And as a followup, I would not be surprised if those people who do know that NASA does science, were not aware of some of the science work they are doing – such as terrestrial ecology.
I don’t blame NASA for that, since they have to go where the political winds blow and the funding lay. But every time I see Dr Hansen in the news, with NASA linked to his name, I can’t help but think that an agency that once filled me with pride is not what it once was.
That’s not what he said. He said man can’t change the climate enough to be detected with our present ablity to measure.
Which seems correct to me, given the disagreements between the satelite and land-based data. When the “fudge-factors” exceed the supposed signal, we’re not measuring anything, or so my freshman physics lab professor taught me.
Just one more piece of advice, Dave, meant sincerely. Instead of responding impulsively here, you should consider what I said in the privacy of your own conscience, and decide what’s best for you. I think you probably do want to understand things correctly, and a public confrontation isn’t always the best way to reach a receptive state of mind for that. The points I’ve made about the greenhouse effect and surface warming will be seen as correct by anyone knowledgeable in the subject, Nothing you or I say will change that. You have to decide whether it’s more important for you to arrive at a correct understanding or to protect what you perceive to be your public image. Remember though that your public image in the eyes of people who understand the science isn’t helped by insisting you’re right when it’s clear to them you are wrong..
Brightness is turned into data by the application of physival theory. radiative transfer equations. agw science. there id no such thing as raw data
phy
Michael,
For the billions of dollars the big NGO’s have collected over the past many years, you have to go back 20 years to a ~0.1 sq. mile piece of land in Greece for proof they are buying lots of land?
lol@u, my friend.
If it helps you to understand, Dave, the greenhouse effect is like a partial one way mirror in that it is more opaque to outgoing IR radiation than incoming solar radiation. However, I recommend that you read the articles I linke to below in this thread for a more detailed discussion.
I don’t want to add too much to your current level of indignation, but if you get a chance to simmer down, there are serious misconceptions with another area you’ve discussed – the ability of IR back radiation to add thermal energy to the ocean. We can leave that for another time, but again, knowledgeable readers are aware of the actual nature of this phenomenon, and you might want to think about correcting your misconceptions by addressing some of the issues quantiatively. We can save that for later, though.
Arg phone posting
Done it: all I get is junk physics:
1. the Earth’s surface radiates energy with the flux of a black body in a vacuum – FAIL [every process engineer knows this, and I've been one, it takes ~100 °C before radiation exceeds convection for a flat surface.].
2. GHG molecules absorb IR then thermalise it giving an energy source which heats the hotter earth’s surface – FAIL [ Nahle has reportedly showed no heating when you have CO2 in a thin Mylar balloon. Hence much thermalisation is indirect, pseudo-scattering as another excited GHG molecule emits a photon in a random direction to return Local Thermdynamic Equilibrium. The idea that you follow the original molecule was shown to be junk by Gibbs in the 1890s [Principle of Indistinguishability].
‘Climate science’ is, I’m sorry to say, oxymoronic. There is no ‘back radiation’ as an energy source. OK, you apparently detect it by pointing a radiometer upwards but what that shows is half the ‘Prevost Exchange Field’ by shielding the back of the detector. Until you do that, assuming a normal temperature gradient, there is no net energy flux from cold to hot.
What I perceive is an astonishing failure to think what an experiment actually proves.. Manabe and Wetherald 1967 assumed LW UP = SW DOWN and that was a gross exaggeration. The 2009 Trenberth et. al. Energy Budget is scientific lunacy. to anyone taught standard physics.
It’s about time people realised and backtracked to reality. CO2-AGW has been overestimated by at least an order of magnitude [the other failure is Hansen et. al. 1981 claiming 33 K present GHG warming when ~24 K of that is from lapse rate].
Hi Bart your 10.16
Good grief Bart, you are the master of the red herring aren’t you?
i don’t know what you think those two links you provided actually prove? The second link in particular was laughably amateurish and festooned with highly intrusive pop ups that were very distracting and Ive no idea who wrote it. I think we can agree that International Business is complex and messy and I don’t doubt that complete books could be written about TATA’s machinations, which is why I said ‘one reason.’
I note in the replies to the article that you claim some knowledge of Tata, but it was Barry Woods who provided the best comment at the time;
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-70671
Your comments gave me the opportunity to reread the article to which I note there was nearly 650 replies. Things have moved on since then, what with the continued downturn in the economy, higher costs, tightening of the carbon screw and our increasingly worrying energy situation. Consequently its probably time to revisit the subject which I would remind you was nothing to do with Tata and everything to do with trying to ascertain what effect we could have on temperatures if there was aggressive carbon cutting, as per this series of questions at the very end of the article. (It seems to be rather even handed and gives the lie to your accusation that ‘The research skill to find only evidence that supports one side’s views is developed in your case to a remarkable degree.’
Questions; —–
* Are we being driven by over zealous environmentalists who want to ‘save’ the earth at any cost?
* Is this vast enterprise being promoted largely by politicians who see this as an excuse to raise taxes and exert more control?
* Is it being driven by sincere people who have not been apprised of all the facts of the enterprise they are promoting?
* Are Ed’s figures totally incorrect and we can actually have a much greater impact on temperature mitigation than appears to be the case?
This is where readers of this blog can help, as the intention is to have a version two of this article that takes into account expert opinion. So I am asking this question of those able to make the calculations;
Question: Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken. If the world collectively closed down their carbon economies what temperature reduction could be achieved?
a) By 2100
b) By 2200
(Please describe your calculations together with caveats or provide a reference/link.)”
——
I don’t believe I got any answer from you at the time Bart. Care to make the calculation now? The real world impact we can make frankly surprised me, which is why I increasingly object to being treated as a guinea pig by my government who hadn’t done the calculations either.
tonyb
Mosh at 2.35
That was cryptic even for you 
tonyb
DR Lacis,
I have no doubt that NASA scientists do good work. And as I stated above, the fact the agency now seems to getting into areas of reseach that are querstionable with regard to their mission – i.e. terrestrial ecology for one – is not something that can be blamed on the agency. They doas they are told.
Where I see a problem is when someone such as yourself feels the need to accuse the signatories of the letter as being gulliable or having some nefarious agenda. The fact that experience, well educated and intelligent men and women such as the signees can have concern about how aspects of climate change are being presented should be a sign that maybe the small contingent of “experts” don’t have all of the answers.
What is so difficult to understand about those of us who are willing to believe you that a warming planet is – at least in part – the result of human activity – yet stop short of believing that mankind is in dire threat because of it without at least seeing real evidence of it?
When our own EPA declares CO2 a pollutant and does so without following its own guidelines and process requirements, thus making every American a walking point source of pollution. When Dr Hansen calls those of us who want to see evidence of the harm criminals against humanity. When climate scientists say It’s simple, well known physics, idiot! when they know they haven’t been able to model clouds worth squat. That’s when someone like me – one of the 50% of Americans that pays taxes – says hold up for a minute and, as they say in Missouri, show me. And if all you have is the output of a model to show me – well I refer you to my comment above about Madden NFL football.
Well, check out how they have been classified by some of the commenters here.
Well said.
Bernie,
If Climate scientists can’t answer any of Rob’s questions, then why should anyone pay any attention to their calls for action?
I’m not objecting to them studying climate on my dime. I do have a problem when they push for political and economic action that will impact me without their being able to answer even one of the questions posed by Rob.
Yes indeed. Poor people worry about where their next meal is coming from. Rich people worry just as much if not more about which smartphone to buy.
Paul
As the effective way to check for a normal model is to construct the normal probability plot, I have done that and the plot shows a straight-line relationship, confirming the normal model for the residual GMT.
Are not the following residual GMTs independent?
The National Wildlife conference occurs annually in Cushman Arkansas, where the deep caverns which have no natural light are absolutely perfect for members to lie down and escape completely from reality.
Judith,
Shows scientists are so desperate to keeping the AGW alive that they cannot tell the difference of economic collapse to climate.
Rather than protecting theories no matter what, they should be embracing new science and technology to move our science and knowledge forward. Instead, they are just protecting their positions and funding.
