Open forum for climate denialism

Following some recent discussions, I decided to relax my usual policy of banning climate denialists. So, I’m opening a forum where anyone who thinks they have something useful to contribute on the topic. Some rules

  • Real names only, no pseudonyms. If you have something to say on this topic, own it.
  • If your point is on this list, don’t bother making it.
  • For the moment, only climate science arguments, not policy claims like “Australia only contributes 1 per cent”.

Initially, at least I’d prefer to leave the field open to sceptics/deniers. The rest of us can have our say a bit later.

To prevent spam/trolling etc all posts from new contributors will be moderated.

60 thoughts on “Open forum for climate denialism

  1. Yes I think it’s March before we can discuss fires and climate😊!

    I’ll let this slide on the first name, but full real names only on this post, please

  2. Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep ..
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them?
    (Shakespeare, Henry IV pt I.)

    I’m with Hotspur here. Excluding the standard talking-points rules out pretty much any denialist argument. I suggest that true climate denialism is for practical purposes dead. Opposition to action has moved on to other -isms constructed in bad faith round delay, you-first, Micawber (something will turn up), and despair (it’s too late).

  3. What is wrong with this climate denialist report? Did I falsely label this a climate denialist report?
    If there is something wrong with this report then that would seem to imply that the worse case is actually realistic. If the worst case is realistic that would seem to imply that it is to late to prevent the worst from happening. If it is to late to stop the worst from happening does that imply that we should not try?

    A doctor tells a person that they have advanced cancer. The doctor tells the person that the person can try to treat the cancer. The odds that they will be cured are 1%. The treatment has serious side effects. Or the person can not treat it and let nature take its course and with the use of drugs as pain killers hold out as long as possible. Or the person can hold out as long as the pain is bearable and then committ suicide. Different people will chose different options.

    With humanity such a choice does not work because the choice that each person makes affects everyone else. In addition to that if we just continue business as usual we do not know if we have 5 years or 30 years until civilization starts to break down due to food insecurity. Furthermore the ecological shelf life of humanity is being shorten by other factors in addition to global warming.
    I do not know if the humanity can win its struggle against the constraints that nature has set up against it. I do not even know if it should try.

    What I do know is that in by way of compairison holding those who have been telling whopping big lies and committing mass murder responsible for their crimes is relatively simple. No it is not simple. But it is not as complicated as doing battle with an out of control biosphere. Better yet holding those repsonsible that have been telling whopping big lies and committing mass murder is the neccissary first step towards trying to regain control over an out of control biosphere.

    Climate Warming pessimisim is not climate warming denialism. The posted link claims that it is. Climate warming pessimisim could be used as a reason to support lack of effort to mitigate climate warming. But climate pessimisim is not a definative factor. Furthermore if it is to late then responsible people need to know the truth because if humanity can not be saved it can ask itself what it should try to achieve in the mean time.

    A huge block of scientific data is not needed to reasonably conclude that it is to late to save humanity.
    Three known geophysical factors support that conclusion. The permafrost is melting. The rate of sea level rises is rapidly increasing. Methane is being released from the Arctic Sea floor. To these geophysical factors can be added the sociological factors that inhibit a global response to the problems.

    Has the reporting on these geophyscal factors all been faked? If not the question is what to do now.
    I outlined the global answer several paragraphs above. But what should you do now? Well that of course depends upon your place in the world, who you know, who you can talk to, and what resources are available to you, and what risks you are willing or unwiling to take under the circumstances.

    It is my impression that most police do not want to see murderers, especially mass murders get away with their crimes. But it is also my impression that at least some police are more concerned with maintaining their tribes dominance over competing tribes than with putting murders behind bars.

    So I do not know what to expect from the future. I expected a lot from 2019. But it did not materialize.
    Ok I suspose that one could say, a huge amount was done in 2019. For the first time in history a dominant military force was prevented from going to war with a weaker opponent because one, or a few, or perhaps some field grade officers said NO. But the thing is that claim is unsubstanitated.
    So for all practical purposes nothing important has changed in the world over the past year other than the level of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere.

  4. There is this idea out there that the climate change scare was pretty nutty, on the basis that we lived on a planet that had a one-way bias to being in a glacial period. With relatively short inter-glacial eras. But we now have the technology to avoid falling into another glacial period. So that objection is out of the way. But there is a scary notion that the scientists will not speak up against behaviours that could throw us into another ice-covered catastrophe

  5. This is about the scariest thing I’ve seen scientists doing in a long while. Trying to draw off electrical energy from the Gulf Stream. These people are “living in a powder keg and giving off sparks.”

    During the last glacial period there would be many times when we looked like we were climbing out of it, and back into an inter-glacial. But every time we would get a big recovery on the fly a giant ice berg would break off at Hudson Bay and land on the Gulf Stream and plunge us back under frigid conditions. What this means is that we now have the capacity to avoid a full-blown ice age if we can prevent this from happening.

    Further to that we could have NOAA going through the great ocean conveyor and systematically getting rid of any obvious obstructions. But to actually go out of ones way to impede the conveyor flow shows an immense level of hubris.

  6. Not everything is fully understood by all and sundry to do with thermal energy. But we have the Stefan-Boltzmann law. And this “law” has a formula attached to it. This formula is one of the few attempts to describe the natural world that has a 4th power attached to it. What this means in practice is that to spread out thermal energy is to retain thermal energy better. To me these scientists are acting with extreme recklessness.

    My analysis would suggest that if we keep the ocean conveyor clear we don’t have to worry about a new glacial period, but “little ice ages” are still an open question. But as you can see there are plans afoot to restrict the ocean conveyor. I think this is much more dangerous than our hydro-carbon interventions.

    We might get lucky and the one cancels the other. But you cannot ride that tiger. You think you can. You think you can grab him by the ears and make him go where you want. Thats a fools game. He’s going to bite you on the throat sooner or later.

  7. “Has the reporting on these geophyscal factors all been faked?”

    Check it out. Will you believe what you find when you do?

  8. Mikhail,
    The interesting thing is if the geophysical reports have been faked the first step in the answer to our problems remains the same. Those who have been in charge are responsible and have to be held accountable by non democratic means.
    The bottom line is either humanity is in a serious crisis because those in charge down played the seriousness of the crisis to the public and failed to address the problems in a timely manner while instead waging pololiceis of petty colonialsm which just made humanities problems even worse and harder to deal with.
    Or those in charge manufactured a fake crisis to prevent humanity from correctly chosing economic policies that would make large numbers of people better off and therefore have the means to challenge those who have been wielding power. Either way the leaders are responsible. Their defence is to try to muddle the waters as to who they are.
    They are hoping that although we can identify demographic hotspots such as high ranking energy company officials, high ranking financial officials, high ranking officials in the media, and most importantly high ranking military officers as individuals they will each try to claim that they were an exception to the rule.
    But I have easily solved that problem. They are all to be assumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence beyone a resonable doubt. It is now up to their subordinates to follow my advice.
    The line of departure is O7 and above and their civilian counterparts. Of course many O6s need to go up in flames as well. Probably a few O5s need to face the wrath of humanity too, But in those cases the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that these people are worthy of the scorn of humanity.

  9. Democratic means to do anything at this point is just completely absurd. Society is then dependent on the dumbest 50th % of the population to achieve permission to do what needs to be done.

  10. OK, real names….

    A buddy, who is a CO2 skeptic, pointed me at: http://joannenova.com.au

    If you get past some of the rabid anti-greenie type comments on the site, there does seem to be some stuff that, certainly to me, presents a counter argument to the “CO2 is the driver of climate change” hypothesis. Before I get flamed, I don’t subscribe to the notion that there is a cabal of climate scientists all fudging the figures in order to get funding etc. I believe these are honest people grappling with a very complex modelling problem, and the consensus view is more than likely correct.

    However wondering if anyone can critique, for example:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/12/climate-change-and-bushfires-more-rain-the-same-droughts-no-trend-no-science/

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/11/climate-models-are-a-joke/

  11. “Either way the leaders are responsible. Their defence is to try to muddle the waters as to who they are.”

    Right. So find out if they are lying. You aren’t going to believe a climate denier one way or another. But just promise yourself to believe whatever it is that you find out. Because if you won’t believe a climate denier then you cannot possibly know what is going on unless you make a firm decision to check these things out for yourself. Or else its just circular reasoning. The climate denier becomes a bad source, because he is a climate denier. Therefore all the reasoning becomes circular, and whoever you are talking about who is muddying the waters has won. These strange and unknown people have made you a puppet simply on the grounds that you would discriminate against the climate denier.

    Tinker, tailor solider spy.

  12. One key to understanding climate science is Stefan-Boltzmann’s law. One of the few attempts to describe the natural world, which involves a formula that uses the 4th power. The upshot is that 1. if you spread thermal energy out you retain it better 2. You cannot analyse climate by way of aggregating effects in terms of watts per square metre. You must disaggregate the situation, and deal in 3 dimensions.

  13. There is no need to do it now. Once those in charge have been removed then if any data has been faked we should expect to see all kinds of people saying “thank god, now I can tell the truth. I could not tell the truth before because I was being black mailed or extorted in to falsifying data or conclusions to fit the narrative that other people wanted told. UNLESS these people were being bribed. Then they just may continue to keep their mouths shut. But eventually then the correct data will rise to the surface.
    UNLESS the correct data supports the idea that global warming has already passed the point of no return. Then those who are aware of that and have access to such data may conclude and then conspire to hide the bad news from humanity. Because the longer that humanity is kept in the dark the longer it will be before panick breaks out and civilzation starts to fall apart. Of course once food insecurity becomes routine it will no longer be possible to hide the extent of the problem any longer.
    Of course if new leadership manages to pull together a large amount of talent and actually stave off food insecurity there are those who will say that the problem was just a hoax all along to give a phoney justification to some morally defective people who took power on to themselves by illegal non democratic means because they knew that they could not do it any other way. The fact that no one is dying of starvation is the ultimate proof that a bunch of sadists have siezed power just to inflict unneccessary suffering upon the mass of humanity, especially those in what had been the leading parts of the globe.
    The people who say this will then say, despite our best efforts to save people from themselves the people never learn how to tell a trust worthy potential leader from a psychopath that is just pushing their buttons. Part of me says that it is time to give up. But another part of me says I do not have anything better to do anyways. So on with Act 5. (or 6, or………).

  14. No you have to figure it now and do it yourself. Because if you think you can take on these people by force you must be one of these people that took the ISIS phenomenon to be a real thing. Rather than Gladio 2.0 and our own guys in Muslim Clobber. There is no removing those in charge through force. The idea of an insurgency doing so is a fantasy brought about by the insurgencies such people control themselves.

  15. The next thing to understand about climate science is that greenhouse gasses block incoming joules before they even have a chance to block outgoing joules. So its a bit strange that we could think of them causing heating, because they block joules getting here. As evidence for this the moon’s greenhouse effect is stronger than our own. But actually we ought need no evidence for this notion. It ought to be obvious. We are talking about the colour of CO2. The colour of water vapour. The more darkly coloured the gas is, the more it will block out the sunlight.

  16. M.C.
    Yes I am 5 steps ahead of you. That those in power will create insurgencies that they actually control is an idea that went out to the public way back in 1908. How long it had already been a tactic of powerful only Zeus, Venus and maybe Posideon outside of the circle of the powerful know. There are counter tactics to deal with that these tactics will be revealed when Santa’s List is published.

  17. Right and so the war on terror they created means that there is no organisational violence that we can solve problems with. Even if that its theoretically the case, that in the final analysis the problem cannot be fixed without physical force, this will never be in time for you or for me and too many people would get hurt in the crossfire. Think about it; Has there ever been any real solutions that you are completely sure of, that haven’t been subtly discouraged? We must consider the reach of these people to be amazing.

    Now about greenhouse gasses. We might say that water vapour is a darkly coloured gas. CO2 and CH4 are lightly tinged gasses. We might call water vapour darkly coloured since it blocks a wide spectrum of infrared radiation. So its helpful to think of water vapour as darkly coloured and the other greenhouse gasses as lightly tinged. CO2 is a lightly tinged gas. As far as its colour is concerned. But we would have to have a different capacity to see light in order to understand this reality.

    Water vapour is so darkly coloured that no tropical area can ever break 40 degrees Celsius. To break 40 degrees requires drier air. Not completely dry air but drier than what would normally occur in places like Darwin and on the equator. So greenhouse gasses are not wholly warming gasses. They have a warming function. But they also have a strong blocking function. This is not usually recognised in the frenzy of things. In the first instance greenhouse gasses are a bit like sunglasses.

    In the first instance at least.

  18. If you are a chosen one, your job in the grand scheme is only to be a messenger. Or perhaps to be a gopher. Nothing involving melted lead. Nothing involved in crypto currencies. Those with specialized training have to do the heavy lifting. The Brotherhood of Humankind versus the Iron Heel.
    But even in Brotherhood there are still borders that need to be respected. Such borders may not be Iron Curtians, The borders will have more flexiblity than that. But these borders can not be done away with entirely either. That counts not only towards external borders but internal borders too.

  19. Well now I’ve missed one reason why most of the moist places at the equator never get above 40 degrees and seldom get below about 28 degrees. And thats something called enthalpy. But its easier to remember this as the latent thermal energy in the phase change of water.

    This is one of the most magical properties in the natural world. What it means is that water evaporation has an extremely powerful refrigerant effect. And also that water vapour can continue to absorb a lot of energy, even though its secretly transporting this hidden thermal energy with it. Which is kind of abnormal. Because its temperature that tells us the direction of the thermal energy absorption. Temperature doesn’t tell us a great deal more than that. It tells us the direction of the movement of the joules. But not a whole lot else.

    But we have a kind of exception with water vapour. Because its carrying fantastic amounts of joules, still absorbing energy, when another gas that was carrying that many joules would be hot already, and shedding joules, not absorbing them.

    So thats two reasons why Melbourne gets these heat waves in the 40’s but Darwin doesn’t.

  20. MC
    Yes i can understand that is correct water evaporation moves heat from one place to another. I know that from first aid training.

  21. I am afraid the policy discussion is both much more interesting and fruitful but I guess you are just amusing yourself with this lot. Open the asylum gates

  22. It might be that Andrews religious tolerance is almost tapped out. What I am trying to do is educate people who don’t understand climate science. The left is clueless on these matters and proudly so.

    How does the left explain why the Moons greenhouse effect being greater than the earths? They try and ignore it as best as possible, pretend that their google arm is broken in three places, and they shoot the messenger. One thing we can say about this is that the idea that the earth is supposed to be -15 degrees celsius prior to the greenhouse effect is false. Debunked. The average temperature of the moon is hotter and not colder than the earth. So there is no temperature excess that greenhouse needs to explain.

    In the tropopause you have a lapse rate where the temperature gets colder the higher you go. As a consequence of this almost all the water vapour is taken out of the situation before the end of the troposphere. Not all but almost all. Some water vapour ends up much higher thanks to jet engines.

    But extra CO2 ends up mixing higher than all the water vapour. And whereas CO2 at surface area is thought to be saturated from a heat retention view, extra CO2 mixing above the clouds is not saturated. And so at some levels CO2 will cool the atmosphere. The levels at which CO2 will warm the atmosphere and cool the atmosphere cannot be worked out apriori. So we rely on accurate data. It ought to be clear then that extra CO2 should COOL the atmosphere at surface level, or it would do except for this wild card that makes the Moon on average hotter than the earth. We might deal with this other source of energy later.

    This is the satellite temperature trend in the lower stratosphere. Note that the temperature is cooling in the lower stratosphere. How could this be happening? Unless some of what I’m saying is right here? Certainly not all the satellite data is cooling. Most of it is warming a tiny bit. But if you think everything I’ve been saying here is not relevant explain this cooling trend? I would think part of the answer is that extra CO2 is mixing above that level. Or it could be that jet travel is putting water vapour higher than that and therefore blocking energy to below. But its worth thinking about since the left has been taught from the start not to think about anything to do with climate. They have their erroneous watts per square metre model that never works, and they are sticking to it.

  23. It might be that Andrews religious tolerance is almost tapped out. What I am trying to do is educate people who don’t understand climate science. The left is clueless on these matters and proudly so.

    How does the left explain why the Moons greenhouse effect is greater than the earths? They try and ignore it as best as possible, pretend that their google arm is broken in three places, and they shoot the messenger. One thing we can say about this is that the idea that the earth is supposed to be -15 degrees celsius prior to the greenhouse effect is false. Debunked. The average temperature of the moon is hotter and not colder than the earth. So there is no temperature excess that greenhouse needs to explain.

    In the tropopause you have a lapse rate where the temperature gets colder the higher you go. As a consequence of this almost all the water vapour is taken out of the situation before the end of the troposphere. Not all but almost all. Some water vapour ends up much higher thanks to jet engines.

    But extra CO2 ends up mixing higher than all the water vapour. And whereas CO2 at surface area is thought to be saturated from a heat retention view, extra CO2 mixing above the clouds is not saturated. And so at some levels CO2 will cool the atmosphere. The levels at which CO2 will warm the atmosphere and cool the atmosphere cannot be worked out apriori. So we rely on accurate data. It ought to be clear then that extra CO2 should COOL the atmosphere at surface level, or it would do except for this wild card that makes the Moon on average hotter than the earth. We might deal with this other source of energy later.

    This is the satellite temperature trend in the lower stratosphere. Note that the temperature is cooling in the lower stratosphere. How could this be happening? Unless some of what I’m saying is right here? Certainly not all the satellite data is cooling. Most of it is warming a tiny bit. But if you think everything I’ve been saying here is not relevant explain this cooling trend? I would think part of the answer is that extra CO2 is mixing above that level. Or it could be that jet travel is putting water vapour higher than that and therefore blocking energy to below. But its worth thinking about since the left has been taught from the start not to think about anything to do with climate. They have their erroneous watts per square metre model that never works, and they are sticking to it.

    We are looking at the sixth graph in this series.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/

  24. Mikhail Chodorov – “The next thing to understand about climate science is that greenhouse gasses block incoming joules before they even have a chance to block outgoing joules.”

    Sure, incoming radiation in the IR band that make GHG’s significant gets “blocked” – in the sense that it does not directly reach the surface, yet it is still absorbed in the atmosphere, so it does enter the climate system. It isn’t a case of that energy being reflected back to space. But there is a lot of incoming radiation that is not “blocked” – eg in the visible range – that warms the Earth’s surface. The surface re-radiates energy upward in the IR range, that GHG’s do block from radiating directly to space. I’m no expert but this is basic stuff.

    “You cannot analyse climate by way of aggregating effects in terms of watts per square metre. You must disaggregate the situation, and deal in 3 dimensions.”

    Interestingly (according to M.Mann) calculations based on very simple, dimensionless parameters get results for equilibrium temperatures that are very close to those from GCM’s that do deal in 3 dimensions and multiple parameters. It doesn’t mean we can ditch the more complex modeling but does bring light to the fact that much of the complexity is about moving heat around within the climate system and ultimately how that affects conditions at the surface without necessarily altering the overall global balance between heat coming in and going out.

    “Because its carrying fantastic amounts of joules, still absorbing energy, when another gas that was carrying that many joules would be hot already, and shedding joules, not absorbing them. ”

    That heat does not cease to exist. Convection is a powerful component of the climate system and will carry moist air up to where it precipitates out – and carry CO2 laden air even higher. More CO2 means it needs to reach higher altitude for radiation to space to occur – for the IR blocking fog to clear. Higher altitude is cooler so less radiating out occurs, the air gets circulated back down a bit warmer than it would have with lower CO2 concentrations. Overall heat content of climate system – air, land, ice, water – gets raised.

  25. Now check the first graph out. Lower troposphere satellite graph. You can certainly see a warming trend there. Not surprisingly, since it starts in the frigid 70’s. The balloon data and the satellite data coheres but the balloon data goes back another 30 years and shows cooling all the way to the 70’s. How does the left explain this cooling? What they do is try to get rid of that 30 year cooling trend. The leftists who compile the data try to keep altering their graphs until they get a straight upward trend rather than a 30 odd year cyclical trend.

    But some warming on this graph is kind of surprising. And I think its reasonable to see a little bit of CO2-warming towards the end of it. With the extended balloon data you might rather conclude that its all about the 30 year ocean oscillations. Too early to tell really. But I was very surprised when the temperature came out so high for 2016. People who think that CO2 warms a tiny bit are entitled to some satisfaction for the last few years of this graph, being as solar cycle 24 is a fairly weak one. But its hardly a catastrophic trend right? When we realise that the balloon data agrees with this, and that the balloon data showed the prior thirty years cooling you would hardly be in a fear and trembling about it.

    Actually I think when we compare it to surface data we will see that there could be a mild false positive going on. Here is some surface data that is thought to meet a reasonable standard. Notice that the last few years hasn’t been warming and that the 2016 peak is not there.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2019&month=12

  26. MC
    So if your climatic expectations were correct would you oppose a progressive income tax policy?

  27. MC,
    By the way you appear to be a very dedicated systems analysist. It also seems to me that you have been the member of a debate team at a complete university.

  28. “Interestingly (according to M.Mann) calculations based on very simple, dimensionless parameters get results for equilibrium temperatures that are very close to those from GCM’s that do deal in 3 dimensions and multiple parameters.”

    We are interested in the real world. Not in fantasy models. Why are you listening to Michael Mann? Why are you taking Goddards climate model seriously in the first place? Its only a computer program. It tells the man what it wants to hear. It doesn’t work. Instead of making it work they have been altering the data to try and force a square peg in a round whole. For many years people were telling us to avoid reality and look at their models. This game should have tapped out but the distraction gave them enough time to play with the figures.

    “Sure, incoming radiation in the IR band that make GHG’s significant gets “blocked” – in the sense that it does not directly reach the surface, yet it is still absorbed in the atmosphere, so it does enter the climate system. It isn’t a case of that energy being reflected back to space.”

    Thermal energy has a way of moving in opposition to gravity. “Heat rises” as the kids say. You could make your argument to some degree in the troposphere because of overturning of the air. You couldn’t really make a good argument even for the troposphere, but that will fly a little bit in the troposphere. You cannot make your argument with any degree of plausibility for joules that are blocked above the clouds.

    Try putting your heater on the roof, rather than in the basement. Once the joules are out of the range of overturning you have to consider them to be lost in space. “Heat” or rather thermal energy, really does rise, no matter what your year 9 science teacher tells you. This is another fault of the watts per square metre model. It treats all the joules the same. But joules that get punched deep into the ocean are doing double and triple duty before they gets above where your house is.

    So no we have to consider that these joules are blocked, and their impact is tiny as compared to joules that make it deep into the ocean. We cannot have this fantasy where these joules sneak around the clouds and jump down to heat up the ocean. But in the end its the data that has to talk and not models or apriori reasoning.

    The important thing is to ignore people who are using bad data. Those people who make the GSM model still get their data from tainted stations, they don’t allow for the heat island effect, and thats just the start of what they do to beat the data into submission. So we have to go local, rural and unedited with the data. Unless someone puts up the money to inspect all the stations and then make a rural time series out of all the good ones.

    We can talk about the satellites. But when it comes to ground truth we have to go local, rural, and unedited. With the exception of that NOAA graph I linked. Maybe someone else has put something realistic together. Its hard to know.

  29. “But there is a lot of incoming radiation that is not “blocked” – eg in the visible range – that warms the Earth’s surface. The surface re-radiates energy upward in the IR range, that GHG’s do block from radiating directly to space. I’m no expert but this is basic stuff.”

    Its basic stuff but its over-rated. More than half of the suns radiation is still infrared. More than half. So its not this massive effect or the average temperature of the moon could not exceed that of the earth. And since all joules are not to be treated equally we have to give more weight to those joules that are blocked coming in before they ever get a chance to be detained on the way out. Plus the initial models at least talked only about radiation. But thermal energy joules want to go in the other direction of gravity by other means. Not just radiation.

    So water vapour as a darkly coloured gas (if we could see infra-red) and CO2 as a lightly tinged gas are blocking the joules on the way in and CO2 is not saturated in terms of the inward blocking. You cannot have these things both ways. You cannot pretend that they are blocking on the way out and not blocking on the way in.

    So we see there is this sort of mental block going on here. This one-sided fantasy. This one sided imagination where the gasses don’t block on the way in, but block on the way out. As if the gasses themselves were conspiring to make us warm and comfortable.

  30. A colourful character recently had himself permanently banned here for gratuitous insults, trite assumptions and irrational bigotry. But as a compulsive cheat and bully, he flouted the ban three times … duh?!

    So it’s good to see this thread hasn’t been infected yet by that combination of great intelligence, pseudoscience and virulent guile … a pathology which on its’ own, must have a near zero probability of influencing global climate policies long term in any way.

  31. Dear Михаил Ходоров,

    You have confused “black body” (planetary equilibrium) temperature with surface temperature. Since the albedo (reflectance) of Moon is lower (it is effectively as dark as tar) its black body temperature is higher than Earth which reflects more of incoming radiation at prevailing visible and near infrared wavelengths. NASA website says that Moon’s black body temperature is 270.4K while Earth’s is 254.0K According to space.com the average temperature of surface of Earth is 14C (287K) and rising so your statement about Moon being hotter than Earth on average is factually incorrect.

    This difference in temperature has been precisely caused by the greenhouse effects. The mechanism of greenhouse effect is very simple. We have incoming radiation with spectral densities similar to produced by a black body at 5400K absorbed by a grey body with a certain reflectance at these wavelengths and outgoing radiation produced by a grey body at unknown temperature (which we want to calculate). Obviously for thermal equilibrium the absorbed energy flux must be equal to radiated out energy flux. NB we can’t take the average temperature, we would need to integrate and average over a day cycle and over the whole surface as the process of radiating out is nonliear in regards to temperature.

    The issue with carbon dioxide concentration is that the proportion of the flux of solar energy at the wavelengths which are blocked (absorbed) by CO2 is insignificant while it becomes serious at the wavelengths corresponding to temperatures of the Earth’s surface. That’s why the changes in concentration of CO2 affect the equilibrium temperature greatly.

    Obviously if we want to build a more accurate model we have to account for heat transfer within the atmosphere in 3 dimensions and in the oceans, the thermal capacitance, the presence of clouds, the changing concentration of water vapour which itself is a potent greenhouse gas etc. I am leaving this to climate scientists. But the idea of a basic model is obvious to anyone who studied physics at a reputable technical university in Eastern Europe.

    Also if we talk about planets – think about Venus with black body temperature 226.6K. What is its surface temperature?

    Dear Prof Quiggin,
    I am signing with my real surname but spelled in Cyrillic as I don’t want to allow search engines to start finding me.

  32. “I don’t subscribe to the notion that there is a cabal of climate scientists all fudging the figures in order to get funding etc.”

    Have you checked? Is it your theory that the figures are fudging themselves? I don’t think the figures are fudging themselves. I think there is a lot of hard work involved. This reminds me of the idea that no-one outside of Japan was responsible for Pearl Harbour. When actually it took an immense amount of effort to estrange the Japanese. Years and years of effort. These are things that don’t happen on their own.

    As to the CO2 causes drought business; You would have to wonder how that kind of disinformation could come about. Clearly there is something wrong with the debate when people are saying that CO2 can cause both floods and droughts at the same time. CO2 does not nucleate raindrops. “Cosmic Rays” do. Dust can. And the biologists are telling us that trees transpire various creatures and substances that can do the job to increase rainfall. Here we see that taking care of the environment, rather than demonising the gas that is responsible for all of life, is the right way to go.

    We have had a price on carbon long enough to see that it doesn’t do the job. It leads to bizarre and damaging behaviour. Like growing monocultural trees that tap out in their capacity to absorb CO2, destroy the natural environment, aren’t suitable for any balanced ecology, and end up getting chopped up in any case, and so forth. But if we were to take care of the environment more directly the CO2 internment would tend to happen on its own, given enough time. So the idea is just to avoid all this panic talk.

    Plus the conservatives need to step up and give us their own version of excellence in environmental care. They have been remiss and have allowed this CO2 obsession to get a lot of momentum at least partly through their negligence.

    I cannot find any good data that would suggest a panic is in order. I’ve linked to all the satellite data. And some ground data that is thought to be good. The data that we have is very ambiguous and either suggests no CO2 warming, or a tiny signal.

    Different from me I thought it would cause a tiny bit of cooling instead so I’m eager to get hold of good ground data if anyone can find any. It should be rural only, unprocessed, and not manipulated by people who have already been caught fudging. Every last measuring station ought to be well-placed and not near anything that could lead to a false warming signal.

  33. Thats very interesting. But your leap to the idea that all the energy difference on earth is made up via greenhouse is unfounded, unproven and we actually know there is a secondary energy source.

    “As the chart and the study indicate, actual daytime lunar temperatures were lower than expected because the real moon also conducts heat to the inside rather than radiating all of it to space. Conversely, actual surface temperatures throughout its two-week night were higher than expected because the moon “feeds on” the heat it had previously absorbed. Thus (within the zone in question) the surface of the real moon is roughly 20° cooler than predicted by day and 60° warmer by night, the net result being a surface that is 40° warmer than predicted.”

    So they are saying the effective greenhouse effect of the moon is 40 degrees. Whereas the claim is that this is only about 33 degrees on earth. But then I’d like to see where you got your figures from and if you can reconcile these figures with this study.

    On a rotating planet, with a liquid that has a very high specific heat capacity, there is no reason to believe we can play this averaging game in the first place. It didn’t work on the moon. There is no reason to believe it works here. The capacity of liquid water to hold onto a great deal of energy precludes any smug averaging games. A planet with a liquid with different characteristics could be cooler. The point is that there is no big hole in the temperature that needs to be explained. Particularly since electromagentic radiation, in the case of both the moon and the earth, is not the only energy form received.

    Click to access Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

  34. Dear Михаил Ходоров,

    Nice try but no cigar

    There is zero greenhouse effect of the moon and there is near-zero discrepancy if a proper model is used. Going further, the presence of greenhouse effect on Earth is confirmed and it is even more significant than using previous more naive models

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447774/

  35. Адам Качинский. The black body figures you have given for the earth and the moon are fictional figures. They are as calculated by the mathematicians as to how warm both bodies ought to be given the assumption that the greenhouse effect is doing everything. They are not real temperatures of anything at all.

    You need to find a real figure for the moon. You have the fictional figure for the earth, and the real figure for the earth. And you have the fictional figure for the moon. What you are lacking is the real figure for the moon. Thats going to be hard to find I suspect, because people assume that there is no greenhouse effect on the moon, so rather than actually measure the actual moon temperature, they are likely to give the calculated figure and assume its all done and dusted. But the people who have actually looked at the data are calculating a “real average” temperature for the moon approximately 40 degrees in excess of what the fictional figure says it ought to be.

    Nice try but no cigar. Not that interested in fictional figures comrade.

  36. Dear Михаил Ходоров,

    The paper I quoted does not contain ” fictional figures”. It contains data on “Typical diurnal course of the Moon’s equatorial surface temperature according to Diviner radiometric measurements and simulations by the revised TWO model”. Please read it thoroughly before commenting, it won’t take 5 minutes but a bit longer. There is also actual data for the Moon surface temperature available here https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/moon-surface-temperature/

    The article claiming that average temperature of moon is 40K hotter than it should be was written by Martin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder. It was originally published on a website (http://tech-know-group.com/) in 2010 that is prior to the article I mentioned. The authors compare the average temperature estimated without taking into account the storage of heat in the soil with the temperature actually measured, what includes heat storage. Going further, it is not the average temperature over the whole surface but measured “somewhere” at a given location. The “critique” has nothing to do with inaccuracy of climate change models which do not rely on a naive black body-no heat storage assumptions. It only demonstrates that heat storage in soil has an impact on average temperature due to non-linearity in the Stefan-Boltzmann formula.

    If you think you have found a mistake in the paper written by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller (the one I quoted) I would be really interested to hear what that mistake was. I am marginally interested in responding to propaganda but I would be happy to see merit-based critique.

  37. Comrade you got your fictional moon temperature from space.com and the real figure is 40 degrees higher than expected. So we want to see your explanation as to why you are still assuming a temperature deficit that we need greenhouse to explain.

    Also you have ignored all the factors that I have taken pains to explain and you have merely restated comrade Gores doctrine in the crudest possible terms.

  38. Mr Cooks arguments are sound in this case. So no I don’t presume to understand warming trends on other planets because I cannot get good enough data on this one. There is a free kick in these higher than expected Moon temperature for those who think CO2 should warm. Because the 40 degrees excess of temperature on the moon, I think implies a secondary energy source. An energy source that will make it past the greenhouse gasses on the way in, like visible light and some ultra-violet can, and yet some of these joules will indeed be picked up on the way out.

    On the moon I think its not hard to figure out what that extra energy is. The solar wind involves moving charged particles. Moving charged particles or moving ions constitute an electric current. So the secondary energy source is electrical energy coming in, but it will convert to thermal energy on the way out. Unfortunately that brings us to cosmology that is also a field of study that is in a bad way.

  39. I’m not a climate skeptic but I do have a thought that doesn’t seem covered in https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

    My argument goes something like: our confidence in the climatic models is overstated as most of the models use near identical assumptions and so are not independent forms of analysis?

    Nevertheless, it’s not clear that this leads me to any differing views regarding the facts or appropriate responses.

  40. “My argument goes something like: our confidence in the climatic models is overstated as most of the models use near identical assumptions and so are not independent forms of analysis?”

    Yes exactly. They are not testing competing hypotheses. Also the political patronage means they are not acting as scientists who can verify or falsify each others work. They are acting as a tribal lobbying group.

    But there is something more obvious: The models were always rubbish. They never worked right from the start. When a model doesn’t work thats a refutation of the assumptions of the model. But they won’t admit that their deeply crude theoretical model, the assumptions of which were the basis for their computer models, has been refuted.

    If scientists act like a tribe and all come in with the same assumptions, then its no longer science since science requires independent verification and independent falsification. Verification and falsification can only be done in the context of competing hypotheses. Which is not going to happen when but one crude and truncated paradigm is allowed. A tribal lobbying group cannot provide that part of the scientific method.

    When the climate-gate letters were revealed, and you saw all these alleged scientists conspiring to mislead the public, there was one heroic fellow that was trying to wake the rest of them up to what they were supposed to be doing. He was saying things like that ‘we have no idea how energy makes its way through the atmosphere.’ I will sooner or later track down who this exemplary individual was. Not doubt he’s been run out of the business.

    A dozen years or so pass and we still don’t have people focusing on serious questions that were posed long ago. I saw an Irish father and son team giving us a fourth mode of thermal energy transmission. Magnificent. I see it as a work in progress but it was a great start.

    The recognition that these gasses cannot be yet proven to be either net warmers or coolers, and that solids and liquids are important also, this is not part of their crude model. And I don’t see anyone running with the idea that we have a secondary source of energy. Even though temperature is more closely correlated with the strength of the solar wind than pretty much any other proxy you could find. I don’t see them talking about this electrical energy making its way from the ionosphere to the deep earth, and that this will have thermal energy and temperature implications.

    Its just this constant rehashing of this deeply crude basic model that has produced computer models, all of which have failed.

  41. How about the political will argument? Political will seems missing from the list. This is nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the electoral cycle linked benefits of public policy action. See this UK government document for a discussion of political will:

    Click to access R8236Appendix3.pdf

    So why is political will important? Mainly because nothing will change within the time frame of any political electoral cycle. Even if all the lights and cars and planes were switched off globally today, there would be no change to temperatures for quite some time to come. As I understand, there would be no improvement for generations.

    What would change if everything was switched off is living standards. Drastically. Apocalyptically. Immediately.

    Now, what political leader anywhere is going to support that? Seriously.

    What then are the incentives for politicians to act?

    There are basically no incentives for politicians to act on long term climate change. but there are incentives to act on the short term consequences of climate change. In the contemporary Australian bushfire context, this may mean paying volunteer firefighters, buying more equipment etc. It may also mean information campaigns around exposure to bushfire affected air etc.

    Second, I suggest that climate change has transformed into an unsolvable wicked problems. See the wikipedia entry on wicked problems here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem. Climate change seems to have become a sink for all kinds of existential problems and political preferences. These existential problems include consumerism, capitalism, non-CO2 pollution and environmental problems, dislike of conservative politicians etc. Again, in the Australian context, the current bushfires have been added into this unresolvable mix.

    How then, are wicked problems resolvable? In essence, wicked problems cannot be solved. But wicked problems can be redefined, or reframed. In the current bushfire context, this means focusing on what can be changed. This may mean removing restrictions on hazard reduction burning, enforcing land clearing around houses at risk of fire and so on. But in Australia, there is likely to opposition to these measures as soon as the fires stop and the rains come.

    And coming back around to political will. What elected, or unelected government is willing to risk social discord or electoral annihilation? What is the take away here?. Short term electorally popular measures are the only ones Australian governments are likely to get away with. This is at least a start.

  42. Abbreviating the irony from yesterday, it’s good to see this thread hasn’t been infected yet …

  43. But MC.
    I dont think that you are on base with the solar winds be correlated to the earth’s temperatures.
    The earths magnetic field is much closer to the earth than the solar winds which are kept at bay by the ether which is naturally thicker as it gets close to the eath therby creating a crucial barrier between the oceans and the solar winds. It should be obvious to any first grader that if the solar winds were allowed to reach the atmosphere the waves would wash Long Beach and Perth right off of their foundations. But you might have uncovered something by accident. The magnetic field. It passes through the senter of the earth. Every upon everyone knows that the center of the earth is hot really hot. Even thouse religous fundamentalists that use the Bible as the basis for their science know that the center of the earth is hot because that is where hell is.
    So what we have to think about is if the magnetic field could be transfering heat from the center to the margins. Well forutnately we have a device that we use every day that demonstrates this principle. It is called the microwave. OK the magnetic field does not work exactly like a microwave does but they both make use of waves.
    So now that we have established that the magnetic field could be responsible for the stablitly or lack of stabilty of the earths temperature I would say that studies need to be done to see if there have not been any changes in the earths magnetic field since 1750 or maybe even 1850.
    A really neat thing is no matter how long you study this issue the soulution is the same. Mur Mur Mur ticky ticky ticky the admirals of the US Navy and the generals of the marine corp. Why it is quite simple really. If the electro magnetic field is causing the problem it has to be chained.
    How do we do that. Well I am surprised that someone would need to ask. A lot I mean a hell of a lot Iron or steel need to be deposited as close to the south pole as we can get it. The obvious source for obtaining this amount of Iron or steel would be to sink the US Navy south of Australia near Antarctica.
    In fact I think the whole US navy might even be a tad bit to much. But certianly all of the aircraft carriers will be needed to counter balance the shifting Poles.
    Again the idea that permission must be recieved to do what needs to be done is just flat out silly.
    Real people can not let the dumbest 51st percentile of a senile population determine what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Yes sometimes these people can be humored when their behavior is not dangerous. But when it is the Nanny has to be heeded.

  44. Re: Ari

    Many of the “assumptions”/ parameters in models are based on the laws of physics and our best knowledge of radiative transfer, atmospheric physics etc. Whether or not climate models are completely independent, the truly important question is: are they useful? They are several ways we can validate this.

    1. We can perform hindcasts, where you start the model running in 1900, feed in changes in C02, volcanic eruptions etc. and see how well it replicates observed temperatures. Models do a good job at this, providing confidence in their future projections.

    2. We can examine how well model projections at the time they were published compare to actual changes in temperature. A study was just published looking at this. Summary: They performed well.
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

    3. Lastly, models are only 1 piece of the evidence we have. We also have the geological record of past changes in climate. This provides completely independent evidence for how the climate changes when C02 changes. Additionally, we can test how well models model these past events, which again provides further confidence in model predictions of the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s