clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

GHG Effect Debate, CCNet update, Hot air politics - post sane science, Clouds

Claes Johnson writes:
Greenhouse Effect Debate
Judy Curry has opened a debate on the book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, focussing on my two chapters
I look forward to a hopefully constructive lively discussion. Science does not thrive under dead
silence. In particular, I hope that Spencer, Lord Monckton, Lindzen and other leading skeptics will give the debate some attention.
Review of the debate after 83 comments Jan 31:
  • None of the big skeptics has had anything to say. Only Judy Curry who agrees that something is wrong with the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget, but does not want to tell what.
  • Of course Monckton and Spencer do not want to answer any of my questions, or Lindzen...
  • If you are a skeptic then you pose questions, and of course do not answer any, just like a professional journalist or Freudian therapist. But scientists need to answer questions.
  • Mostly confusing remarks as if my message has not be absorbed at all. Absorbitivity = 0.
  • The "greenhouse effect" is strong and healthy science, although the equations are missing.
  • Judy Curry clarifies and says that the KT budget with backradiation is basically correct.
Summary of my position Febr 1:
  1. Radiative heat transfer is carried by electromagnetic waves described by Maxwell's equations. The starting point of a scientific discussion of radiation should better start with Maxwell's equations than with some simplistic ad hoc model like the ones typically referred to in climate science with ad hoc invented "back radiation" of heat energy. If there is anything like "backradiation" it must be possible to find it in Maxwell's wave equations. In my analysis I use a version of Maxwell's wave equations and show that there is no backradiation, because that would correspond to an unstable phenomenon and unstable physics does not persist over time.
  2. Climate results from thermodynamics with radiative forcing, and radiation alone cannot tell anything of real significance, such as the effect of changing the atmospheric radiative properties a little: It is not clear if more clouds orwater vapour will cause global cooling or warming, or the effect of a small change of CO2. Climate CO2 alarmism is based on a postulate of a climate sensitivity of + 1 C which is a formality without known real significance.
  3. I welcome specific comments on these two points.
Full post here
Judy Curry's blog where the disparity in conclusions is raised here and later here

Lubos Motl - CO2 drives protests against tyrants - Climate change is testing Hosni Mubarak
Eighteen hardcore AGW alarmists threaten U.S. Congress

Echoed at Green Hell -Mann et al. try old lie on new Congress

Moi. The usual self-opinionated post-modernists still with no evidence that CO2 is harmful, "tax, tax, tax just in case". Just loud mouths attempting to impose dogmatic belief on behalf of globalists and boondoggle investors.
Basically, activist twisters are attempting to force belief that human CO2 emissions (a totally invisible gas) have retired natural factors and now drive ocean cycles. That is as bad as blaming climate swings and extreme events on a god as in insurance claims. The only major factors that humans have created comprise deforestation of temperate zones and S.E. Asia that due to the regulatory effect of trees has allowed the severity of extreme events of precipitation, wind (hurricane severity is related to W.African and monsoon severity and location to S.E.Asian deforestation) and coastal sea incursions (as in Bangladesh and other regions due to mangrove clearance) to increase. Then there is land use. Crop colour determines how much solar radiation is returned to space due to human activity. Desertification (due to overgrazing, firewood harvesting and overuse of water resources) in Africa and India and biofuel crops increasing the extent of light coloured land in Europe, Russia and N. America (US- 40% of wheat is for fuel) and must certainly have amplified the cooling of the current down curve of the natural climate cycle that is driven by cyclical solar emissions, changes that in turn correlate with planet alignment and their distance from the solar system centre.
An interesting project would be to create separate time series for temperate and tropical deforestation and change in land use to crop farming and see how they compare with the increasing severity of weather events and climate cycle amplification. Wish I had the time.

hauntingthelibrary - The New Stupid: Warmist Prof. Demands "Ignorance-Based Worldview" - One of the problems with this global warming nonsense we're having to endure is that it's making parody redundant.

The Great Global Warming Swindle online here (full length)

Cooler Heads - Barrasso To Introduce Bill To Block Federal Climate Regs

CCNet – 1 February 2010 The Climate Policy Network
FOI Reveals Met Office Secretly Renamed Seasonal Forecasts

The Met Office has not issued a seasonal forecast to the public and categorically denies forecasting a 'mild winter' as suggested by Boris Johnson in his column in the Daily Telegraph. Following public research, the Met Office no longer issues long-range forecasts for the general public. --Dave Britton, Chief Press Officer, Met Office, 20 December 2010

The Met Office warned ministers to expect an ‘exceptionally cold winter’ but then kept the prediction secret from the public. Last night BBC analyst Roger Harrabin said: ‘With Britain shivering through a third winter in a row, shouldn’t the weather forecasters have warned us well in advance? Why didn’t the Met Office tell us? The truth is the Met Office did suspect we were in for an exceptionally cold early winter, and told the Cabinet Office so in October. But we weren’t let in on the secret.”—Roger Harrabin, The Daily Telegraph, 4 January 2011

1) Met Office Document Shows It Only Renamed Its Seasonal Forecasts - Autonomous Mind, 1 February 2011
A Freedom of Information request submitted to the Met Office by Autonomous Mind reveals the Met Office did not tell the truth when it said it had scrapped its seasonal forecast. Despite repeatedly trailing the line that the Met Office no longer issues seasonal forecasts because the public says they are not of use, the reality is that the department’s Chief Executive, John Hirst, engaged in a smoke and mirrors exercise in an attempt at reputation management.
2) Death, Grit And Climate: Met Office Drama Unfolds - The Register, 31 January 2011
... “The Met Office has never suggested that we warned cabinet office of an 'exceptionally cold early winter'. The forecasts said that there was 'an increased risk for a cold and wintry start to the winter season'. The Met Office provided a forecast to the cabinet office that showed that there was an increased risk of an average or cold start to winter over an average or mild winter.” –Met Office statement
... Harrabin isn't the first journalist to be left out to dry by a dodgy source, but for state agencies dependent on accurate medium-term forecasts, the issue is far more serious than a bruised reputation. The Commons Transport Select Committee will this month examine whether the climate has changed – in the opposite direction to what climate change activists have been predicting. –Andrew Orlowski
3) U.S. Senators Vow To Strip Obama Of His Climate Power - AFP, 1 February 2011
4) Andrew Bolt: How global warming became political poison - Herald Sun, 31 January 2011
The chic World Economic Forum at Davos once considered global warming the greatest of threats to the planet. But now it considers global warming so yesterday. How can an existential threat to humanity suddenly become too boring for words? Impossible, unless it never was really a big threat to start with. --Andrew Bolt
5) And Finally: Everyone’s A Winner - Bishop Hill, 31 January 2011

Thanks to Dr Peiser, GWPF

Via Icecap - The GISS analysis assigns a temperature anomaly to many gridboxes that do not contain measurement data, specifically all gridboxes located within 1200 km of one or more stations that do have defined temperature anomalies. Tom Nelson Blogspot
Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path Craig and Sherwood Idso, CO2 Science
WCR Arctic Ice “Tipping Point” Rejected

Climate Realists - Scientific Alliance Newsletter: 2010 temperature record?
According to the World Meteorological Organisation, 2010 was officially the warmest year on record, just over half a degree warmer on average than the baseline of 1961-1990. This is based on three separate data sets: the Hadley Centre/UEA one in the UK and the NASA and National Climatic Data Center ones in the USA. The press release tempers this by saying that there was no statistical difference between 1998, 2005 and 2010. Indeed, the average temperature for 2010 was only 0.01C above the figure for 2005 and 0.02 above 1998’s average. These differences are well within the margin of error of plus/minus 0.09.
"The Claim 2010 is '2nd warmest year on record' - is delusional, irrelevant & disingenuous – the last gasp of the failed global warming cult” - Piers Corbyn, more from Piers here and here
Signs Of Strengthening Global Cooling by Matti Vooro P. Gosselin
Greenland ice sheet is safer than scientists previously thought by Damian Carrington Guardian
Mid-Atlantic Ocean temperatures peaked in 1998 Lewis Page
Death, grit and climate: Met Office drama unfolds Andrew Orlowski - Mandarins and meteorologists form circular firing squad.
Nutty Professors and Nutty New Taxes Alan Caruba - In the January 31st edition of The Wall Street Journal, Binder had a commentary titled, “The Carbon Tax Miracle Cure.” It is a masterpiece of ignorance. 

Ice Cream Castles In The Air

Climate4you - mid 1982 to mid 2008, more cloud graphs and pics here
Tags: clouds, ghg effect debate, hot air politics, politics, post sane science, slaying the sky dragon

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.