hunter,
Besides the increase in tropospheric temperatures over the past 40+ years, the biggest one is the accumulation of heat in the oceans. Approximately 23 x 10^22 Joules down to 2000 meters has been stored, and hints of even more at yet deeper levels. This is far more than the atmosphere of course, and the atmosphere is far more subject to shorter term fluctuations such as from ENSO, volcanoes, solar (i.e. it is a noisier signal).
geek49203 | April 3, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
Oh, the environmentalists have been more ineffectual than you claim.
The vast majority of the $17+ billion in research funding, if you do a line-item audit of where it ends up, lines the pockets of the fossil industry.
Coal research.
Alternate oil research.
Natural gas research.
Fracking research.
Biomass and biofuel _Market complements_ to fossil fuels.
Vehicle ‘efficiency’ research. For SUVs!?
The fossil industry even runs backslapping advertising campaigns congratulating themselves for being more green (play on words there) by becoming more ‘involved’ in alternative energy research.
That $17 billion of green? It’s from the pockets of US taxpayers. To the pockets of the people who brought you the Gulf of Mexico spill, Enron, hundreds of pipeline leaks annually,expropriation of US properties by Chinese-owned Canadian companies, flames shooting out of water taps, and $125/barrel oil that costs them $5 to get out of the ground.
Which reminds me of the late lamented “Third Rock From the Sun”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0502672/
Those zany aliens knew the dangers of snow!
WHT
There, there.
Not every engineer who went civ did it because they couldn’t handle the math, the workload or the reading.
Some had family obligations, or something noble, keeping them from committing to study and comprehension.
Since he featured my PSI publication, Tallbloke (Roger) has just published another of the six publications on the Principia Scientific International site.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/joseph-postma/
Compare: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
By the way, PSI members (nearly 40 of us now) far outnumber the original eight authors who have been called the “Slayers” after the title of their book.
PSI is a rapidly growing group of scientists and others with appropriate knowledge who have banned together to expose the AGW hoax.
David,
I submit that most of the figures promoting AGW know it’s a hoax. And politicans especially already know they are liars.
Andrew
Why? Clearly you do not understand the scientific debate, even though it is right before you. There are pro AGW counter arguments to these arguments. This is a genuine scientific debate among reasonable people. It is also a major political debate. The combination is the problem.
We have passed 190,000 comments, so we should hit the magic 200k mark this month. Time to guess the date?
Sure. I am a concern troll because when people waste time there are many others who should not be wasting their time as well reading this stuff. Sure its only my opinion and I accept that not all will agree with it.
You will find that engagement is the key to effective communication and that listening ability is central to this. I agree with you on many things but find your posture on scepticism to be offputting because your brand of scepticism is supposedly more pure?
I realise that you have worked hard and long to reach the position that you are in today (especially in respect of oil and gas reserves) and I respect this, but how well do you think that you are engaging with other sceptics on this blog and do you think that you just might be wasting your time as well?
GOP trying to kill people with hurricanes (again);
As if poisoning food and water (EPA limits), killing children (Welfare restictions), crashing airplanes (FAA reforms) wasn’t enough.
///////////////////
Did you notice the 9-11 photo shots used in the source article, how’s that for over-the-top Hunter??? Grieving firemen from 9-11 as a photo op of people distressed by “Climate Change” stress.
Dr. Wojick
Mr. Orssengo doesn’t even get that the role of proclaiming the emperor’s wardrobe malfunction belongs to an innocent child whom none would doubt, not to a game-playing extremist.
It would be like me proclaiming Mr. Orssengo has no credibility, and expecting everyone in the world to see it.
You mean a climate etc. prediction?
I think one thermometer every million square miles sitting beside a heated building in the arctic doesn’t really give people an accurate view of temperatures … just like on tree in Yamal is a poor proxy for global temperatures.
Something else Pielke Jr produced recently;
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/04/interview-with-activist-journalist.html
Steven Mosher | April 4, 2012 at 2:54 am |
More complicated than explaining that “lukewarmer” doesn’t mean feeble faith in the scientific support for warming, or belief the warming could only ever be minor, when in your case it appears more like hard-line dedication to precision in language describing the nuances of significant (and insignificant) anthropogenic effects, adherence to logic when considering the impacts of these man-made changes, devotion to balanced reasoning about the workability and consequences of proposed policy responses, and no small amount of personal umbrage at discourtesy, from a black hat point of view?
Dr. Hansen is the original face of the brand, with all the bad and good that goes with that role; he makes public statements often and across multiple media over multiple issues relevant to his product.
If you want more Palmer, Betts & Thorne, then I’m quite certain you know how to get more Palmer, Betts & Thorne heat.
The checks and balances on the political behavior of scientists need to be provided by scientists through their professional organizations and their education of the next generation of scientists. After all, scientists have the most to lose if the integrity of their profession is reduce to the level of politicians and lawyers. If that happened, would the public continue their generous funding of science?
Climate science is a relatively new science without a long history of tradition or mistakes that have be exposed. With the massive increase in funding around 1990, climate science is populated by many activists who were “looking to make the world a better place” in their formative years. Under these circumstances, climate science is unlike to impose effective checks and balances on themselves.
For non-activists, Steven Schneider’s infamous quote about “telling scary stories” and “telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts” perfectly describes the difference between science and policy advocacy. Policymakers, citizens, and the press deserve to know whether a scientist talking to them is speaking as a scientist or a policy advocate. Scientific societies should emphasize the difference between these two roles and recommended that scientists always explain whether they are speaking as scientists or policy advocates. Every citizen has the right to advocate for public policy and scientists are highly qualified advocates. Unfortunately, they demean my profession when they audience thinks their “scary stories” are “the truth” with all of the caveats. The Climategate emails show that highly vocal policy advocates have have difficulty keeping policy considerations out of their science.
When the IPCC insists on reporting a “scientific consensus’, rather than the range of scientific opinion and “all of the doubts…”, they are admitting that they are functioning as policy advocates, not scientists.
@ Hunter: I went to the link provided and began by reading the preface.
I thought: ‘This is some really great satire.’; up until I scrolled down through the report.
That is when I realized that
a. These people are actually serious.
b. They are as mad as hatters. and
c. They are the ones who are acting as a single point source of environmental information to our politicians, our media, and, most importantly, our defenseless children in our schools for 12 to 16 of their formative years.
Their first products are currently wending their ‘best and brightest’ way through the re-education camps posing as institutions of higher learning and if you doubt the effectiveness of their efforts, just strike up a conversation with one of the ‘products’ and you will find that the contents of the linked paper are treated with the reverence formerly accorded to divine revelation, and just as subject to question.
Re: “4) testing your hypothesis through experimentation” and “There is no way to test the hypothesis.”
Try “observation”.
Web, “while the sane point out that without a GHG effect and uniform spectral emission/absorption in place, the average surface temperature would be 255K and then due to the lapse rate, the temperature profile would get cooler with increasing altitude.”
Prove it. The only way that it would be 255K is if the exact albedo was present for the No GHG Earth as for the real Earth. With a nitrogen only atmosphere, there would still be an atmosphere with temperature predominately controlled by conductive heat transfer. With a nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, there would still be a warmer atmosphere, predominately controlled by conductive heat transfer plus there would be a stratosphere. Green house gases change the rate of heat transfer and the distribution of heat and a large percentage of that is also due to the conductive properties of the greenhouse gases.
Do the nitrogen only atmosphere thought experiment. You tend to over simplify which ironically over complicates things.
I asked directions once and the person said ‘I don’t think you can get there from here’. I’m starting to appreciate the deep truths in that remark : ).
