Like all professional scientists and engineers I did a sniff test and an energy balance when looking at IPCC 'Science'.
<b>Sniff test</b>: if the Earth's surface were to heat local air at the claimed mean 157.5 W/m^2, its temperature must be ~ 0 deg C** - averaged OVER THE WHOLE PLANET; colder than at any time in the past 444 million years.
It's near surface temperature, kept there by the convection that maintains 'lapse rate'. Houghton showed why in 1977***. He then apparently gave up Science to co-found the IPCC. In 2005, Hansen bemoaned the fact they had no measurements of local air temperature, apparently realising vulnerability to clear thinking opposition asking 'Where's the Beef?'. There is no Beef.
<b>Conclusion: Climate Alchemy Stinks; unfit for UN consumption.</b>
<b>Energy Balance</b>: Hansen et al in 1981 claimed an imaginary -18 deg C IR emission zone, emitting over 360 degrees, in the upper atmosphere, radiating 238.5 W/m^2 Up[ and Down, This was in effect a 'bait and switch', exchanging real 238.5 W/m^2 with imaginary 333 W/m^2 'back radiation'; 40% increase. They did another numerical trick in hindcasting to purport extra evaporation from oceans. <b>His claims to Congress in 1988 were all based on 'modelling artefacts'</b>.
<b>Conclusion: the modelling has been fraudulent for 34 years.</b>
**Assumes 0.75 atmospheric Emissivity for 238.5 W/m^2 Emittance.
***Figure 2.5 of the 1977 edition of 'Physics of Atmospheres'.
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by AlecM
↧
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Judith Curry: | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
[…] Full post […]
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by steven
Beta, getting a gut feeling from reading blogs is a very weak way to support a statement presented as fact.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by nottawa rafter
I keep track each day of the record low temperatures going back to 1850. The preponderance of cold winter records are in the nineteenth century and they are in the -25 to -35 F range which is 35 to 45 F below the long term average winter lows for this area. It must have been brutal then. Given a choice, I know the one I would choose.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Rogueelement451
Nothing is going to change until someone like the APS comes out and says “hold on a mo , this does,nt look quite sound,maybe we need to examine this a bit more fully” Then the consensus junk will be out of the window.
Not holding my breath for any of that to happen.
↧
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by David Harrington
The cynicism in all this is truly shocking. They release a demonstrably inaccurate press release that declares 2014 the warmest year and only days later acknowledge that they were on 38% sure of that , but no matter the president got the soundbite to hang his speech on. No way can you convince me that this was not coordinated. Just how stupid odo they think people are?
Shocking
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Stephane
I think most people are missing an important point here.
Judith wrote: “the ‘pause’ since 1998 [] seems irrelevant to the fingerprinting”. I think this is just the opposite, at least if we speak in %: BECAUSE there is a pause, the CO2 fingerprint INCREASED in terms of %! This is the rationale of the IPCC: the amount of antropogenic warming is a given (models), so the less warming, the more the human contribution, in %. That is why the level of certainty went from 90% to 95% in the last IPCC report, regarding the fact antropogenic contribution was >50% since 1950. And yes, according to this logic, it can be way greater than 100% (especially if the “hiatus” keeps going on)
I wrote an article in WUWT about that: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/from-90-to-95-confidence-level-how-ipcc-claims-can-be-at-the-same-time-consistent-and-absurd/
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by omanuel
I am convinced Joseph Stalin himself played a key role in designing “The Great Social Experiment of 1945-2015″
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Social_Experiment.pdf
Who else would use the entire human population in such a worldwide social experiment, without consent?
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by omanuel
Regretfully, Muller drug the good name of the institution my good friend, Glenn Seaborg, once served as Chancellor – the institution where I had studied as a graduate student and postgraduate student in 1962-64.
Regretfully, I doubt Muller’s sincerity.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Planning Engineer
This way greater than 100% allows for the possibility that both anthropogenic sources and non-anthropogenic forces can at the same time both contribute more than 50% to the observed warming. But in this crazy world of percentages you have to divorce yourself from the common understanding that over 50% contribution to observed warming means that something is the dominant driver. With a small enough denominator you can have multiple minor impacts measured as causing over 50% of the observed warming.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by jim2
You are dodging the question, Steven. I suspect it’s because you have no bullets.
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by R Graf
Exactly the point that every salesman can take credit for the lion’s share of profit when earnings are slim.
↧
Comment on ‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that by John Kennedy (@micefearboggis)
Hi Mi Cro,
“When I went to see what the 10,000 “observations” (how is that different from an actual measurement?) were, I found this doc http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/ascii/HadSST.3.1.1.0.number_of_observations.zip, and there sure were a lot of -99.99 values indicating no measurement. In the first 6 columns of the first cell, out of 216 cells I counted ~30 had values ~13%.”
Sorry, for using jargon. I’m using observation as a synonym of measurement – it’s quite common to refer to the sailors and scientists who took measurements as marine observers and the fleet of ships recruited to make measurements is the Voluntary Observing Ship (VOS) fleet.
For January 1850, there are around 2000 measurements used in HadSST3 and a similar number for each month in 1850. The total for the year is a little over 25,000. These aren’t evenly spread over the whole global, but, as I said, there are measurements from the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Ocean basins.
“Let me ask a question, if the area bounded by the “polar-front” jet stream changes wouldn’t that alone change global average temp? I know there is a large difference in temperatures (and humidity) when Canadian air pushes out tropical air.”
Circulation changes can change global temperature, sure. However, if you get northerly flow in one area, you tend to get southerly flow in other areas, which can compensate to a degree. There are interesting effects like the ColdOceanWarmLand (COWL) effect. e.g.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-4.html
Best regards,
John
↧
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by Wijnand
+1
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by steven
Jim, I understand what you think. Now bring something to the table besides your opinion. Don’t bring AR5. I’m looking at their chart that states internal variability is +/- 0.1C. I’m aware of papers that credit more global variability to the AMO than that. They have proven that the AMO isn’t internal variability? They have proven the papers wrong? They have proven the AMO is the only source of internal variability and the papers are slightly too high? What have they proven besides they can make a chart with an unreasonably low range for internal variability?
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by John
<blockquote><strike>He</strike> <b>She </b>certainly misses the bit again and again about a ‘grown up conversation about climate change (natural and human caused), the potential risks, and a broad range of policy responses’.</blockquote>
There, fixed it for ya.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by AK
Why should I bother? Only a left-wing d00p would believe the timing was coincidental. People can believe what they want, and say what they want. Gavin, and anybody here who agrees with him, are lying in their teeth (IMO) in denying any link in timing or content of the NASA announcement.
Also lying in their teeth about <i>"conspiracy ideation"</i>. Everybody who isn't <i>"naive"</i> knows how government bureaucracies work. If Gavin wants sensible people to believe his claims, he needs to provide <i>"proof"</i>: <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence" rel="nofollow">Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence</a>
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by steven
Jim, that is silly. By the same token if we take away the natural warming there wouldn’t have been any warming at all. You just assume the cooling was natural. Here I was thinking it was all anthropogenic.
↧
Comment on ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by steven
Sorry about blasting you for the AR5 graph. That has been irritating me for a while and you were lucky enough to be the one I was responding to when it came out.
↧
Comment on Raw politics of climate change in the U.S. by AK
You used the word “idi0t”. I usually replace the “o” with a zero “0”, which usually works (but not always).
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
