Greenpeace was only one of the environmental organizations that vigorously opposed the coal plant in South Africa. That was the origin of the Greenpeace comment to skeptics, “We know where you live.” Manyu governments and international agencies refuse to loan money or provide aid for coal plants.
As always, Michael Mini Me talks through his hat.
[…] Judith Curry on Lomborg’s Testimony […]
This includes, of course, projections of costs which have been used to justify GHG emissions reductions. I have argued many times that we lack the capacity to make sensible long-term economic predictions, the uncertainties and unknowns are insurmountable. If you can’t predict the costs, you can make only qualitative assessments of what might befall, the same caveats apply. Hence, to be repetitive, the value of policies which increase our capacity to deal with whatever befalls rather than those designed to deal with an unassessable distant possibility.
Pierrehumbert has, like most people since Sagan, who started the rot, failed in his understanding of basic IR and radiative physics.
1. There is no evidence that the Earth’s surface emits net IR energy at the black body rate. Atmospheric scientists incorrectly believe surface ‘emittance’ is a real energy flux when it is potential flux to a sink at absolute zero. Real net surface IR flux is the vector sum of ‘Irradiances’ = 63 W/m^2: 1/6 th black body value; 23 W/m^2 in low absorptivity H2O bands; 40 W/m^2 ‘atmospheric window’.
2. Tyndall’s experiment has been badly misinterpreted: to claim GHG-absorbed IR from a higher temperature external source is thermalised in the gas phase at LTE would mean absorptivity exceeds emissivity, incompatible with Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation. The excess energy is re-emitted from the local volume to thermalise at ‘Planck cavities’ at condensed matter, in Tyndall’s case the inner walls of the brass tube.
3. This leads to ‘back radiation’. Not only is this the atmospheric emittance, so for equal or lower temperature than the surface there is zero energy transfer to the surface, virtually none of the 23 W/m^2 is thermalised in the gas phase so cannot contribute. If pCO2 increases, you measure increased atmospheric emittance but this reduces net surface IR. so surface temperature rises.
4. The claim that ‘OLR’ comes from a single -18 deg C zone at 5 to 6 km, and that the GHE is the lapse rate increase of temperature to the 15 deg C surface is juvenile. -18 deg C is the flux-weighted virtual mean of partial emittance from: surface and clouds in the atmospheric window, average 15 deg C spectral temperature; ~20 km for CO2, -50 deg C; between +5 deg C and -30 deg C for H2O bands of progressively higher absorptivity, 2.5 to 8 km. As OLR is in radiative equilibrium with the low 2.7 deg K cosmic microwave background, net OLR is nearly the same as Earth’s IR emittance. Do the work properly, taking out clouds and ice from the atmosphere, and the GHE =~15 deg C, and is set by cloud and ice albedo alone.
5. At the root of this is the failure to understand that S-B equations must be used in pairs hence SW and LW ‘forcing’ are two entirely different phenomena. 160 W/m^2 SW thermalised at the surface is not significantly reduced by SW from the surface because its temperature is much lower than the Sun. Surface LW emittance offsets all atmospheric LW emittance because energy transfer is by travelling waves of the difference of hot and cold amplitudes, superimposed on a standing wave twice the amplitude of waves from the colder emitter.
Pierrehumbert must rewrite his course, the same for the textbooks. No competent physicist contradicts these arguments. What I perpetually get from atmospheric scientists is the claim that a pyrgeometer measures a real, not a potential energy flux; EPIC FAIL!
Too long didn’t read.
‘The main issue is that there is near zero CO2-AGW. This is because the physics of the Enhanced GHE is fallacious, obvious to any professional scientist or engineer taught standard physics. ‘
It is pretty obvious from this that you are not worth the time of day – and from the follow up that you are itching to spout your nonsense at length. I demur.
Where have you contributed any kind of evidence that you can solve something?
To Ellison: address the physics, not the man. No-one has ever been able to contradict what i have written except by claiming ‘science’ for which there has never been experimental evidence.
This disaster is being countered. Thus 2 years ago, a top UK university 2nd year physics course group were given the task of developing a ‘reverse heat engine’ using a roof-mounted ‘back radiation collector’ to power a car. The aim was to deprogramme them of the IPCC’s pseudo-science by forcing them to apply real physics.
I feel sorry for those who have for over 40 years been taught incorrect physics, but it has to be stated, as many times as is necessary, that the ‘hiatus’ is because the IPCC ”science’ is wrong. It gives a bit more than a third increase of atmospheric heating than reality to power imaginary increase in sensible and latent heat by ‘enhanced GHE’. In reality, the atmosphere keeps thermalised SW = OLR AND minimises the temperature range needed to achieve this.
Well I am working with some of the people at the U of Mn trying to solve these problems — and you aren’t.
And you have done exactly what?
Would that be zilch?
Indeed. I’m increasingly of the opinion that in the same way as Al Capone was undone by tax accountants, climate alarmism will ultimately be undone by statisticians pulling it apart.
I’ve just written a blog post on it here:
http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/lies-damned-lies-and-hang-on/
“There is an entire category of topics and talking points that are so debunked and out of date it’s painful to see them dredged up as if they are credible”
The Doctor Analogy
Andrew
@cwon14
When I realized back in 97/98 that the CAGW agenda was based on GCM models that had never been validated, this was a big deal for me.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/27/the-97-feud/#comment-612498
I was frustrated and fed up with the politically motivated spin from all directions.
My dilemma was how can a sheeple like me inform myself when there is no source which can be trusted and all are affected by bias and spin.
What I decided to do was just accept that all info sources have bias, and there was just no real substitute for vetting everything one can personally
My going in position is to treat all supposed info, as raw data and as propaganda.
Good propaganda must consist of limited/partial truths, and commonly accepted beliefs. That’s what sets the hook and allows advocates to gain credibility and adherents. Then there’s the deception..
So I approach all supposed info sources as propaganda which needs to be deconstructed . That’s basically my personal approach and has been since 97/98
I just finished reading Rud Istvan’s book “Arts of Truth” . It’s a recommended read, and Rud develops his ideas in much more detail than I’ve mentioned here in my KISS sort of way
cheers
brent
@ Lady in Red
” I’m no scientist, but both documents read like lengthy high school science papers by a Very Concerned Student taught since before he could read that saving the planet from Bad People is the most important reason to live.”
And therein lies the problem. EVERYONE from new voter in ’14 through middle aged parents of said new voter has been taught to be a Very Concerned Student. And it has been reinforced, daily, by government, academia, the MSM, the entertainment industry, and pretty much every one of their ‘input sources’ for their entire lives. A few have looked at the actual evidence and said ‘Just a doggone minute here, lets think about this a bit before we go charging off slaying the fearsome ACO2 monster!’, but, unfortunately, not enough to make a difference. The evil ACO2 monster will be taxed and regulated to death, whether it deserves it or not. And us ‘skeptics’ should stand clear. Or else. We have been warned.
Steve – your efficient markets thinking (oops, I meant perfect, sorry) has you confused.
You see, As John points out, if we simply “create market incentives” that are “cost-efficient” then “businesses” will have the “motivation” to innovate the solutions we need.
Don’t you see how simple that is?
What? Where will the money come from to “incent and motivate” the businesses to do things that make zero market sense? Where will we get the knowledge to effectively intervene in the market to create the changes we desire (vs. a host of secondary consequences we will hate)? Where will we get the legal/police power to enforce our interventions across society and the planet? “Government,” of course. You know, the politicians whose central skill is manipulating public opinion and fundraising to get elected – THEY will do it to (I mean for) us – SOMEHOW.
Again – your whole efficient market process gets trumped by the perfect government process – every time.
@cwon14
cwon14 says
“The Department of Energy should be abolished.”
cwon14. I certainly agree that the US public has not been well served by the DOE if the DOE did not flag and clearly publicize what John Hofmeister admits to at 3min to 4min 30 sec, well in advance
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/canada-pulls-the-plug-on-the-u-s-keystone-pipeline-will-send-oil-to-asia/#comment-1672450
It is certainly my personal opinion that this issue was “predictable”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/27/the-97-feud/#comment-612498
Stephen,
Thanks for substantive engineering based comments on the issue. Your argument is compelling. You’ve changed my mind.
John Carter
I appreciated the exchange with you as it has provided me with insight to the thought processes of people who believe as you do.
Your link you provided had ZERO substantiation to define why a warmer world will necessarily be worse for humanity over the long term.
You like to use the term climate change imo because that is the new term that seems to be in vogue since there has been a significant slowing in global warming. There is no reliable evidence that changes to the climate due to more CO2 will make the earth’s climate change to result in worse conditions for humanity over the long term. You BELIEVE that will be the result and want everyone else to adopt actions based on your confidence that your BELIEF is correct.
Your entire premise is that humans are dramatically raising the earth’s CO2 content (which I do not dispute), and you are certain that it must be very harmful. Upon what rationale basis are you so certain that a warmer world will be worse for humanity over the long term?
Imo, the basis of your BELIEF is that many scientists wrote many papers and analysis that used GCMs as the basis for their analysis and you are unwilling to adjust your beliefs when information is provided to show both the models and analysis based on them are unreliable. It is rationale to state there is a risk of conditions changing for the worse, but that is all.
Atmospheric CO2 levels will almost undoubtedly continue to rise for many decades (it is possible that some virus or something else could greatly reduce the human population, but that seems a low probability). At some point the human population will stabilize, and there will be a lesser disparity between the amounts of CO2 emitted by people in different nations.
Adaption (via building and maintaining good infrastructure) seems to be the most rationale response to the risk of adverse climate change regardless of the cause. This approach is not “sexy” and is ignored today around the world. Some nations do better than others and it is not the responsibility of one nation to force another nation to build better infrastructure and maintain it. Building infrastructure and short term warnings about adverse conditions are is the primary methods to prevent or reduce harms from adverse weather.
You and others who hold similar positions are unrealistic to advocate for climate mitigation actions. These actions are very expensive. Currently developed nations are currently unable to pay for current expenses and an aging population will make that problem worse in the next few decades. They can’t realistically afford to implement policies that only have a “chance” to help a situation that “might” occur “someday”.
I think we might have a malfunctioning comment bot.
Looking at the link to the geoengineering article, proactive mitigation of imagined GW — such as by, putting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, mimicking the effects of a large volcanic eruption, to reflect incoming sunlight — could give rise to future problems that we can’t even imagine. Imagine!
Michael Mann’s statistics deconstructed.
