factor.Of course you all know this,or should.
Ken – The computer climate models are an absolute joke. Look at the code that was released with the hacked emails, it fails even elementary coding standards. None of this was any surprise to me as I have dealt with natural scientists at universities who “write” programs in FORTRAN and such. The fact that governments are placing their faith in virtual reality is appalling.
Economic models are just as worthless as climate models. People falsely believe that if you change the name of the code and have a bunch of natural science PhD’s behind it, somehow computers stop working how they always have. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Computer climate models have never been validated or subject to any independent audit.
No, Robert – you don’t understand my educational background, qualifications or expertise. It is silly to sink to the level of attacking me on that basis. Much more sensible to deal with evidence.
As I said, I will read this paper you recommend – or at least the relevant parts. Personally, from the abstract, I think it is faulty – and that is why I asked you if anyone else had published along these lines.
I guess they haven’t – as you did not provide any other references. That makes me all the more suspicious of this paper.
I am aware that it is currently being critiqued – here is a proposed part of an abstract for a refuting paper:
“Gerlich and Tscheuschner have published a polemic, full of error, irrelevancy, fulmination and accusation, in the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Long known from its arXiv versions, and well refuted, it is difficult to understand how their paper could appear, however, recent history has shown that such papers are occasionally published where editors and referees are not familiar with the underlying science, or themselves are outliers with respect to the field in which the paper lies. This is often the case where expertise in one area is generalized to arrogance about another. A refutation is needed lest anyone be mislead. This manuscript concentrates on the physical basis of their argument. Supplementary material deals with G&T in detail. The first forty or so pages of G&T are devoted to showing that the greenhouse effect has nothing in common with how a glass greenhouse works, a commonplace dealt with in every introductory atmospheric science course. A simple paragraph would have sufficed. Concisely, greenhouses work by restricting the outward flow of energy by convection, the greenhouse effect limits the flow of energy to space by radiation. In both cases, the system heats in order to restore the balance between the inward and outward flow of energy. etc for a bit”
This suggests that the garden greenhouse has been taken as a “straw man” to argue against the atmospheric “greenhouse” – which is well known not to operate the same way.
Another assessment of this paper (from real climate) is:
“It’s garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently”
As, I said, I will read at least some of this paper – but will also read those other papers which are relevant. And at least some of these are very critical.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner brought out the entire range of fanatical believers, people with a proven propensity for NOT following the data, but instead altering the data to fit their preconceptions. Ken, by hauling out these silly “refutations,” you are only reaffirming your position as a “true believer.”
By the way, I did not attack you. I simply noted that anyone who claims that somehow our planet is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics has serious problems understanding even the most elementary science concepts. You speak of reading the relevant parts of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, but I’m not sure you are capable of determining which parts are relevant. From your comments, it appears that you consider anything relevant if it tends to support your “belief system.” That’s simply not how science works. That’s exactly what the “Intelligent Design” people do, and it’s just as wrong (and silly) when you do this as when they do it.
You have not addressed even one of the arguments I presented about heat pumps, and the underlying nature of the so-called “greenhouse” model (for anything). You appear incapable of understanding that (1) the ice core data completely negates the assumed dependence of temperature on CO2 levels; (2) the atmospheric greenhouse has been completely deconstructed by the arguments in Gerlich and Tscheuschner; and (3) there is an entirely reasonable explanation for global temperature changes based on solar output, one that has stood every test thrown at it (thus far, at least).
The solar output explanation predicts that starting about now, and peaking about 2020, global temperatures will decrease significantly, so that the east coast rivers and the Great Lakes will freeze each winter, and we will experience something akin to the “little ice age” of about 1,500 years ago.
Here’s hoping you will live sufficiently long to see this happen.
My links to discussion of the (not peer-reviewed at Robert’s link , by the way) Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper was to show that it is controversial. It is, also I think because of Robert’s lack of answer, also very much a minority (1 paper?) view.
Therefore open-minded people should read the whole discussion – not make up their mind beforehand.
I know this is often how it works, though. People search around for data and references to support their own preconceived beliefs. And this climate change issue brings out such people – doesn’t it?
Yes, Robert – I understand the 2nd law (it’s fundamental in chemistry) – and I also understand how ideologically motivated people will screw around with it to makes outlandish claims. Such as that it means evolution is impossible.
These are incorrect and simple-minded applications.
From my initial glance I think these authors may have been trying to apply this law to only part of the system – a common mistake used by ideologically motivated people.
However, give me a chance. The papers 100 pp longs, one of the refuting papers is the same length (and in German) And there is quite a lot of discussion on this paper which has been kicking around for a few years now in one form or another.
Until I have looked into this my current understanding stands. Nothing you, Robert, or Poptech have said changes my understanding of the chemistry/physics involved and therefore the current assessment by the IPCC.
Ken, you say you want to read the whole discussion yet appear to have not done that.
Your understanding of physics and chemistry, which is a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures +0.5 degrees has nothing to do with the conclusions of the IPCC report. You do realize that all of the attribution of climate change to man-made CO2 and hysterical temperature rises are based on unvalidated computer climate models?
Poptech – I did say “not peer-reviewed at Robert’s link” and I am aware that it has got into this particular journal. I am also aware that there is controversy about it and the degree of review for such papers.
However, it is extremely telling that neither you or Robert can quote any other paper which suupports them. It seems, as far as i can tell – a loner.
That’s indicative of something.
However, as I said, I will give it a chance and read it at least in part) as well as the comments on it.
My understanding of chemistry and physics has nothing to do with “a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures +0.5 degrees” – don’t be silly.
I am aware of the changes in assessment of the effects of doubling CO2 from originally at 5 degrees (in the early days without computers) to a (lower) range now. None of this conflicts with my understanding of chemistry and physics.
Yes there is “controversy” about the review of any paper that is skeptical AGW theory and if you looked into the emails you will see why! You have IPCC scientists intentionally trying to blackmail the editors of journals who published skeptical papers. For anyone to say this is not a serious problem is not being objective.
In regards to Gerlich’s paper it was just published this year.
You seem to believe subjective virtual reality “evidence” and appeals to authority are all the evidence you need. I on the other hand want empirical evidence.
But lets say for the sake of argument that the Greenhouse effect and the basic physics relating to CO2 on climate are correct. That only gives you a +0.5 degree warming from a doubling of CO2. The rest is all based on faith in non-computer scientists writing gibberish FORTRAN code that has never been audited or validated, fails basic commercial programming standards to predict the future. Forgive me but since I am not religious, I do not share your faith.
That paper had been hanging around for a while at arxiv.org. It got into the jounral earlier this year and we might expect papers refuting it in jounrals in the coming year.
Now you are trying to invent a conspiracy tpo explain why there is no support for the paper. Come off it.
Yes, I am a great supporter of empoirical evidence as well. And I recognise how people select evidence to fit preconceived ideas – it’s a human problem.
Where do you get your +0.5 degree warming from? What empirical support is there for it?
Where have the supporting papers been published? Or is it based on your faith? Is it a dogma in your religion?
I am not inventing a conspiracy, I am asking you to be honest and objective about the contents of the emails.
Time to be honest,
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…”
Oh, I should have added. Have a look at the video above in this post. I think it is excellent.
The emails are not a real issue here in NZ. I myself have been concentrating on the scandalous attacks by denier organizations and there camp followers on our NIWA scientists. That has some important lessons. What about you looking at that issue?
It is only excellent if you don’t have any remote understanding of the emails and are clueless. I’ve never seen so much excuse making in my life. What was being hidden was the fact that the proxy reconstruction diverges from the thermometer measurements. This is huge, since all major claims of the current 20th century warming being unusual in history are based on those reconstructions. Phil Jones intentionally hid this information to get the results that he wanted.
There are only 3 major data series for temperatures, NASA GISS, NOAA and CRU. CRU’s have been exposed as fraudulent and it’s director and researchers intentionally misrepresented and distorted data to push their agenda. The other two are hotly debated.
The emails should be the issue if you even remotely care about the integrity of climate science. It is clear you don’t want to make them an issue because if you did you would have to admit that what those scientists engaged in was unethical, fraudulent and illegal.
Being abusive won’t change reality. You obviosly want to draw unwarranted conclusions from the email fiasco – nothing I say will change your mind. However you are obviously frustrated because governments don’t see it the way you do.
However, what is your take on the NIWA data and the charges made by the Climate Science Coslition, the Climate Conversation Group and our local denier religious apologists?
You don’t even remotely understand what is going on and you are attempting to change my mind? Change it to what? A state of ignorance on what the emails show regarding the divergence issue?
Maybe you support deleting data instead of complying with freedom of information act requests?
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” – Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” – Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
With respect “poptech”, you clearly haven’t read the emails, or attempted to understand them in context.
The “divergence” problem wasn’t hidden – papers have been published about it. That discussion was about the form an illustration in an IPCC report should take.
But of course, that’s not what the spinmeisters want you to think, so you won’t find it being discussed in the sources you cite. Out here in the real world (which seems to have a left-wing, liberal bias according to you), we prefer to look at al the data – not just the careful selection made from a huge number of stolen emails.
IPCC Reviewer Comment: “Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading”
Reply: “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series“
And yes their were papers written about it by SKEPTICS.
The only spin is by those want to deny what was hidden.
Please look at the data, the raw data not what was manipulated by CRU!
“The basic laws of physics do not allow any energy movement from a lower heat reservoir to a higher heat reservoir unless there is some input of outside work to drive things in that direction. Left alone, energy always moves from the higher heat reservoir to the lower one.”
Huh?
This is most certainly utter tosh. No physics textbook I have ever read contained such a statement.
What you presumably have in mind is that the net energy transfer will be from the source of higher energy to the one with lower energy. However, that does not mean that the flow of energy is completely unidirectional.
Consider two separate pieces of metal that lie side by side and get heated to 300°C and 600°C respectively. Both will start to emit radiation. If your statement were true, it would mean that the 600°C metal piece will not absorb a single photon coming from the 300°C metal piece. Which law of nature would dictate such an outcome? Certainly not the second law of thermodynamics.
Now, I have not read the paper in question page by page, but if this is the sort of argument the authors rely on, I can see why it has not caused uproar in the scientific world.
“[…] and the earth-atmosphere system (where the CO2 that may or may not have absorbed some radiant IR, is incapable of giving up that energy to the warmer earth’s surface; it can only radiate it into space). “
First, it is an empirical fact that a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is located in the infrared part of the spectrum. I suggest taking a look in any chemistry text book.
Second, it is simply false that this absorbed radiation can only be released in one direction. This would imply that any single carbon dioxide molecule “knows” its spatial position and that it can consequently decide to emit only “upwards” and not “downwards”, which is ludicrous.
As a matter of fact, the emission will be spatially random; some of it will go out to space, some of it back down to Earth. Of course, the net energy transfer will be from the (warmer) surface to the (cooler) atmosphere, i.e. more energy is flowing from the ground up than the other way around, as the second law of thermodynamics dictates. However, this does not mean that some of the energy coming up from the surface can not be either radiated back down or retained as kinetic, rotational or vibrational energy stored in the molecules of the atmosphere.
Again, if your argumentation were correct, it would imply bizarre consequences:
So let us suppose that all the energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide molecules is exclusively radiated into space. Presumably, a certain amount of these photons would travel in the direction of our sun. Now, what happens once said photons reach the sun? According to you, the molecules located at the surface of the sun would be incapable of absorbing even a single one of these photons, because energy transfer from a source of lower energy to a source of higher energy is physically impossible. But what happens instead? Do the photons get bounced back? Do they fly right through the sun? What?
Frank – It’s silly to spend the time and effort you spent arguing the “truthfulness” of the second law. Of course I was writing about net transfer. My intent was to help those readers unfamiliar with the topic to understand the concept. All you have done is confuse the issue. You set up a straw-man argument and then shot it down. For what purpose? Anyone who takes the time to read Gerlich and Tscheuschner will understand the underlying problem, which is (1) that our presumptions regarding greenhouses are incorrect, and (2) the atmosphere does not behave the way greenhouses really act – there is no atmospheric greenhouse.
It’s silly to argue this. Better to gain an understanding of the problem, and then look for the real mechanism for climate change. Since we’re dealing with fundamental physics in describing how greenhouses work, it’s not quite trivial, but nearly so, to reexamine the back yard greenhouse within the context of actual physics (which is what Gerlich and Tscheuschner have done). When you do this, you quickly realize that greenhouses work by convection and containment. The energy enters through the glass, warms the ground which warms the air, and the warm air cannot get out. It’s that simple, because it’s a small closed system.
The earth is not a small closed system. The presumed mechanism for “greenhouse behavior” that the modelers have built into their models is not plausible when examined as Gerlich and Tscheuschner have done. The models produce incorrect results, which has caused some deeply committed researchers to adjust their raw data to force compliance. That’s what the hacked emails were all about. You will find that the same thing has happened in other quarters as well once all the smoke has cleared.
Theoretical physicists are constantly reexamining their theories as new data come to light. Sometimes the reexamination consists of mere tweaks and nudges. But sometimes it requires a complete rethink of a specific proposed solution to a problem. Einstein and Planc, for example, caused major rethinks, but tweaks are happening virtually every day.
For some reason, the problem of climate change has left the scientific arena. The ice core data posed an insurmountable problem for the current theory. The presently constituted models cannot account for the data. Unfortunately, all the models are based on the mistaken “atmospheric greenhouse.” And that’s the problem. If this were not “climate change,” but were a problem with unpredicted boson behavior, researchers would simply reexamine the theory to find the problem (assuming, of course, that the divergent data are real).
When you apply the same principle here, the problem simplifies to: If CO2 levels do not control climate change (by way of the “atmospheric greenhouse”), then what is the controlling mechanism? Since there is an excellent candidate on the table (solar cycles), we should be expending our efforts in testing this hypothesis instead of wasting time and money defending the failed “atmospheric greenhouse.”
And, I might add, it is stupid beyond reason to initiate world-wide controls based on the failed hypothesis.
I’m trying to follow the flow here without getting drowned–it’s definitely a “drinking from a fire hydrant” experience.
Here’s where I’m at in this discussion. Before the “Climategate” emails, I thought I knew four things that might matter to this discussion:
(1) The earth has gotten warmer over the last half century.
(2) CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
(3) The greenhouse effect raises heat by allowing visible light to travel “in” and trapping infrared radiation on the way “out.”
(4) Nuclear power would reduce CO2 emissions and reduce the global dependence on imported oil.
SINCE the “Climategate” controversy, I have
(a) new doubts about the methods the “experts” use to compute the temperature of the planet, and
(b) new questions about exactly HOW rising CO2 levels contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Ken, I’d LOVE to have you open up a thread on the specific mechanism of the greenhouse effect. I THOUGHT I understood it but now realize I don’t. I’m picking away at this topic on my own over at my blog, but it would be nice to see what the assembled thinkers of Open Parachute can contribute to this topic.
“Frank – It’s silly to spend the time and effort you spent arguing the “truthfulness” of the second law. Of course I was writing about net transfer. My intent was to help those readers unfamiliar with the topic to understand the concept. All you have done is confuse the issue. You set up a straw-man argument and then shot it down.”
Are you kidding me?
You were the one who boldly asserted that the second law of thermodynamics requires a strictly unidirectional flow of energy. You were the one who asserted further that consequently the atmospheric carbon dioxide radiates all its energy into space.
I quoted the pertinent passages verbatim. And now you accuse me of attacking a straw-man? Well, if I did, you were the one setting it up.
So now you claim to talk about net energy flow? Fine. Then I am looking forward to your examples in the peer-reviewed literature and/or the IPCC report showing calculations where the net energy flow as a whole from the atmosphere towards the surface is greater than the other way around.
Skimming through the paper, I found this little gem on page 78. The authors quote the German climatologist Rahmstorf:
“Some `sceptics’ state that the greenhouse effect cannot work since (according to
the second law of thermodynamics) no radiative energy can be transferred from a
colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the surface). However, the second
law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative
exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.”
What is their response to this completely obvious fact? Well, here it is:
“Rahmstorf’s reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second
law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an
obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately, redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly.”
This is so utterly wrong, one can only wonder how any reviewer could have let it slip by.
First of all, I love their ludicrous distinction between “heat” and “energy”, as if we were talking about two distinct entities here. So I guess if I desire a hot cup of water to make myself some tea, this does not require “energy”, but “heat”. Can you tell me how to produce this magical substance “heat”? Furthermore, those physicists who specialize in statistical mechanics need to be told that their account of the heat of a gas via the kinetic energy distribution of the respective particles is mistaken, since “heat” has nothing to do with “energy”.
Even more laughable is the charge of applying the second law of thermodynamics separately. I am not even sure what on earth they are talking about here. The fact of the matter is that energy is exchanged between the surface and the atmosphere in both directions; however, since more energy flows from the (warmer) surface to the (colder) atmosphere, the second law of thermodynamics is not violated by the process as a whole. What is so difficult to understand about this?
I do not have the motivation to study this paper in any more detail. What I have seen is sufficient information for me to form an opinion on it: It´s crap.
Robert, does it not make you suspicious that this supposedly earth-shattering paper has lingered two years on the arXiv-Server before finally getting published in a low-tier physics journal? That it did not hit the headlines of Nature, Science etc.? That it was written by a non-expert? That it was not taken up by any of the major players in the field? Why do you believe that is?
Frank, I’m trying to figure out whether CO2 gains in “heat” when it absorbs an infrared photon. I know it gains “energy” (because the electron cloud is bumped up to a higher quantum state), but I don’t know whether it gains “heat” or not. Do you know?
Frank– You are still playing games with definitions, even in your “analysis” of Gerlich and Tscheuschner you’re just spinning.
For sake of argument, let’s set aside Gerlich and Tscheuschner for the time being. That leaves (1) the ice core data, (2) the incorrect predictions of current models, (3) the net increase of ice at both poles, etc. If the current models are correct, they must be able to incorporate these data. Since the current models cannot do this, the models have to be modified. If it is possible to so modify them without removing CO2 as a driving factor for temperature, I have not heard about it.
My point is to stop the silly argument, the straw man approaches, the name calling, and all the rest of the BS. Let’s do some real science for a change, and let the chips fall where they may.
“Frank, I’m trying to figure out whether CO2 gains in “heat” when it absorbs an infrared photon. I know it gains “energy” (because the electron cloud is bumped up to a higher quantum state), but I don’t know whether it gains “heat” or not.”
You are making the same mistake as the authors of this notorious paper did.
On the molecular level, there is no distinction between “heat” and “energy”. “Heat” (or more precisely: “Temperature”) is the (macroscopic) manifestation of the collective energy of an ensemble of (microscopic) molecules or atoms.
At a given temperature T1, the molecules contained within a certain volume of gas will show a certain distribution pattern regarding their kinetic energy (usually approximating a bell-shaped curve). If you heat the gas (i.e. if you pump energy into the system), what will happen is that the distribution pattern at T2 has shifted towards a higher mean kinetic energy. In other words, the bulk of the molecules at T2 will move faster than at T1. Another way of saying the same thing is that the temperature of the gas has increased.
This is all basic stuff, so I suggest you get an introductory textbook on statistical mechanics or physical chemistry from your library if you want to learn more.
Regarding the absorption of IR radiation by carbon dioxide, it is not solely (or even mainly) the electrons that are relevant here, since IR radiation normally has not enough energy to excite electrons (UV and visible light is mainly responsible for this).
Rather, absorption of IR radiation influences the rotational and vibrational modes of a molecule. Again, any basic textbook covers this topic. Or you can start with a wikipedia article on IR spectroscopy.
So, a short answer to your question:
Yes, a carbon dioxide molecule gains “heat” upon absorption of IR radiation in the sense that its kinetic, vibrational and/or rotational energy increases.
Robert,
“Frank– You are still playing games with definitions, even in your “analysis” of Gerlich and Tscheuschner you’re just spinning.”
You accuse me of playing with definitions, when the authors of the paper you championed try to make a completely bogus distinction between “heat” and “energy”?
Talk about irony.
Regarding your other points about ice core data and climate models:
I am not a climatologist, so I am not in a position to verify the validity or lack thereof of either issue. I will note, however, that the overwhelming majority of experts in the field does not share your view. I will draw my conclusions from this fact.
“My point is to stop the silly argument, the straw man approaches, the name calling, and all the rest of the BS. Let’s do some real science for a change, and let the chips fall where they may.”
Frank & Ken — My point regarding a straw man argument is that it is a waste of time to argue about the truth of thermodynamic principles – they are what they are. If one writer says something that can be twisted to mean something else, nobody gains by jumping on such a statement. Get in the writer’s head and understand what he is saying – whether or not you agree with him. If his argument is fundamentally flawed, then discuss that flaw.
You don’t have to be a climatologist to understand the dilemma posed by the ice core data. I think every reader here understands that current climate models presume that atmospheric temperature is a function of the amount of CO2 and certain other so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, the models predict that temperature increases following an increase of CO2 (or one of the other gases). We ALL believed this in the mid 1980s (me included).
But then the ice core data appeared. These data unequivocally show that historically on this planet, CO2 levels rose between a few hundred to a few thousand years following a significant atmospheric temperature increase. Any model of reality must be able to predict accurately anywhere within the experimental envelope. The problem here is that reality apparently does not match the models. Something caused increases and decreases in global temperature, but it decidedly is NOT CO2 or any other atmospheric gas.
This is where intellectually honest scientists go back to the drawing board. First you verify the data. You don’t want to modify a good model because of faulty data. Once you have verified the data, then you go about modifying the model. And here is the current dilemma. A great deal of prestige, money, face, and power depends on the outcome. Is it any wonder that the weaker researchers bowed to pressure and altered their data?
So, as I wrote earlier, let’s set aside the arguments and the BS, and let’s do some real science. Ideally, nobody takes sides, nobody shouts from the rooftops. Instead, we all get down and dirty, and discover what is really happening with our climate.
I also mentioned earlier that a very viable candidate is resting on the table. Solar cycles seem to fit all the data we have right now – even tree ring and ocean core samples. The numbers are pretty impressive and warrant examination by anyone genuinely interested in the truth.
Frank – let me also jumpo on board when you say: ““My point is to stop the silly argument, the straw man approaches, the name calling, and all the rest of the BS. Let’s do some real science for a change, and let the chips fall where they may.”
You will get no argument from me there.”
Might I add, though, as a retired chemists, soil scientist, I personally won’t be doing any of the basic climate science. However, I will follow with interest the work being done by these scientists. After all, they are the ones with the expertise, experience and depth of knowledge in the area.
And I will continue to be suspicious of anyone who attempts to “play the man, rather than the ball,” and imply that climate scientists are a dishonest lot – rather than deal with the real science.
And that includes people who try to imply a “sciency” veneer by clinging to a renegade paper, alone it this field, which is not supported by others and makes demonstratively shonky thermodynamic claims.
After all, we can always find that lone shonky paper, or Ph D to endorse our own prejudices.
Ken — you continue to attach the man instead of looking at the science. Furthermore, you seem to believe that consensus is how science is done – at lease you (and Frank, too) have mentioned several times that since the majority of climate scientists hold a particular viewpoint, it must be true. Both of you have also desperately tried to debunk Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Let it be! It is not important for the current discussion as I tried to point out. Just follow the data.
Science is NOT the business of consensus, guys. Virtually every significant breakthrough has gone against the stream. (Now, don’t you guys go out and start counting how many breakthroughs went with and how many went against the stream. That’s not my point.)
You guys continue to “play the man,” as you put it. Apparently neither of you is willing to deal with the inconvenient truth I presented in my last post: Models MUST predict the real world. When they don’t, they need changing – period!
Sure Robert science is not consensus and one should not be afraid of going against the stream. But science is also not simply anti-consensus or opposition to the stream. Those factors are not evidence. they are emotional arguments people use when they don’t have evidence (Just look at how often the ID people use those arguments).
So, I follow the evidence – and outside my expertise I rely on the experts (while retaining my critical – not cynical outlook). I certainly am not persuaded by those people currently who see current understanding of climate change as resulting from dishonest science and a conspiracy.
You may desperately grasp the paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner. I can see scientific flaws (particularly thermodynamic ones) in what parts I have so far read, I am aware there is a lot of scientific opposition to it, no supporting papers (at least none theta you have produced).
So the fact they these authors go against the stream, are outside any “consensus” (with anyone except you) are in themselves not recommendations. I judge their paper on its content and faults.
Ken — You keep coming back to Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Did you miss the part where I suggested that we set it aside for the time being and just concentrate on the data? Can you see how I have avoided bringing that paper up again (except in this context)?
Why do you use emotional words like “desperately grasp”? Nowhere in my posts here have I indicated any kind of desperation. I introduced an interesting paper that makes some interesting points, but when I was overwhelmed by an emotional rejection of the paper, I decided to let it go. It simply isn’t central to my argument. I have no need to convince anyone. I was there at the beginning, and know what is happening. My only reason for even joining this conversation was to enlighten (and explain that my position on the above list may be misleading, since I no longer am active in research). It does matter to me if my government makes draconian changes for completely bogus reasons, but other than that, I don’t personally care what you think.
The consensus to which I have referred is the one you keep bringing up regarding anthropogenic climate change, and that CO2 drives global temperature. Since there are significant data that cannot be explained by this “consensus” point of view, I am forced to find another explanation. And once again, science has no room for consensus – only facts.
“Robert, does it not make you suspicious that this supposedly earth-shattering paper has lingered two years on the arXiv-Server before finally getting published in a low-tier physics journal? That it did not hit the headlines of Nature, Science etc.? That it was written by a non-expert? That it was not taken up by any of the major players in the field? Why do you believe that is?”
This is a weak argument as papers can take years to finalize and get published. This paper is 115 pages long and has 4 versions on the arxiv server. Submission to arxiv is an easy way for distribution to allow further critique before submission for publication. The peer-review process itself can take months.
Both are clearly qualified to write a paper on Physics,
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematical Physics, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina, Germany
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics,
Based on your logic only science in two journals is relevant and everything else should be ignored. This is clearly nonsense and an appeal to authority.
As for the lack of supporting papers, it may be because it was just published this year! New papers will have few citations in the first couple of years.
“I introduced an interesting paper that makes some interesting points, but when I was overwhelmed by an emotional rejection of the paper, I decided to let it go. It simply isn’t central to my argument.”
Robert, here is what you said when you introduced the paper:
“It’s a fascinating paper that I recommend you read. If you are intellectually honest (if you follow the data), you will never see this subject the same again.”
Quite an announcement. So, why is this paper so earth-shattering? Well, because
“The question is not whether gases can absorb energy, but what happens to such absorbed energy, and where it goes. On the earth, it is radiated back into space, and is NOT retained. This is the fundamental error of the climate models. Although I did not give specific references in my earlier post, they are all contained in the German paper that I referenced.”
and
“The basic laws of physics do not allow any energy movement from a lower heat reservoir to a higher heat reservoir unless there is some input of outside work to drive things in that direction. […] This thermodynamic reality (called the second law of thermodynamics) is one of the fundamental characteristics of our universe. It applies everywhere.”
IOW, you claimed (based on the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner) that a carbon dioxide-based greenhouse effect is physically impossible since it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Now, I provided you with an excerpt from said paper which showed that the authors, when trying to defend their core claim against an obvious criticism,
a) fallaciously try to distinguish between “heat” and “energy”; and
b) fail to understand that the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent energy flow from a point of lower energy to one with higher energy, provided that the net energy flow goes in the opposite direction.
Instead of addressing this issue, you have dropped the paper like a hot potato and tried to cover this up by accusing others of being emotional or clouding the matter. Not very impressive.
Regarding the ice core data that seems to be your new focus, I will venture a daring conjecture:
Climatologists are aware of the fact that carbon dioxide levels are not the master switch which solely controls the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere!
Of course there are other factors having an influence. But that does not change the fact that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas which humanity is currently pumping into the atmosphere in historically unprecedented amounts.
To claim that this will have absolutely no influence at all on the global temperature and to be taken seriously requires a hell of a lot more than writing a paper which does not even get the basic facts about thermodynamics right.
Poptech,
“Both are clearly qualified to write a paper on Physics, [snip]”
They are not climatologists, i.e. not experts in this field.
I have a PhD in Chemistry, but I do not consider myself qualified to write a paper about “Chemistry” outside my field of expertise. In our day and age, it is simply impossible for any one (or two) person(s) to have a thorough grasp of an entire discipline.
And now we have two non-experts come along and tell the scientific community that their whole approach is physically impossible because they have made a beginner’s mistake any student would be chided for.
Why does that remind me of the situation in biology, where we can also witness non-experts explain to evolutionary biologists the gaping holes in their theory that the layman has spotted instantly?
“Based on your logic only science in two journals is relevant and everything else should be ignored. This is clearly nonsense and an appeal to authority.”
I am sure you can quote me where I said this. Oh wait, you can’t, because I did not say it.
My point is that the journal where a paper is published usually tells you something about its quality and the standards of peer review it had to pass. The fact that a paper containing such lofty claims was not published in one of the top journals (or even a reputable physics or climatology journal) should make you cautious about its validity.
How many times do I have to say it? Let the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper be for now. It’s a distracting discussion that adds nothing to the basic question: How do you propose to explain the now established fact that there are significant times in our history where atmospheric temperature changes clearly and obviously precede CO2 changes? If the presumed CO2 to temperature relationship is factual, i.e. if CO2 drives atmospheric temperature, how then do you explain the ice core data?
Without referring to anything else, any outside papers, any other data, THESE DATA need explaining. The only attempt I have seen is a relatively ineffective argument that tries to show a measuring error in taking the information from the cores. This should be considered, of course, but it’s too weak to hold up the edifice on its own. For me, the ice core data changed my mind – long before Gerlich and Tscheuschner. The ice core data caused me to set aside (at least temporarily) the current models to look for another explanation for global climate change.
I am asking you guys to give it a break, let Gerlich and Tscheuschner be for the time being, and to address what I have written above. You guys persist in petty wrangling when there are genuinely substantive issues on the table.
BTW — if you go back through these posts, you will see that I first brought up the ID perspective as an analogy for what you guys are doing with respect to anthropogenic climate change. (i.e. trying to fit data to a defined perspective, to a model that has serious scientific flaws and is wrapped in political/religious fervor.)
May I just say that it has been a pleasure to have an actual Ph.D. with a personal history of gathering global warming data here on this thread? With all the talk of “believers” and “deniers,” it’s nice to have some actual science here somewhere!
This has nothing to do with the discussion, except as a footnote. An old colleague of mine who worked for me when he and I wintered over at the South Pole in 1981 is back there for the polar summer. He has been communicating with me regularly by email – something not possible when he and I were last there. He tells me that my thoughts and popular writings on this topic are the subject of regular discussion at the pole. He says that most of the currently resident scientists agree with my take on the current state of the atmospheric models.
I understand that this is entirely hearsay information, and has no scientific meaning at all, but I think it adds an interesting perspective to the discussions here.
Dr. Williscroft, let me make sure I heard you correctly. You say that the scientists now residing at the South Pole are aware of your “take” on the current state of the atmospheric models, and discuss them–and (despite the “consensus” I keep hearing about), “agree” with your position?
If that’s fact and not just hearsay, it should help Ken reevaluate his position–which, up to now, has been, “This is a very complicated subject and I rely on the consensus of the people who actually do this kind of science.”
Can you give me a link to the simplest version of your “take”?
Let me make myself completely clear on this. I have been having an ongoing email discussion with my old colleague and friend who is presently back at the south pole. He told me by way of something that might interest me that in the ongoing informal after-dinner discussions that always seem to take place down there, one of the topics is (naturally) the current world-wide interest in global warming. My friend has followed my website (which really is NOT dedicated to any particular thing at all) and my writings and radio interviews, and presented the essence of these to his current colleagues at the pole. (I’m mildly notorious down there because of a photo poster of me in the lounge following my initiation into the 300 club that my friend took back in 1982 – I am standing naked at the pole holding a sign regarding the “accomplishment.” here is a link to the photo: http://argee.net/South%20Pole%20Photos/300%20Club.jpg) According to my friend, nearly all these guys (I don’t know who they are) agree with my perspective. This is hardly a measure of what the current climate science community thinks – just a few of the guys in the trenches at the pole right now.
Regarding a link to my perspective, I will look through my material to see if I have published online anything that would meet this criterion. You are welcome to browse my website: http://RobertWilliscroft.com
I want to make myself perfectly clear. I am having an ongoing email conversation with an old friend and colleague who worked for me at the pole in 1981-82, and who is back there for the polar summer. In the ongoing after dinner discussions that always seem to take place down there, one of the ongoing topics is the world-wide interest in global warming. (I am mildly notorious down there because of a photo poster gracing the lounge wall that my friend took in 1982 that shows me standing naked at the pole holding a sign regarding my initiation into the 300 club. Here is a link to that photo: http://argee.net/South%20Pole%20Photos/300%20Club.jpg) My friend brought up my perspective, and reported to me that most of the guys there agree with me.
This is far from a consensus of the current climate science community. This is a group of guys down in the trenches at the pole (I don’t even know their names). I will look through my online material to see if anything meets your request. You are welcome to browse my website: http://robertwilliscroft.com.
@Robert, “the guys” that you have heard from a friend that mostly agree with you, these would be the scientists right? Or would these be the assorted engineers, drivers, cooks or other suchlike climate experts?
Nick — I can’t tell you what the guys at the pole right now are, but from my personal (fairly dated) experience, the group consists of both types. During my Summer (1981-1982), 60 people were there. Of those, about a third to a half (at any specific time, since they tended to come and go) were genuine scientists. The remainder were split between technical support people (which means they were fully competent to give a meaningful opinion), or they were station support people (which means they could follow the conversations, but were not likely to offer any meaningful input to the conversations other than personal opinion based on their personal take from the scientists’ conversations). During the winter-over we were 17 people, evenly divided between scientists and support people.
BTW – I could care less whether or not you find me credible! Neither you nor I are going to influence the outcome of the current political debate. Whatever input I made long ago is not pertinent now, except in a limited historical perspective. What I can add, that neither you nor any of the other so-called believers can add, is a genuine personal perspective – I’ve been there and done that! Furthermore, since my science background has given me a well-grounded training in the “scientific method,” I am well qualified to write about how science should be done. I, and anyone else with a similar general science background (including several of the so-called believers here), am capable of looking at the available data, examining what the models predict based upon that data, and comparing that to the real world. We all are also capable of looking at new data as they arrive, to see if the current models can incorporate those data.
(None of this has anything to do with credibility. So, what’s your problem, Nick? Why stoop to a personal attack?)
By way of explanation, Scott:
When I was at the pole (and perhaps they still do it), we had a sauna that we heated to 200 deg F when the outside temperature had stabilized to -100 deg F. We sat in the sauna, naked except for boots, built up our courage, and then ran (remember, the pole is at 10,000 ft altitude) from the sauna door for a quarter mile around the symbolic pole marker and back to the sauna, experiencing a 300 deg F temperature drop in the process. Ours was the first winter over crew where every person completed that silly challenge. Our winter over was also the coldest on record since such records have been kept. We hit -117.8 deg F in the middle of June 1982.
I take your point, Nick — but please take my reference to technical support people in context. I was talking about an after-dinner conversation, where both working scientists in this area (and others) and their technicians were talking about things, including climate change. Within this context, the typical technician down there, doing what they do, really can participate in an informal discussion and give valuable input, especially since their “supervisors” are immediately there to correct any genuinely off-the-wall comments.
Why is it necessary to parse such statements when the point of the comment was (1) informational in a socially interesting way, and (2) designed to correct any misinterpretation as to the nature of the discussions (which I intended to be taken as no more than after-dinner discussions by some people in the trenches at the pole, and not a statement about the general consensus of the community at large).
BTW — When you call a person not credible, you ARE attacking the person. If you wish to avoid personal attack, stick to that person’s arguments, which no one here has yet addressed (the ice core data anomaly).
Perhaps you can also understand where I am coming from. I have not so much time to be be following peoples arguments. For me to actually do this, I like to feel that it is going to be worth my time. Especially, when the discussion is not in my specialist area.
In my own area, of course, your credibility is not important, as I already have deep experience, so if you want to hold forth about software design, particularly as it relates to financial risk management, go for it. I’m all ears.
But, when you are holding forth about a subject that seems to have filled the airwaves with complete trash in the last couple of weeks, sorry, I am not going to bother unless I find you credible. No matter how many times you have been to Antarctica . Sorry.
Nick — you’re welcome to find me credible or not, but using your opinion of my credibility as an argument in an ongoing discussion is not useful. People in discussions unable to counter a point of information have several choices: they can be quiet, they can ask questions, they can attack the person… In my experience going all the way back to my initial years at University of Washington in the 1960s, a segment of our society routinely uses the “attack” to counter otherwise unassailable arguments. If you can’t counter the other guy’s argument, attack him in some manner or shout him down so no one can hear him.
You cannot have missed this approach by the left during the last few weeks of public discussion about climate change. The amusing thing (to me at least) is that by about 2018 or so there no longer will be any discussion about humans’ effect on global climate. If the solar output hypothesis is correct (and as of now, it has met every scientific challenge), things will get really cold for a while. Should it turn out, on the other hand, that this hypothesis cannot explain some newly acquired data, then we will simply have to keep looking, and what happens will remain a crap shoot. Right now, the current models cannot explain the ice core data. The solar output hypothesis can (along with every other piece of data in the current databases).
“Please provide me with the scientific method for determining this. [whether Gerlich and Tscheuschner are experts in climatology]”
Go to Google Scholar. Type in their names. See how many other articles on this topic they have published in the peer-reviewed literature.
“Again please provide me with the scientific method of determining this. [the reputation of a journal in the scientific community]”
Look up the impact factor of the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Compare it to Nature, Science or Physical Review Letters.
Robert,
I see you wish to drop the paper from the discussion. Wise move.
Regarding the ice core issue: as I said, I am no climatologist and have neither the time nor the motivation to become one, so I can not give an expert opinion on this.
However, doing a quick Google search retrieved the following Science paper:
dealing with this topic. The final paragraph states:
“Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this
Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming.
The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is
then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present day and future climate.” [emphasis mine]
Which is in tune with my understanding, i.e. that carbon dioxide levels are not the sole driver of temperature changes in the atmosphere, but a potent amplifier. So we should think twice before releasing it into the atmosphere without restraint.
Frank — I did not say I wanted to drop Gerlich and Tscheuschner from the discussion. I said I wanted to put it aside for the time being, since you guys seemed incapable of discussing their argument, but constantly revert to whether or not their paper had received sufficient accolades, etc. Gerlich and Tscheuschner is NOT central to my main ice core data argument. I just wanted to focus on a point that, until now, has not been addressed in this discussion.
Since I’m not sure of your science background, or that of the other “believers” here (I mean no disrespect, I just want to distinguish you as a group in this discussion), I don’t want to patronize you by getting too basic in any explanation. As I reviewed the paper you linked to, and especially the pertinent quote that you included in your comment, I could not help but smile at the “hand waving” in that quote. These guys provided not one specific piece of evidence. They are doing here very much what the email perpetrators did when they modified their raw data to force it to match their models. Their underlying approach is to assume the accuracy of the current models, and then to force the ice core data into compliance, by “interpreting” what the anomalous data points really mean. You’ve got to be kidding me! Please, just step back and use your native intelligence when you read these words. It should be obvious to you that it is pure spin doctoring.
Please remember that in these cores we are talking about major temperature increases followed within a few hundred to a few thousand years by major CO2 increases, and there were NO humans around to cause anthropogenic anything! Before the temperature increases, there were NO CO2 increases. Consequently, the temperature increases COULD NOT have been caused by CO2 increases, since there were no CO2 increases until well after the temperature events.
When you move forward in time from these points, using other indirect measuring techniques (tree rings, ocean estuary bottom cores, etc.), other temperature increases also are not preceded by CO2 increases. Closer analysis indicates (but is not nearly so clear as with the ice cores) that CO2 increases always seem to follow temperature increases.
When you chart temperature maximums and minimums against consolidated solar maximums and minimums, the correlation is very significant. In light of this, it makes little sense to believe in CO2 driven temperature increases, while ignoring the solar data. Better, perhaps, to put the entire question back on the table, and reexamine ALL the assumptions, in order to come up with an explanation that satisfies ALL the data.
This is what people like me are urging. We’re neither believers nor deniers. We just follow the data, and accept the results without political argument or polemic.
“Go to Google Scholar. Type in their names. See how many other articles on this topic they have published in the peer-reviewed literature.”
So the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist is to see if their name appears in Google Scholar? Ok both of theirs do, so I guess they are!
“Look up the impact factor of the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Compare it to Nature, Science or Physical Review Letters.”
Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,
Show Me The Data
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
– Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill
Robert G. Williscroft, PhD // December 19, 2009 at 3:28 am : “The only attempt I have seen is a relatively ineffective argument that tries to show a measuring error in taking the information from the cores.”
Aye??
Denialists like to pretend that AGW proponents originally claimed that the initial warming that occurs when the planet moves from glacial to interglacials was caused by increasing concentrations of CO2, and that therefore the evidence that the initial temperature rise preceding the rise in CO2 concentrations is a huge embarrassment, some even claim that this evidence somehow disproves AGW.
The reality is that the initial driver of the regular glacial – interglacial transitions has been recognised for over 60 years as the Milankovitch cycles, as Hansen mentions in this paper:
It is only after the Milankovitch cycle induced initial warming of the planet starts that CO2 and methane released from the warming oceans and land, increase atmospheric GHG concentrations, and fueling further warming.
“It is only after the Milankovitch cycle induced initial warming of the planet starts that CO2 and methane released from the warming oceans and land, increase atmospheric GHG concentrations, and fueling further warming.”
Really? Then what reverses this trend and causes the ice ages?
“Finally, a recent paper published out of Germany shows unequivocally that there is no atmospheric greenhouse.”
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at a denier lodge meeting when Robert G. Williscroft, PhD explains that one to denialist/sceptic climate scientists like Spencer, Lindzen, Pielke (jnr and snr) and Michaels people who actually do have a pretty good understanding of atmospheric physics.
@Robert. The reason why I am not engaging with your arguments, is that they have been very capably disposed of by Frank and then by Andrew.
Seems like you are falling into all sorts of beginners holes with regard to these issues. You however, seem to think that you have hit on some fundamental flaws in the established research. I will say it again. You might want to read Ken’s post again “Sack all the scientists…” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/sack-all-those-scientists-yeah-right/.
“Frank — I did not say I wanted to drop Gerlich and Tscheuschner from the discussion. I said I wanted to put it aside for the time being, since you guys seemed incapable of discussing their argument, but constantly revert to whether or not their paper had received sufficient accolades, etc.”
No Robert, I tried various times to get you to discuss their argument and its obvious failures, but never received any substantive response from you.
So let’s be clear here:
Do you endorse their assertion that a carbon dioxide-based greenhouse effect is physically impossible due to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics or not?
“These guys provided not one specific piece of evidence. They are doing here very much what the email perpetrators did when they modified their raw data to force it to match their models. Their underlying approach is to assume the accuracy of the current models, and then to force the ice core data into compliance, by “interpreting” what the anomalous data points really mean.”
What on earth are you talking about? Where do they “force the data into compliance”? The authors clearly state that the initial warming preceded the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 800 +/- 200 years and thus was caused by another factor. I don’t know about you, but if I wanted to “force the data into compliance” with a preconceived model, I would make sure that there is no time lag between temperature increase and carbon dioxide increase.
“Please remember that in these cores we are talking about major temperature increases followed within a few hundred to a few thousand years by major CO2 increases, and there were NO humans around to cause anthropogenic anything! Before the temperature increases, there were NO CO2 increases. Consequently, the temperature increases COULD NOT have been caused by CO2 increases, since there were no CO2 increases until well after the temperature events.”
Which is exactly what the authors state. Again, nobody is denying that the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere is influenced by a multitude of factors apart from carbon dioxide levels. You are knocking down a straw-man if you argue against a position which maintains that warming can be solely caused by an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration.
What IS being said is that carbon dioxide, due to its physical properties, acts as an amplifier in the process, thus facilitating its own increased release into the atmosphere and a further temperature increase in a positive feedback loop. Except that due to human interference, carbon dioxide levels at present do not increase over centuries, but decades, with potentially disastrous consequences. If you want to show that this is not possible, you will have to come up with better arguments than the second law of thermodynamics.
“When you chart temperature maximums and minimums against consolidated solar maximums and minimums, the correlation is very significant. In light of this, it makes little sense to believe in CO2 driven temperature increases, while ignoring the solar data. Better, perhaps, to put the entire question back on the table, and reexamine ALL the assumptions, in order to come up with an explanation that satisfies ALL the data.”
I´m all for it. You think you have a superior hypothesis? Then gather the data. Do the analysis. Write up the paper. Submit it. See how well your case stands up under scrutiny.
Poptech,
“So the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist is to see if their name appears in Google Scholar? Ok both of theirs do, so I guess they are!”
?????????
I told you to check their publication record in the field of climatology, especially the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
”Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity”
Of course it is subjective. Just like peer review is. Just like the “scientific method” is. Just like any other human endeavour is. That does not mean it is not an indicator you can use to judge the merits of a paper.
Seeing that you are obviously endorsing this publication, how about defending its content? Care to explain to me how the carbon dioxide-based greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics?
Robert, I’m still trying to understand the science, here. Do you know enough about the Milankovitch cycles to tell whether the rise (and subsequent fall) in global temperatures can be completely explained by the planetary tilt, or does the CO2 that is released by a warming ocean then have ANY effect in adding to the warming cycle?
“I told you to check their publication record in the field of climatology, especially the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.”
Actually you did not say this your said “this topic”.
How many papers publised on climatology makes them a climatologist?
What if they publish papers on the climate that has nothing to do with CO2? Are they still a climatologist?
Who decides this criteria and how is this the scientific method for determining who is a “climatologist”?
“Of course it is subjective. Just like peer review is. Just like the “scientific method” is. Just like any other human endeavour is. That does not mean it is not an indicator you can use to judge the merits of a paper.”
Impact factor is merely one subjective way to rate a paper’s popularity. Is science determined by popularity now?
Back to the main point of this post (the “conspiracy”), I just found an article by Roger Pielke, Sr., a “highly cited researcher” who is on the “hit list” in the CRU emails. Pielke specifically claims that his research was suppressed and excluded. Here’s a link to his 88 page “public comment” which he published in 2006. His comment starts with this:
“The process for completing the CCSP Report excluded valid scientific perspectives under
the charge of the Committee. The Editor of the Report systematically excluded a range of
views on the issue of understanding and reconciling lower atmospheric temperature trends.
“The Executive Summary of the CCSP Report ignores critical scientific issues and makes
unbalanced conclusions concerning our current understanding of temperature trends.”
“This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979-2008. Surface temperature datasets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems datasets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.”
Putting that in simple terms: “satellite measurements over the last 30 years don’t agree equally well with ocean surface temperature measurements and land-based surface temperature measurements. The land-based measurements are warmer.”
That is relevant to this discussion because:
(1) There is some reason to believe the land-based measurements may have been “cherry-picked.” (The “conspiracy theory.”)
(2) Land-based measurements do not agree with tree-ring measurements since 1960. (Thus the call to “hide the decline.”)
(3) A paper dismissing the so-called “urban heat island” effect (which could raise the overall temperature of land-based measurements) was called “fraudulent” in private emails by CRU director Tom Wigley. (Wigley later wrote “It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”) Academic charges against lead author Wang Wei-Chyung were dismissed, but in a non-standard procedure that kept the person who made the charges from participating. All this makes the “urban heat island” effect an open question.
(4) CRU selected a subset of the Russian land-based surface temperature measurements, but that subset is significantly warmer than the full set. The CRU subset ignored some sites that had long-term, uninterrupted readings.
So–here’s the deal. We have TWO divergences from land-based surface temperature measurements. Satellites and tree-rings don’t see the same effects that the CRU-selected land-based thermometers do. We can explain that by “multiplying the entities” (with one hypothesis for tree rings and another for the land-water satellite differential), or we can act like scientists and apply Occam’s Razor.
Reading up on Roger Pielke, Sr. If he’s a “denier,” I’m a flying spaghetti monster. He’s a terrifically well-published expert in the field of climatology, and he makes VERY specific claims that the peer-review process has been stacked (which is my OTHER biggest concern from the CRU emails). Here’s Pielke’s own words from his “public comment”:
“The process that produced the report was highly political, with the Editor taking the lead in suppressing my perspectives, most egregiously demonstrated by the last-minute substitution of a new Chapter 6 for the one I had carefully led preparation of and on which I was close to reaching a final consensus. Anyone interested in the production of comprehensive assessments of climate science should be troubled by the process which I document below in great detail that led to the replacement of the Chapter that I was serving as Convening Lead Author.
“The inappropriate substitution of a replacement Chapter 6, for the one I had led the drafting before resigning from the Committee, enforced the narrow perspective of the Chair of the Committee. The new version replaced the version that was nearly complete and accepted by the Committee in August 2005. This substitution represents an example of this usurpation of the responsibility granted in the original charge to the Committee and the forcing of the Editor’s perspective on this Report. The result was the elimination from the Chapter of significant scientific issues concerning temperature trends in the lower atmosphere in the version of the Report that is now under public review.”
****
Scott’s Personal Appeal to Ken:
Ken–I really enjoy Open Parachute. I love the idea of a blog where people with open minds come together to discuss facts and explore theories. At this point, I feel like your stance on Anthropogenic Global Warming falls short of that goal. You’ve taken the position that you “trust the consensus,” but that’s (a) an example of “belief,” not “science” and (b) increasingly difficult to reconcile with the evidence.
What would it take for you to have an “open mind” with respect to AGW?
The Milankovitch cycle is actually the Milankovitch cycles, and the plural is NOT trivial. Milankovitch was a civil engineer and mathematician (not an astronomer or climatologist), which is interesting, given all the sophomoric assertions regarding scientific qualification in these posts. I also find it interesting that the Milankovitch cycles have been raised to prop up the arguments that CO2 drives global temperature (although I recognize that some of you are now using the word amplifier to describe CO2’s function).
Despite the personal attacks from some of you, and despite the pettiness that some of you insist on bringing into the discussion, if you were to take the time to review my posts, you would see that I have said (1) the ice core data indicates that CO2 apparently is not the driver of climate change, (2) Solar cycles (including the Milankovitch cycles although I didn’t mention them specifically) seem to provide answers that better fit the data, and (3) the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper argues that there can be no “atmospheric greenhouse.”
Whatever happened to civil discourse? Nick, Frank, Andrew (to list the individuals who have personally clashed with me here), why do you feel a need for sarcasm, snide asides, direct personal attacks, innuendo, spin…? It adds nothing to discourse, and only lessens you in my eyes and those of the people reading but no joining these comments.
I find the arguments raised to explain the ice core data (not here, but in the climate change community) unconvincing. On the other hand, I find the following more convincing:
Use the Milankovitch cycles (which are not really solar cycles, but planetary precession cycles) as a general backdrop. Superimpose over these the following well established solar cycles (1) the 1,100 to 1,500 year Bond Cycle, (2) the 200-500 year Seuss Cycle, (3) the 75 to 90 year Gleissberg Cycle, ad (4) the 11 year Schwabe Sunspot Cycle. This was the state of the solar cycle explanation for climate change until relatively recently. The problem was that all of these together still didn’t account for the slight, but real, additional measured temperature increase that could be seen in the various indirect measurements that everybody relies on. This difference was assumed to be CO2 by many researchers.
Then, starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star’s protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When sun’s energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these “high sun” periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.
The cosmic ray effect was demonstrated recently in lab experiments carried out by Svensmark. The addition of this effect makes up the difference, so that there is no need to bring in questionable CO2 “amplification” by “atmospheric greenhouse effects.” With the publication of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper (which questions the atmospheric greenhouse), it is good to see that the bases remain covered.
Professor Singer recently made the following comments in a speech:
We have a split in this scientific community, of those who believe in the observational evidence, which is against any significant global warming, and those who believe in theoretical climate models, which indicate major global warming. So you have a choice – you either believe in the atmosphere or you believe in computers. It is not a difficult choice to make,
We have data from satellites and weather balloons that show no appreciable warming in the last 25 years, completely contrary to climate models. Climate models predict that warming should be greater in the atmosphere than at the surface – we see the opposite. Climate models predict that the warming in the Polar Regions should be many times greater than at the equator – we don’t see such warming in the Polar Regions; the Antarctic has even been cooling. So everywhere you look, you find that the models are not verified by actual observations. My recommendation is to just ignore the models for predicting future climate change.
Well then. This is a familiar pattern. Come rushing in making some weird and wonderful claims, then when people calmly dispose of them (not me, I don’t know enough about this subject to do that), come over all hurt and wounded claiming personal attacks. This reminds me a bit of our old friend Glenn.
Nick, was that comment supposed to describe Dr. Williscroft? I’ve been following this thread, taking notes, and looking up links ever since he got here. I would not agree that people have “calmly disposed” of his arguments. I can’t see that he has made any “weird and wonderful claims,” either. As for the “personal attacks,” they shouldn’t matter one way or another in a scientific discussion–real scientists can be total jerks with no people skills (who make such attacks), but the scientific discussion ought to focus on facts and arguments, not snark and sarcasm.
The most important thing Dr. Williscroft has added to my understanding of the science is the role that atmospheric CO2 plays in warming. I came into this discussion thinking the atmosphere was essentially transparent to certain infrared wavelengths, but for atmospheric CO2. I thought that visible light hit the surface, re-radiated back upwards as infrared, and was reabsorbed by CO2 in the air. More CO2 would trap more infrared, resulting in a warmer planet.
Now, looking at the absorption spectra more closely and thinking about the greenhouse analogy more critically, I realize that the atmosphere is essentially opaque to the relevant infrared wavelengths. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t make it more opaque–it just makes an already opaque “blanket” thicker. As far as I can tell, that means the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 would be limited to trapping kinetic energy within the “blanket.”
IF that is the case, then the actual temperature of the atmosphere become a critical concern. Is the “blanket” holding more heat, or not? I assume that most of the heat-holding CO2 would be in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere), so what do we know about warming trends in the troposphere?
That’s where Dr. Roger Pielke’s expertise comes in. He’s a troposphere scientist, and he makes the unpopular argument that we AREN’T seeing a warming trend in the troposphere.
So–have I completely missed how CO2 is supposed to affect temperature?
That’s total BS, Nick. Apparently you belong to the school that believes if you say something often enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe you.
I did not rush in – I entered the discussion to ensure that my position on the list that appeared above was not mistaken. I qualified my position as probably not really belong on the list given my current non-scientific preoccupations. Following that, I brought up several interesting items for the assembled group to toss about in civil discourse.
What happened was a firestorm of personal attacks that added nothing to the discussion, and distracted from the direction I had assumed this discussion was going. I doubt that any thinking person would agree with your assessment that what I brought to the table was “calmly disposed of.” In fact, the issue of the ice core data was only addressed once – peripherally, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper was roundly denounced, but without a shred of evidence or argument from within the field of physics, which was the underlying source of their arguments, and my offering the solar cycle hypothesis as an alternative explanation for climate change was not even addressed.
You people are acting just like the assembled Students for a Democratic Society that shouted down opposing viewpoints back in 1966 at University of Washington. Their disruptions concerned the Vietnam War and other policy matters. Your disruptions follow the same pattern in your misguided attempts to “shout down” the opposition. That’s just NOT how science is done (mostly, anyway).
Leave the person out of it, leave consensus out of it, leave peer review out of it, and examine the data. It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see what precedes what. It may take a deeper understanding and even some extra eyes (peer review) to verify cause and effect relationships, but “what came first” is at the eighth grade level – even you guys can understand this.
Internet anonymity makes it possible for you guys to be as rude and unpleasant as you wish (I guarantee you, were you in my personal presence you would never think of behaving so). Why don’t you open your individual selves to closer inspection – as I have repeatedly done here (visit my website: http://robertwilliscroft.com). And then, why don’t all of you begin to behave as responsible adults and carry on with this discourse the way reasonable people do?
Dr. Williscroft, before you showed up, I assumed that “all the experts agreed” that CO2 has a warming effect, but that “skeptics” disagree with how MUCH of an effect it has.
Now I understand you to be saying the following:
(1) Ice cores show that CO2 rises AFTER temperatures rise (presumably from a release of CO2 from the oceans).
(2) The “greenhouse” analogy is misleading (at best). CO2 does NOT act like a pane of glass that “traps” warm air.
(3) Rising CO2 levels in the past have NOT (necessarily) “amplified” a pre-existing warming trend. On the contrary, the Veizer, Godderis, François paper you cite finds the “radiative forcing model” to be incompatible with oxygen isotope rations in sea shells over the last 500 million years.
(4) By contrast, models that ignore any warming effect from CO2 seem to match the observed temperatures better than those which assume a radiative forcing model. You cite Milankovich cycles plus the refinement of solar flare effects on atmospheric ions.
(5) For what it’s worth, you claim that your old pals at the South Pole think you might be on to something.
It would be a BIG leap for me to go from “interested amateur” to “greenhouse skeptic.” I can follow your arguments, but I can’t follow the math in the German paper well enough to go out on a limb and say “CO2 may not have any effect on overall temperature.” It defies everything I’ve learned since grade school. (Yes, I learned about “the greenhouse effect” back in the early 1970s. Can’t remember why.)
I’d love any more links you can suggest. They’ve been fascinating so far!
Scott — I was just perusing various materials in my personal “locker,” and came across this interesting gem. It is, perhaps, the best summarizing article I have seen, written for intelligent laypersons by a very well credentialed scientist (much more so than I): http://www.peacebytruth.com/main.php?Post=78
Re Gerlich and Tscheuschner: Try reading the paper up to any specific mathematical argument, and then skip to the summarizing paragraph that usually follows the specific argument. If you do this thoughtfully, you’ll come away with a very good understanding of why they believe they have “falsified” the atmospheric greenhouse.
[Here is an excellent definition of falsifiability, just in case you are unfamiliar with the concept (from Wikipedia): Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term “testability” is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.]
I’m a big fan of Sir Karl Popper and the concept of “falsifiability.” I’ll check that out.
Meanwhile, I just came across this LONG and THOUGHTFUL assessment of the entire 2,000 page CRU email directory. This is the first journalist I’ve seen who has actually dug in to do the reporting on what is IN the emails. Here’s a juicy paragraph from page 3 of this 7-page story:
“Also clear is that the official science on climate change as we know it today, looking backward and forward, has been developed and controlled by the relatively small collection of scientists who wrote most of the emails. Working directly or indirectly for the IPCC, the scientists seem to have become captive of that organization’s objectives, which was to find “the hand of man” in climate records to justify plans to change the climate in future. The scientists, in other words, became engaged in the all-too-familiar business of decision-based evidence making.”
Couple of quick points as I’m busy today, Robert G. Williscroft, PhD Did not mention or imply any knowledge of the Malenkovitch cycles, and that they are recognised as an initial driver in the transition from glacial to interglacial periods, now that he does know of them and the role it is understood that they play, rather than look at this (to him) new evidence in an objective way, he looks instead for a way to use this evidence to justify is preformed opinions.
As I’ve alluded to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner claim that there is no GH effect is very fringe, denialist and sceptic atmospheric scientists overwhelmingly accept the existence of the GH effect, much of the calculations conducted by both sides in this debate just wouldn’t fit observations without the GHE.
Scott, your point about GH gases being very effective is correct, the tropospheric warming that occurs with additional GH gases is because of the complex absorption/re-radiation/re-absorption, it just takes longer for IR energy to get to the stratosphere. Like adding more blankets to your bed, there is always going to be an additional insulating effect.
Andrew — Don’t you get tired of making stupid comments? I am NOT calling you stupid – but your comment about my alluding to the Malenkovitch cycles carries no better description. Any unbiased review of my recent posts will show that I referred to “solar cycles” from the start. I had not intended to go into this in any detail, since the Malenkovitch cycles backdrop for climate change is virtually universally accepted.
Scott — here are links to several very well written articles that present a fairly cohesive picture of climate change within the framework of real world science as opposed to politics driven science. The articles are about 2 1/2 to 3 years old, so they are not especially timely; but they still are pertinent, and interesting:
Andrew — Don’t you get tired of making stupid remarks? I am NOT calling you stupid, but your comment about my alluding to the Malenkovitch cycles can best be so described. Any unbiased review of my posts will show that from the onset, I made reference to “solar cycles.” I did not specifically mention the Malenkovitch cycles, because they represent a virtually universally accepted backdrop for climate change.
Scott — Here are several links to a series of articles that present a fairly complete picture of the current state of climate change thinking. Since the articles are between 2 1/2 to 3 years old, some recent information is not there, but they still make interesting and informative reading:
Andrew, you refer to the “tropospheric warming.” If I understand the “greenhouse” mechanism, CO2 supposedly absorbs and then reradiates infrared, trapping heat like a “blanket on a bed” instead of a “pane of glass in a greenhouse.”
Dr. Williscroft argues, in effect, that even the “thick blanket” model is a bad analogy, and cites a German paper for the argument that CO2 provides essentially no heat-trapping effect.
So–who’s right? I can’t follow the math in the German paper. The simplest way I can think of to test these two hypotheses is to see whether the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) acts like a “thick blanket” or not.
According to Roger Pielke, Sr., the troposphere is COOLER than we expected. Here’s a quote from his 88 page “public comment”:
“In the early 1990s, data from NOAA’s polar orbiting satellites were analyzed for multi-decadal trends. These initial analyses indicated that temperatures in the troposphere showed little or no increase, in contrast with surface air measurements from ships, land-based weather stations, and ocean buoys. This result led some to question the reality and/or the cause of the surface temperature increase, on the basis that human influences, thought to be important contributors to observed change, were expected to increase temperatures both at the surface and in the troposphere with larger increases expected in the tropical troposphere. This surprising result led to an intensive effort by scientists to better understand the causes of the apparent differences in the rates of temperature increase between the surface and the troposphere.”
IF I understand the “greenhouse effect,” these data seem to support the German claim that CO2 has no greenhouse effect.
Sorry about the double post — I am unsure what happened.
Andrew — you wrote “…the complex absorption/re-radiation/re-absorption, it just takes longer for IR energy to get to the stratosphere…” That’s pretty cute. Do you want to expand your explanation a bit, at least to describe this “complex” mechanism? And while you’re at it, you might also want to demonstrate that your hypothetical mechanism is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
This has been one of the ongoing problems with this research. WE ALL made assumptions that appeared to be correct. On closer examination, however, many of these assumptions fail the falsification test. Nobody bothered to do this initially, because “it was common knowledge that…”
It turned out it wasn’t so common knowledge after all.
Robert seemed to want to round of with his own subjective summary of the discussion back there a bit.
It probably should be finished – or moved elsewhere. With close to 200 comments very few new people will want to look into these comments and would prefer to move to comments on a new post. Why waste the effort? After all some of the points brought up here are actually the content of my post The global warming debate summarised. Why not move there – and answer the points in the post?
For what it’s worth – my subjective summary is that I find the behavior of people on this issue interesting from the point of view of social psychology, and note the overwhelming prevalence of confirmation bias in people’s thinking.
After all, we would all prefer it if the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions. None of us like to see the prospect the science is revealing. So it’s easy to move into a denial psychology. And there’s no doubt that motivated organisations and individuals are actively encouraging this by manipulating information for their own ends.
However, there a some huge elephants in the room which keep getting ignored.
1: The science of climate change is extremely transparent, heavily reviewed and very available. The IPCC has done a tremendous job of reviewing the published scientific literature. The review process is rigorous and one can have confidence in the outcomes. In fact the outcomes are still expressed in a relatively tentative manner. While global warming is accepted as occurring, the contribution of humanity is considered only as – “most likely.” There is no dogmatism there.
2: Granted the IPCC documents are not readily approachable by the lay person. The reports are after all for governments and policy makers. Governments and policy makers as a whole appear to strongly accept the IPCC conclusions. This is also true for scientists advising governments, particularly climate scientists.
While IPCC summaries are available, even these may be too much for the layperson. But the information does get into books. There is an excellent book just published “Climate Change 101: An Educational Resource” by Andy Reisinger of Victoria University (a brief review at Hot Topic). I’ll also post a review on this in a few weeks.
This is aimed at the student and science-oriented layperson and essentially takes the IPCC reports and presents them in a more appropriate and condensed manner. It should do a lot in bringing the science of climate change to students and laypersons.
3: There is an unbalanced (unhealthy) preoccupation with many of the critics (and exemplified by some commenters here). Rather than deal with the overwhelming science contained in the IPCC reports there is concentration on selected (cherry-picked) points, in isolation.
a: The ice core issue, Robert, is definitely not ignored by climate scientists and is not evidence against the fundamental properties of CO2 and similar gases leading to a “greenhouse” effect. But this and similar issues are presented in isolation as some sort of “proof.”
b: Isolated papers, with no supporting credibility can be pulled out and set against the rest of the scientific literature. And then fiercely and partisanly defended against rational critiques. Balance requires their consideration – sure (and this is what the IPCC review process has done – they haven’t ignored such papers) but also requires consideration of all the other papers and a proper evaluation of their worth.
c: emails, comments, etc., are pulled out and set against the whole of climate science literature as if they have equal, or more value – desperate confirmation bias! And then people doing this complain because the media and governments don’t see things the same way! Very quickly this approach leads to arguing for a huge conspiracy of scientists, media and governments!
d: Bloggers are seriously putting up 11 year-old children as betters scientists than the experienced climate scientists. Seriously! That’s is huge, irrational, confirmation bias.
These bloggers have not bothered to look at the huge amounts of evidence (not easy I admit) but grab desperately at videos from 11 year old children!
And if you question them, the deniers rush to their defense, will not allow an assessment of the child’s “research” but will continue to effectively accuse the experienced scientists of “beating their wives.” Conspiracy theory mentality.
e: We get a “research paper” from denier groups in NZ attacking our NIWA scientists. And these denier bloggers and commenters get themselves into a frenzy accusing the NIWA scientists of “beating there wives” – and refuse to make a critical assessment of the original “research paper.” This “research paper” was analysed by a couple of scientist bloggers, shown to be incorrect. The producers of the ‘research paper” admit they had noi scientific input or scientifc review of their “paper” – and our comments are ignored! The denier bloggers and commenters prefer to get caught up in slandering honest scientists rather than casting an objective eye over that “paper.”
4: Commenters like Scott think they are doing science when they desperately search through emails, comments, etc., to find evidence for the IPCC science being worng (or the result of a conspiracy). I have invited Scott several times to look at the iriginal “research paper” which attacked our NIWA scientists but his cioncept of doing that is to contine to accuse the scientists of “beating their wives.” He is prepared to ignore the obvious sin and slander by the deniers and prefers to search instead for a scientific conspiracy.
As I said – an interesting project for social psychologists.
Until this week, I truly thought of the “greenhouse effect” as visible light coming in, re-radiating as infrared, and then radiating back to the ground where it would be absorbed. I sort of visualized a semi-silvered mirror, I guess.
Now that I’m trying to think through what the photons actually do, I realize that my mental image of a “semi-silvered mirror” was completely off base. Any IR radiation that enters the CO2 must ultimately go out into space or down to the earth. If I’m thinking about this correctly, doubling the CO2 can’t double the statistical probability that a given photon finally winds up hitting the earth. I can take a “random walk” through one mile of CO2-rich atmosphere or ten miles–either way, I have to wind up in space or on the ground.
The only difference the amount of CO2 makes, as I’m working through this, is the actual kinetic energy that is stored in the atmosphere. More CO2 will hold more heat. It’s like putting water in a microwave–if I put one mug in the microwave, I store one mug’s worth of heat. If I put two mugs in, I can store more heat.
Which means I should be able to detect that absorbed heat by measuring the temperature of the troposphere. If a “thick blanket” of CO2 is driving the earth’s warming, then the EASIEST and MOST ACCURATE direct measurement we can make would be to measure the heat trapped in the blanket.
But, since Pielke claims that is what we DON’T find, I don’t think the “thick blanket” model works, either.
Andrew, you seem to understand the “expert consensus” on all this. How, exactly, is it that CO2 trap heat?
Ken, I’d be happy to close off this thread. I REALLY think you’ve got me mixed up with someone else on the “beating their wives” claim–if not, please tell me what I said that could be construed that way!
As for the NIWA claims… I went off to find out what was going on, and came to the conclusion that it was a “Yes you did/no you didn’t” dispute. NIWA is following “generally accepted methods” of correcting for temperatures. The critics don’t accept those methods. Both sides are “right” in their own eyes, so (in my opinion) it’s not a dispute that’s worth investing that much effort on.
For what it’s worth, I’m more skeptical of the surface measurements than I used to be–so I’m more likely to question whether NIWA is doing the right thing. But I’m not going to accuse them of “fraud” or “conspiracy.”
Ken — Are you the “Ken” of this blog? I’m disappointed with your “summary,” since it has summarized to your particular bias rather than simply summarizing objectively. Your choice, of course. (If you are the “Ken” of this blog, I would like to discuss your “belief system.” I suspect you and I have significant overlaps there.
Scott — I am beginning to think you may know a great deal more about this subject than you are letting on. Your approach reminds me of a crafty oceanography professor of mine back at UDUB (University of Washington) – namely Dixie Lee Ray. I have enjoyed the exchange.
Poptech — Are you Andrew, Doug, Carl, or Mike? You seem to be a pretty clear thinker. Keep focusing on the facts – no matter where they lead you.
The rest of you (at least those who have interacted with me) — sooner or later you need to advance beyond your sophomoric thinking.
As far as I can see no! At least you have not commented on our critiques, or countered anything we have said. That’s what I would have expected from an objective commenter.
Instead you continue “to question whether NIWA is doing the right thing.”
Well – what about this Scott. Why don’t you question if the NZ Coalition and Conversation group are doing the right thing?
If you had an honest interest in the science of this matter you would have done that.
I fear you may be for real, Walter E. Haas — OMG! At the South Pole, we had a 1930s something UCLA doctoral thesis about the hollow earth and the aliens who live there. The way into this place was, according to this PhD candidate, at the South Pole. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Scott, from what I can see the questions you ask have already been answered in the thread by Frank, Ken and others, if you don’t want to accept them, don’t.
Robert G. Williscroft, PhD claims that the GH theory contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that energy can’t flow from a colder object to a warmer object, this claim is what the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper it entirely based on, Frank covers this, the rule is that there can be no NET energy transfer without work being done.
A simple experiment can be carried out to test which claim is right, if there is no flow of energy from colder to hotter objects that partially offsets the larger flow from hotter to colder things should cool at a rate independent of the relative temperature of their colder surroundings, ie, a 90C cup of coffee in a 50C oven should cool at the same rate as a 90C cup of coffee in a -10C freezer, try it.
I don’t know how many times and in how many ways I need to make the following point to you Scott, this is the last time I’ll try:
Roger Pielke, Sr once argued that the troposphere is cooler than expected, but he was not talking about an absence of a GH effect, which would result in a troposphere about 33C cooler than it is, Gerlich and Tscheuschner are the only people with a published paper making this no GH effect claim, Pielke is addressing the finer points of climate sensitivity. We all agree he’s a sceptic rather than a denier.
Quote from Scott: “In the early 1990s, data from NOAA’s polar orbiting satellites were analyzed for multi-decadal trends. These initial analyses indicated that temperatures in the troposphere showed little or no increase…”
There was found to be an error in that data that was a result of satellite orbital drift, sceptic (as opposed to denier) scientists accept the corrected data.
“Andrew — Don’t you get tired of making stupid remarks? I am NOT calling you stupid, but your comment about my alluding to the Malenkovitch cycles can best be so described. Any unbiased review of my posts will show that from the onset, I made reference to “solar cycles.” I did not specifically mention the Malenkovitch cycles, because they represent a virtually universally accepted backdrop for climate change.”
You referred to 4 solar cycles in your earlier comments with periods of up to 1500 years, you made no mention of orbital cycles, and further claimed that AGW supporters denied the existence of any initial driver other than increasing CO2 concentrations. You were wrong, wrong , wrong, you then decided to revise what you initially said to fit what had subsequently been explained to you. You’re not just a flake, but also a liar and a scoundrel.
For my 9th grade honors history class I have to do a debate on climate change. I’m on the side that this whole problem can’t he 100% anthropogenic because althoughwe may be able to influence the climate a little with carbon emmitios and whatnot, there is now way a all that we could cause such drastic changes to the enviorment. The whole conspiracy idea and evidence is news to me and seems to directly parallel my hypothesis.
James, the IPCC is on the side that there are natural as well as man made causes of climate change. When you look at their reports you see a careful and objective assessment of the science. This provides a conclusion that the major contributor to the current warming is most likely (more than 90% probable) due to humans. The science, and the IPCC process is pretty obvious and transparent.
Really if there is a conspiracy it’s on the deniers’ side with apparent links to conservative think tanks, the fossil fuel industry, creationist and conservative Christian groups.
The denier claims of conspiracy amongst the scientists are as obviosly silly as similar claims made by creationists.
for your information. The comment of Kramm et al. (2009) on Arthur Smith’s paper was submitted to the arXiv of the Cornell-University because Smith’s paper was published there. Also the Gerlich-Tscheuschner paper was first submitted to arXiv before it was eventually published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B.
arXiv is used by many physicists, and physical journals recommend to upload manuscripts to arXiv so that they can be applied within the framework of the review process.
If peer-reviewed is such an important measure for you, please stop to believe that climate modeling is an appropriate tool in climatology because climate modeling is based on Ed Lorenz’s (1975) contribution to the GARP # 16 report. It is not peer-reviewed.
“Peer-reviewed” is a measure for people who are unable to analyze scientific papers.
P.S.: I served as a reviewer for 19 different jounals of meteorology, geophysics and physics.
I wrote that the paper of Ed Lorenz is not “peer-reviewed”. This is a fact. Nevertheless, it is unimportant to me because I am able to analyze papers.
I have a copy of the GARP #16 report since 1977 or so. I do not need the internet.
Arthur P. Smith wrote a blog on the arrogance of physicists. Meanwhile, it is widely distributed on the web. I wonder why he did not use his valuable time to write a reply on our comment.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Open Parachute 
It’s a great video.
It fully deserves more exposure.
Let’s hope more people post it on their blogs and spread the word.
LikeLike
“There are, of course, ideological motivated people who wish to promote the issue as a scandal. Who wish to attack our current understanding of climate science and climate change. Or who just have an anti-science attitude in general and attack the integrity of scientists as part of their nature”
So basically your approach is to poison the well in advance against dissenters fromy uor view and engage in the ad hominem fallacy.
Nothing much to see here.
LikeLike
The hacked emails of Climategate are not necessary to show that human caused global warming never was.
A simple, science-based EXCEL model has been derived that accurately (sd = 0.064 C) predicts all average global temperatures since 1895. The model did not need any consideration whatsoever of changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas.
A description of the model and its development along with an eye-opening graph that shows measured and predicted average global temperature are in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
LikeLike
Well, Glenn – that’s one way of avoiding the issue. Label anyone who bases their analysis on evidence instead of your own preconceived bias. Who is poisoning the well here?
I think the video is excellent. It goes into the two most misquoted emails. If you didn’t see anything there – what do they say: “There are none so blind as those who refuse to look?”
LikeLike
Yes, Cedric. The video is excellent. Short and to the point.
It’s amazing, though, how some people just don’t want to expose themselves to evidence like this. I refer to the phenomenon as an “ideological ghetto.” Where people won’t look outside their strict ideological/theological boundaries. They must always find their “scientific” evidence from approved sources. Like Ian Wishart!
I guess it’s just really confirmation bias.
LikeLike
A simple, science-based EXCEL model has been derived that accurately (sd = 0.064 C) predicts all average global temperatures since 1895.
Wonderful.
We all look forward to reading your peer-reviewed paper in Nature.
Kthxbai.
LikeLike
Truesceptic has been looking at the emails in more detail at Greenfyre’s blog.
Some of them are quite blunt.
This is part of an email from McIntyre, where he asserts that engineers have higher standards for data than do academics.
/mail/1104855751.txt
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on
“RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached
it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in
press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things
can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc…
LikeLike
Cedric Katesby:
Regarding the research presented in the pdf dated Oct 16 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true : The methodology and all data sources (NOAA) are there so anyone who is technologically competent can verify it. Others may continue to wonder why it is not getting warmer as the CO2 level continues to increase.
LikeLike
Dan, Cedric has a valid point, if you think this model you are proposing is credible you will of couse submit a paper to an appropriate jounal. This should enable it to be assesed prperly by competent climate scientists.
Personally, I won’t bother checking out your web presentation in the absence of a proper peer review. I don’t have that sort of tome to waste.
LikeLike
The methodology and all data sources (NOAA) are there…
That’s fantastic.
Really great.
Now all you have to do is publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal, overturn the global consensus on global warming and claim your Nobel Prize.
Go for it. There is no time to waste.
Kthxbai.
LikeLike
Cedric Kaesby:
If papers published in “peer-reviewed journals” could predict average global temperature there would not be the present observed SEPARATION between the rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide level, 18.8 % since 2000 of the increase from 1800 to 2000 and the not-rising temperature determined by averaging reports from the five reporting agencies (four since Climategate).
LikeLike
Making sense out of the partisan rhetoric on this issue is a little like trying to figure out the global temperature from thousands of independent measurement stations. The “signal to noise ratio” is VERY high.
I’m happy to say the New York Times science journalist, Andy Revkin, seems to be a person of some independence and integrity. He believes in global warming, but he’s been “accused” of being “not as predictable as we’d like.” He has now been threatened with “the Big Cutoff” by a climatologist who was unhappy with his blog post.
I’ve started reading blog and invite others here to do so as well.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
LikeLike
Here’s an in-depth analysis of the internal structure of the CRU data. It fits with my own assessment, so I’ll pass it on. The most important claim (which I believe is VERY hard to rebut) is that the .zip file that was released was originally assembled to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Whether it was “leaked” or “hacked” is NOT clear. But it does seem likely that a person inside the CRU assembled this particular set of documents because somebody made a specific request.
Here’s the write-up, if anyone CARES about WHY these emails were gathered.
LikeLike
On the other hand, who is benefitting from the release of these hacked emails? Who is running with the story as hard as they can? Why, look, it’s the deniers and their media supporters! What a surprise.
Instead of relying on fanciful reports at WattsUp, why not take a look at what The Times has to say:
My sources close to the CRU affair tell me that the entire email database was hacked, and that the released emails amount to less than 2% of the total. No wonder it took the hackers a few weeks to sort out what to release — and they would have had to know what they were looking for. And this was the work of a “whistleblower”? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on…
LikeLike
Gareth, there’s a factual problem with what you’re suggesting. The Oct. 12 date comes from the BBC’s Paul Hudson, who was provided a set of files but refused to do anything with them. The FOIA.zip file hit the Internet on Nov. 17, and contained emails dated up to Nov. 12, the day before Steve McIntyre’s freedom of information request was denied. (Google FOI_99-44 to see various posts on the progress of that request.)
So the Oct. 12 hack could not have “sorted through” the data retrieved and then released it on Nov. 12. It had to be at least two “hacks,” if there were any. Or just one “leaker” who tried to go to a reputable (and “green”) journalist at the BBC before finally sending the (most current) info to the world at large.
The claim that the release in November was timed to throw off Copenhagen is just silly, unless a release four weeks earlier would have also been “timed to throw off Copenhagen.” The hacker/leaker TRIED to go public with the info on Columbus Day.
The claim that “the entire email database was hacked” but only 2% were released is completely consistent with a FOIA response. The emails have been stripped of headers (appropriate in a FOIA response, and just plain silly for a hacker). The emails do not include personal correspondence (again, appropriate for a FOIA dataset but silly for a hacker–if you want to make Phil Jones look bad, why not include the juiciest personal stuff you can find?)
The question of whether the emails were “leaked” or “hacked” makes no real difference to the science of all this. It would seem like this is an interesting little tidbit of a great big story where reality-based people could look at the evidence together and come to some consensus.
What do others think? Do the emails seems “hacked,” “leaked,” or “who cares?”
LikeLike
Scott, this is an issue for the police. I agree the data may have been collected together for a freedom of information request – but so what? We can look ofrward to what the polic dig up and what the enquiry finds. But that will take time.
The real issue is thyat there are people who are promoting an incorrect and extreme presentation of the emails. Obviously in an attempt to damage the scientific case. And, yes, it is obvious the release was time to threaten Copenhagen. The earlier release probably failed because jounralists saw that the emails didn’t have the power the deniers think. The latest release has relied on extremist and emotional poushing of the story.
But why bother with this Scott? Why ignore the NIWA attacks? Surely we have a clear case here. All the data is available, the denier claims are available. It’s easy to understand.
If you are interested in this issue why avoid discussion the NIWA situation? All the elements of the controversy are there.
LikeLike
Ken, I’m avoiding the NIWA situation because I have nothing of significance to say about it. I’ve read through both sides of the argument–one side says the data is suspect, the other side says it isn’t. I don’t have anything to add to that, so I’m saying nothing–which is pretty much what I had been doing on the whole AGW issue until the CRU files appeared.
If “all the elements of the controversy” are present in the NIWA situation, I’d love to look more deeply into it.
You say, “The real issue is that there are people who are promoting an incorrect and extreme presentation of the emails.” I don’t actually care what OTHER people are saying about the emails. I’m more interested in looking through them for myself.
Here’s an “extreme an incorrect presentation of the emails” for you–IPCC Vice-Chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is blaming the “hack” on the sophisticated, unscrupulous oil-rich Russians. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Siberia to sell you. This is the LAMEST evidence the IPCC is in deep trouble yet.
LikeLike
Not interested in science as represented by NIWA.? But interested in rumours and scuttle mongering. Why bring up this specific report – there are just so many others.
I suspect your motives in this.
LikeLike
Ken, “suspecting motives” is not the best basis for science. But–as you wish. I’ll go dig into NIWA now.
LikeLike
If papers published in “peer-reviewed journals” could predict average global temperature there would not be the present observed SEPARATION etc.etc. etc.
I believe you.
I am behind you 100%.
This is vitally important.
Far too important to langish in the comments section of some blog somewhere.
This earth-shattering stuff needs to be published in a peer-reveiwed science paper.
Once published, the inevitable demise of the global warming conspiracy is…(um)…inevitable.
Go forth and write up that paper.
Claim the Nobel prize that is rightfully yours.
There’s not a moment to lose.
Don’t let up the pressure on the conspiracy.
You can reveal the truth to all.
Kthxbai.
LikeLike
Here’s an in-depth analysis of the internal structure of the CRU data.
No Scott, that’s not an in-depth analysis.
That’s a denier blog.
A particularly bad one.
They are not scientists.
They don’t represent scientists.
Whatever happened to your standard of expecting peer-review? You won’t find anything useful there.
Garbage in, garbage out.
If you stick to the work of actual scientists who have indeed published solid research (and mountains of it) , then the denialists lose.
Think about it!
Would you be prepared to get important medical information from these people?
If you can believe in one conspiracy motivated by politics and greed then it’s really easy to believe in other nefarious conspiracies motivated by politics and greed.
LikeLike
Cedric–what I’ve said is that I accept peer-reviewed climatology without branding it “conspiracy.” I also accept the assessment of a computer network specialist who is reviewing a data file. The fact that he publishes his finding on a “denialist” blog doesn’t bother me, any more than the fact that the peer-reviewed literature appears in a “warmist” journal.
I understand that you take a different position, and reject all “denialist” arguments and data outright. That may be the most effective way to keep from being misled by people with evil motives, but it’s not what I would have expected at “Open Parachute.”
LikeLike
I understand that you take a different position, and reject all “denialist” arguments and data outright…
You’ve created a strawman.
That’s not my position at all.
You are being completely unfair.
I reject arguments from people who don’t know what they are talking about because they don’t do the damn work! I find out if they have done the work by looking at their peer-reviewed track record and their active research.
So based on this I am happy to pay attention to say…NASA. Or the Royal Society. Or the British Antarctic Survey or any one of the many excellent and respected scientific communites on the planet.
Based on this, my first port of call is NOT some no-name blog or op-ed article in some newspaper.
Denialists are conspiracy theorists who are trying to rationalise away the scientific work because they don’t like what they are hearing. The vast majority of them are talking completely outside of their field when they discuss climatology.
Opinions are like buttholes. Every ass has one.
You seem to be willing to listen to absolutely anybody. Anybody at all. It never occurs to you that maybe the guy you are talking to is just peddling nonsense.
It may be reasonable sounding nonsense.
It may be scientific sounding nonsense.
It may be very, very slick and intelligible nonsense.
Yet it’s still nonsense.
You don’t have a mechanism to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
If you want to be a reasonable, informed skeptic then you need a methodology of gathering good information as opposed to accidentally allowing youself to be fed sciencey-sounding crap made up by a professional flim-flam artist.
You need a baloney detection kit.
I appreciate that you are taking a good hard look at the claims of scientists and that you are wanting them to cough up peer-reviewed work.
That’s great.
Yet why the double standard?
Why do you not demand the same from the other side? How come every single no-name Denier blog seems like a good, credible source of information to you?
Would you get your medical information from HIV deniers like the one I linked to in my previous comment? They can publish books and create slick web-sites and they even have some tame doctors and talking heads with PHds to trot out to lend credibility.
Willing to put them on the same level of credibility as, say, the AMA or the World Health Organisation?
Or does demanding that people back up scientific claims with peer-reviewed scientific work sound like religious dogma to you?
Hmm?
LikeLike
Here’s a list of 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You also found one commenter there said:
“I’ve compared your listing with the science references on the latest UNEP publication « The 2009 Climate Change Science Compendium» published on September 22…
…A total of 438 papers (not including references to Institutional Reports) out of which 133 papers refer to the period 2007-2009…
…What I’ve only found are the names of a handful of scientists (I’ve counted to nine) that appear on both “sides” of the “issue-fence”…
…This is unfortunately a potential proof of the action of an “invisible hand” or “cherry-picking” that is deliberately excluding opposite viewpoints and also excluding the “voice of” maybe hundreds of scientists. The total absence of recent AGW-critical papers in the UNEP-report can not be explained by “hazard”. The numbers are too large…”
LikeLike
This is unfortunately a potential proof of the action of an “invisible hand” or “cherry-picking”…
“Potential” proof?
“POTENTIAL” proof?
Now there’s a qualifier that you don’t hear everyday.
🙂
Fortunately, this amateurish propoganda piece has been picked clean a while ago.
Shockingly, their technique was to actually carefully examine this list and vet it.
Imagine that.
Actually vetting a list before going around posting it on the Intertoobs.
What a concept!
(gasp)
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with scientific peer review process so I’ll leave that topic for someone else to comment.
Although to me, when there are plenty of scientists who disagree, that’s hardly any consensus.
And labeling scientists who disagree as not-really-scientists, bad scientists, or anti-science are not exactly scientific. No?
But how about this though:
“What I’ve only found are the names of a handful of scientists (I’ve counted to nine) that appear on both “sides” of the “issue-fence””
I mean, only about nine scientists?
Also, there’s 450 listed there, just reading it briefly, I don’t think all 450 have been refuted as peer-reviewed?
Peace
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with scientific peer review process so I’ll leave that topic for someone else to comment.
Easy to fix.
Please visit this link.
Although to me, when there are plenty of scientists who disagree, that’s hardly any consensus.
Plenty? How much is “plenty”?
Plenty compared to what?
The number of dissenting scientists out there so few that Denialists have to commit fraud to bolster their numbers. (link)
And labeling scientists who disagree as not-really-scientists, bad scientists, or anti-science are not exactly scientific. No?
However, calling bad scientists “bad scientists” and not-really-scientists as “not really scientists” is a very good thing if it happens to be perfectly true, yes?
But how about this though:…
(…awkward silence…)
Um, what about it? If you want to read the tea-leaves on this one then do so.
Also, there’s 450 listed there, just reading it briefly, I don’t think…
Well perhaps that’s because you’ve just read it “briefly”?
A list like that is designed to catch your eye with the “450” number.
The uninformed layman is supposed to think “GOSH!! 450 real, super-duper peer-reviewed thingumy whatsits! That sounds like a big number. Why,…um….well….it’s….it’s TWICE as much as 225. Sounds pretty special to me, I tell you. And it’s all part of a list too. Found it on a web-site somewhere. Can’t get much more scientific that that.”
On the other hand, if you read the list slowly and carefully with a critical eye, you’ll find out that the list is crap.
I’m not familiar with scientific peer review process…
You are not alone. Most people have no idea at all about the importance of peer-review or the scientific process. The creator of the list is banking on that very fact. That’s how they win.
Don’t get played.
LikeLike
It is unfortunate that many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planet’s climate. As a result they have no technological basis to challenge highly politicized (and sometimes paycheck driven) claims by some of looming catastrophe.
Peer review is intended to keep nonsense from getting published. However, all peer reviewers are limited to their individual understanding which may be incomplete or even incorrect. Papers that agree with the peer reviewers pre-conceived perceptions are far more likely to get published than papers that disagree. So-called peer review can become worthless and even an advocacy tool. Biased peer review is de facto censoring. Unfortunately, many papers regarding global warming or climate change have appeared after ineffective peer review.
LikeLike
@Dan, Are you for real? You sound like a paid troll. I mean “sometimes paycheck driven”, c’mon who has the deep pockets here?
What involvement have you ever had with a peer review process?
LikeLike
Hi Dan,
I agree with that. I mean, it’s all good to use ‘peer review’ as criteria to decide whether a view/idea/stance is more scientific than other. But how many of those peers reviewing the papers are on one side vs the other side? It makes all the difference.
To Cedric,
Sure, calling bad scientists just that might be good, as long as there are clear criteria for calling them so that are used consistently across the board.
And a peer review is not one criteria to be used, because being rejected by a group of peers does not make one a bad scientist.
Like Dan wrote, peer review is to keep nonsense from getting published. I feel like the peer review related to climate gate (just from my observation and perception) was going too far as being used to eliminate competing views, e.g.: preventing some papers from being published.
There also seems to be monopoly on peer review. Evidently some peer review journals are considered ‘crap’, while other not? Is this also part of scientific consensus?
It sounds to me like the scientific community is now operating by mob rule?
LikeLike
Dan -have you ever submitted a paper to a scientific journal, or otherwise experienced the normal review process?
LikeLike
Tens of billions of dollars (grants from the deep pockets of governments) have been spent in futile efforts to prove that added CO2 caused Global Warming while an unpaid engineer with a desk-top computer and using simple engineering analysis has discovered what really determined the average global temperature history since 1895.
LikeLike
Found this link of pretty clear explanation of the climate gate scandal.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Also I read on the newspaper (yeah paper! I don’t know who brought the paper in my house but it’s there so I read it), apparently some politicians started to admit that this climate gate is something. A progress from nothing and won’t affect Copenhagen to something that affect the meeting.
LikeLike
Sure, calling bad scientists just that might be good, as long as there are clear criteria for calling them so that are used consistently across the board.
That’s eminently fair.
My criteria is simple.
Do they do the work or…are they just a bunch of posers?
Do they get their hands dirty with actual, current research or do they just sit around and “review” other peoples work?
Are they actually prepared to put their reputaion and research techniques on the line and submit to the process of peer-review?
If they fail on any of these counts, then no reasonable person should give a damn what they have to say.
There are are plenty of real, hard working scientists out there who put in the hard work that science demands and deserve to be listened to without wasting time on the crackpots, has-beens and wannabes.
I feel like the peer review related to climate gate (just from my observation and perception) was going too far as being used to eliminate competing views, e.g.: preventing some papers from being published.
No. The process of peer-review does not eliminate competing views.
If the process of peer-review was set up to do that then…you’d never get any new, radical stuff.
Scientists love new, radical stuff.
That’s how you win Nobel Prizes.
Nobody gets to be a great scientist by just ditto-ing what everybody else says.
You have a skewed version of what peer-review is and how it works.
Pleaese check this out.
There also seems to be monopoly on peer review.
And you believe this because….?
Evidently some peer review journals are considered ‘crap’, while other not?
Oh yes. Reputation is everything.
Not all journals are created equal.
Some are very well respected because their standards are very high and they publish only the very best.
One single bad paper can ruin the rep of an otherwise good journal.
On the other end of the scale there are journals which are famous for being shite and will print absolutely anything, no matter how batshit crazy.
It sounds to me like the scientific community is now operating by mob rule?
And your evidence for this is…?
LikeLike
…an unpaid engineer with a desk-top computer and using simple engineering analysis has discovered what really determined the average global temperature history since 1895.
WOW.
That is so freakingly brilliant.
An unpaid engineer with a desk-top computer.
Whodathunk?
All of those billions of dollars spent by NASA launching all those satellite-thingys and doing all that mainframe supercomputery stuff and for what?
FOR WHAT??????????
Nothing, that’s what.
Shame on you, NASA.
Shame.
It reminds me of my Uncle Vinny.
After lunch and a couple of beers, using only a napkin and a pencil, he was able to show that the Chinese could cause a tidal wave just by jumping up and down in unison.
He sent his idea to the Pentagon but, strangely, they never wrote back.
Whoever this unpaid engineer is, he deserves a medal.
Finally, somebody got to the TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A regular folk hero of our day.
People will probably name their kids after him.
Statues will be erected.
Odes will be penned in his honour.
Maybe, just maybe, Oprah will invite him onto her show.
Who knows? The skys the limit with this one.
You rock.
Kthxbai.
LikeLike
Oop, almost forgot.
Found this link of pretty clear explanation of the climate gate scandal.
I make it a rule to get my science information from actual science sources.
I’m sure that “Americanthinker” is a fine enough blog for finding out “Americans think” or whatever but I wouldn’t want to get my science information from it any more that I would get my financial or medical information from it.
Here are some better sources.
This one looks at the Medieval Warm Period denierist talking point.
As a talking point, it’s been done to death but as long as people refuse to do any fact-checking then….it will come back again and again and again and again and again and again an again and again.
(sigh)
Don’t understand how scientists use the work “trick”? That’s easy. Ask the scientific community. They’ll tell you themselves.
There’s plenty of sources.
There’s this…
Or the famous science journal “Nature”….
Or the more populist New Scientist magazine…..
LikeLike
Measured average global temperature (agt) anomalies continue to agree with the predictions by the model that I discovered which accurately predicts all average global temperatures since 1895. That model predicts a continuation of the temperature downtrend that started about 2005 and reveals that changes to ghgs have no significant effect.
Recently, as shown on slides 7, 8, and 9 at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf, the measured agt has fallen well below the predictions of the 20 or so GCMs that the IPCC uses that assume that rising CO2 causes rising temperature. The IPCC continues to predict a substantial agt increase.
Maybe the measurements reported by the five (four since Climategate) independent agencies are wrong.
LikeLike
So, Dan – why do you think governments are not paying you and your model any attention?
LikeLike
Hi Ken, I think that comment is pretty low and unnecessary. Whether the government pay the guy or not should not matter. A lot of great discovery were made without government fundings.
LikeLike
Cedric,
I think it’s not hard to find scientists who pass your criteria of good scientists who are also denying AGW.
But I bet you will find other criteria that will exclude them. Either you think the peer-review journal is crap, or that you argue they don’t actually work, etc.
My point is that, from what I’ve been reading, this topic seems to be too politicized rather than real scientific. This is true for both camps.
I don’t believe the science is settle at all. Nor I think science should settle for anything for that matter.
LikeLike
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
George Orwell
Global Warming is happening, IRRESPECTIVE of CO2 levels and human activity. That mankind is completely responsible for global warming is the agenda-riddled universal deceit.
LikeLike
Cedric, the list has not been picked clean, it has not even been touched. Greenfyre’s lies about the list does not make it refuted. Repeating lies about the counting methods used or that certain journals were not peer-reviewed does not make it true.
He posted Blog posts, wikis and Youtube “rebuttals” to peer-reviewed papers. That is not how the scientific process is done, it is done through the peer-review process of comment submission allowing the author to defend the paper with a reply to the comment.
Sorry but Greenfyre is an embarrassment and has done nothing but make himself looked like a fool. The list is intact and more papers are added everyday (now well over 450).
LikeLike
Measured average global temperature (agt) anomalies continue to agree with the predictions by the model that I discovered which accurately predicts all average global temperatures since 1895
Then go forth you champion of truth and honesty, you!
Stop hiding away on blogs and commenting on posts.
Tell the world.
Enter the scientific arena.
Publish that paper.
Claim your Nobel prize.
Kthxbai.
LikeLike
I think it’s not hard to find scientists who pass your criteria of good scientists who are also denying AGW.
Then find ’em.
How hard can it be?
What exactly is your criteria of a “good” scientist.
Is it mysteriously different from mine?
Either you think the peer-review journal is crap, or that you argue they don’t actually work, etc.
Well, either the journal is a crappy journal or..it isn’t.
Word quickly gets around.
Reputations, remember?
That’s very easy to establish one way or another.
It’s not up to me.
Take “Nature” for example.
Doesn’t matter what my personal judgement of the journal is.
It’s as plain as day that any scientist would mud-wrestle their own grandmother to get a paper published in that journal.
Nature is “the big time”.
Doesn’t get more prestigious than Nature.
Even most non-scientists have heard of Nature.
As for their work, well that’s even easier.
That’s also a matter of public record.
Either we’re dealing with scientists that are
doing the work or they are not.
I find out if they have done the work by looking at their peer-reviewed track record and their active research.
That’s what smart, educated people do who don’t want to be flim-flammed.
It’s like buying a second-hand car.
You have to have a system to weed out the lemons.
You have to kick the tyres. Take it for a test drive. Get it inspected by a licenced, independent mechanic. Have the car dealer checked out and see if they are reputable.
Insist on seeing the service logs.
You, however, don’t seem to want to do any of that.
There are always going to be contrarians, nay sayers and crackpots on any scientific topic.
Any scientific topic at all, no matter how mundane or routine.
Vaccinations, HIV, evolution, dowsing, psychics, geocentricism, breathairianism, 9-11 truthers etc.
Shake the tree of any scientific topic, look hard enough and a few outliers will always come out of the woodwork.
How does the average layman objectively sort out the wheat from the chaff?
You don’t have a system or, if you do have a system, you don’t seem to want to share it.
My point is that, from what I’ve been reading, this topic seems to be too politicized rather than real scientific.
Well, that’s probably because you are avoiding scientific sources like the plague and sticking exclusively to political sources for your information.
You are going to places that tell you only what you want to hear.
Hence “Amercianthinker” and the Poptart list of 450 that swept you off your feet and made you feel all warm and runny inside.
You are credulous.
The idea of vetting your sources is an alien concept to you.
When was the last time you got your science information un-predigested by a political pundit?
Why not cut out the middle-men?
Don’t get your science news third-hand.
Think about it.
When was the last time you went straight to the source and found out what NASA thought about global warming?
Or the Royal Society?
Or the British Antarctic Survey?
Or the USGS?
My bet would be that you’re not even aware that these scientific communities even have web-sites set up to inform the general public.
Do a google search. Be daring.
Challange your preconceptions.
Do five minutes of your own, independent research focusing on non-political sources of scientific information.
Go for the most famous, most respected, most hard working scientific communities on the planet.
Find out what they have to say.
LikeLike
There are many credible scientists who do not support AGW alarmism,
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Former Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bioenvironmental Division, USA
Adriano Mazzarella, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Naples, Italy
Aksel C. Wiin-Nielsen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Alexander Gumen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Geology and Geophysics, University of Gomel, Russia
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Science, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Allen Simmons, BSEE, Former Computer Modeler and Weather Satellite Engineer, NASA, USA
Alois Haas, Ph.D. D.Sc. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Amy Kaleita, Ph.D. Professor of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, USA
Andreas Prokoph, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Andrei Kapitsa, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Moscow State Lomonosov University, Russia
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Ph.D. President of the World Federation of Scientists, Italy
Arun D Ahluwalia, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Panjab University, India
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Arthur V. Douglas, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, Creighton University, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Atholl Sutherland Brown, Ph.D. Geology, Former Chief Geologist of the British Columbia Geological Survey, Canada
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Arizona, USA
Benjamin D. Pearson, B.S. Physics, USA
Bill Collins, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, James Cook University, Australia
Bjarne Andresen, Ph.D. Theoretical Chemistry, Professor of Physics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Professor of Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Brian G. Valentine, Ph.D. Chemical Scientist, U.S. Department of Energy, USA
Brian Pratt, Ph.D. Professor of Sedimentology and Paleontology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Bruce Borders, Ph.D. Professor of Forest Biometrics, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, USA
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, Canada
Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand
Burt Rutan, B.S. Aeronautical Engineering, D.Sc. (honoris causa), USA
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Health Science, USA
Charles Hammons, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Software Engineer, USA
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium
Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, USA
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Science, University Paris, France
Cliff Ollier, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth and Geographical Science, University of Western Australia, Australia
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Ouachita Baptist University, USA
Colin Barton, Ph.D. Earth Science, Australia
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Mathematical Ecology, USA
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. Wildlife Biology Consultant, Animal Ecology in Arctic and Subarctic Regions Specialist, Canada
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Marine Biology, University of California, USA
David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, USA
David E. Wojick, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, USA
David Evans, B.E. Electrical Engineering, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.A. Applied Mathematics, M.S. Electrical Engineering, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Carbon Accounting Modeller, Australia
David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Science, Ph.D. Oceanography, USA
David G. Gee, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
David Gray, Ph.D. Professor of Engineering, Messiah College, USA
David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, USA
David J. Ameling, B.A. Physics, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Ph.D. C.Biol. FIBiol. Professor of Botany, Nottingham University, UK
David Kear, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
David R. B. Stockwell, Ph.D. Ecosystem Dynamics, Research Scientist, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Dick Thoenes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, Western Washington University, USA
Don Parkes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Newcastle, Australia
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Soil, Water & Climate, University of Minnesota, USA
Donn Dears, B.S. Engineering, USA
Doug L. Hoffman, Ph.D. Computer Science, Environmental Modeler, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Retired Solar Physicist and Climatologist, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Physics, University College London, UK
Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany
Eduardo Tonni, Ph.D. Professor of Paleontology, University of La Plata, Argentina
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Computational Statistics, George Mason University, USA
Edwin X. Berry, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, AMS, CCM, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, Director of the Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Eric S. Posmentier, Professor of Earth Science, Dartmouth, USA
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Germany
Eugene N. Parker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, USA
Everett Burts, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biological Science, Washington State University, USA
F. James Cripwell, B.A. Natural Science (Honours Physics), Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Ferenc Miskolczi, Atmospheric Physicist, Hungary
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Sweden
Frederick A. Michel, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, Carlton Universityy, Canada
Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Oregon State University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, Lorentz Medal 1966, Max Planck Medal 1969, USA
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Geoffrey G. Duffy, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand
George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
George E. Smith, B.Sc. Physics and Mathematics, Lecturer, University of Auckland, Australia
George H. Taylor, State Climatologist of Oregon, Professor of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA
George Kukla, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California , USA
George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, France
Gerd-Rainer Weber, M.Sc. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Germany
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Ph.D. Geology and Paleontology, New Zealand
Glenn E. Shaw, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Physics, University of Alaska, USA
Göran Ahlgren, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, Sweden
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of Alberta, Canada
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Graham Smith, Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Guy LeBlanc Smith, Ph.D. Geology, Australia
H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, USA
H. Leighton Steward, M.S. Geology, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, D.Sc. Head of the Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Russia
Hajo Smit, M.S. Environmental Science, Former Member, Dutch IPCC committee, The Netherlands
Hal W. Lewis, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, The Netherlands
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Sweden
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, UK
Harrison H. (Jack) Schmitt, Ph.D. Geology, Former NASA Astronaut, USA
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hartwig Volz, Geophysicist, RWE Research Lab, Germany
Heinz Hug, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Organic Chemistry and Analytical Chemistry, University of Mainz, Germany
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Ph.D. Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, USA
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D. Biophysics, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Ian Bock, Ph.D. D.Sc. Biological Science, Denmark
Ian D. Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Science and Policy Analyst, U.S. Department of the Interior, Former Principal Author, IPCC, USA
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D. Physics, Nobel Prize in Physics 1973, Norway
J. Floor Anthoni, Ph.D. Computer Science, New Zealand
J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, UK
Jack Welch, B.S. M.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, USA
Jacques Robin, Ph.D. Professor of Computer Science, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil
James A. Peden, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Experimental Physics, Atmospheric Scientist, USA
James Brooks, Ph.D. Geophysics, Australia
James Goodridge, Retired California State Climatologist, USA
James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
James R. Stalker, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
James W. Buckee, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Canada
Ján Veizer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jarl R. Ahlbeck, D.Sc. Professor of Environmental Engineering, Abo Akademi University, Finland
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Environmental Science, USA
Jasper Kirkby, Particle Physicist at CERN, Switzerland
Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer, USA
Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia
Joanne Simpson, Ph.D. Meteorology, Retired Chief Scientist,rei Earth Sun Exploration Division, NASA, USA
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, USA
John Blethen, Ph.D. Physics, Nuclear Physicist, USA
John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK
John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, USA
John E. Oliphant, B.A. Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Meteorology, USA
John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, UK
John Nicol, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Former Lead Author, IPCC, USA
John Reid, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Former Scientist for CSIRO’s Division of Oceanography, Australia
John S. Theon, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Engineering Science, Chief of Climate Processes Research Program, NASA, USA
John W. Bales, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematics and Modeling, Tuskegee University, USA
Jon Jenkins, Ph.D. Computer Modelling and Virology, Australia
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, Former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College, USA
Joseph J. Delgado Domingos, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal
Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Kanya Kusano, Ph.D. Program Director of the Earth Simulator, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, Japan
Kary Mullis, Ph.D. Biochemistry, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, USA
Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, South Africa
Ken Gregory, B.A.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, Canada
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies, University of California, Davis, USA
Kenneth P. Green, D.Env. Environmental Science and Engineering, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, USA
Kevin Van Cott, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Metrology, Yokohama National University, Japan
Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, Germany
Kunihiko Takeda, Ph.D. Professor of Science and Technology Research, Chubu University, Japan
Laurence I. Gould, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Hartford, USA
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, USA
Lee Raymond, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, USA
Len Walker, Ph.D. Soil Mechanics, Australia
Leonard Weinstein, B.Sc. Physics, Sc.D. Engineering, USA
Louis Hissink, M.Sc. Geology, Australia
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Czech Republic
Madhav L. Khandekar, B.Sc. Mathematics and Physics, M.Sc. Statistics, Ph.D. Meteorology, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, Canada
Martin Livermore, B.S. Chemistry, UK
Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Mark P. Mills, B.S. Physics, Canada
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, USA
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, USA
Michael E Adams, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Michael Hammer, BE, MEngSc, Engineering Science, Australia
Michael J. Economides, Ph.D. Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Houston, USA
Michael J. Oard, B.S., M.S. Atmospheric Science, USA
Michael S. Coffman, M.S. Biology, Ph.D. Forest Science, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Botany, Ph.D. Epidemiology, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, USA
Miklós Zágoni, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
Morgan J. Poliquin, B.A.Sc. Geological Engineering, M.Sc. Geology, Canada
Nathan Paldor, Ph.D. Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Hebrew University, Israel
Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA
Nigel Marsh, Senior Scientist, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Nils-Axel Mörner, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nima Sanandaji, Ph.D. Biochemistry, UK
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor of Oceanography, University of Bergen, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Estonia
Oliver K. Manuel, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Chemistry, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Science, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomy, Canada
Pal Brekke, Ph.D Theoretical Astrophysics, Norwegian Space Center, Norway
Paul C. Knappenberger, M.S. Environmental Sciences, Former Climate Researcher, Virginia State Climatology Office, USA
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Science, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, USA
Paul Reiter, Ph.D. Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry, USA
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, Greenpeace co-founder, Canada
Peter R. Odell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of International Energy Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Peter Stilbs, TeknD (Ph.D.) Physical Chemistry, Sweden
Peter W. Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Canada
Philip J. Klotzbach, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Research Scientist, Colorado State University, USA
Philip K. Chapman, B.S. Physics and Mathematics, M.S., Ph.D. Instrumentation, MIT, Former NASA Astronaut, Australia
Philip Lloyd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemical Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, UK
R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
R. Perry Glaister, Ph.D. Geology, Canada
R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, Carleton University, Canada
R. W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor Emeritus of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Hawaii, USA
Raphael A.J. Wust, M.Sc., Ph.D. Lecturer of Earth Science, James Cook University, Australia
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics, Germany
Ralph B. Alexander, Ph.D. Physics, USA
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, USA
Richard A. Keen, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Colorado, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
Richard S. Courtney, B.A., DipPhil Material Science, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT, Former Lead Author, IPCC, USA
Richard T. McNider, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA
Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, University of Virginia, USA
Robert G. Williscroft, B.Sc. Oceanography and Meteorology, M.Sc. Ph.D. Engineering, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Robert H. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Princeton University, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Science, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, UK
Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science, James Cook University, Australia
Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, UK
Roger A. Pielke Sr. Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Roger A. Pielke Jr. Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA
Roger Bate, M.Sc. Environmental and Resource Management, Ph.D. Economics, UK
Roger W. Cohen, M.S. Ph.D. Physics, USA
Romuald Bartnik, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Organic Chemistry, Univeversity of Lodz, Poland
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, First Director, National Weather Satellite Center, Former Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Sallie Baliunas, M.A. Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, Former Research Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Emeritus Reader of Geography and Earth Resources, University of Hull, UK
Stanley B. Goldenberg, M.S. Meteorology, Hurricane Research Division, NOAA, USA
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, PPE Oxford University, Canada
Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, U.K.
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Horticulture, Michigan State University, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysics, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, USA
Thomas P. Sheahen, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA
Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA
Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering, Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Ulrich Berner, Geologist, Federal Institute for Geosciences, Germany
Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Ph.D. Researcher, Institute of Geophysics, Department of Solar and Planetary Research, Mexico
Vincent E. Courtillot, Ph.D. Professor of Geophysics, University Denis Diderot, France
Vincent R. Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Expert Reviewer, IPCC, New Zealand
Vitaliy Rusov, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Odessa Polytechnic University, Ukraine
Yuri A. Izrael, D.Sc. Physics and Mathematics, Vice Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Russia
W. Dennis Clark, B.A. Biological Science, Ph.D. Botany, USA
Walter Cunningham, B.S. M.S. Physics, University of California at Los Angeles, USA
Walter Starck, Ph.D. Marine Science, USA
Warren Meyer, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, USA
Warwick Hughes, B.S. Geology, Australia
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Science, University of Ottawa, Canada
Wendy M. Novicoff, Ph.D. Professor of Health Evaluation Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William F. Smyth, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, McMaster University, Canada
Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer of Earth and Ocean Science, Waikato University, New Zealand
William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA
William Bauman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Forest Meteorology and Biometeorology, Yale, USA
William Happer, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, Princeton University, USA
William J.R. Alexander, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, USA
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
William R. Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Ph.D. Physics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, Germany
Zachary W. Robinson, B.S. Chemistry, Professor of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Natural Sciences, Poland
The quality of a journal is purely subjective, fraudulent papers have been published in Nature,
Nature – Jan-Hendrik Schon: Scientific fraud found at Bell Labs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/88624_bell261.shtml
Nature – Luk Van Parijs: MIT Fires Professor Van Parijs for Using Fake Data in Papers (The Tech, MIT)
http://tech.mit.edu/V125/N50/50van_parijs.html
Cedric you are a typical propagandist by attempting to associate nonsense like conspiracy theories with AGW skepticism.
The list of over 450 peer-reviewed papers is science.
“NASA”, the “Royal Society” [insert scientific organization] do not have any “collective” thought on Global Warming.
Please provide me with a scientific survey or poll of the scientific organization you prefer that proves all the members support AGW theory.
Your appeals to authority are shallow and go no further than an organization’s handful of council members who release position statements.
The more people actually dig, the more they will realize how illusive the imaginary “consensus” really is.
LikeLike
Do not beat around the bush.Any fool knows the climate is changing.Scientist are whores in many cases as atomic bombs on Japan proved.HAARP is the question.Is it also a political weapon.There is reason to believe it is and has been used to cause O Zone depletion,
earthquakes,floods,poles change,etc.Do I need to go further.Were is the logic with half truth.If the fools caused climate change should they also be rewarded for their criminal acts.This is a dilemma.Enslavement of nations for fascist dictatorship.Start using your common sense rather than the fools logic as it makes you one.
Walter E. Haas Search Google.com
LikeLike
Read The Satanic Central Banksters Monetary Enslavement System 3 Sept 09 at Walter E. Haas——————————————– Search
Google.com,or Socia-Economic History Blog-BackType, and my other topic comments to get your heads on right because you seem to have lost
them.Hello.
Walter E. Haas God Bless America, Marry Christmas and Happy New year.
LikeLike
I would like to add some clarity to the Climate Change Discussion. My name is listed in the above list of scientists who do not accept anthropogenic climate change. First, by way of a disclaimer, I would not characterize myself as a practicing scientist. My qualifications for entering this discussion are that in 1981 I spent 13 months at the South Pole in charge of NSF climate data collection. As such, I participated in the analysis, but was not responsible for publishing the results. That was done by the scientists in charge of the various projects.
ALL the data I and may others collected at that time pointed to human caused climate change. There appeared to be a measurable increase in global temperature, and there was absolutely no question that there was a distinct human element in the dramatic increase in CO2. Based on our understanding of basic climate models our understanding was that CO2 and other gases supported an atmospheric greenhouse, so that when humans dramatically increaser CO2, we were directly responsible for any consequent increase in global temperature.
During the following decade something dramatic happened. Deep ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland clearly indicated that historically temperature changes ALWAYS preceded CO2 changes, NOT the other way around, as we thought. Any scientist who has committed himself to following the data has no option but to readdress the entire problem. Since CO2 increases appear to be cause by increases in global temperature, (1) what is the mechanism for these CO2 increases? and (2) what is the mechanism for global temperature increases?
As to the first, the answer came quickly. As the atmosphere warms (from whatever source), the ocean also warms, and gives up some of its stored CO2 – voila! The source for CO2 that follows temperature increases.
As to the source for global temperature increases (and decreases), it turns out that these are primarily driven by four solar cycles ranging from about 1,500 down to eleven years. I won’t go into the details here, but any reader is welcome to email me for further information.
Finally, a recent paper published out of Germany shows unequivocally that there is no atmospheric greenhouse. The entire concept is brought into question in this paper, as the authors clearly demonstrate with relatively basic physics that the underlying model used to explain BOTH a back-yard greenhouse and the so-called atmospheric green house, is completely wrong! Contact me for a copy of the paper – it is an eye-opener. (Science has been wrong in its assumptions before, and will be again. This is just one of those examples.)
The bottom line is that to those of us who are unequivocally willing to follow the data, there appears to be virtually no chance that humans have affected global climate in any meaningful way. Again, I solicit any interested readers to contact me directly for more information.
LikeLike
Robert – I am quite aware of the ice core data and the fact that temperature changes recorded in them precede CO2 levels. That’s all quite understandable and explained.
Climate change deniers often refer to these facts but they are well accounted for in the understanding of climate scientists.
However, it in no way undermines the idea that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are partly responsible for temperature changes.
(Things are never simple, are they).
The German paper you refer to. What about a reference?
Until I read it I can’t rely on your recommendation or interpretation of its content. Especially as your description seems to counter everything else we know about the effect of such gases on our climate.
But, of course, I am willing to read it.
LikeLike
Ken, no it has not been explained in support of AGW theory but rather excuses have been made for it, mainly at the Fenton Communication’s AGW advocacy website – RealClimate.
Your use of the word denier shows you disinterest in science and instead your ideological beliefs.
LikeLike
Poptech – for a discussion on how I use words like denier and sceptic see Are they sceptics or deniers?.
The relationship between temperature and CO2 in the ice cores neither speaks for or against anthropogenic climate change. However, deniers often grab hold of it to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been known for a long time – well before ice cores were analysed.
Really, Poptech. it seems to me that you are the one disinterested in science and preferring to use knowledge to arrive at a preconceived belief. Quite contrary to the whole ethos of science.
LikeLike
Actually, Ken, the reverse relationship of CO2 and temperature was a COMPLETE SURPRISE to all of us. The thing you need to understand is that because the variations in CO2 follow temperature variations, CO2 simply cannot be the driving factor for temperature. It’s a pretty simple logical statement, actually.
The whole point here is that CO2 was MISTAKENLY thought to be a “greenhouse gas.” As it turns out (see the paper at the below link), there is no atmospheric greenhouse, and consequently no greenhouse gases.
BTW – I am decidedly NOT a “denier.” I simply go where the data leads me.
For those who are interested, here is a link to the German paper I mentioned above: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 (If this link doesn’t work, email me directly at rgw@argee.net, and I will email you a copy.) The bottom line of this paper is that our understanding of the “greenhouse effect” anywhere – even back-yard greenhouses – is incorrect. We had assumed that the wavelength of incoming radiation lengthened when it was reradiated by the ground and air inside the glass house, and that the longer wavelengths were blocked by the glass. It turns out this is NOT true. In fact, the ground absorbs the incoming radiation, and the air immediately above it gets part of that heat by convection. The reason the greenhouse heats up is that the warmed air can’t go anywhere. Our atmosphere is not so contained, and any warmed air is immediately taken away by currents, and so there is little or no warming from this effect.
It’s a fascinating paper that I recommend you read. If you are intellectually honest (if you follow the data), you will never see this subject the same again.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link Robert. I’ll download the paper tomorrow but the abstract doesn’t impress me. (The reference to entropy for example). Are there any other workers supporting this idea or are these authors the only ones?
I have no problem with CO2 both acting as a greenhouse gas, and also being released by temperature increases arising from other causes. Consequently, the ice core data is not an argument against the greenhouse properties of CO2.
The greenhouse properties of CO2 arise from it’s fundamental physical/ chemical properties which are well known. They have nothing to do with ice cores or it’s release from the oceans on heating. These factors are independent.
I assure you of my honesty. I am quite prepared to critically consider the evidence and adjust my views accordingly. That’s how I have come to my current (provisionsl) acceptance of the ICPP stand (although I think they may actally underestimate the likely effects we will experience in the future).
By the way, I think your arguments about convection are irrelevant. It is the net energy balance of the earth which is at issue and we rely on radiative effects to emit energy, not convection.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
Any comment about this one?
LikeLike
What’s it about, Dean? I can’t comment on something which I can’t access.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
It’s the first of 4 youtube videos from Lord Monckton … very good easy to watch presentation
I would recommend you to watch them … about 8 minutes each video
LikeLike
Ken – The relationship of CO2 in ice cores speaks to the historic correlation that CO2 has never driven the climate. It raises great doubts about the true greenhouse effect of CO2, especially about any alleged sensitivity of the climate system due to an increase in CO2. Remeber the sensitivity of the climate via CO2 is where the greatest amount of debate is at. The IPCC’s accepted physics of CO2 attribution is a logarithmic function where any increase has less and less of an effect. Standard calculations based on IPCC accepted physics is +0.5 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2. The wild catastrophic temperature increases are all based on subjective computer modeled forcings that have no relation to the real world.
Your use of the word denier is illogical as none of those listed deny climate change or the potential for a human influence. They however all are skeptical of human CO2 being the primary driver or having any significant influence on the climate.
You need to understand this is not a black and white issue. Saying you believe in a human influence on climate is the equivalent of saying that throwing rocks in the ocean has an effect on wave patterns, the question is how much.
LikeLike
In addition, there is a claim that we must act NOW because within 10-20 years we will not be able to reverse this trend. So this is once in a lifetime chance … ever heard that kind of persuasion elsewhere?
LikeLike
I will be leaving this discussion following this post. When a non-scientist says, “…the abstract doesn’t impress me. (The reference to entropy for example)…” I wonder if there is any value in further discussion. If a person cannot understand the basis of an argument, there is little use in pursuing it with him. Or “I have no problem with CO2 both acting as a greenhouse gas, and also being released by temperature increases arising from other causes. Consequently, the ice core data is not an argument against the greenhouse properties of CO2” Ken, the point is that the ice core data illustrate that CO2 does not drive temperature. What do you not understand about the simple fact that CO2 does NOT drive temperature? You refer to the “The greenhouse properties of CO2 arise from it’s fundamental physical/ chemical properties which are well known.” Again, you entirely miss the point. The ” physical/ chemical properties” to which you refer DO NOT imply any kind of “greenhouse” properties of CO2. I have to infer that you mean because of these physical/ chemical properties CO2 is transparent to incoming insolation, but absorbs the longer wavelength radiation emitted by the warmed earth’s surface. It turns out that this simply is not so!
One of the foundational arguments for an atmospheric greenhouse is that the “captured” energy in the greenhouse gases is reradiated from the stratosphere back into the lower atmosphere, resulting in consequential additional warming above that originally supplied by the insolation. The German paper’s entropy argument steps in here. The universe does not work that way. In the real universe energy always flows from a higher state to a lower state; a heat pump (for this is what we are discussing here) can never move heat from a lower reservoir into a higher one without the application of external work. This is why a refrigerator works. We apply external work to force heat from a lower reservoir (inside the refer) to the warmer outside. But in nature, there is no such external work mechanism (unless you are willing to insert the mystical finger of God into the equation). Try to understand that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for radiative energy to be redirected back into the atmosphere. Actual experiments (several are described in the German paper) demonstrate that CO2 DOES NOT have the “greenhouse” properties claimed for it. Remember, science is not about consensus, it is about data (facts).
The atmospheric greenhouse concept is a mistaken idea, like phlogiston. It underlies ALL the climate models currently used to predict global temperature. This is the reason they are not making accurate predictions.
(As I wrote at the start of this post, this is my last contribution here. I don’t have time to reeducate the Ken’s of the world. Ken – if you truly have an open mind, then prove it by setting aside your entire mindset in this matter. Reexamine ALL the facts, not just those that seem to support a specific belief.)
LikeLike
Robert – I have seen nothing to indicate that molecules of CO2, H2O, CH4 etc., do not have the vibrational modes I learned about at university. I see nothing to suggest these gases have lost their ability to absorb IR radiation.
Your declaration “It turns out that this simply is not so!” is completely unsupported.
Those fundamental properties are not influenced at all by the ice core data.
You are asking us to accept something contrary to basic chemistry and physics – and yet your only support is personal declaration…I will have a look at the paper you referenced, of course, but I am looking for real evidence – not personal revelation.
LikeLike
Poptech – I have never said I “believe” in a human influence on climate change. However, I do accept the evidence I have seen and the basic conclusions of the IPCC from the literature. These are that current global warming appears unequivocal. And that it is most probable (about 90%) that human activity is contributing to this.
This is good enough for governments to take action.
I suspect the IPCC estimation of future effects actually is an underestimate.
And I also accept that new evidence could lead us to draw different conclusions. And we could debate the relative importance of this problem compared with other problems humanity faces.
LikeLike
I have probably see them as I have watched a few of his lately. My feeling is that he does repeat all the tired old arguments. No point in me getting into them all at this stage.
Which of his arguments specifically impressed you?
LikeLike
Ken – what you learned about at the university is again a logarithmic function of +0.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2. Those experiments have nothing to do with the unrealistic and unproven sensitivity based on computer models.
The 90% certaintity is based 100% on computer models. I am a computer scientist and understand the limitations of computer models, this is why I have absolutely no faith in that number.
You have ZERO evidence that the effects are understated except a religious belief.
I am still waiting for the evidence to support the original conclusions!
LikeLike
Ken you might want to read the following,
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
LikeLike
Although I wrote that I would not post again here, I feel compelled to make several short comments:
Ken: “I have seen nothing to indicate that molecules of CO2, H2O, CH4 etc., do not have the vibrational modes I learned about at university. I see nothing to suggest these gases have lost their ability to absorb IR radiation.” I am not sure what you mean by “vibrational modes,” but this terminology nails down my presumption that you are not scientifically trained. The term “absorption” only applies within the general laws of physics, and in this case, we are dealing with the flow of heat, which can NEVER move from a place of lower heat to a place of higher heat. The question is not whether gases can absorb energy, but what happens to such absorbed energy, and where it goes. On the earth, it is radiated back into space, and is NOT retained. This is the fundamental error of the climate models. Although I did not give specific references in my earlier post, they are all contained in the German paper that I referenced. I have made no pronouncements – everything I wrote is contained in great detail in that paper.
Ken: “Your declaration “It turns out that this simply is not so!” is completely unsupported.” This is NOT a scientific dissertation. I commented that there really is no atmospheric greenhouse, and pointed to the German paper for the details. As I pointed out above, I did not make any “unsupported declarations.”
Ken: “Those fundamental properties are not influenced at all by the ice core data.” You seem to miss the point every time. This is NOT about any “fundamental properties” of CO2. It is about a simple previously unknown fact that O2 apparently is not the driving factor in atmospheric temperature. (Although I did not give any sources, there is a great deal of evidence that it is driven by solar variations. Email me for specific information on this.)
Ken: “You are asking us to accept something contrary to basic chemistry and physics…” I did nothing of the kind. It is you, Ken, who is waving around words like “…fundamental physical/ chemical properties which are well known…” Assumptions like this are what has caused the problem in the first place. Had anyone (me included) bothered to bounce the assumptions of an atmospheric greenhouse against fundamental physics (basically against thermodynamics), we would never have gotten ourselves into this fix in the first place. The German paper does this, and the conclusions are unequivocal – thermodynamics laws prohibit the basic interactions that are assumed and built into the climate computer models. This is a humongous OOPS! I missed it in the early 1980s, and so has nearly everyone else since then.
The ice core CO2 data caused me and a lot of other researchers to question the models, but even then we missed the thermodynamic connection. I am embarrassed, but willing to admit it. A lot of researchers are in complete denial, to their ultimate discredit.
LikeLike
Poptech – my training was in chemistry so I am referring to the basic properties of these gases – not to any climate change model (I didn’t study in that area).
Any prediction of the future effects must of course be based on computer models – and I am quite aware of the inherent problems, having contributed through my research to some of the agriculture nutrient modeling.
I am aware of the huge variability in predictions because of different assumptions, different inputs, etc.,
However, governments are quite used ot working with these sorts of uncertainties. After all they use economic models which, I suggest, are far more unreliable.
My gut feeling of the IPCC predictions being understated have nothing to do with religion (have a look around here – I have no beliefs in religion). It is based on reading and listening to lectures and presentations which suggest to me that we now know more than was considered at the last IPCC assessment. And this new information suggests some effects which were not considered by the IPCC.
LikeLike
Robert – my training is in chemistry. This teaches me that the vibrational modes of these molecules are responsible for their absorption of radiation in the IR region. Nothing you have presented has contradicted this (and I am sure I would have heard about it if any evidence had).
I have downloaded the paper you refer to (it’s very long!) and will have a look at relevant bits. My impression though is that the problem is that it assumes a model (you refer to it as a heat pump) which just isn’t applicable to the situation of the earth. I don’t (yet) see any thermodynamic conflict with current understanding of the effect of greenhouse gases.
LikeLike
Dr. Williscroft has definitely expanded MY horizons. I started in on the German paper, knowing that my German is pretty rusty but hoping I could follow it. I quickly realized (a) it is in English and (b) I don’t have the math to follow it. So here’s my common-sense check of what he’s claiming…
IF Dr. Williscroft is correct about the way the “greenhouse effect” works (or doesn’t work), one would expect the AIR in a greenhouse to be warmer than the GLASS. If, by contrast, a greenhouse works the way I have always assumed it does, the inner surface of the glass in a greenhouse should be the hotter than the air it touches. That is because the GLASS is absorbing infrared radiation, converting it to heat, and warming the air it touches.
Can anybody tell me whether the glass is warmer than the air?
LikeLike
Ken – It is not possible that you are a chemist. Any chemist understands what a heat pump is, and you clearly do not. It is NOT a model. It is a descriptive term that refers to how heat moves in thermodynamic systems, such as our atmosphere. The basic laws of physics do not allow any energy movement from a lower heat reservoir to a higher heat reservoir unless there is some input of outside work to drive things in that direction. Left alone, energy always moves from the higher heat reservoir to the lower one. This is true in a teacup (the tea gets cold – it can only heat up if you add heat to the system), in the oceans (when the air gets cold, the warmer water gives up its heat to the air, and the water eventually freezes), in a refrigerator (the compressor-motor removes heat from inside the refrigerator and gives it up to the outside air, and this works because the compressor-motor adds work to the system), and the earth-atmosphere system (where the CO2 that may or may not have absorbed some radiant IR, is incapable of giving up that energy to the warmer earth’s surface; it can only radiate it into space).
This thermodynamic reality (called the second law of thermodynamics) is one of the fundamental characteristics of our universe. It applies everywhere. Your belief that the heat pump analogy of our atmospheric heat engine “… just isn’t applicable to the situation of the earth…” is ignorant beyond belief. It is the equivalent to believing that it is possible to build a perpetual motion machine.
LikeLike
You think clearly, Scott! Your question is exactly on point, and you will discover that the glass is at the ambient temperature of the outside (or nearly so). This experiment is described in the paper.
You can effectively read the paper without going through the math. A purist would say you can’t really understand it without doing so, but I believe that you are more than equipped to read up to the equations, and then to skip over them to the summations of what they show.
The paper was written with the intelligent layperson in mind. You will find it enlightening.
LikeLike
I did not read all comments,but I did not see mention of HAARP.We know that climate change is caused by man.The question to what degree,and by what methods.I realize that one may be reluctant to talk about HAARP.This is the problem status quo only wants to talk its way.This is the message that no one wants to hear.High tech devices to control weather can cause harm to the climate.This is probable cause as extreme change in short period of time has resulted.O-Zone depletion results in increase radiation resulting in reduction of land mass,etc.We know the weather has change world wide.We know there are cycles.From observation one can conclude the weather has change in extreme as result of industrial growth,over population,and both natural causes,and man made causes by man in some cases involving secret technology which did and did not respond as desired,and this being a dominant factor.Data available by who and for what motive.Other aspects and possibilities not considered is not scientific research in sense of not recognizing unknown factor.Of course you all know this,or should.
Walter E. Haas search Google^Com
LikeLike
Ken – The computer climate models are an absolute joke. Look at the code that was released with the hacked emails, it fails even elementary coding standards. None of this was any surprise to me as I have dealt with natural scientists at universities who “write” programs in FORTRAN and such. The fact that governments are placing their faith in virtual reality is appalling.
Economic models are just as worthless as climate models. People falsely believe that if you change the name of the code and have a bunch of natural science PhD’s behind it, somehow computers stop working how they always have. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Computer climate models have never been validated or subject to any independent audit.
Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF)
(Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp. 470-479, March 2008)
– Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. Pilkey
LikeLike
No, Robert – you don’t understand my educational background, qualifications or expertise. It is silly to sink to the level of attacking me on that basis. Much more sensible to deal with evidence.
As I said, I will read this paper you recommend – or at least the relevant parts. Personally, from the abstract, I think it is faulty – and that is why I asked you if anyone else had published along these lines.
I guess they haven’t – as you did not provide any other references. That makes me all the more suspicious of this paper.
I am aware that it is currently being critiqued – here is a proposed part of an abstract for a refuting paper:
“Gerlich and Tscheuschner have published a polemic, full of error, irrelevancy, fulmination and accusation, in the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Long known from its arXiv versions, and well refuted, it is difficult to understand how their paper could appear, however, recent history has shown that such papers are occasionally published where editors and referees are not familiar with the underlying science, or themselves are outliers with respect to the field in which the paper lies. This is often the case where expertise in one area is generalized to arrogance about another. A refutation is needed lest anyone be mislead. This manuscript concentrates on the physical basis of their argument. Supplementary material deals with G&T in detail. The first forty or so pages of G&T are devoted to showing that the greenhouse effect has nothing in common with how a glass greenhouse works, a commonplace dealt with in every introductory atmospheric science course. A simple paragraph would have sufficed. Concisely, greenhouses work by restricting the outward flow of energy by convection, the greenhouse effect limits the flow of energy to space by radiation. In both cases, the system heats in order to restore the balance between the inward and outward flow of energy. etc for a bit”
This suggests that the garden greenhouse has been taken as a “straw man” to argue against the atmospheric “greenhouse” – which is well known not to operate the same way.
Another assessment of this paper (from real climate) is:
“It’s garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently”
So obviously controversial. Apparently not supported by any other published work (correct me here Robert if I am wrong – I am only basing this on your non-response to my question). And getting refutation in the literature (see article in German, Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects and Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect).
As, I said, I will read at least some of this paper – but will also read those other papers which are relevant. And at least some of these are very critical.
LikeLike
Some further discussion of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper:
Global warming falsified – allegedly
LikeLike
Ken – None of that is a refutation in the literature. Those are all blogs. The one paper you listed is not peer-reviewed and refuted.
Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by Arthur P. Smith (PDF)
(arXiv:0904.2767v3)
– Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, Michael Zelger
LikeLike
Gerlich and Tscheuschner brought out the entire range of fanatical believers, people with a proven propensity for NOT following the data, but instead altering the data to fit their preconceptions. Ken, by hauling out these silly “refutations,” you are only reaffirming your position as a “true believer.”
By the way, I did not attack you. I simply noted that anyone who claims that somehow our planet is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics has serious problems understanding even the most elementary science concepts. You speak of reading the relevant parts of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, but I’m not sure you are capable of determining which parts are relevant. From your comments, it appears that you consider anything relevant if it tends to support your “belief system.” That’s simply not how science works. That’s exactly what the “Intelligent Design” people do, and it’s just as wrong (and silly) when you do this as when they do it.
You have not addressed even one of the arguments I presented about heat pumps, and the underlying nature of the so-called “greenhouse” model (for anything). You appear incapable of understanding that (1) the ice core data completely negates the assumed dependence of temperature on CO2 levels; (2) the atmospheric greenhouse has been completely deconstructed by the arguments in Gerlich and Tscheuschner; and (3) there is an entirely reasonable explanation for global temperature changes based on solar output, one that has stood every test thrown at it (thus far, at least).
The solar output explanation predicts that starting about now, and peaking about 2020, global temperatures will decrease significantly, so that the east coast rivers and the Great Lakes will freeze each winter, and we will experience something akin to the “little ice age” of about 1,500 years ago.
Here’s hoping you will live sufficiently long to see this happen.
LikeLike
Ken, now you are linking to forums? Come on.
LikeLike
My links to discussion of the (not peer-reviewed at Robert’s link , by the way) Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper was to show that it is controversial. It is, also I think because of Robert’s lack of answer, also very much a minority (1 paper?) view.
Therefore open-minded people should read the whole discussion – not make up their mind beforehand.
I know this is often how it works, though. People search around for data and references to support their own preconceived beliefs. And this climate change issue brings out such people – doesn’t it?
Yes, Robert – I understand the 2nd law (it’s fundamental in chemistry) – and I also understand how ideologically motivated people will screw around with it to makes outlandish claims. Such as that it means evolution is impossible.
These are incorrect and simple-minded applications.
From my initial glance I think these authors may have been trying to apply this law to only part of the system – a common mistake used by ideologically motivated people.
However, give me a chance. The papers 100 pp longs, one of the refuting papers is the same length (and in German) And there is quite a lot of discussion on this paper which has been kicking around for a few years now in one form or another.
Until I have looked into this my current understanding stands. Nothing you, Robert, or Poptech have said changes my understanding of the chemistry/physics involved and therefore the current assessment by the IPCC.
LikeLike
The paper is peer-reviewed.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
– Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Ken, you say you want to read the whole discussion yet appear to have not done that.
Your understanding of physics and chemistry, which is a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures +0.5 degrees has nothing to do with the conclusions of the IPCC report. You do realize that all of the attribution of climate change to man-made CO2 and hysterical temperature rises are based on unvalidated computer climate models?
LikeLike
Poptech – I did say “not peer-reviewed at Robert’s link” and I am aware that it has got into this particular journal. I am also aware that there is controversy about it and the degree of review for such papers.
However, it is extremely telling that neither you or Robert can quote any other paper which suupports them. It seems, as far as i can tell – a loner.
That’s indicative of something.
However, as I said, I will give it a chance and read it at least in part) as well as the comments on it.
My understanding of chemistry and physics has nothing to do with “a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures +0.5 degrees” – don’t be silly.
I am aware of the changes in assessment of the effects of doubling CO2 from originally at 5 degrees (in the early days without computers) to a (lower) range now. None of this conflicts with my understanding of chemistry and physics.
Evidence – not dogma and mantra.
LikeLike
Yes there is “controversy” about the review of any paper that is skeptical AGW theory and if you looked into the emails you will see why! You have IPCC scientists intentionally trying to blackmail the editors of journals who published skeptical papers. For anyone to say this is not a serious problem is not being objective.
In regards to Gerlich’s paper it was just published this year.
You seem to believe subjective virtual reality “evidence” and appeals to authority are all the evidence you need. I on the other hand want empirical evidence.
But lets say for the sake of argument that the Greenhouse effect and the basic physics relating to CO2 on climate are correct. That only gives you a +0.5 degree warming from a doubling of CO2. The rest is all based on faith in non-computer scientists writing gibberish FORTRAN code that has never been audited or validated, fails basic commercial programming standards to predict the future. Forgive me but since I am not religious, I do not share your faith.
LikeLike
That paper had been hanging around for a while at arxiv.org. It got into the jounral earlier this year and we might expect papers refuting it in jounrals in the coming year.
Now you are trying to invent a conspiracy tpo explain why there is no support for the paper. Come off it.
Yes, I am a great supporter of empoirical evidence as well. And I recognise how people select evidence to fit preconceived ideas – it’s a human problem.
Where do you get your +0.5 degree warming from? What empirical support is there for it?
Where have the supporting papers been published? Or is it based on your faith? Is it a dogma in your religion?
LikeLike
I am not inventing a conspiracy, I am asking you to be honest and objective about the contents of the emails.
Time to be honest,
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…”
It has been published,
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy
LikeLike
Poptech – have a look at my post Those “climategate” emails.
LikeLike
Ken – you are not even looking at the contents of the emails! You are looking at left-wing biased news reports and comments from scientists on them.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server (Daily Mail)
LikeLike
Oh, I should have added. Have a look at the video above in this post. I think it is excellent.
The emails are not a real issue here in NZ. I myself have been concentrating on the scandalous attacks by denier organizations and there camp followers on our NIWA scientists. That has some important lessons. What about you looking at that issue?
LikeLike
It is only excellent if you don’t have any remote understanding of the emails and are clueless. I’ve never seen so much excuse making in my life. What was being hidden was the fact that the proxy reconstruction diverges from the thermometer measurements. This is huge, since all major claims of the current 20th century warming being unusual in history are based on those reconstructions. Phil Jones intentionally hid this information to get the results that he wanted.
There are only 3 major data series for temperatures, NASA GISS, NOAA and CRU. CRU’s have been exposed as fraudulent and it’s director and researchers intentionally misrepresented and distorted data to push their agenda. The other two are hotly debated.
The emails should be the issue if you even remotely care about the integrity of climate science. It is clear you don’t want to make them an issue because if you did you would have to admit that what those scientists engaged in was unethical, fraudulent and illegal.
LikeLike
Being abusive won’t change reality. You obviosly want to draw unwarranted conclusions from the email fiasco – nothing I say will change your mind. However you are obviously frustrated because governments don’t see it the way you do.
However, what is your take on the NIWA data and the charges made by the Climate Science Coslition, the Climate Conversation Group and our local denier religious apologists?
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
You obviously want excuses for blatantly obvious things.
Mike’s Nature Trick (Climate Audit)
You don’t even remotely understand what is going on and you are attempting to change my mind? Change it to what? A state of ignorance on what the emails show regarding the divergence issue?
LikeLike
Maybe you support deleting data instead of complying with freedom of information act requests?
“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” – Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” – Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
LikeLike
With respect “poptech”, you clearly haven’t read the emails, or attempted to understand them in context.
The “divergence” problem wasn’t hidden – papers have been published about it. That discussion was about the form an illustration in an IPCC report should take.
But of course, that’s not what the spinmeisters want you to think, so you won’t find it being discussed in the sources you cite. Out here in the real world (which seems to have a left-wing, liberal bias according to you), we prefer to look at al the data – not just the careful selection made from a huge number of stolen emails.
LikeLike
I’ve read the emails in their context.
Yes it was hidden in the IPCC reports!
IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”
IPCC Reviewer Comment: “Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading”
Reply: “inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series“
And yes their were papers written about it by SKEPTICS.
The only spin is by those want to deny what was hidden.
Please look at the data, the raw data not what was manipulated by CRU!
Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero
LikeLike
“The basic laws of physics do not allow any energy movement from a lower heat reservoir to a higher heat reservoir unless there is some input of outside work to drive things in that direction. Left alone, energy always moves from the higher heat reservoir to the lower one.”
Huh?
This is most certainly utter tosh. No physics textbook I have ever read contained such a statement.
What you presumably have in mind is that the net energy transfer will be from the source of higher energy to the one with lower energy. However, that does not mean that the flow of energy is completely unidirectional.
Consider two separate pieces of metal that lie side by side and get heated to 300°C and 600°C respectively. Both will start to emit radiation. If your statement were true, it would mean that the 600°C metal piece will not absorb a single photon coming from the 300°C metal piece. Which law of nature would dictate such an outcome? Certainly not the second law of thermodynamics.
Now, I have not read the paper in question page by page, but if this is the sort of argument the authors rely on, I can see why it has not caused uproar in the scientific world.
“[…] and the earth-atmosphere system (where the CO2 that may or may not have absorbed some radiant IR, is incapable of giving up that energy to the warmer earth’s surface; it can only radiate it into space). “
First, it is an empirical fact that a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is located in the infrared part of the spectrum. I suggest taking a look in any chemistry text book.
Second, it is simply false that this absorbed radiation can only be released in one direction. This would imply that any single carbon dioxide molecule “knows” its spatial position and that it can consequently decide to emit only “upwards” and not “downwards”, which is ludicrous.
As a matter of fact, the emission will be spatially random; some of it will go out to space, some of it back down to Earth. Of course, the net energy transfer will be from the (warmer) surface to the (cooler) atmosphere, i.e. more energy is flowing from the ground up than the other way around, as the second law of thermodynamics dictates. However, this does not mean that some of the energy coming up from the surface can not be either radiated back down or retained as kinetic, rotational or vibrational energy stored in the molecules of the atmosphere.
Again, if your argumentation were correct, it would imply bizarre consequences:
So let us suppose that all the energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide molecules is exclusively radiated into space. Presumably, a certain amount of these photons would travel in the direction of our sun. Now, what happens once said photons reach the sun? According to you, the molecules located at the surface of the sun would be incapable of absorbing even a single one of these photons, because energy transfer from a source of lower energy to a source of higher energy is physically impossible. But what happens instead? Do the photons get bounced back? Do they fly right through the sun? What?
LikeLike
Frank – It’s silly to spend the time and effort you spent arguing the “truthfulness” of the second law. Of course I was writing about net transfer. My intent was to help those readers unfamiliar with the topic to understand the concept. All you have done is confuse the issue. You set up a straw-man argument and then shot it down. For what purpose? Anyone who takes the time to read Gerlich and Tscheuschner will understand the underlying problem, which is (1) that our presumptions regarding greenhouses are incorrect, and (2) the atmosphere does not behave the way greenhouses really act – there is no atmospheric greenhouse.
It’s silly to argue this. Better to gain an understanding of the problem, and then look for the real mechanism for climate change. Since we’re dealing with fundamental physics in describing how greenhouses work, it’s not quite trivial, but nearly so, to reexamine the back yard greenhouse within the context of actual physics (which is what Gerlich and Tscheuschner have done). When you do this, you quickly realize that greenhouses work by convection and containment. The energy enters through the glass, warms the ground which warms the air, and the warm air cannot get out. It’s that simple, because it’s a small closed system.
The earth is not a small closed system. The presumed mechanism for “greenhouse behavior” that the modelers have built into their models is not plausible when examined as Gerlich and Tscheuschner have done. The models produce incorrect results, which has caused some deeply committed researchers to adjust their raw data to force compliance. That’s what the hacked emails were all about. You will find that the same thing has happened in other quarters as well once all the smoke has cleared.
Theoretical physicists are constantly reexamining their theories as new data come to light. Sometimes the reexamination consists of mere tweaks and nudges. But sometimes it requires a complete rethink of a specific proposed solution to a problem. Einstein and Planc, for example, caused major rethinks, but tweaks are happening virtually every day.
For some reason, the problem of climate change has left the scientific arena. The ice core data posed an insurmountable problem for the current theory. The presently constituted models cannot account for the data. Unfortunately, all the models are based on the mistaken “atmospheric greenhouse.” And that’s the problem. If this were not “climate change,” but were a problem with unpredicted boson behavior, researchers would simply reexamine the theory to find the problem (assuming, of course, that the divergent data are real).
When you apply the same principle here, the problem simplifies to: If CO2 levels do not control climate change (by way of the “atmospheric greenhouse”), then what is the controlling mechanism? Since there is an excellent candidate on the table (solar cycles), we should be expending our efforts in testing this hypothesis instead of wasting time and money defending the failed “atmospheric greenhouse.”
And, I might add, it is stupid beyond reason to initiate world-wide controls based on the failed hypothesis.
LikeLike
I’m trying to follow the flow here without getting drowned–it’s definitely a “drinking from a fire hydrant” experience.
Here’s where I’m at in this discussion. Before the “Climategate” emails, I thought I knew four things that might matter to this discussion:
(1) The earth has gotten warmer over the last half century.
(2) CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
(3) The greenhouse effect raises heat by allowing visible light to travel “in” and trapping infrared radiation on the way “out.”
(4) Nuclear power would reduce CO2 emissions and reduce the global dependence on imported oil.
SINCE the “Climategate” controversy, I have
(a) new doubts about the methods the “experts” use to compute the temperature of the planet, and
(b) new questions about exactly HOW rising CO2 levels contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Ken, I’d LOVE to have you open up a thread on the specific mechanism of the greenhouse effect. I THOUGHT I understood it but now realize I don’t. I’m picking away at this topic on my own over at my blog, but it would be nice to see what the assembled thinkers of Open Parachute can contribute to this topic.
LikeLike
“Frank – It’s silly to spend the time and effort you spent arguing the “truthfulness” of the second law. Of course I was writing about net transfer. My intent was to help those readers unfamiliar with the topic to understand the concept. All you have done is confuse the issue. You set up a straw-man argument and then shot it down.”
Are you kidding me?
You were the one who boldly asserted that the second law of thermodynamics requires a strictly unidirectional flow of energy. You were the one who asserted further that consequently the atmospheric carbon dioxide radiates all its energy into space.
I quoted the pertinent passages verbatim. And now you accuse me of attacking a straw-man? Well, if I did, you were the one setting it up.
So now you claim to talk about net energy flow? Fine. Then I am looking forward to your examples in the peer-reviewed literature and/or the IPCC report showing calculations where the net energy flow as a whole from the atmosphere towards the surface is greater than the other way around.
Skimming through the paper, I found this little gem on page 78. The authors quote the German climatologist Rahmstorf:
“Some `sceptics’ state that the greenhouse effect cannot work since (according to
the second law of thermodynamics) no radiative energy can be transferred from a
colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the surface). However, the second
law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative
exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.”
What is their response to this completely obvious fact? Well, here it is:
“Rahmstorf’s reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second
law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an
obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately, redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly.”
This is so utterly wrong, one can only wonder how any reviewer could have let it slip by.
First of all, I love their ludicrous distinction between “heat” and “energy”, as if we were talking about two distinct entities here. So I guess if I desire a hot cup of water to make myself some tea, this does not require “energy”, but “heat”. Can you tell me how to produce this magical substance “heat”? Furthermore, those physicists who specialize in statistical mechanics need to be told that their account of the heat of a gas via the kinetic energy distribution of the respective particles is mistaken, since “heat” has nothing to do with “energy”.
Even more laughable is the charge of applying the second law of thermodynamics separately. I am not even sure what on earth they are talking about here. The fact of the matter is that energy is exchanged between the surface and the atmosphere in both directions; however, since more energy flows from the (warmer) surface to the (colder) atmosphere, the second law of thermodynamics is not violated by the process as a whole. What is so difficult to understand about this?
I do not have the motivation to study this paper in any more detail. What I have seen is sufficient information for me to form an opinion on it: It´s crap.
Robert, does it not make you suspicious that this supposedly earth-shattering paper has lingered two years on the arXiv-Server before finally getting published in a low-tier physics journal? That it did not hit the headlines of Nature, Science etc.? That it was written by a non-expert? That it was not taken up by any of the major players in the field? Why do you believe that is?
I suggest you think about these questions.
LikeLike
Frank, I’m trying to figure out whether CO2 gains in “heat” when it absorbs an infrared photon. I know it gains “energy” (because the electron cloud is bumped up to a higher quantum state), but I don’t know whether it gains “heat” or not. Do you know?
LikeLike
Frank– You are still playing games with definitions, even in your “analysis” of Gerlich and Tscheuschner you’re just spinning.
For sake of argument, let’s set aside Gerlich and Tscheuschner for the time being. That leaves (1) the ice core data, (2) the incorrect predictions of current models, (3) the net increase of ice at both poles, etc. If the current models are correct, they must be able to incorporate these data. Since the current models cannot do this, the models have to be modified. If it is possible to so modify them without removing CO2 as a driving factor for temperature, I have not heard about it.
My point is to stop the silly argument, the straw man approaches, the name calling, and all the rest of the BS. Let’s do some real science for a change, and let the chips fall where they may.
FOLLOW THE DATA!
LikeLike
Scott,
“Frank, I’m trying to figure out whether CO2 gains in “heat” when it absorbs an infrared photon. I know it gains “energy” (because the electron cloud is bumped up to a higher quantum state), but I don’t know whether it gains “heat” or not.”
You are making the same mistake as the authors of this notorious paper did.
On the molecular level, there is no distinction between “heat” and “energy”. “Heat” (or more precisely: “Temperature”) is the (macroscopic) manifestation of the collective energy of an ensemble of (microscopic) molecules or atoms.
At a given temperature T1, the molecules contained within a certain volume of gas will show a certain distribution pattern regarding their kinetic energy (usually approximating a bell-shaped curve). If you heat the gas (i.e. if you pump energy into the system), what will happen is that the distribution pattern at T2 has shifted towards a higher mean kinetic energy. In other words, the bulk of the molecules at T2 will move faster than at T1. Another way of saying the same thing is that the temperature of the gas has increased.
This is all basic stuff, so I suggest you get an introductory textbook on statistical mechanics or physical chemistry from your library if you want to learn more.
Regarding the absorption of IR radiation by carbon dioxide, it is not solely (or even mainly) the electrons that are relevant here, since IR radiation normally has not enough energy to excite electrons (UV and visible light is mainly responsible for this).
Rather, absorption of IR radiation influences the rotational and vibrational modes of a molecule. Again, any basic textbook covers this topic. Or you can start with a wikipedia article on IR spectroscopy.
So, a short answer to your question:
Yes, a carbon dioxide molecule gains “heat” upon absorption of IR radiation in the sense that its kinetic, vibrational and/or rotational energy increases.
Robert,
“Frank– You are still playing games with definitions, even in your “analysis” of Gerlich and Tscheuschner you’re just spinning.”
You accuse me of playing with definitions, when the authors of the paper you championed try to make a completely bogus distinction between “heat” and “energy”?
Talk about irony.
Regarding your other points about ice core data and climate models:
I am not a climatologist, so I am not in a position to verify the validity or lack thereof of either issue. I will note, however, that the overwhelming majority of experts in the field does not share your view. I will draw my conclusions from this fact.
“My point is to stop the silly argument, the straw man approaches, the name calling, and all the rest of the BS. Let’s do some real science for a change, and let the chips fall where they may.”
You will get no argument from me there.
LikeLike
Frank & Ken — My point regarding a straw man argument is that it is a waste of time to argue about the truth of thermodynamic principles – they are what they are. If one writer says something that can be twisted to mean something else, nobody gains by jumping on such a statement. Get in the writer’s head and understand what he is saying – whether or not you agree with him. If his argument is fundamentally flawed, then discuss that flaw.
You don’t have to be a climatologist to understand the dilemma posed by the ice core data. I think every reader here understands that current climate models presume that atmospheric temperature is a function of the amount of CO2 and certain other so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Consequently, the models predict that temperature increases following an increase of CO2 (or one of the other gases). We ALL believed this in the mid 1980s (me included).
But then the ice core data appeared. These data unequivocally show that historically on this planet, CO2 levels rose between a few hundred to a few thousand years following a significant atmospheric temperature increase. Any model of reality must be able to predict accurately anywhere within the experimental envelope. The problem here is that reality apparently does not match the models. Something caused increases and decreases in global temperature, but it decidedly is NOT CO2 or any other atmospheric gas.
This is where intellectually honest scientists go back to the drawing board. First you verify the data. You don’t want to modify a good model because of faulty data. Once you have verified the data, then you go about modifying the model. And here is the current dilemma. A great deal of prestige, money, face, and power depends on the outcome. Is it any wonder that the weaker researchers bowed to pressure and altered their data?
So, as I wrote earlier, let’s set aside the arguments and the BS, and let’s do some real science. Ideally, nobody takes sides, nobody shouts from the rooftops. Instead, we all get down and dirty, and discover what is really happening with our climate.
I also mentioned earlier that a very viable candidate is resting on the table. Solar cycles seem to fit all the data we have right now – even tree ring and ocean core samples. The numbers are pretty impressive and warrant examination by anyone genuinely interested in the truth.
LikeLike
Frank – let me also jumpo on board when you say:
““My point is to stop the silly argument, the straw man approaches, the name calling, and all the rest of the BS. Let’s do some real science for a change, and let the chips fall where they may.”
You will get no argument from me there.”
Might I add, though, as a retired chemists, soil scientist, I personally won’t be doing any of the basic climate science. However, I will follow with interest the work being done by these scientists. After all, they are the ones with the expertise, experience and depth of knowledge in the area.
And I will continue to be suspicious of anyone who attempts to “play the man, rather than the ball,” and imply that climate scientists are a dishonest lot – rather than deal with the real science.
And that includes people who try to imply a “sciency” veneer by clinging to a renegade paper, alone it this field, which is not supported by others and makes demonstratively shonky thermodynamic claims.
After all, we can always find that lone shonky paper, or Ph D to endorse our own prejudices.
LikeLike
Ken — you continue to attach the man instead of looking at the science. Furthermore, you seem to believe that consensus is how science is done – at lease you (and Frank, too) have mentioned several times that since the majority of climate scientists hold a particular viewpoint, it must be true. Both of you have also desperately tried to debunk Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Let it be! It is not important for the current discussion as I tried to point out. Just follow the data.
Science is NOT the business of consensus, guys. Virtually every significant breakthrough has gone against the stream. (Now, don’t you guys go out and start counting how many breakthroughs went with and how many went against the stream. That’s not my point.)
You guys continue to “play the man,” as you put it. Apparently neither of you is willing to deal with the inconvenient truth I presented in my last post: Models MUST predict the real world. When they don’t, they need changing – period!
LikeLike
Sure Robert science is not consensus and one should not be afraid of going against the stream. But science is also not simply anti-consensus or opposition to the stream. Those factors are not evidence. they are emotional arguments people use when they don’t have evidence (Just look at how often the ID people use those arguments).
So, I follow the evidence – and outside my expertise I rely on the experts (while retaining my critical – not cynical outlook). I certainly am not persuaded by those people currently who see current understanding of climate change as resulting from dishonest science and a conspiracy.
You may desperately grasp the paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner. I can see scientific flaws (particularly thermodynamic ones) in what parts I have so far read, I am aware there is a lot of scientific opposition to it, no supporting papers (at least none theta you have produced).
So the fact they these authors go against the stream, are outside any “consensus” (with anyone except you) are in themselves not recommendations. I judge their paper on its content and faults.
LikeLike
Ken — You keep coming back to Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Did you miss the part where I suggested that we set it aside for the time being and just concentrate on the data? Can you see how I have avoided bringing that paper up again (except in this context)?
Why do you use emotional words like “desperately grasp”? Nowhere in my posts here have I indicated any kind of desperation. I introduced an interesting paper that makes some interesting points, but when I was overwhelmed by an emotional rejection of the paper, I decided to let it go. It simply isn’t central to my argument. I have no need to convince anyone. I was there at the beginning, and know what is happening. My only reason for even joining this conversation was to enlighten (and explain that my position on the above list may be misleading, since I no longer am active in research). It does matter to me if my government makes draconian changes for completely bogus reasons, but other than that, I don’t personally care what you think.
The consensus to which I have referred is the one you keep bringing up regarding anthropogenic climate change, and that CO2 drives global temperature. Since there are significant data that cannot be explained by this “consensus” point of view, I am forced to find another explanation. And once again, science has no room for consensus – only facts.
LikeLike
“Robert, does it not make you suspicious that this supposedly earth-shattering paper has lingered two years on the arXiv-Server before finally getting published in a low-tier physics journal? That it did not hit the headlines of Nature, Science etc.? That it was written by a non-expert? That it was not taken up by any of the major players in the field? Why do you believe that is?”
This is a weak argument as papers can take years to finalize and get published. This paper is 115 pages long and has 4 versions on the arxiv server. Submission to arxiv is an easy way for distribution to allow further critique before submission for publication. The peer-review process itself can take months.
Both are clearly qualified to write a paper on Physics,
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematical Physics, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina, Germany
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics,
Based on your logic only science in two journals is relevant and everything else should be ignored. This is clearly nonsense and an appeal to authority.
As for the lack of supporting papers, it may be because it was just published this year! New papers will have few citations in the first couple of years.
LikeLike
“I introduced an interesting paper that makes some interesting points, but when I was overwhelmed by an emotional rejection of the paper, I decided to let it go. It simply isn’t central to my argument.”
Robert, here is what you said when you introduced the paper:
“It’s a fascinating paper that I recommend you read. If you are intellectually honest (if you follow the data), you will never see this subject the same again.”
Quite an announcement. So, why is this paper so earth-shattering? Well, because
“The question is not whether gases can absorb energy, but what happens to such absorbed energy, and where it goes. On the earth, it is radiated back into space, and is NOT retained. This is the fundamental error of the climate models. Although I did not give specific references in my earlier post, they are all contained in the German paper that I referenced.”
and
“The basic laws of physics do not allow any energy movement from a lower heat reservoir to a higher heat reservoir unless there is some input of outside work to drive things in that direction. […] This thermodynamic reality (called the second law of thermodynamics) is one of the fundamental characteristics of our universe. It applies everywhere.”
IOW, you claimed (based on the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner) that a carbon dioxide-based greenhouse effect is physically impossible since it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Now, I provided you with an excerpt from said paper which showed that the authors, when trying to defend their core claim against an obvious criticism,
a) fallaciously try to distinguish between “heat” and “energy”; and
b) fail to understand that the second law of thermodynamics does not prevent energy flow from a point of lower energy to one with higher energy, provided that the net energy flow goes in the opposite direction.
Instead of addressing this issue, you have dropped the paper like a hot potato and tried to cover this up by accusing others of being emotional or clouding the matter. Not very impressive.
Regarding the ice core data that seems to be your new focus, I will venture a daring conjecture:
Climatologists are aware of the fact that carbon dioxide levels are not the master switch which solely controls the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere!
Of course there are other factors having an influence. But that does not change the fact that carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas which humanity is currently pumping into the atmosphere in historically unprecedented amounts.
To claim that this will have absolutely no influence at all on the global temperature and to be taken seriously requires a hell of a lot more than writing a paper which does not even get the basic facts about thermodynamics right.
Poptech,
“Both are clearly qualified to write a paper on Physics, [snip]”
They are not climatologists, i.e. not experts in this field.
I have a PhD in Chemistry, but I do not consider myself qualified to write a paper about “Chemistry” outside my field of expertise. In our day and age, it is simply impossible for any one (or two) person(s) to have a thorough grasp of an entire discipline.
And now we have two non-experts come along and tell the scientific community that their whole approach is physically impossible because they have made a beginner’s mistake any student would be chided for.
Why does that remind me of the situation in biology, where we can also witness non-experts explain to evolutionary biologists the gaping holes in their theory that the layman has spotted instantly?
“Based on your logic only science in two journals is relevant and everything else should be ignored. This is clearly nonsense and an appeal to authority.”
I am sure you can quote me where I said this. Oh wait, you can’t, because I did not say it.
My point is that the journal where a paper is published usually tells you something about its quality and the standards of peer review it had to pass. The fact that a paper containing such lofty claims was not published in one of the top journals (or even a reputable physics or climatology journal) should make you cautious about its validity.
LikeLike
How many times do I have to say it? Let the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper be for now. It’s a distracting discussion that adds nothing to the basic question: How do you propose to explain the now established fact that there are significant times in our history where atmospheric temperature changes clearly and obviously precede CO2 changes? If the presumed CO2 to temperature relationship is factual, i.e. if CO2 drives atmospheric temperature, how then do you explain the ice core data?
Without referring to anything else, any outside papers, any other data, THESE DATA need explaining. The only attempt I have seen is a relatively ineffective argument that tries to show a measuring error in taking the information from the cores. This should be considered, of course, but it’s too weak to hold up the edifice on its own. For me, the ice core data changed my mind – long before Gerlich and Tscheuschner. The ice core data caused me to set aside (at least temporarily) the current models to look for another explanation for global climate change.
I am asking you guys to give it a break, let Gerlich and Tscheuschner be for the time being, and to address what I have written above. You guys persist in petty wrangling when there are genuinely substantive issues on the table.
LikeLike
BTW — if you go back through these posts, you will see that I first brought up the ID perspective as an analogy for what you guys are doing with respect to anthropogenic climate change. (i.e. trying to fit data to a defined perspective, to a model that has serious scientific flaws and is wrapped in political/religious fervor.)
LikeLike
May I just say that it has been a pleasure to have an actual Ph.D. with a personal history of gathering global warming data here on this thread? With all the talk of “believers” and “deniers,” it’s nice to have some actual science here somewhere!
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with the discussion, except as a footnote. An old colleague of mine who worked for me when he and I wintered over at the South Pole in 1981 is back there for the polar summer. He has been communicating with me regularly by email – something not possible when he and I were last there. He tells me that my thoughts and popular writings on this topic are the subject of regular discussion at the pole. He says that most of the currently resident scientists agree with my take on the current state of the atmospheric models.
I understand that this is entirely hearsay information, and has no scientific meaning at all, but I think it adds an interesting perspective to the discussions here.
LikeLike
Dr. Williscroft, let me make sure I heard you correctly. You say that the scientists now residing at the South Pole are aware of your “take” on the current state of the atmospheric models, and discuss them–and (despite the “consensus” I keep hearing about), “agree” with your position?
If that’s fact and not just hearsay, it should help Ken reevaluate his position–which, up to now, has been, “This is a very complicated subject and I rely on the consensus of the people who actually do this kind of science.”
Can you give me a link to the simplest version of your “take”?
LikeLike
Let me make myself completely clear on this. I have been having an ongoing email discussion with my old colleague and friend who is presently back at the south pole. He told me by way of something that might interest me that in the ongoing informal after-dinner discussions that always seem to take place down there, one of the topics is (naturally) the current world-wide interest in global warming. My friend has followed my website (which really is NOT dedicated to any particular thing at all) and my writings and radio interviews, and presented the essence of these to his current colleagues at the pole. (I’m mildly notorious down there because of a photo poster of me in the lounge following my initiation into the 300 club that my friend took back in 1982 – I am standing naked at the pole holding a sign regarding the “accomplishment.” here is a link to the photo: http://argee.net/South%20Pole%20Photos/300%20Club.jpg) According to my friend, nearly all these guys (I don’t know who they are) agree with my perspective. This is hardly a measure of what the current climate science community thinks – just a few of the guys in the trenches at the pole right now.
Regarding a link to my perspective, I will look through my material to see if I have published online anything that would meet this criterion. You are welcome to browse my website: http://RobertWilliscroft.com
LikeLike
I want to make myself perfectly clear. I am having an ongoing email conversation with an old friend and colleague who worked for me at the pole in 1981-82, and who is back there for the polar summer. In the ongoing after dinner discussions that always seem to take place down there, one of the ongoing topics is the world-wide interest in global warming. (I am mildly notorious down there because of a photo poster gracing the lounge wall that my friend took in 1982 that shows me standing naked at the pole holding a sign regarding my initiation into the 300 club. Here is a link to that photo: http://argee.net/South%20Pole%20Photos/300%20Club.jpg) My friend brought up my perspective, and reported to me that most of the guys there agree with me.
This is far from a consensus of the current climate science community. This is a group of guys down in the trenches at the pole (I don’t even know their names). I will look through my online material to see if anything meets your request. You are welcome to browse my website: http://robertwilliscroft.com.
LikeLike
There was a problem with the photo link. Here it is again: http://argee.net/South%20Pole%20Photos/300%20Club.jpg
LikeLike
Frank,
“They are not climatologists, i.e. not experts in this field.”
Please provide me with the scientific method for determining this.
“…one of the top journals (or even a reputable physics or climatology journal) .”
Again please provide me with the scientific method of determining this.
Oh and please do not respond with subjective opinions.
LikeLike
@Robert, “the guys” that you have heard from a friend that mostly agree with you, these would be the scientists right? Or would these be the assorted engineers, drivers, cooks or other suchlike climate experts?
Excuse me, but I don’t find you at all credible.
LikeLike
I suspect the gang down at the South Pole would actually APPRECIATE a little global warming!
LikeLike
Nick — I can’t tell you what the guys at the pole right now are, but from my personal (fairly dated) experience, the group consists of both types. During my Summer (1981-1982), 60 people were there. Of those, about a third to a half (at any specific time, since they tended to come and go) were genuine scientists. The remainder were split between technical support people (which means they were fully competent to give a meaningful opinion), or they were station support people (which means they could follow the conversations, but were not likely to offer any meaningful input to the conversations other than personal opinion based on their personal take from the scientists’ conversations). During the winter-over we were 17 people, evenly divided between scientists and support people.
BTW – I could care less whether or not you find me credible! Neither you nor I are going to influence the outcome of the current political debate. Whatever input I made long ago is not pertinent now, except in a limited historical perspective. What I can add, that neither you nor any of the other so-called believers can add, is a genuine personal perspective – I’ve been there and done that! Furthermore, since my science background has given me a well-grounded training in the “scientific method,” I am well qualified to write about how science should be done. I, and anyone else with a similar general science background (including several of the so-called believers here), am capable of looking at the available data, examining what the models predict based upon that data, and comparing that to the real world. We all are also capable of looking at new data as they arrive, to see if the current models can incorporate those data.
(None of this has anything to do with credibility. So, what’s your problem, Nick? Why stoop to a personal attack?)
By way of explanation, Scott:
When I was at the pole (and perhaps they still do it), we had a sauna that we heated to 200 deg F when the outside temperature had stabilized to -100 deg F. We sat in the sauna, naked except for boots, built up our courage, and then ran (remember, the pole is at 10,000 ft altitude) from the sauna door for a quarter mile around the symbolic pole marker and back to the sauna, experiencing a 300 deg F temperature drop in the process. Ours was the first winter over crew where every person completed that silly challenge. Our winter over was also the coldest on record since such records have been kept. We hit -117.8 deg F in the middle of June 1982.
LikeLike
No personal attacks Robert. This was just a statement about who I find to be credible/ or not.
As far as technical support people being fully competent to give an opinion, I would point you towards another thread on Ken’s blog. In particular towards my comment linked to below:
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/sack-all-those-scientists-yeah-right/#comments
LikeLike
I take your point, Nick — but please take my reference to technical support people in context. I was talking about an after-dinner conversation, where both working scientists in this area (and others) and their technicians were talking about things, including climate change. Within this context, the typical technician down there, doing what they do, really can participate in an informal discussion and give valuable input, especially since their “supervisors” are immediately there to correct any genuinely off-the-wall comments.
Why is it necessary to parse such statements when the point of the comment was (1) informational in a socially interesting way, and (2) designed to correct any misinterpretation as to the nature of the discussions (which I intended to be taken as no more than after-dinner discussions by some people in the trenches at the pole, and not a statement about the general consensus of the community at large).
BTW — When you call a person not credible, you ARE attacking the person. If you wish to avoid personal attack, stick to that person’s arguments, which no one here has yet addressed (the ice core data anomaly).
LikeLike
Fair enough.
Perhaps you can also understand where I am coming from. I have not so much time to be be following peoples arguments. For me to actually do this, I like to feel that it is going to be worth my time. Especially, when the discussion is not in my specialist area.
In my own area, of course, your credibility is not important, as I already have deep experience, so if you want to hold forth about software design, particularly as it relates to financial risk management, go for it. I’m all ears.
But, when you are holding forth about a subject that seems to have filled the airwaves with complete trash in the last couple of weeks, sorry, I am not going to bother unless I find you credible. No matter how many times you have been to Antarctica . Sorry.
LikeLike
Nick — you’re welcome to find me credible or not, but using your opinion of my credibility as an argument in an ongoing discussion is not useful. People in discussions unable to counter a point of information have several choices: they can be quiet, they can ask questions, they can attack the person… In my experience going all the way back to my initial years at University of Washington in the 1960s, a segment of our society routinely uses the “attack” to counter otherwise unassailable arguments. If you can’t counter the other guy’s argument, attack him in some manner or shout him down so no one can hear him.
You cannot have missed this approach by the left during the last few weeks of public discussion about climate change. The amusing thing (to me at least) is that by about 2018 or so there no longer will be any discussion about humans’ effect on global climate. If the solar output hypothesis is correct (and as of now, it has met every scientific challenge), things will get really cold for a while. Should it turn out, on the other hand, that this hypothesis cannot explain some newly acquired data, then we will simply have to keep looking, and what happens will remain a crap shoot. Right now, the current models cannot explain the ice core data. The solar output hypothesis can (along with every other piece of data in the current databases).
LikeLike
Poptech,
“Please provide me with the scientific method for determining this. [whether Gerlich and Tscheuschner are experts in climatology]”
Go to Google Scholar. Type in their names. See how many other articles on this topic they have published in the peer-reviewed literature.
“Again please provide me with the scientific method of determining this. [the reputation of a journal in the scientific community]”
Look up the impact factor of the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Compare it to Nature, Science or Physical Review Letters.
Robert,
I see you wish to drop the paper from the discussion. Wise move.
Regarding the ice core issue: as I said, I am no climatologist and have neither the time nor the motivation to become one, so I can not give an expert opinion on this.
However, doing a quick Google search retrieved the following Science paper:
Click to access CaillonTermIII.pdf
dealing with this topic. The final paragraph states:
“Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this
Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming.
The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is
then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present day and future climate.” [emphasis mine]
Which is in tune with my understanding, i.e. that carbon dioxide levels are not the sole driver of temperature changes in the atmosphere, but a potent amplifier. So we should think twice before releasing it into the atmosphere without restraint.
LikeLike
Frank — I did not say I wanted to drop Gerlich and Tscheuschner from the discussion. I said I wanted to put it aside for the time being, since you guys seemed incapable of discussing their argument, but constantly revert to whether or not their paper had received sufficient accolades, etc. Gerlich and Tscheuschner is NOT central to my main ice core data argument. I just wanted to focus on a point that, until now, has not been addressed in this discussion.
Since I’m not sure of your science background, or that of the other “believers” here (I mean no disrespect, I just want to distinguish you as a group in this discussion), I don’t want to patronize you by getting too basic in any explanation. As I reviewed the paper you linked to, and especially the pertinent quote that you included in your comment, I could not help but smile at the “hand waving” in that quote. These guys provided not one specific piece of evidence. They are doing here very much what the email perpetrators did when they modified their raw data to force it to match their models. Their underlying approach is to assume the accuracy of the current models, and then to force the ice core data into compliance, by “interpreting” what the anomalous data points really mean. You’ve got to be kidding me! Please, just step back and use your native intelligence when you read these words. It should be obvious to you that it is pure spin doctoring.
Please remember that in these cores we are talking about major temperature increases followed within a few hundred to a few thousand years by major CO2 increases, and there were NO humans around to cause anthropogenic anything! Before the temperature increases, there were NO CO2 increases. Consequently, the temperature increases COULD NOT have been caused by CO2 increases, since there were no CO2 increases until well after the temperature events.
When you move forward in time from these points, using other indirect measuring techniques (tree rings, ocean estuary bottom cores, etc.), other temperature increases also are not preceded by CO2 increases. Closer analysis indicates (but is not nearly so clear as with the ice cores) that CO2 increases always seem to follow temperature increases.
When you chart temperature maximums and minimums against consolidated solar maximums and minimums, the correlation is very significant. In light of this, it makes little sense to believe in CO2 driven temperature increases, while ignoring the solar data. Better, perhaps, to put the entire question back on the table, and reexamine ALL the assumptions, in order to come up with an explanation that satisfies ALL the data.
This is what people like me are urging. We’re neither believers nor deniers. We just follow the data, and accept the results without political argument or polemic.
LikeLike
“Go to Google Scholar. Type in their names. See how many other articles on this topic they have published in the peer-reviewed literature.”
So the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist is to see if their name appears in Google Scholar? Ok both of theirs do, so I guess they are!
“Look up the impact factor of the International Journal of Modern Physics B. Compare it to Nature, Science or Physical Review Letters.”
Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,
Show Me The Data
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007)
– Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill
Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
– Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (PDF)
(British Medical Journal, Volume 314, pp. 498–502, February 1997)
– Per O. Seglen
LikeLike
Robert G. Williscroft, PhD // December 19, 2009 at 3:28 am : “The only attempt I have seen is a relatively ineffective argument that tries to show a measuring error in taking the information from the cores.”
Aye??
Denialists like to pretend that AGW proponents originally claimed that the initial warming that occurs when the planet moves from glacial to interglacials was caused by increasing concentrations of CO2, and that therefore the evidence that the initial temperature rise preceding the rise in CO2 concentrations is a huge embarrassment, some even claim that this evidence somehow disproves AGW.
The reality is that the initial driver of the regular glacial – interglacial transitions has been recognised for over 60 years as the Milankovitch cycles, as Hansen mentions in this paper:
Click to access 2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
LikeLike
It is only after the Milankovitch cycle induced initial warming of the planet starts that CO2 and methane released from the warming oceans and land, increase atmospheric GHG concentrations, and fueling further warming.
LikeLike
Anyone who places any stock in the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper cannot be taken seriously.
LikeLike
“It is only after the Milankovitch cycle induced initial warming of the planet starts that CO2 and methane released from the warming oceans and land, increase atmospheric GHG concentrations, and fueling further warming.”
Really? Then what reverses this trend and causes the ice ages?
LikeLike
“Then what reverses this trend and causes the ice ages?”
You mean the glacial periods of the current ice age? The Milankovitch cycle, “cycle” get it? Round and round?
LikeLike
“Finally, a recent paper published out of Germany shows unequivocally that there is no atmospheric greenhouse.”
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at a denier lodge meeting when Robert G. Williscroft, PhD explains that one to denialist/sceptic climate scientists like Spencer, Lindzen, Pielke (jnr and snr) and Michaels people who actually do have a pretty good understanding of atmospheric physics.
LikeLike
@Robert. The reason why I am not engaging with your arguments, is that they have been very capably disposed of by Frank and then by Andrew.
Seems like you are falling into all sorts of beginners holes with regard to these issues. You however, seem to think that you have hit on some fundamental flaws in the established research. I will say it again. You might want to read Ken’s post again “Sack all the scientists…” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/sack-all-those-scientists-yeah-right/.
LikeLike
“Frank — I did not say I wanted to drop Gerlich and Tscheuschner from the discussion. I said I wanted to put it aside for the time being, since you guys seemed incapable of discussing their argument, but constantly revert to whether or not their paper had received sufficient accolades, etc.”
No Robert, I tried various times to get you to discuss their argument and its obvious failures, but never received any substantive response from you.
So let’s be clear here:
Do you endorse their assertion that a carbon dioxide-based greenhouse effect is physically impossible due to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics or not?
“These guys provided not one specific piece of evidence. They are doing here very much what the email perpetrators did when they modified their raw data to force it to match their models. Their underlying approach is to assume the accuracy of the current models, and then to force the ice core data into compliance, by “interpreting” what the anomalous data points really mean.”
What on earth are you talking about? Where do they “force the data into compliance”? The authors clearly state that the initial warming preceded the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 800 +/- 200 years and thus was caused by another factor. I don’t know about you, but if I wanted to “force the data into compliance” with a preconceived model, I would make sure that there is no time lag between temperature increase and carbon dioxide increase.
“Please remember that in these cores we are talking about major temperature increases followed within a few hundred to a few thousand years by major CO2 increases, and there were NO humans around to cause anthropogenic anything! Before the temperature increases, there were NO CO2 increases. Consequently, the temperature increases COULD NOT have been caused by CO2 increases, since there were no CO2 increases until well after the temperature events.”
Which is exactly what the authors state. Again, nobody is denying that the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere is influenced by a multitude of factors apart from carbon dioxide levels. You are knocking down a straw-man if you argue against a position which maintains that warming can be solely caused by an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration.
What IS being said is that carbon dioxide, due to its physical properties, acts as an amplifier in the process, thus facilitating its own increased release into the atmosphere and a further temperature increase in a positive feedback loop. Except that due to human interference, carbon dioxide levels at present do not increase over centuries, but decades, with potentially disastrous consequences. If you want to show that this is not possible, you will have to come up with better arguments than the second law of thermodynamics.
“When you chart temperature maximums and minimums against consolidated solar maximums and minimums, the correlation is very significant. In light of this, it makes little sense to believe in CO2 driven temperature increases, while ignoring the solar data. Better, perhaps, to put the entire question back on the table, and reexamine ALL the assumptions, in order to come up with an explanation that satisfies ALL the data.”
I´m all for it. You think you have a superior hypothesis? Then gather the data. Do the analysis. Write up the paper. Submit it. See how well your case stands up under scrutiny.
Poptech,
“So the scientific method to determine if someone is a climatologist is to see if their name appears in Google Scholar? Ok both of theirs do, so I guess they are!”
?????????
I told you to check their publication record in the field of climatology, especially the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
”Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity”
Of course it is subjective. Just like peer review is. Just like the “scientific method” is. Just like any other human endeavour is. That does not mean it is not an indicator you can use to judge the merits of a paper.
Seeing that you are obviously endorsing this publication, how about defending its content? Care to explain to me how the carbon dioxide-based greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics?
LikeLike
Robert, I’m still trying to understand the science, here. Do you know enough about the Milankovitch cycles to tell whether the rise (and subsequent fall) in global temperatures can be completely explained by the planetary tilt, or does the CO2 that is released by a warming ocean then have ANY effect in adding to the warming cycle?
LikeLike
You mean the glacial periods of the current ice age? The Milankovitch cycle, “cycle” get it? Round and round?”
Right so solar and planetary cycles drive the climate.
LikeLike
Frank,
“I told you to check their publication record in the field of climatology, especially the role of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.”
Actually you did not say this your said “this topic”.
How many papers publised on climatology makes them a climatologist?
What if they publish papers on the climate that has nothing to do with CO2? Are they still a climatologist?
Who decides this criteria and how is this the scientific method for determining who is a “climatologist”?
“Of course it is subjective. Just like peer review is. Just like the “scientific method” is. Just like any other human endeavour is. That does not mean it is not an indicator you can use to judge the merits of a paper.”
Impact factor is merely one subjective way to rate a paper’s popularity. Is science determined by popularity now?
LikeLike
Back to the main point of this post (the “conspiracy”), I just found an article by Roger Pielke, Sr., a “highly cited researcher” who is on the “hit list” in the CRU emails. Pielke specifically claims that his research was suppressed and excluded. Here’s a link to his 88 page “public comment” which he published in 2006. His comment starts with this:
“The process for completing the CCSP Report excluded valid scientific perspectives under
the charge of the Committee. The Editor of the Report systematically excluded a range of
views on the issue of understanding and reconciling lower atmospheric temperature trends.
“The Executive Summary of the CCSP Report ignores critical scientific issues and makes
unbalanced conclusions concerning our current understanding of temperature trends.”
Click to access NR-143.pdf
The article he WANTED to publish is here:
http://ow.ly/NwqV
The abstract of this paper begins:
“This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979-2008. Surface temperature datasets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems datasets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.”
Putting that in simple terms: “satellite measurements over the last 30 years don’t agree equally well with ocean surface temperature measurements and land-based surface temperature measurements. The land-based measurements are warmer.”
That is relevant to this discussion because:
(1) There is some reason to believe the land-based measurements may have been “cherry-picked.” (The “conspiracy theory.”)
(2) Land-based measurements do not agree with tree-ring measurements since 1960. (Thus the call to “hide the decline.”)
(3) A paper dismissing the so-called “urban heat island” effect (which could raise the overall temperature of land-based measurements) was called “fraudulent” in private emails by CRU director Tom Wigley. (Wigley later wrote “It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”) Academic charges against lead author Wang Wei-Chyung were dismissed, but in a non-standard procedure that kept the person who made the charges from participating. All this makes the “urban heat island” effect an open question.
(4) CRU selected a subset of the Russian land-based surface temperature measurements, but that subset is significantly warmer than the full set. The CRU subset ignored some sites that had long-term, uninterrupted readings.
So–here’s the deal. We have TWO divergences from land-based surface temperature measurements. Satellites and tree-rings don’t see the same effects that the CRU-selected land-based thermometers do. We can explain that by “multiplying the entities” (with one hypothesis for tree rings and another for the land-water satellite differential), or we can act like scientists and apply Occam’s Razor.
LikeLike
Reading up on Roger Pielke, Sr. If he’s a “denier,” I’m a flying spaghetti monster. He’s a terrifically well-published expert in the field of climatology, and he makes VERY specific claims that the peer-review process has been stacked (which is my OTHER biggest concern from the CRU emails). Here’s Pielke’s own words from his “public comment”:
“The process that produced the report was highly political, with the Editor taking the lead in suppressing my perspectives, most egregiously demonstrated by the last-minute substitution of a new Chapter 6 for the one I had carefully led preparation of and on which I was close to reaching a final consensus. Anyone interested in the production of comprehensive assessments of climate science should be troubled by the process which I document below in great detail that led to the replacement of the Chapter that I was serving as Convening Lead Author.
“The inappropriate substitution of a replacement Chapter 6, for the one I had led the drafting before resigning from the Committee, enforced the narrow perspective of the Chair of the Committee. The new version replaced the version that was nearly complete and accepted by the Committee in August 2005. This substitution represents an example of this usurpation of the responsibility granted in the original charge to the Committee and the forcing of the Editor’s perspective on this Report. The result was the elimination from the Chapter of significant scientific issues concerning temperature trends in the lower atmosphere in the version of the Report that is now under public review.”
****
Scott’s Personal Appeal to Ken:
Ken–I really enjoy Open Parachute. I love the idea of a blog where people with open minds come together to discuss facts and explore theories. At this point, I feel like your stance on Anthropogenic Global Warming falls short of that goal. You’ve taken the position that you “trust the consensus,” but that’s (a) an example of “belief,” not “science” and (b) increasingly difficult to reconcile with the evidence.
What would it take for you to have an “open mind” with respect to AGW?
LikeLike
The Milankovitch cycle is actually the Milankovitch cycles, and the plural is NOT trivial. Milankovitch was a civil engineer and mathematician (not an astronomer or climatologist), which is interesting, given all the sophomoric assertions regarding scientific qualification in these posts. I also find it interesting that the Milankovitch cycles have been raised to prop up the arguments that CO2 drives global temperature (although I recognize that some of you are now using the word amplifier to describe CO2’s function).
Despite the personal attacks from some of you, and despite the pettiness that some of you insist on bringing into the discussion, if you were to take the time to review my posts, you would see that I have said (1) the ice core data indicates that CO2 apparently is not the driver of climate change, (2) Solar cycles (including the Milankovitch cycles although I didn’t mention them specifically) seem to provide answers that better fit the data, and (3) the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper argues that there can be no “atmospheric greenhouse.”
Whatever happened to civil discourse? Nick, Frank, Andrew (to list the individuals who have personally clashed with me here), why do you feel a need for sarcasm, snide asides, direct personal attacks, innuendo, spin…? It adds nothing to discourse, and only lessens you in my eyes and those of the people reading but no joining these comments.
I find the arguments raised to explain the ice core data (not here, but in the climate change community) unconvincing. On the other hand, I find the following more convincing:
Use the Milankovitch cycles (which are not really solar cycles, but planetary precession cycles) as a general backdrop. Superimpose over these the following well established solar cycles (1) the 1,100 to 1,500 year Bond Cycle, (2) the 200-500 year Seuss Cycle, (3) the 75 to 90 year Gleissberg Cycle, ad (4) the 11 year Schwabe Sunspot Cycle. This was the state of the solar cycle explanation for climate change until relatively recently. The problem was that all of these together still didn’t account for the slight, but real, additional measured temperature increase that could be seen in the various indirect measurements that everybody relies on. This difference was assumed to be CO2 by many researchers.
Then, starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star’s protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When sun’s energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these “high sun” periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.
The cosmic ray effect was demonstrated recently in lab experiments carried out by Svensmark. The addition of this effect makes up the difference, so that there is no need to bring in questionable CO2 “amplification” by “atmospheric greenhouse effects.” With the publication of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper (which questions the atmospheric greenhouse), it is good to see that the bases remain covered.
Professor Singer recently made the following comments in a speech:
We have a split in this scientific community, of those who believe in the observational evidence, which is against any significant global warming, and those who believe in theoretical climate models, which indicate major global warming. So you have a choice – you either believe in the atmosphere or you believe in computers. It is not a difficult choice to make,
We have data from satellites and weather balloons that show no appreciable warming in the last 25 years, completely contrary to climate models. Climate models predict that warming should be greater in the atmosphere than at the surface – we see the opposite. Climate models predict that the warming in the Polar Regions should be many times greater than at the equator – we don’t see such warming in the Polar Regions; the Antarctic has even been cooling. So everywhere you look, you find that the models are not verified by actual observations. My recommendation is to just ignore the models for predicting future climate change.
LikeLike
Well then. This is a familiar pattern. Come rushing in making some weird and wonderful claims, then when people calmly dispose of them (not me, I don’t know enough about this subject to do that), come over all hurt and wounded claiming personal attacks. This reminds me a bit of our old friend Glenn.
LikeLike
Nick, was that comment supposed to describe Dr. Williscroft? I’ve been following this thread, taking notes, and looking up links ever since he got here. I would not agree that people have “calmly disposed” of his arguments. I can’t see that he has made any “weird and wonderful claims,” either. As for the “personal attacks,” they shouldn’t matter one way or another in a scientific discussion–real scientists can be total jerks with no people skills (who make such attacks), but the scientific discussion ought to focus on facts and arguments, not snark and sarcasm.
The most important thing Dr. Williscroft has added to my understanding of the science is the role that atmospheric CO2 plays in warming. I came into this discussion thinking the atmosphere was essentially transparent to certain infrared wavelengths, but for atmospheric CO2. I thought that visible light hit the surface, re-radiated back upwards as infrared, and was reabsorbed by CO2 in the air. More CO2 would trap more infrared, resulting in a warmer planet.
Now, looking at the absorption spectra more closely and thinking about the greenhouse analogy more critically, I realize that the atmosphere is essentially opaque to the relevant infrared wavelengths. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t make it more opaque–it just makes an already opaque “blanket” thicker. As far as I can tell, that means the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 would be limited to trapping kinetic energy within the “blanket.”
IF that is the case, then the actual temperature of the atmosphere become a critical concern. Is the “blanket” holding more heat, or not? I assume that most of the heat-holding CO2 would be in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere), so what do we know about warming trends in the troposphere?
That’s where Dr. Roger Pielke’s expertise comes in. He’s a troposphere scientist, and he makes the unpopular argument that we AREN’T seeing a warming trend in the troposphere.
So–have I completely missed how CO2 is supposed to affect temperature?
LikeLike
That’s total BS, Nick. Apparently you belong to the school that believes if you say something often enough and loud enough, people will begin to believe you.
I did not rush in – I entered the discussion to ensure that my position on the list that appeared above was not mistaken. I qualified my position as probably not really belong on the list given my current non-scientific preoccupations. Following that, I brought up several interesting items for the assembled group to toss about in civil discourse.
What happened was a firestorm of personal attacks that added nothing to the discussion, and distracted from the direction I had assumed this discussion was going. I doubt that any thinking person would agree with your assessment that what I brought to the table was “calmly disposed of.” In fact, the issue of the ice core data was only addressed once – peripherally, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper was roundly denounced, but without a shred of evidence or argument from within the field of physics, which was the underlying source of their arguments, and my offering the solar cycle hypothesis as an alternative explanation for climate change was not even addressed.
You people are acting just like the assembled Students for a Democratic Society that shouted down opposing viewpoints back in 1966 at University of Washington. Their disruptions concerned the Vietnam War and other policy matters. Your disruptions follow the same pattern in your misguided attempts to “shout down” the opposition. That’s just NOT how science is done (mostly, anyway).
Leave the person out of it, leave consensus out of it, leave peer review out of it, and examine the data. It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to see what precedes what. It may take a deeper understanding and even some extra eyes (peer review) to verify cause and effect relationships, but “what came first” is at the eighth grade level – even you guys can understand this.
Internet anonymity makes it possible for you guys to be as rude and unpleasant as you wish (I guarantee you, were you in my personal presence you would never think of behaving so). Why don’t you open your individual selves to closer inspection – as I have repeatedly done here (visit my website: http://robertwilliscroft.com). And then, why don’t all of you begin to behave as responsible adults and carry on with this discourse the way reasonable people do?
LikeLike
It’s pretty ironic to see “Open Parachute” host this debate between the “believers” and the “skeptics.”
LikeLike
Scott — Svensmark is one of the leaders in cosmic ray/climate research. I mentioned him above. Here is a link to Svensmark’s latest paper : http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/new-paper-cosmic-ray-decreases-affect-atmospheric-aerosols-and-clouds/ This link only gives you an abstract and a summary of the conclusions. Since his paper is relatively recent, you have to pay for a copy of the published version, but here is a link to one of the latest drafts before publication. It is accurate in all of its significant aspects: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf
Ján Veizer, Yves Godderis & Louis M. François published a paper in Nature in Dec 2000 that is very pertinent. Here is the abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/full/408698a0.html Here is THE significant figure in their paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/fig_tab/408698a0_F1.html Here are two other figures that are pertinent: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/fig_tab/408698a0_ft.html
LikeLike
Dr. Williscroft, before you showed up, I assumed that “all the experts agreed” that CO2 has a warming effect, but that “skeptics” disagree with how MUCH of an effect it has.
Now I understand you to be saying the following:
(1) Ice cores show that CO2 rises AFTER temperatures rise (presumably from a release of CO2 from the oceans).
(2) The “greenhouse” analogy is misleading (at best). CO2 does NOT act like a pane of glass that “traps” warm air.
(3) Rising CO2 levels in the past have NOT (necessarily) “amplified” a pre-existing warming trend. On the contrary, the Veizer, Godderis, François paper you cite finds the “radiative forcing model” to be incompatible with oxygen isotope rations in sea shells over the last 500 million years.
(4) By contrast, models that ignore any warming effect from CO2 seem to match the observed temperatures better than those which assume a radiative forcing model. You cite Milankovich cycles plus the refinement of solar flare effects on atmospheric ions.
(5) For what it’s worth, you claim that your old pals at the South Pole think you might be on to something.
It would be a BIG leap for me to go from “interested amateur” to “greenhouse skeptic.” I can follow your arguments, but I can’t follow the math in the German paper well enough to go out on a limb and say “CO2 may not have any effect on overall temperature.” It defies everything I’ve learned since grade school. (Yes, I learned about “the greenhouse effect” back in the early 1970s. Can’t remember why.)
I’d love any more links you can suggest. They’ve been fascinating so far!
LikeLike
Scott — I was just perusing various materials in my personal “locker,” and came across this interesting gem. It is, perhaps, the best summarizing article I have seen, written for intelligent laypersons by a very well credentialed scientist (much more so than I): http://www.peacebytruth.com/main.php?Post=78
Re Gerlich and Tscheuschner: Try reading the paper up to any specific mathematical argument, and then skip to the summarizing paragraph that usually follows the specific argument. If you do this thoughtfully, you’ll come away with a very good understanding of why they believe they have “falsified” the atmospheric greenhouse.
[Here is an excellent definition of falsifiability, just in case you are unfamiliar with the concept (from Wikipedia): Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term “testability” is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.]
LikeLike
I’m a big fan of Sir Karl Popper and the concept of “falsifiability.” I’ll check that out.
Meanwhile, I just came across this LONG and THOUGHTFUL assessment of the entire 2,000 page CRU email directory. This is the first journalist I’ve seen who has actually dug in to do the reporting on what is IN the emails. Here’s a juicy paragraph from page 3 of this 7-page story:
“Also clear is that the official science on climate change as we know it today, looking backward and forward, has been developed and controlled by the relatively small collection of scientists who wrote most of the emails. Working directly or indirectly for the IPCC, the scientists seem to have become captive of that organization’s objectives, which was to find “the hand of man” in climate records to justify plans to change the climate in future. The scientists, in other words, became engaged in the all-too-familiar business of decision-based evidence making.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=78aa4157-da68-4596-859a-a7e49a6207ae
LikeLike
Couple of quick points as I’m busy today, Robert G. Williscroft, PhD Did not mention or imply any knowledge of the Malenkovitch cycles, and that they are recognised as an initial driver in the transition from glacial to interglacial periods, now that he does know of them and the role it is understood that they play, rather than look at this (to him) new evidence in an objective way, he looks instead for a way to use this evidence to justify is preformed opinions.
As I’ve alluded to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner claim that there is no GH effect is very fringe, denialist and sceptic atmospheric scientists overwhelmingly accept the existence of the GH effect, much of the calculations conducted by both sides in this debate just wouldn’t fit observations without the GHE.
Scott, your point about GH gases being very effective is correct, the tropospheric warming that occurs with additional GH gases is because of the complex absorption/re-radiation/re-absorption, it just takes longer for IR energy to get to the stratosphere. Like adding more blankets to your bed, there is always going to be an additional insulating effect.
LikeLike
Andrew — Don’t you get tired of making stupid comments? I am NOT calling you stupid – but your comment about my alluding to the Malenkovitch cycles carries no better description. Any unbiased review of my recent posts will show that I referred to “solar cycles” from the start. I had not intended to go into this in any detail, since the Malenkovitch cycles backdrop for climate change is virtually universally accepted.
Scott — here are links to several very well written articles that present a fairly cohesive picture of climate change within the framework of real world science as opposed to politics driven science. The articles are about 2 1/2 to 3 years old, so they are not especially timely; but they still are pertinent, and interesting:
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-1-Statistics-needed.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-2-Warming-is-real-and-has-benefits.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/74/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-3-The-hurricane-expert-who-stood-up-to-UN-junk-science.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/82/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-4-Polar-scientists-on-thin-ice.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/91/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-5-The-original-denier-into-the-cold.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/157/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-6-The-sun-moves-climate-change.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/164/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-7-Will-the-Sun-cool-us.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/172/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-8-The-limits-of-predictability.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/174/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-9-Look-to-Mars-for-the-truth-on-global-warming.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/178/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-10-Limited-role-for-C02.aspx
Click to access Deniers%2011%20-%20The%20Real%20Deal.pdf
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/187/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-12-End-the-chill.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/189/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-13-Clouded-research.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/213/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-14-Allegres-second-thoughts.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=argee%2Freflib%2FClimate+Warming%2FRead+the+Sunspots~070620.pdf&tabid=164&mid=524
LikeLike
Andrew — Don’t you get tired of making stupid remarks? I am NOT calling you stupid, but your comment about my alluding to the Malenkovitch cycles can best be so described. Any unbiased review of my posts will show that from the onset, I made reference to “solar cycles.” I did not specifically mention the Malenkovitch cycles, because they represent a virtually universally accepted backdrop for climate change.
Scott — Here are several links to a series of articles that present a fairly complete picture of the current state of climate change thinking. Since the articles are between 2 1/2 to 3 years old, some recent information is not there, but they still make interesting and informative reading:
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-1-Statistics-needed.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-2-Warming-is-real-and-has-benefits.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/74/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-3-The-hurricane-expert-who-stood-up-to-UN-junk-science.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/82/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-4-Polar-scientists-on-thin-ice.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/91/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-5-The-original-denier-into-the-cold.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/157/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-6-The-sun-moves-climate-change.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/164/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-7-Will-the-Sun-cool-us.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/172/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-8-The-limits-of-predictability.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/174/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-9-Look-to-Mars-for-the-truth-on-global-warming.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/178/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-10-Limited-role-for-C02.aspx
Click to access Deniers%2011%20-%20The%20Real%20Deal.pdf
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/187/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-12-End-the-chill.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/189/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-13-Clouded-research.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/Journal/tabid/160/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/213/categoryId/15/Global-Warming-Deniers-Part-14-Allegres-second-thoughts.aspx
http://thedeadhand.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=argee%2Freflib%2FClimate+Warming%2FRead+the+Sunspots~070620.pdf&tabid=164&mid=524
LikeLike
Andrew, you refer to the “tropospheric warming.” If I understand the “greenhouse” mechanism, CO2 supposedly absorbs and then reradiates infrared, trapping heat like a “blanket on a bed” instead of a “pane of glass in a greenhouse.”
Dr. Williscroft argues, in effect, that even the “thick blanket” model is a bad analogy, and cites a German paper for the argument that CO2 provides essentially no heat-trapping effect.
So–who’s right? I can’t follow the math in the German paper. The simplest way I can think of to test these two hypotheses is to see whether the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) acts like a “thick blanket” or not.
According to Roger Pielke, Sr., the troposphere is COOLER than we expected. Here’s a quote from his 88 page “public comment”:
“In the early 1990s, data from NOAA’s polar orbiting satellites were analyzed for multi-decadal trends. These initial analyses indicated that temperatures in the troposphere showed little or no increase, in contrast with surface air measurements from ships, land-based weather stations, and ocean buoys. This result led some to question the reality and/or the cause of the surface temperature increase, on the basis that human influences, thought to be important contributors to observed change, were expected to increase temperatures both at the surface and in the troposphere with larger increases expected in the tropical troposphere. This surprising result led to an intensive effort by scientists to better understand the causes of the apparent differences in the rates of temperature increase between the surface and the troposphere.”
IF I understand the “greenhouse effect,” these data seem to support the German claim that CO2 has no greenhouse effect.
Andrew, what am I missing?
LikeLike
Sorry about the double post — I am unsure what happened.
Andrew — you wrote “…the complex absorption/re-radiation/re-absorption, it just takes longer for IR energy to get to the stratosphere…” That’s pretty cute. Do you want to expand your explanation a bit, at least to describe this “complex” mechanism? And while you’re at it, you might also want to demonstrate that your hypothetical mechanism is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
This has been one of the ongoing problems with this research. WE ALL made assumptions that appeared to be correct. On closer examination, however, many of these assumptions fail the falsification test. Nobody bothered to do this initially, because “it was common knowledge that…”
It turned out it wasn’t so common knowledge after all.
LikeLike
Robert seemed to want to round of with his own subjective summary of the discussion back there a bit.
It probably should be finished – or moved elsewhere. With close to 200 comments very few new people will want to look into these comments and would prefer to move to comments on a new post. Why waste the effort? After all some of the points brought up here are actually the content of my post The global warming debate summarised. Why not move there – and answer the points in the post?
For what it’s worth – my subjective summary is that I find the behavior of people on this issue interesting from the point of view of social psychology, and note the overwhelming prevalence of confirmation bias in people’s thinking.
After all, we would all prefer it if the IPCC was wrong in its conclusions. None of us like to see the prospect the science is revealing. So it’s easy to move into a denial psychology. And there’s no doubt that motivated organisations and individuals are actively encouraging this by manipulating information for their own ends.
However, there a some huge elephants in the room which keep getting ignored.
1: The science of climate change is extremely transparent, heavily reviewed and very available. The IPCC has done a tremendous job of reviewing the published scientific literature. The review process is rigorous and one can have confidence in the outcomes. In fact the outcomes are still expressed in a relatively tentative manner. While global warming is accepted as occurring, the contribution of humanity is considered only as – “most likely.” There is no dogmatism there.
2: Granted the IPCC documents are not readily approachable by the lay person. The reports are after all for governments and policy makers. Governments and policy makers as a whole appear to strongly accept the IPCC conclusions. This is also true for scientists advising governments, particularly climate scientists.
While IPCC summaries are available, even these may be too much for the layperson. But the information does get into books. There is an excellent book just published “Climate Change 101: An Educational Resource” by Andy Reisinger of Victoria University (a brief review at Hot Topic). I’ll also post a review on this in a few weeks.
This is aimed at the student and science-oriented layperson and essentially takes the IPCC reports and presents them in a more appropriate and condensed manner. It should do a lot in bringing the science of climate change to students and laypersons.
3: There is an unbalanced (unhealthy) preoccupation with many of the critics (and exemplified by some commenters here). Rather than deal with the overwhelming science contained in the IPCC reports there is concentration on selected (cherry-picked) points, in isolation.
a: The ice core issue, Robert, is definitely not ignored by climate scientists and is not evidence against the fundamental properties of CO2 and similar gases leading to a “greenhouse” effect. But this and similar issues are presented in isolation as some sort of “proof.”
b: Isolated papers, with no supporting credibility can be pulled out and set against the rest of the scientific literature. And then fiercely and partisanly defended against rational critiques. Balance requires their consideration – sure (and this is what the IPCC review process has done – they haven’t ignored such papers) but also requires consideration of all the other papers and a proper evaluation of their worth.
c: emails, comments, etc., are pulled out and set against the whole of climate science literature as if they have equal, or more value – desperate confirmation bias! And then people doing this complain because the media and governments don’t see things the same way! Very quickly this approach leads to arguing for a huge conspiracy of scientists, media and governments!
d: Bloggers are seriously putting up 11 year-old children as betters scientists than the experienced climate scientists. Seriously! That’s is huge, irrational, confirmation bias.
These bloggers have not bothered to look at the huge amounts of evidence (not easy I admit) but grab desperately at videos from 11 year old children!
And if you question them, the deniers rush to their defense, will not allow an assessment of the child’s “research” but will continue to effectively accuse the experienced scientists of “beating their wives.” Conspiracy theory mentality.
e: We get a “research paper” from denier groups in NZ attacking our NIWA scientists. And these denier bloggers and commenters get themselves into a frenzy accusing the NIWA scientists of “beating there wives” – and refuse to make a critical assessment of the original “research paper.” This “research paper” was analysed by a couple of scientist bloggers, shown to be incorrect. The producers of the ‘research paper” admit they had noi scientific input or scientifc review of their “paper” – and our comments are ignored! The denier bloggers and commenters prefer to get caught up in slandering honest scientists rather than casting an objective eye over that “paper.”
4: Commenters like Scott think they are doing science when they desperately search through emails, comments, etc., to find evidence for the IPCC science being worng (or the result of a conspiracy). I have invited Scott several times to look at the iriginal “research paper” which attacked our NIWA scientists but his cioncept of doing that is to contine to accuse the scientists of “beating their wives.” He is prepared to ignore the obvious sin and slander by the deniers and prefers to search instead for a scientific conspiracy.
As I said – an interesting project for social psychologists.
LikeLike
Amen to that!
Until this week, I truly thought of the “greenhouse effect” as visible light coming in, re-radiating as infrared, and then radiating back to the ground where it would be absorbed. I sort of visualized a semi-silvered mirror, I guess.
Now that I’m trying to think through what the photons actually do, I realize that my mental image of a “semi-silvered mirror” was completely off base. Any IR radiation that enters the CO2 must ultimately go out into space or down to the earth. If I’m thinking about this correctly, doubling the CO2 can’t double the statistical probability that a given photon finally winds up hitting the earth. I can take a “random walk” through one mile of CO2-rich atmosphere or ten miles–either way, I have to wind up in space or on the ground.
The only difference the amount of CO2 makes, as I’m working through this, is the actual kinetic energy that is stored in the atmosphere. More CO2 will hold more heat. It’s like putting water in a microwave–if I put one mug in the microwave, I store one mug’s worth of heat. If I put two mugs in, I can store more heat.
Which means I should be able to detect that absorbed heat by measuring the temperature of the troposphere. If a “thick blanket” of CO2 is driving the earth’s warming, then the EASIEST and MOST ACCURATE direct measurement we can make would be to measure the heat trapped in the blanket.
But, since Pielke claims that is what we DON’T find, I don’t think the “thick blanket” model works, either.
Andrew, you seem to understand the “expert consensus” on all this. How, exactly, is it that CO2 trap heat?
LikeLike
Ken, I’d be happy to close off this thread. I REALLY think you’ve got me mixed up with someone else on the “beating their wives” claim–if not, please tell me what I said that could be construed that way!
As for the NIWA claims… I went off to find out what was going on, and came to the conclusion that it was a “Yes you did/no you didn’t” dispute. NIWA is following “generally accepted methods” of correcting for temperatures. The critics don’t accept those methods. Both sides are “right” in their own eyes, so (in my opinion) it’s not a dispute that’s worth investing that much effort on.
For what it’s worth, I’m more skeptical of the surface measurements than I used to be–so I’m more likely to question whether NIWA is doing the right thing. But I’m not going to accuse them of “fraud” or “conspiracy.”
With that, I’ll retire from this thread.
LikeLike
Ken — Are you the “Ken” of this blog? I’m disappointed with your “summary,” since it has summarized to your particular bias rather than simply summarizing objectively. Your choice, of course. (If you are the “Ken” of this blog, I would like to discuss your “belief system.” I suspect you and I have significant overlaps there.
Scott — I am beginning to think you may know a great deal more about this subject than you are letting on. Your approach reminds me of a crafty oceanography professor of mine back at UDUB (University of Washington) – namely Dixie Lee Ray. I have enjoyed the exchange.
Poptech — Are you Andrew, Doug, Carl, or Mike? You seem to be a pretty clear thinker. Keep focusing on the facts – no matter where they lead you.
The rest of you (at least those who have interacted with me) — sooner or later you need to advance beyond your sophomoric thinking.
LikeLike
You illustrate my point beautifully, Scott.
We have a “research paper” attacking, slandering, our scientists at NIWA. Have you bothered to look at that “paper” and critically assess it?
Did you read my comments on that “paper”, its lack of scientific input and review (see New Zealand’s denier-gate)?
Did you read The Atavism’s comments on the “paper” and his statistical analysis of their data (see Peer Review for the Climate “Science” Coalition)?
As far as I can see no! At least you have not commented on our critiques, or countered anything we have said. That’s what I would have expected from an objective commenter.
Instead you continue “to question whether NIWA is doing the right thing.”
Well – what about this Scott. Why don’t you question if the NZ Coalition and Conversation group are doing the right thing?
If you had an honest interest in the science of this matter you would have done that.
LikeLike
I fear you may be for real, Walter E. Haas — OMG! At the South Pole, we had a 1930s something UCLA doctoral thesis about the hollow earth and the aliens who live there. The way into this place was, according to this PhD candidate, at the South Pole. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
LikeLike
Scott, from what I can see the questions you ask have already been answered in the thread by Frank, Ken and others, if you don’t want to accept them, don’t.
Robert G. Williscroft, PhD claims that the GH theory contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that energy can’t flow from a colder object to a warmer object, this claim is what the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper it entirely based on, Frank covers this, the rule is that there can be no NET energy transfer without work being done.
A simple experiment can be carried out to test which claim is right, if there is no flow of energy from colder to hotter objects that partially offsets the larger flow from hotter to colder things should cool at a rate independent of the relative temperature of their colder surroundings, ie, a 90C cup of coffee in a 50C oven should cool at the same rate as a 90C cup of coffee in a -10C freezer, try it.
I don’t know how many times and in how many ways I need to make the following point to you Scott, this is the last time I’ll try:
Roger Pielke, Sr once argued that the troposphere is cooler than expected, but he was not talking about an absence of a GH effect, which would result in a troposphere about 33C cooler than it is, Gerlich and Tscheuschner are the only people with a published paper making this no GH effect claim, Pielke is addressing the finer points of climate sensitivity. We all agree he’s a sceptic rather than a denier.
Quote from Scott: “In the early 1990s, data from NOAA’s polar orbiting satellites were analyzed for multi-decadal trends. These initial analyses indicated that temperatures in the troposphere showed little or no increase…”
There was found to be an error in that data that was a result of satellite orbital drift, sceptic (as opposed to denier) scientists accept the corrected data.
LikeLike
Robert G. Williscroft, PhD:
“Andrew — Don’t you get tired of making stupid remarks? I am NOT calling you stupid, but your comment about my alluding to the Malenkovitch cycles can best be so described. Any unbiased review of my posts will show that from the onset, I made reference to “solar cycles.” I did not specifically mention the Malenkovitch cycles, because they represent a virtually universally accepted backdrop for climate change.”
You referred to 4 solar cycles in your earlier comments with periods of up to 1500 years, you made no mention of orbital cycles, and further claimed that AGW supporters denied the existence of any initial driver other than increasing CO2 concentrations. You were wrong, wrong , wrong, you then decided to revise what you initially said to fit what had subsequently been explained to you. You’re not just a flake, but also a liar and a scoundrel.
LikeLike
For my 9th grade honors history class I have to do a debate on climate change. I’m on the side that this whole problem can’t he 100% anthropogenic because althoughwe may be able to influence the climate a little with carbon emmitios and whatnot, there is now way a all that we could cause such drastic changes to the enviorment. The whole conspiracy idea and evidence is news to me and seems to directly parallel my hypothesis.
Any ideas? Email me at swimfinn3456@ymail.com subject line: climate change.
Thanks!
James
LikeLike
James, the IPCC is on the side that there are natural as well as man made causes of climate change. When you look at their reports you see a careful and objective assessment of the science. This provides a conclusion that the major contributor to the current warming is most likely (more than 90% probable) due to humans. The science, and the IPCC process is pretty obvious and transparent.
Really if there is a conspiracy it’s on the deniers’ side with apparent links to conservative think tanks, the fossil fuel industry, creationist and conservative Christian groups.
The denier claims of conspiracy amongst the scientists are as obviosly silly as similar claims made by creationists.
Sent from my iPod
LikeLike
Pingback: Lynch mob mentality « Open Parachute
@Poptech // December 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm
for your information. The comment of Kramm et al. (2009) on Arthur Smith’s paper was submitted to the arXiv of the Cornell-University because Smith’s paper was published there. Also the Gerlich-Tscheuschner paper was first submitted to arXiv before it was eventually published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B.
arXiv is used by many physicists, and physical journals recommend to upload manuscripts to arXiv so that they can be applied within the framework of the review process.
If peer-reviewed is such an important measure for you, please stop to believe that climate modeling is an appropriate tool in climatology because climate modeling is based on Ed Lorenz’s (1975) contribution to the GARP # 16 report. It is not peer-reviewed.
“Peer-reviewed” is a measure for people who are unable to analyze scientific papers.
P.S.: I served as a reviewer for 19 different jounals of meteorology, geophysics and physics.
LikeLike
@ Gerhard Kramm // January 19, 2010 at 11:18 am
The comment was not peer-reviewed and rebutted as noted.
arXiv is nothing more than posting a paper on your own website.
Lorenz’s Climatic predictability, GARP Publications Series, April, 1975 is so widely used you cannot find it on the Internet? I think not.
If alarmists now reject peer-review let me know.
LikeLike
Nice video, thanks! Very informative.
LikeLike
poptech,
I wrote that the paper of Ed Lorenz is not “peer-reviewed”. This is a fact. Nevertheless, it is unimportant to me because I am able to analyze papers.
I have a copy of the GARP #16 report since 1977 or so. I do not need the internet.
Arthur P. Smith wrote a blog on the arrogance of physicists. Meanwhile, it is widely distributed on the web. I wonder why he did not use his valuable time to write a reply on our comment.
LikeLike
Pingback: Erevna - Blogg & Tankesmedja
Pingback: Climate Change – Follow the Data |