Tom Harris: We need wise men and women to defang the climate debate

Posted: January 6, 2015 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, flames, opinion, Philosophy

TomHarris

Reblog from BD live

MANY of the world’s leaders in science, engineering and other relevant disciplines will no longer comment publicly about climate change. They fear being labelled scaremongers, or deniers, or funded by special interest groups, or not caring about the poor.

This must change this year or what promises to be the largest global warming agreement in history will be signed at the United Nations climate conference in December with little or no input from many of the brightest minds in the field.

Taming the noxious and illogical climate change debate will not be easy. We will need strong public leadership from philosophers and other scholars who study rational argumentation to help us overcome the errors in thinking that are sabotaging the discussion. At stake are billions of dollars, countless jobs and, if activists are right, the fate of the global environment itself. Intellectuals have a moral duty to tackle this problem.

For example, when advocates are criticised as “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” or “right-wing, oil-funded deniers,” philosophers must explain: “That is irrelevant. Nature does not care about the political orientation of the debaters or who funds them. All that matters is the validity of their arguments.”

It is an error in reasoning to dismiss someone’s assertions because of suspected vested interests. Calling someone an “eco-nut” or a “denier” is an ad hominem logical fallacy, “against the man” instead of the idea, a tactic that should have no place in rational discourse.

Particularly misleading is an error called “affirming the consequent”.

It works like this: “If my theory is true then a logical consequence of that theory is that X should turn green. X does turn green. Hence my theory is true.” This is a deductive logical fallacy. Something wholly unrelated to your theory could have caused X to turn green.

When activists claim that rising carbon dioxide (CO²) levels occurring concurrently with rising temperature proves the theory of CO²-induced global warming, philosophers should explain that they are committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

The same applies to observed correlations between climatic conditions and other potential drivers. That scientific theories make correct experimental predictions under certain circumstances does not mean the theories are necessarily correct. Other factors, or, more likely, a combination of phenomena could be causing the changes observed.

Finally, the belief that scientists discover truths, or as the UN often puts it, conclusions that are “unequivocal”, should be publicly refuted by intellectuals. Truth applies to mathematics but never to our findings about nature, which are merely educated opinions based on scientists’ interpretations of observations. As observations always have some degree of uncertainty, they cannot prove anything to be true.

So why do philosophers and other scholars not speak out about these obvious problems?

Many are undoubtedly deterred by the aggressive tenor of the debate and so fear for their own personal safety. Death threats and other abuses have been experienced by those on both sides of the controversy. Correcting debaters’ mistakes could lead activists to charging a philosopher with taking sides, even if they were actually neutral.

It may also be that intellectuals judge that acceptance of a particular point of view about the causes of climate change will encourage outcomes they support.

Those who back nuclear power, alternative energy, pollution reduction, conservation, increased foreign aid and social justice may therefore choose to not highlight the problems in the arguments of climate activists. Similarly, intellectuals who support the expanded use of hydrocarbon fuels to provide abundant, inexpensive electricity may elect to keep their opinions to themselves if they notice logical errors committed by sceptics.

But this is a slippery slope. If the aggressive and often irrational climate-change debate is an indication of where we are headed when it comes to science-based public policy decisions, then we are in big trouble indeed. Whatever the cause of their silence, philosophers and other intellectuals have an ethical obligation to speak out loudly when they see fundamental errors in thinking in the climate debate. The stakes are too high to accept anything less.

• Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Comments
  1. tchannon says:

    Can that work when irrationality is involved?

    I suggest also the madness of groups.

  2. TinyCO2 says:

    It’s waaaaay too late to get involved in polite debate at this late stage. The only hope for now is to scare our own politicians into not signing anything stupid. The more toxic the better as far as I’m concerned. Talking of compromises makes the warmists think that you’ll come round eventually.

  3. tomharrisicsc says:

    I am not speaking of compromise. I am speaking of debating the issue rationally.

  4. oldbrew says:

    ‘As observations always have some degree of uncertainty, they cannot prove anything to be true’

    But since politicians don’t like ifs and buts, the IPCC summary reports suppress the uncertainties in the main documents and make it sound like everything is cut and dried. In other words it’s a con.

  5. p.g.sharrow says:

    First they ignored us and locked us out. Then we got traction on the internet and they vilified and tried to discredit us. Now they want to compromise if we agree that they might have some standing.
    Why should we compromise when they are digging their own grave by continuing to pushing this AGW con when even planet wide reality is against them? pg

  6. tchannon says:

    Tom Harris, welcome to the Talkshop.

    Tallbloke (Rog) posted the article but hasn’t commented so far. Several others are involved in running the blog, which has various contributors.

    Winding the clock back, on January 5th 2011 Tallbloke posted an article announcing he had been invited to a workshop.

    “The three day workshop is entitled “Conflict Resolution in Climate Science”

    This event is being hosted by the European Commission Joint research Centre’s Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen at the Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon.”

    He later reported in a series of articles.
    The best way to find these is use specific web search, this works with Bing or Google

    site:tallbloke.wordpress.com lisbon

    Since then water has flowed.

  7. Thank you Tom. The truth of your comments is obvious. For example:
    Once upon a time Steve McIntyre usefully analysed climate papers. His website over the last year has degenerated into a defamation fest.
    WUWT has turned into series of very opinionated posts which even watts has distanced himself.
    And the slayers sites are just unbelievable!

    Climate science will never be able to show 100% proof that AGW is true or for that matter false. There are too many variables and too much noise in the data. Predicting the future is just about impossible. reaching backwards in time before the thermometers were correctly sited is just about impossible – tree-mometers clam-mometers,ice-mometers all have their problems!. Proving the existence or not of MWP is not possible.

    The science of GHGs is understood. But just how much warming will result if CO2 increases – are the feedbacks negative or positive?

    We need scientific debate from the best minds and we need communicators to educate us masses about the science.

    Many blogs even limit debate by banning posters who seem to me to be talking calmly and sensibly but are against the blog “theme”.

    A warming world is really a problem even if some say 1°C increase would improve their environment. They seem to forget about the extra energy powering “weather” and forget that those living on the edge of thermal disaster may be pushed over that edge.

    There is only the earth on which we live, and running uncontrolled experiments on its climate does not seem sensible at all.

    Free and open debate is needed!!!!!!!!!!

  8. linneamogren says:

    I think his advice is prudent especially for those who are proving with ever increasing efficiency that AGW is not only wrong but illogical. He’s not saying we should drop to our collective knees and surrender to global warmers, but rather use logic along with science to defeat their irrationality.

    For example, in philosophy a belief is challenged with logical observations and common sense. If you looked out your window and saw a wolf in your yard you might call the police. Then you get a phone call from several houses down telling you their new large breed dog just escaped. Now you have a defeater. Only moments ago you were sure there was a wolf and now you’re sure its probably not. Same with science, if many are sure CO2 levels are causing temp increases correlate and then others show cosmological, oceanic and other influences we now have a logical defeater for AGW.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    In principle Tom is right, but in practice we have unfair judges policing online discussions. For example I can think of 6 individuals who completely ruin (the commentary sections of) ce & wuwt. They are able to do this because the hosts allow them to do so. So we also have a problem with bad leadership courting unfair judges. So the challenge is a common one in human history: corruption. We will have corruption in our future too. It’s natural, just like climate. When one kind of climate leaves, another one arrives. The same is true of corruption.

    I’m curious to follow this discussion to see what other Talkshop contributors have to say after thinking about Tom’s suggestions. And I’m thankful that Tallbloke is too wise to be fooled by the sinful 6.

    Regards

  10. Two philosophers that I know of are realists regarding entities but anti-realists in regard to theories.

    Example: Photons are real but theories about photons are not real.

    The philosophers are Nancy Cartwright (American) and Ian Hacking.(Canadian).

    The following is an extract from Ian Hacking, 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    “What follows was written while Nancy Cartwright, of the Stanford University Philosophy Department, was working out the ideas for her book, How the Laws of Physics Lie. There are several parallels between her book and mine. Both play down the truthfulness of theories but favour some theoretical entities. She urges that only phenomenological laws of physics get at the truth, while in Part B, below, I emphasize that experimental science has a life more independent of theorizing than is usually allowed. I owe a good deal to her discussion of these topics. We have different anti-theoretical starting points, for she considers models and approximations while I emphasize experiment, but we converge on similar philosophies.”

    Hacking Papers: http://philpapers.org/s/Ian%20Hacking

    I like Hacking’s work because he recognizes the importance of empirical approaches. He has applied his critique of “theory-as-realism” to the definition of human entities based on clinical criteria.

    http://wwild.org/Victims%20of%20Crime/Downloads/Research/Disability%20Theory/Hacking%20n.d.pdf

    Most of all, Hacking is a pleasure to read.

    Cartwright is hard work to read because she forces you to think about physics in fundamental ways. A conversation between Cartwright and Einstein would be interesting but I have no idea whether or not the two ever met.

    Cartwright: http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/120/cartwright-How_the_Laws_of_Physics_Lie.pdf

    If I recall correctly, I got both books mentioned secondhand via http://www.abebooks.com/

  11. ren says:

    People need to realize that:
    1. The climate depends on the latitude,
    2. The distribution of the continents on the globe,
    3. The long-term change of circulation in middle and high latitudes,
    4. The changes in the circulation are controlled by the solar and lunar cycles.

  12. John Francis says:

    I loved the post, but I believe that its call for intellectuals to come out is far too late. These AGW idiots can, and will if we let them, cause untold misery, from making the poor freeze in the dark, to outrageous geo-engineering stunts which will greatly damage the Earth. Obama has the potential to be the catalyst for incredible long-lasting damage when he gets his “legacy”. It has to be stopped somehow, and collegial debate won’t do it. I don’t know the answer, but the public has to be shown what this is all about. Personally, I’ll chip in a Bunch more dollars for a public campaign. Mark Steyn, we need you lead this effort.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Tom: Thanks for dropping by. This morning I made a comment on another site’s post which is in the same territory as your article.

    http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/further-thoughts-on-type-i-and-type-ii.html

    “Sceptics on the other hand have to trust that fairly reasonable predictions can be made of a complex and chaotic system. They have to listen to the case made by the warmists and maybe even give them the benefit of the doubt.”

    No-one is going to trust the forward predictions of models which can’t successfully hindcast the instrumental temperature record without post hoc fudging of aerosol levels and effects to offset an overblown sensitivity estimate which relies on a theoretical water vapour feedback increasing mid tropical tropospheric temperature faster than surface temperature, which is not observed in the real world.

    Your ‘have to’ imperative seems to be predicated on your conception of the preconditions necessary to meaningful dialogue between warmists and sceptics. Until warmists start having an honest dialogue between themselves regarding the shortcomings of their data practices, hypothesis formulation and statistical techniques, I see little prospect for it.

    As we discovered at Lisbon, until climate scientists agree to the setting up of standards organisations and data agencies with powers of oversight on their activity seen to be independent from those who make observations, form hypotheses from them, and advocate for policy, no-one will be taking them seriously.
    _____________________________

    Over here I’ll add to this by saying that reciprocity and true dialogue has to go both ways. When my research group proposed an alternative hypothesis which has a model which can successfully hindcast (over 4000 years of climate proxy data), the response from the climate science establishment was for some IPCC authors to put pressure on the journal’s publishers, who then shut the entire journal we published in down.

  14. AlecM says:

    Put this on WUWT yesterday to a post dominated by Engineers sick and tired of the serial incompetence of the IPCC project: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/06/on-the-futility-of-climate-models-simplistic-nonsense/

    ‘I’m an engineer too, with lots of heat transfer experience. When you hot roll steel, 0.9 emissivity, its net radiative heat loss only exceeds natural convection at ~100 deg C. For aluminium, ~300 deg C. The Earth’s surface emits net mean surface IR at ~63 W/m^2; 40 via the Atmospheric Window ( 8 – 14 microns ), 23 via non self-absorbed H2O bands, absorption depth a few kms, no real warming.

    The claim of 157.5 W/m^2 ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’ being absorbed and thermalised in the lower atmosphere is based on the assertion from 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf that there is a discrete -18 deg C OLR emitting zone between 5 and 6 km, also radiating downwards. It doesn’t exist.

    This is part of a ‘bait and switch’ claiming ‘back radiation’ is a real energy flux instead of the atmospheric radiant Emittance, potential energy flux to Absolute Zero. They create the following energy balance: 238.5 total SW atmospheric warming + 333 ‘back radiation’ – 238.5 Down |OLR| = 333, 40% increase over reality.

    66% increase in lower atmosphere warming is partitioned between oceans and the atmosphere; upper atmosphere cooling is increased 36% compared with reality. Until 2010 we didn’t know how they got the imaginary extra humidity; it’s done on the GISS models by assuming ~35% more low level cloud albedo than reality. This heats the sunlit modelled ocean air by twice the rise above mean temperature compared with cooling under clouds; exponential evaporation kinetics purports imaginary future evaporation whilst keeping mean hind-cast temperatures at the correct level.

    When Hansen warned US Congress in 1988 of more lower atmosphere warming, more upper atmosphere cooling, higher humidity as [CO2] increased, all these were modelling artefacts. I’ve left the best bit until last. In 1977, co-IPCC founder Sir John Houghton showed that lapse rate convection means no temperature difference between surface and local (~30 m ) atmosphere. 157.5 W/m^2 would need 15.47 K temperature drop (assumes 0.75 atmospheric Emissivity), cooler atmosphere than since the Ordovician Ice Age, 444 million years ago. There can be no Enhanced GHE!

    Because the atmosphere self-controls, via the water cycle, warming for all well mixed GHGs, making it near zero, we explain the ‘hiatus’. The previous warming was the positive ENSO plus the real AGW from Asian aerosols, now saturated. When Houghton co-founded the IPCC using the Hansen ‘mistake’, it seems he gave up Science.

    PS The problem is that for >50 years, US Atmospheric Science has taught incorrect radiative physics so most people imagine emitters continuously spew out photons; incorrect – you must use wave mechanics plus Maxwell’s Equations. Net surface IR flux is the vector sum of Irradiances at a plane just outside the surface. In time, Science will prevail and eject the fraudsters and incompetents.’

    The first comment:

    ‘1sky1 January 6, 2015 at 4:10 pm

    Spot on!’

  15. oldbrew says:

    German professor: ‘Assuming that today is unusual without being able to compare it to anything from the past is not science at all’

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/06/german-physicist-sees-dangerous-return-to-medieval-scholasticism-climate-models-have-failed-conclusively/

    Report: ‘In order to assume there has been “unusual activity”, Lüdecke says, it would be necessary to have comprehensive data about the oceans before 1850. This doesn’t exist, and so a comparison is not possible.’

    Prof.: ‘It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it.’

  16. TinyCO2 says:

    I’m truly not averse to the idea that people discuss things in a sensible fashion but discuss what exactly? We have almost no mutual ground. Peace talks become successful when one side or other gives up something or everything they wanted to achieve. One of the things sceptics want is better science. Do you think the climate scientists think they should improve and even if they agreed it was necessary, do you think they might move on it before Paris? What they would do, and have done, is say ‘see, even the most die hard sceptic now accepts that climate change is real, let’s get on and decide what we do about it.’

    The warmists pray for a big 1998 style El Nino jump but even if they don’t get one by December 2015 do you think they’ll concede that they need to go back to the drawing board? Their viewpoint is that whatever the sensitivity to CO2 we should be doing anything and everything we can think of to cut CO2 so that in the near future CO2 stops rising altogether. Unrealistic goals don’t bother them because they keep falling back on ‘we’ve got to try something’. No matter how mildly we disagree with that viewpoint it is seen as an act of … well… war.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that Germany and the UK’s efforts and expenditure have had little effect on real CO2 emissions (imports, exports and travel accounted for). Those things that have worked well (like swapping gas for coal generation) are either self limiting or unacceptable in other ways (eg nuclear). To change things, we either have to make some radical changes to society or have some technological breakthrough. The latter cannot be commanded and the former requires extraordinary belief on behalf of the people, business and leaders. We’re nowhere near either option. For people who can’t or won’t see that, what is there to discuss?

  17. AlecM says:

    @TinyCO2:

    Climate Alchemy has missed out a crucial bit of IR physics which underlies the real surface temperature control system, minimising temperature range. The proof is that it also explains the ‘Faint Sun Paradox’ and the ‘Hot-house Earth’.

    It’s time to clean out these Augean Stables.

  18. michael hart says:

    There are some other meaty quotes in that article at notrickszone linked by Oldbrew above.
    Or relevance here:

    “In his conclusion the German professor advises those engaged in a discussion with alarmists, or listening to a presenation by an alarmist, to not go easy on them…”

    It’s well worth a read.

  19. tallbloke says:

    Tom says: That scientific theories make correct experimental predictions under certain circumstances does not mean the theories are necessarily correct. Other factors, or, more likely, a combination of phenomena could be causing the changes observed.

    The warmists are getting close to admitting this. They now recognise that the negative phase of the oceanic oscillation cycle is diminishing the claimed warming trend. Now they need to recognise the logical corollary to that observation, which is that the positive phase of the oceanic oscillation cycle 1975-2005 augmented the observed longer term underlying trend.

    This is blindingly obvious to everyone who looks at the data, as is the reason the mainstream climate scientists have been ultra-resistant to admitting it. Simply put, it’s because they’d be forced to admit ‘sensitivity’ is substantially lower than the range they’ve been asserting for the last 25 years.

    Once over that hurdle, we can move on to discuss the cause of the underlying trend, which has been ongoing since the late 1600’s, long before CO2 levels rose appreciably.

  20. Good science, by my definition, DOES find truths–and that should be obvious, when you can see those truths applied every day, and follow the historical flowering of western civilization, at least, through the whole range of scientific discoveries. To speak only of “educated opinions” in science is a common fallacy among today’s self-important scientific literati (such as the author of this post), and it is born of the general incompetence that has arisen in science (over the last 155 years–hint, hint)–in short, you have been observing bad science in the last two generations, not good. I find this attitude a curse upon true scientific literacy today, and I will have none of it. Take it back, damn it. You are basing your opinion of the workings and worth of science upon the sand of today’s incompetent consensus.

  21. linneamogren says:

    The biggest obstacle for us is not so much logical ( which I believe is an effective intellectual weapon ) rather its the media which simply blockades skepticism and debate. When the media acknowledges the opposition we are pasted as ignorant and diabolical. Philosophy is a great weapon, but until the media can be intellectually breached to allow opposition there’s not much hope.

  22. tallbloke says:

    TinyCO2: The only hope for now is to scare our own politicians into not signing anything stupid

    I suggest we give them an almighty kick in the ballot box this May.

    Linnea: Philosophy is a great weapon, but until the media can be intellectually breached to allow opposition there’s not much hope.

    On-staff journalists are a pretty toothless bunch these days. If the owners of the newspapers order them to ignore sceptics, they comply. The TV stations are in the pocket of the establishment, who they rely on for setting funding levels and regulatory frameworks. Their upper managements are full of bien pensants who know the square root of fuck-all about climate science or the way it has been corrupted.

  23. oldbrew says:

    Climate science has no explanation for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age other than to pretend they’re not important.

    But that doesn’t stop them claiming the Modern Warm Period is man-made and is important, and can’t possibly be just another example of natural climate variation. Even now warming has ground to a halt for over a decade they blather on regardless.

  24. tallbloke says:

    Harry: Good science, by my definition, DOES find truths–and that should be obvious, when you can see those truths applied every day, and follow the historical flowering of western civilization

    Applied science is engineering, and to be sure, the west is good at engineering. The feedback from good engineering to good science is improved instrumentation. This has got us a long way. Unfortunately, that has led to an assumption that the published data from sea level satellites and ARGO buoys is beyond reproach…

    Harry: the general incompetence that has arisen in science (over the last 155 years–hint, hint)

    Come on then Harry, what happened in 1860 that we’ve overlooked? Surely you’re not alluding to the Oxford evolution debate😉

  25. mkelly says:

    thefordprefect says:

    January 7, 2015 at 3:26 am

    “A warming world is really a problem even if some say 1°C increase would improve their environment.”

    =============

    Why would you want debate you already have your answer? “A warming world is really a problem” you say well prove it.

  26. linneamogren says:

    @Roger

    “On-staff journalists are a pretty toothless bunch these days. If the owners of the newspapers order them to ignore sceptics, they comply. The TV stations are in the pocket of the establishment, who they rely on for setting funding levels and regulatory frameworks. Their upper managements are full of bien pensants who know the square root of fuck-all about climate science or the way it has been corrupted.”

    I agree. They take their orders from above and scream SIEG HEIL !!

    The best way to combat the massive opposition to our scientifically sound alternatives to AGW is what we do here. More and more we are blanketing the net with our ideas and opinions. Facts as well. Although that does not exclude the need for philosophy to combat that irrational behaviors and ideas of the AGW community. I believe combined we are that much stronger against them.

    Warming and cooling periods or droughts and blizzards all have their position within the ecological system. By claiming one or all prove a negative effect is irrational. This is where philosophy does come in as imperative to our debate.

    For example, melting ice and rising sea waters are logically and scientifically more related to oceanic currents (combined with solar activity, underwater volcanic activity and albedo) than us driving cars. Ice melts and it can also freeze. Is one outcome the danger or is it just the process? A salmon swimming up stream and a salmon rotting along the shore are both functioning properly.

  27. Richard111 says:

    Back in 2006 Hathaway and Wilson made a prediction that SC24 would peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 +/- 25. This would have made it one of the strongest solar cycles in recorded history. Lots of sunspots mean increased magnetic activity which results in reduced cosmic rays to planet Earth which would mean less cloud, reduced albedo and a continued rise in global temperature. What a boon to the AGW crowd! They could have really pushed the green energy agenda. Then consider how industrialised nations would fare with all green energy when the coming ice age really begins to bite.
    Back radiation is like the red cape to the charging bull. It looks the wrong way and gets confused making it an attainable target.

  28. hunter says:

    We have always been facing problems from the use of science as the arbiter of public policy.
    GK Chesterton had a lot to say about his regarding the popular science theory of eugenics about 100 years ago.
    ““The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statues, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the government will really help it to persecute its heretics…I am not frightened of the word ‘persecution’…It is a term of legal fact. If it means the imposition by the police of a widely disputed theory, incapable of final proof—then our priests are not now persecuting, but our doctors are.”
    ― G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State”
    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/eugenics

  29. hunter says:

    @ linneamogren:
    You said, “Warming and cooling periods or droughts and blizzards all have their position within the ecological system. By claiming one or all prove a negative effect is irrational. This is where philosophy does come in as imperative to our debate.

    For example, melting ice and rising sea waters are logically and scientifically more related to oceanic currents (combined with solar activity, underwater volcanic activity and albedo) than us driving cars. Ice melts and it can also freeze. Is one outcome the danger or is it just the process? A salmon swimming up stream and a salmon rotting along the shore are both functioning properly.”

    well said. +1

  30. ren says:

    Can view the two separate centers of the northern polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
    Polar vortex is divided.

    Tallbloke we have unforeseen strong magnetic storm. Is strange, an increase of neutrons.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/

    Power measurement of the magnetic storm in mJ / m ^ 3 / s, 75 Hz.

    Air from the North Pole is now directed to North America and Eastern Europe. 27 km polar vortex.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/01/07/0900Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-38.66,77.82,344

    Current temperature in North America.

    Wintry weather strikes Middle East, bringing cold, sandstorm.

    http://jordantimes.com/wintry-weather-strikes-middle-east-bringing-cold-sandstorm

    Why is Greenland covered in ice?
    http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/media-communication/press-releases/details/article/woher-kommt-das-eis-auf-groenland-1/?cHash=859c8152666a23be7b0dbafae81759bc

  31. @linneamogren says “… its the media which simply blockades skepticism and debate” …. which, if I made add to that, the media acts as this gatekeeper through repetitions of demonstratively false talking points. What Tom basically points to is that if we are to break through on this issue, we must not fall into the name-calling rut, but instead hold the mainstream media accountable for defending their unsupportable assertions in the most public way possible. Paint them further into their corner, in other words.

    Whenever a critic says I deny climate change, I challenge them to not only point to any specific verbatim text where it is obvious that I’ve said such a thing, but also to any of the same evidence proving skeptic climate scientists deny global warming has happened over the last century. Stumps my critics every time. And as Rog knows, my own very narrow specialty is challenging any enviro-activist to look into their own favorite AGW books, web sites, etc and show me physical proof that money was paid to skeptic climate scientists accompanied by a directive to lie to the public / fabricate false reports. My critics have sidestepped that challenge every single time. They’ll do the same anytime any of you pose that challenge to any AGWer you see who hurls the ‘industry-corrupted’ skeptic talking point.

    Our objective here is AGWers self-censorship, the point at which they themselves realize they can’t make progress with their talking points. Call me an optimist, when the fickle mainstream media begins to smell blood in the water about Al Gore’s enslavement to the smear of skeptics and all the fatal problems within it, they will turn on him in a heartbeat. There’s no honor among thieves.

  32. Blob says:

    tallbloke wrote: “Tom: Thanks for dropping by. This morning I made a comment on another site’s post which is in the same territory as your article.

    http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/further-thoughts-on-type-i-and-type-ii.html

    “Sceptics on the other hand have to trust that fairly reasonable predictions can be made of a complex and chaotic system. They have to listen to the case made by the warmists and maybe even give them the benefit of the doubt.”

    No-one is going to trust the forward predictions of models which can’t successfully hindcast the instrumental temperature record without post hoc fudging of aerosol levels and effects to offset an overblown sensitivity estimate which relies on a theoretical water vapour feedback increasing mid tropical tropospheric temperature faster than surface temperature, which is not observed in the real world.”
    (https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/tom-harris-we-need-wise-men-and-women-to-defang-the-climate-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-96008)

    Type I error is with respect to a given hypothesis. If the “null hypothesis” is that “there is exactly zero change in the measured global average temperature”, disproving it is not very helpful, if at all. The problem is, of course, that there are many other possible explanations. The null hypothesis (hypothesis to be nullified) is supposed to be YOUR hypothesis, the one predicted by your theory. This was noted long ago by psychologists who realized that something had changed from the way science used to be practiced. They failed to save their field, and the practice of disproving a strawman spread to biology, medicine, everywhere. Why did it spread? Because of course it is easier to disprove a strawman and “affirm the consequent” rather than come up with a theory making precise predictions and rule out plausible alternative explanations.

    “Because physical theories typically predict numerical values, an improvement in experimental precision reduces the tolerance range and hence increases corroborability. In most psychological research, improved power of a statistical design leads to a prior probability approaching ½ of finding a significant difference in the theoretically predicted direction. Hence the corroboration yielded by “success” is very weak, and becomes weaker with increased precision. “Statistical significance” plays a logical role in psychology precisely the reverse of its role in physics. This problem is worsened by certain unhealthy tendencies prevalent among psychologists, such as a premium placed on experimental “cuteness” and a free reliance upon ad hoc explanations to avoid refuation.”
    Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Paul E. Meehl. Philosophy of Science, 1967, Vol. 34, 103–115.
    http://www.tc.umn.edu/~pemeehl/074TheoryTestingParadox.pdf

  33. David Wojick says:

    Unfortunately a number of the comments above reflect the kind if emotional hyperbole, stereotyping and name calling that does not help win the debate. The skeptics job is to continually make the strongest possible arguments. No matter how angry you are, and there is plenty to be angry about, showing it does not help win the case.

  34. oldbrew says:

    Don’t expect to hear the mainstream media admitting its own AGW hypocrisy any time soon.

  35. tallbloke says:

    David W: I think the constant barrage of ugly language and the deluge of bad science from the other side has taken it’s toll on the good humour of the sceptics. Some backlash is inevitable. We do our best to keep it polite.

  36. David Wojick says:

    Tallbloke: I quite understand, but it is not a matter of being nice. Politeness is a tactic.

  37. ren says:

    “What causes glacial cycles?
    Glaciers and ice sheets form when winter snow does not completely melt away each summer. Then the next winter’s snow falls on top of this old snow, and even more snow is left behind after the next summer. After many years, this small imbalance in snowfall versus melting can create huge ice sheets. Whether or not snow melts completely away each year is primarily controlled by the amount of summer sunlight. This is known as Milankovitch theory.

    The amount of sunlight received at a certain location varies with time due to cyclic changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt. These change with time due to the gravitational forces of the moon and the other planets. The three three types of change are tilt (obliquity), precession, and eccentricity. They vary in cycles of 19,000 to 400,000 years. The strongest cycle in summer sunlight in ice-sheet forming regions is 23,000 years caused by precession, but glacial cycles over the last million years are all about 100,000 years long, which is the length of one eccentricity cycle. Before that time, glacial cycles were 41,000 years long, corresponding to the length of the cycle in Earth’s tilt. Why the ice sheets respond most strongly to the 41,000 and 100,000 year cycles is one of the biggest mysteries in our field.”
    http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/simple.html

  38. tallbloke says:

    Blob: If the “null hypothesis” is that “there is exactly zero change in the measured global average temperature”

    This is not the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the climate change we have seen is within the bounds of natural variability. Which it is.

  39. gyan1 says:

    The purpose of argument with alarmists is not to convince them of changing their minds. It is to show interested observers of the debate who has facts and logic and who is making claims unsupported by the underlying science.

    The average man in the street with zero understanding of the subject other than the pervasive propaganda they have been brainwashed with is who will turn the tide.

    I live in ultra liberal Seattle and speak out at parties to the shock and disbelief of those who haven’t been exposed to the facts. It is word of mouth and persistent speaking truth to power that will turn the tide. Skeptics are dominating most news outlets comments and winning the debate there.

  40. tallbloke says:

    David W: I quite understand, but it is not a matter of being nice. Politeness is a tactic.

    Politeness (or civiliy in debate) is the ambience in which the progress of meaningful dialogue can occur.

  41. This is how you defang the climate debate. Read article as well as my commentary. Their AGW theory is BS.

    http://www.meltdata.com/articles/pliocene-epoch-climate.html

    If one would read this one would understand how asinine the climate models/AGW theory is. The climate models can’t even predict how /why the climate changes in the future even if they know how the climate changed into the future. Example the Pliocene to Pleistocene climate change.

    CO2 versus climate change is the WRONG way to go when trying to piece the climate puzzle. It is an exercise in futility and my approach is much better. Read below.

    The four factors as to why the climate changes are

    Initial state of the earth- In regards to how close the climate is to glacial/inter-glacial thresholds(THE ICE DYNAMIC), land /ocean arrangements, land elevation levels ,random terrestrial events such as a mega volcanic eruption or random extra terrestrial events which played a role at times although minor in the scheme of things.

    Earth Magnetic Field Strength- which will moderate or compound solar effects in regards to galactic cosmic ray /other charged particles being able to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere and in turn influence cloud formation/geological activity. Also at times of magnetic excursions galactic cosmic rays may be concentrated in lower latitudes where moisture is more abundant causing a greater impact in cloud formation.

    Milankovitch Cycles – Which will favor a colder climate when obliquity is at a minimum, earth’s orbit is most elliptical and aphelion in the orbit of the earth occurring during the N.H. summer.

    Solar Variability and Secondary Effects- Although solar variability(solar irradiance) may be on the order of .2 to .3 percent (from Grand Maximum to Grand Minimum conditions) it is the secondary effects associated with this solar variability which could have an impact on the climate ranging from changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, to an increase in volcanic activity , to more clouds, ocean heat content lowering etc.

    Solar Parameters and possible effects.

    Solar Irradiance Changes .1 to .3% lower- Effects ocean heat content /sea surface temperature distribution and actual sea surface temperatures which effects Enso /Ocean currents. An example being the Thermohaline circulation or Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, the AMOC .

    Solar Wind Changes to lower then 350 km/sec- Will effect concentrations of galactic cosmic rays entering the atmosphere and increase low cloud amounts. Cosmic Ray Counts north of 6500 units per minute should achieve this. Also at times of low solar wind speed the AP index will be very low which shows a correlation to volcanic activity according to data in that during prolonged minimum solar conditions going back to 1600 ad-present, 87% of all major volcanic eruptions took place at such times.

    EUV Light Changes– very low levels(100 units or less) will effect ozone distributions in the atmosphere in both a vertical/horizontal sense which will in turn impact the atmospheric circulation pattern by warming the polar regions more then the mid-latitudes causing a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern This type of atmospheric circulation pattern at the unset should result in more clouds, precipitation ,more cloud cover causing an increase in earth albedo hence cooler temperatures.

    In addition EUV light in the near visible range and visible light will penetrate the ocean surface waters to significant depths(up to 50m) there by effecting ocean heat content /sea surface temperatures.

    One must remember that factor one, Initial State Of The Earth, factor two, Earth Magnetic Field Strength and factor three, Milankovich Cycles will cause factor four Solar Variability/Secondary Effects to have different climatic outcomes even if the given solar changes are the same.

    In addition at times of limited solar variability (solar flux 90-150) although it is still impacting the climate noise in the climatic system can obscure the solar climatic signal.

    In summary I will take my theory over AGW theory any day of the week, it is a 1000x better explanation as to why/how the climate changes and why it has in the past.

    Note:

    Pliocene climate change did not result in Ice Ages because the beginning state of the climate was to far away from the glacial/interglacial threshold at that time.

    t

  42. http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2007.pdf

    A good study on why the climate changed from the Pliocene to Pleistocene with out any mention of CO2.

  43. Climate science has no explanation for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age other than to pretend they’re not important.

    But that doesn’t stop them claiming the Modern Warm Period is man-made and is important, and can’t possibly be just another example of natural climate variation. Even now warming has ground to a halt for over a decade they blather on regardless.

    old brew right on.

  44. David Wojick says:

    If anyone is interested in the logical form of complex issues, I discovered a basic one many years ago, which I named the “issue tree.” It helps explain why debate over an issue like climate change is so frustrating. The number of component issues grows exponentially with level of detail. I have a crude textbook on issue analysis here: http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf, from when I used to teach issue analysis at Carnegie Mellon.

  45. ren says:

    Is it then the people they reached the America?

  46. ren says:

    And now perhaps gone south?

  47. wayne says:

    What ‘climate debate’? Harris must be speaking of the attempt by the “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” (his words, not mine) to keep some dialog going to further convert more people into their delusion. As Dr. Lovelock, one of the fore-fathers of this ‘global warming’ scare and author of the book ‘The Revenge of Gaia’, has said the data no longer supports the decades-old assumptions of some catastrophic warming and that ‘debate’ ended there. I refuse to be a member of that failed debate.

    As a scientist I cannot ignore one of the most fundamental factors present being that as the Earth showed some warming in recent decades all of the other planets were also showing likewise +1 to +2°C warming. So ask these characters just how much are they going to reduce their ‘human influence’ due to that one fact? Good luck.

    And there is evidently a 60-62 year wave present in the global temperature field over time that can be clearly seen in a plot such as this http://i39.tinypic.com/1118rnl.png when a fairly accurate linear removal of all of the man-created adjustments made to the temperature records after 1940. So ask these characters just how much of this natural oscillation are they are going to remove for this factor. Again, good luck.

    You quickly realize they have nothing to stand on and it is the adjustments that have been made that are at the base of the flaws.

    If they would even admit the need to allow for these two pieces of evidence we could then gracefully, without any harsh counter ad-hominems, accept their admission of defeat.

    Let’s face it, the real on-going debate in science is why exactly did that decades-old hypothesis of ‘global warming’ supposedly due to carbon dioxide concentration in an atmosphere failed so miserably.

  48. wayne says: January 7, 2015 at 10:41 pm

    “What ‘climate debate’? Harris must be speaking of the attempt by the “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” (his words, not mine) to keep some dialog going to further convert more people into their delusion. As Dr. Lovelock, one of the fore-fathers of this ‘global warming’ scare and author of the book ‘The Revenge of Gaia’, has said the data no longer supports the decades-old assumptions of some catastrophic warming and that ‘debate’ ended there. I refuse to be a member of that failed debate.”

    “Let’s face it, the real on-going debate in science is why exactly did that decades-old hypothesis of ‘global warming’ supposedly due to carbon dioxide concentration in an atmosphere failed so miserably.”

    Let’s face it, the real on-going question in science is “How did total incompetence come to 97% of all so called climate scientists”?

  49. David Wojick says:

    Well, tallbloke, you certainly have some characters commenting here. Considering the barrage of ugly language in these comments, I fear that Tom’s point is lost on them. But then, anger keeps the troops motivated so it too has it’s place.

  50. David Wojick says: January 8, 2015 at 1:54 am

    “Well, tallbloke, you certainly have some characters commenting here. Considering the barrage of ugly language in these comments, I fear that Tom’s point is lost on them. But then, anger keeps the troops motivated so it too has it’s place.”

    Your reference is fine for complex issues, however CAGW is not complex, it is fraud. Please identify even one scientist that claims “the existence of AGW”, that is competent to do so. What is the understanding and experience with thermal EMR, its generation, and propagation? The only competence is retained by those that reject any warming effect of atmospheric CO2. Toms point is not lost at all. It is rejected, no more time for discourse, time is up, defang the fraud! Please identify any ugly or inappropriate language.

  51. ren says:

    (1) VOLCANO OBSERVATORY NOTICE FOR AVIATION (VONA)
    (2) Issued: 20150107/0254Z
    (3) Volcano: Sheveluch (CAVW #300270)
    (4) Current Aviation Color Code: ORANGE
    (5) Previous Aviation Color Code: orange
    (6) Source: KVERT
    (7) Notice Number: 2015-02
    (8) Volcano Location: N 56 deg 38 min E 161 deg 18 min
    (9) Area: Kamchatka, Russia
    (10) Summit Elevation: 10768.24 ft (3283 m), the dome elevation ~8200 ft (2500 m)
    (11) Volcanic Activity Summary: Strong explosive event occurred on 00:39 January 07: ash plume rose up to 8-9 km, pyroclastic flow was observed at the south-eastern flank of the dome. Big ash cloud is moving up to 100 km to the north-west from the volcano.

    (12) Volcanic cloud height: 26240-29520 ft (8000-9000 m) a.s.l. satellite (NOAA 19 02:15 UTC January 07).

  52. ren says:

    Klyuchevskoy
    56.06 N, 160.64 ° E .; The height of 4750 m

    Aviation Color Code YELLOW

    Strombolian eruption began on 1 January. Seismic activity of the volcano began to rise from December 19-20: increase in the number and size of earthquakes on the surface; ranging continuously recorded volcanic tremor, its value increased to 5.72 m / s to 31 December. There was an increase in the activity of the volcano combined cycle all week, except December 30-31 January and 01-02, when the volcano was closed clouds.

  53. Arfur Bryant says:

    “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” George Orwell

  54. ren says:

    volcano Zhupanovsky
    53.59 N, 159.15 ° E .; The height of 2958 m

    Aviation Color Code ORANGE

    moderate explosive eruption continues. Pilots local visual data lines (data Elizovo AMC) December 29, the observed emission of ash up to 9.6 km above sea level According to satellite data, ash plumes December 29 he moved to 75 km east-northeast of the volcano on the other days of the week or volcano was calm closed clouds.

  55. ren says:

    Arfur Bryant is it possible to convince believers?

  56. Chaeremon says:

    @harrydhuffman @David Wojick @tallblocke

    What can this “truth” barrier be about? (I try a straightforward but nontrivial question here) Here’s what I did:

    To: Tom Harris
    From: me
    BCC: my trustee/fiduciary (just greetings in message)
    Date: 24h+ ago
    Subject: Re: Unbiased Insights
    Message: invites for discussion of a litmus test but without explicitly using the terms uprightness and rectitude, in no uncertain terms.

    I hope it’s due to the opposite time zones, but crickets are still chirping; patience.

    If I can not resolve the issue to my satisfaction, then the absence of discussion indicates the absence of unbiased insights and/or of wise men, simply because they are unknown😦

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    Proofs are usually neither recognized nor acknowledged in the sun-climate discussion.
    1+1=2 whether stated with warmth, anger, or neutrality.
    There’s a fatal problem with the integrity of the judging at sites like ce & wuwt.
    A vital difference at the Talkshop is that contributors are genuinely interested in the joy of simply exploring nature without getting drowned by unnecessary, unwelcome interminably-protracted deliberately-intractable discord. The atmosphere here is cordial, harmonious, & uplifting. This is a safe place where good people can rise above the corrupt judging that murders healthy curiosity & joyous exploration elsewhere. Here we’re free to explore in peace the beauty of nature without the need to become aggressively-hated targets of agents who appear somehow mechanistically compelled to harshly coerce a form of group-think that absolutely refuses to admit 1+1=2. In short: Light is allowed to eliminate darkness here.

  58. oldbrew says:

    David Wojick says: ‘Considering the barrage of ugly language in these comments’

    This gentleman is surely a newcomer to climate-related blogs😉

  59. ren says:

    Worth seeing.

  60. tallbloke says:

    David W: Well, tallbloke, you certainly have some characters commenting here. Considering the barrage of ugly language in these comments

    David, if you think this is bad, take a look at the way some of the warmist blogs use their freedom of expression.

  61. oldbrew says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says: January 7, 2015 at 7:43 pm
    ***
    See here:
    ‘…of course the climate is changing — it always is. And if climate Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim to be about weighing evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human activity?’

    http://www.thegwpf.com/george-f-will-climate-cassandras-need-to-read-more/

  62. ren says:

    See the waves in the stratosphere at an altitude of about 23 km.

  63. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/

    This study defangs AGW theory. The problem is it also puts all other theories (including mine) unable to fully explain why the earth went from stable glacial conditions prior to 20000 years to several wild abrupt temperature swings 20000-10000 years ago to a sudden much more stable inter- glacial climate 10000 years ago to present.

    From reading an article titled Plio- Pleistocene climate evolution: trends and transitions in glacial cycle dynamics, I think the following is the problem facing climate science and why theories all seem to falter.

    THE PROBLEM

    Climate sensitivity to various forcings is exponentially dependent on the mean state of the climate and earth dynamics ( state of the earth) which results in so many different climate outcomes and correlations not holding up over periods of time.

  64. Arfur Bryant says:

    [ren says:
    January 8, 2015 at 7:23 am
    Arfur Bryant is it possible to convince believers?]

    Hi ren,

    Honestly, I don’t know. The logical and reasoning part of me would like to think so, as I would like to think that overwhelming evidence and reasoned thought should do the trick.

    However, years of participating in the climate blogosphere have left me with the – hopefully wrong – impression that true believers are not likely to be convinced. I suppose that is the nature of belief.

    Cheers,

    Arfur

  65. Roger Clague says:

    There is no need to debate, climate change, it does. The question is how. We should debate climate data and theories. Unfortunately all the money is in computer models.
    Difficult to dissuade someone a wrong idea which pays the rent.

  66. oldbrew says:

    SDP: ‘why the earth went from stable glacial conditions prior to 20000 years to several wild abrupt temperature swings 20000-10000 years ago to a sudden much more stable inter- glacial climate 10000 years ago to present.’

    This could have had something to do with it – or not.

  67. Old brew it does have something to do with it but my point is how does this forcing along with all others inter act with the mean state of the climate (at the time of the forcing) which I think has much to do with how sensitive the climate will to various x forcings. Is the exponentially dependent upon the mean state of the climate?

    I think this is the dilemma when it comes to climate change.

  68. Correction to last sentence.

    Is it (the climate sensitivity to a forcing ) exponentially dependent upon the mean state of the climate?

    I think it is.

  69. Steven Mosher says:

    “It works like this: “If my theory is true then a logical consequence of that theory is that X should turn green. X does turn green. Hence my theory is true.” This is a deductive logical fallacy. Something wholly unrelated to your theory could have caused X to turn green.”

    Actually when scientists take the time to speak carefully, we would say something more like this.

    It works like this: “If my theory is true then I predict that X should turn green. X does turn green. Hence my theory is confirmed” Something wholly unrelated to my theory could have caused X to turn green, but until you actually point to that thing and make a better prediction, we will proceed on the conditional assumption that my theory is the best available explanation”

    Since you started your rational discussion with a strawman, I will enjoy the irony of your call for reason

    [Reply] Thanks for the pompous “I’m a scientist” snittiness. Both Tom’s formulation and yours miss the first step which is to formulate the null hypothesis: “Things naturally turn green within a frequency range p-q.” Fortunately the talkshoppers have developed a technique which hindcasts natural variation very well (and forecasts well too, see Scafetta harmonic model success for example), over much longer periods than IPCC’s lameduck CO2 theory, so we can manage without your bullshit. Thanks again. TB

  70. Chaeremon says:

    @Steven Mosher: before your book, and before you learned that “deductive logical fallacy” popped out of Google University in recent days, where have you published your general or special insights about logic and the scientific method (journal, year) ? scholar.google.com doesn’t know anything, so thanks in advance for pointers.

  71. gallopingcamel says:

    thefordprefect, January 7, 2015 at 3:26 am

    You seem to have lost sight of the woods for the trees.

    Remember that Alarmists promised “Catastrophic Global Warming”? They claimed that this was inevitable given that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase. They claimed that according to Arrhenius (1896) the temperature would rise by 4.5 Kelvin per doubling of CO2.

    The Alarmists were right! The concentration of CO2 did increase and the rate of increase is accelerating.

    However, Mother Nature (perverse bitch that she is) ignored the effect of CO2 for the last 18 years:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/

  72. gallopingcamel says:

    oldbrew says, January 8, 2015 at 7:20 pm
    “This could have had something to do with it – or not.”

    It is highly likely that those cycles have something to do with it. However, it bothers me that nobody has been able to use Milankovitch theory to predict when the next glaciation will commence.

  73. Anything is possible says:

    gallopingcamel says:
    January 9, 2015 at 5:18 am

    “However, it bothers me that nobody has been able to use Milankovitch theory to predict when the next glaciation will commence.”

    ======================================

    Not for another 50-100,000 years, according to NOAA :

    “What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?

    Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 – 100,000 years.”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

    For once, I find myself in agreement with their conclusion, although not entirely with their reasoning. My belief is that high eccentricity is the trigger for glaciations, and eccentricity is projected to be low for the foreseeable future.

    Any joy yet with your work for Robinson & Catling, BTW?

  74. AlecM says:

    To All: the onset of glaciation is because when the Earth’s tilt increases, less melting of Antarctic pack ice in the summer slows the thermohaline circulation. The reduction of Fe micronutrient in the tropical seas reduces phytoplankton growth. In time, reduction of dimethyl sulphide from decaying cells reduces [CCN] and cloud albedo rises**.

    Reduced SW warming of the World then means negative feedback leading after about 80,000 years, to almost complete cessation of the thermohaline circulation and the World cools by ~6 K. When the Earth’s tilt axis restores itself, the process reverses.

    **Sagan’s aerosol optical physics, used in Climate Alchemy since 1974, is wrong. There’s a second optical process. There is no hiding of CO2-AGW by small droplet clouds having high albedo, it’s the large droplets that really matter. The real AGW is this reduction of cloud albedo by man-made aerosols, but it’s minor compared with the PDO. CO2-AGW is near zero.

    Carl Sagan made three other physics’ mistakes in his analysis of the Venusian atmosphere. Not only has this poisoned the Well of Atmospheric Science, it also misled Astrophysics. The IPCC’s ‘science’ has got virtually all its radiant and IR physics wrong and pretends imaginary cloud cooling is hiding CAGW: absolute tosh as any professional woks out fairly quickly once you get into the modelling.

  75. Chaeremon says:

    @AlecM: there’s even a bit more to this, but I’m not the expert in this matter nor in my English. Le’me try.

    We have scattering, reflection and absorption when radiation does its impact. Now, the consequence of impact is the outgoing phase shift and frequency shift (the rest we cannot experience directly).

    But shift means change of energy, and if just the monochromatic magic spells are used, as formal basis or directly, then the wizards violate conservation of energy; the resultant stunt is therefore fake (er, not even false).

  76. oldbrew says:

    thefordprefect says: ‘The science of GHGs is understood. But just how much warming will result if CO2 increases – are the feedbacks negative or positive?’

    So the science is not understood, or the question would be redundant.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/why-earth-is-closed-thermodynamic.html

  77. AlecM says:

    @Chaeremon: Sagan completely misused Mie scattering theory to claim the hemispherical albedo of clouds asymptotes at unity when droplet size falls and optical depth rises. His thinking was that somehow, the ~0.7 Mie Asymmetry Factor makes ALL light energy return to the top.

    This is wrong; Twomey knew that the albedo asymptote is 0.5 and warned of a second optical effect.

    They are all energy loss free because that is what Maxwell’s Equations show. However, in the real Wold, there is some absorption, particularly when the aerosols include carbonaceous particles.

    I have worked out the second optical effect and submitted a paper 3 years ago, but because it shows that the real AGW and cause of ice-age amplification of Milankovitch tsi increase is nothing to do with CO2, was consigned to the slow process of finding a brave editor!

    This physics shows how you get 0.9 albedo for the most active thunderclouds, also why Venus’ albedo is 0.75!

  78. ren says:

    Shows the current distribution of ozone in the Northern Hemisphere circulation. Visible blockade in the North Atlantic directs warm air over the Scandinavia.

  79. ren says:

    You can see how strong the wind can generate at the surface of the polar vortex.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/jp/#2015/01/05/1500Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-122.12,67.27,484

  80. gallopingcamel says:
    January 9, 2015 at 5:18 am

    “However, it bothers me that nobody has been able to use Milankovitch theory to predict when the next glaciation will commence.”

    Of course because as I have said which no one seems to want to accept is as follows:

    THE PROBLEM

    Climate sensitivity to various forcings is exponentially dependent on the mean state of the climate and earth dynamics ( state of the earth) which results in so many different climate outcomes and correlations not holding up over periods of time.

    This is so true when it comes to Milankovitch Cycles which all break down over time in that at one time obliquity is thought to be the main regulator in glacial/inter-glacial cycles then it switches to precession around 1.4 million years and then oh no wait then it seems to correlate to eccentricity of the earth’s orbit for the last 800000 years.

    Just a perfect example of my point which nothing so far is holding up even though the correlations are there because the mean state of the climate /earth dynamic is changing the climate SENSITIVITY to these forcing agents.

    So everyone can keep knocking themselves out to prove beyond a doubt what makes the climate tick but all the correlations will break down to one degree or another overtime for the reason above..

    Just take the last 20000 years of climate history so many UNKNOWN ABRUPT changes while the basic items which we think force the climate are present through out the time span, but look at the outcomes completely different.

    I think it brings home what I am trying to convey so far apparently in vain.

  81. David Wojick says, January 7, 2015 at 4:47 pm “… emotional hyperbole, stereotyping and name calling that does not help win the debate …” But it has supported the AGW side quite nicely with complicit help from their mainstream media friends. I wrote a piece in 2012 chiding our skeptic friends about being too polite when it comes to addressing ad hominem attacks: “Flip Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Against Far-Left Activists: A Global Warming Case Study for Not being Polite Anymore” http://ow.ly/qhMNc

    No need to yell or get emotional, stereotype or name-call, but to gain the upper hand in the AGW political arena, it is up to us to place the AGW promoters in an indefensible position for all to see.

  82. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tom, a line from Canadian band “Metric” concisely summarizes where we are:
    “I fought the war but the war won.”

    I think you need to think about this:

    Where are you going to find philosophical judges with the right combination of multidisciplinary background needed to judge fairly in the intricate context at hand?

    Judges with the integrity & breadth needed to ensure fairness are effectively non-existent.

    That remains the #1 problem.

    It cannot be corrected.
    It’s permanent & fatal.

    No one wins.
    We’re collectively reduced.

    So I say never mind the war.
    It’s a waste of time & energy.

    Let’s just enjoy exploring nature & natural beauty.

    Thanks to Tallbloke for hosting a cordial, harmonious, uplifting venue that’s rising above the razing.

  83. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tom, if joyously exploring nature with us doesn’t appeal to you, there is one war that can be won:
    The lukes are by definition irrational. Their social movement seeks a center balancing point on a left-right political axis, but interpolating between reality & model fantasy for social & political ends is an appeal to the imagination & emotion, not logic. There’s logic to the notion that their vision is of social & political utility, but the narrative they’re spinning depends on affording model fantasy status commensurate with reality. This is dreamer’s logic. The notion that interpolation on social & political axes defines nature is strictly (in the absolute sense) illogical. Their aim is not to be logical but rather to inspire change. It’s an axiomatic framework in which inspiration & change take precedence over logic.

    Regards

  84. If climate models (as bad as they are) were started with different mean states of the climate/different states of the earth , I bet my last dollar the climate outcomes with the same given climate forcings would all be different and respond differently to those forcings.

  85. Rog I can’t t believe you have me on moderation apparently due to the very sensible thought provoking commentary I just presented trying to show why it is so hard to apply given theories to the climate including my own.

    I am trying to get to the truth of the matter. What I present is backed up by looking at the climate outcomes over the past 20000 years. That is the reality. Sorry if I am offending anyone with honest thoughts on my part.

  86. Thanks I see I am off moderation. I like this site and I am trying to give honest insights into the problems I feel need to be overcome including what I have presented.

  87. Part of a conversation I had with someone who is level headed when it comes to the subject of the climate. I also express why my statement is so unwelcomed by the climate community no matter where they may be coming from in regards to the climate.

    My response to him

    You are so correct when you say climatologist can not self correct. Even worse they will never ever admit to being wrong. They are wrong when it comes to AGW and the past historical climatic record as well as what is currently taking place shows this to be so.

    You are also correct in saying the sun is not much of a factor in the climate at present.

    It is amazing that when I put out something like I did yesterday about how climate sensitivity to given forces depends upon the mean state of the climate and earth dynamics and changes exponentially due to those factors that I was either ignored or treated as if it just is not so, when it is so in my opinion.

    The reason why I think I am getting this reaction is it destroys all of the various theories in trying to explain why the climate changes in the way it does due to some force because it takes away the notion that one can come up with a climate prediction based on that premise.

    I think strongly that all the various climatic outcomes going back just 20000 years never mind further with essentially the same forces present then as now no matter what the choice of the forcing goes a long way in proving the point I am trying to make.

    So I say to all the climatologist out there knock yourself out in trying to prove your theory is correct because it is not going to result in the result you may want and all one has to do is go back a sufficient amount of time to show how every climate theory no matter how good does not stand the test of time.

  88. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: the sun is not much of a factor in the climate at present.

    You’ll find out just how wrong you are over the next two years. A decade after the Sun went quiet in 2006 is when it’ll hit us.

  89. You misunderstand I meant at this moment in time . I am still of the opinion that if solar parameters reach or come close to the levels I have said and stay at those levels that regardless of the state of the climate it is going to exert some sort of influence on the climate.

    My argument is not what you are saying about solar system dynamics versus the climate or what I say about solar parameters versus the climate is wrong but rather I think (maybe I am wrong) that the mean state of the climate/the earth dynamic at that point of time when the forcing occurs no matter the source goes a along way in determining how sensitive the climate will be to that force at that particular point in time and hence that particular climatic outcome.

    Do you see where I am coming from?

    How else could we then explain all the various different climatic outcomes with essentially the same forcing in place unless the forces (one of them) was different which no evidence exist . Example being there is no evidence solar variability back then was greater then today, or the variations of the parameters for Milankovitch Cycles were different then today.

  90. I think the climatic outcome is a balance between the variability of the forces(which has been the same in the past I think) effecting the earth climatic system and the mean state of the climate/earth dynamic at that point in time.

    What do you think about that statement? Thanks

  91. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: unless the forces (one of them) was different which no evidence exist

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any argument involving climate of more than say, 2000 years ago has so much uncertainty attached it’s very difficult to make judgements about ‘forcings’.

    Some would say more than 50 years ago.

  92. I agree with that statement that is why I had said I think forces might have been the same.

    But you do see what I am trying to say from the opposite end of things? My second to last post prior to this one. Don’t you think this aspect is being over looked?

  93. tallbloke says: January 10, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    (‘Salvatore: unless the forces (one of them) was different which no evidence exist”)

    “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any argument involving climate of more than say, 2000 years ago has so much uncertainty attached it’s very difficult to make judgments about ‘forcings’. Some would say more than 50 years ago.”

    Remembrance is often a preventive against the repetition of conscientious stupidity!
    The NET and your blog remembers, thank you.

  94. wayne says:

    @ Today, January 10, 2015, 4 hours ago | Salvatore Del Prete said:

    It is amazing that when I put out something like I did yesterday about how climate sensitivity to given forces depends upon the mean state of the climate and earth dynamics and changes exponentially due to those factors that I was either ignored or treated as if it just is not so, when it is so in my opinion.

    Salvatore, just so you won’t think no one understands and is paying any attention to what you are writing I just had to stop and comment back to you here, your thought on the non-linearity about some most-stable point in the mean temperature was immediately registered upstairs, for me anyway. Let’s see if I have you correct. You are saying there may very well be some naturally stable point in the temperature and any forced variance from that stable point (solar set), plus or minus, will take proportionately but not linearly (exponential comes to mind) more and more force to push it away from that stable point. I very much have held that same viewpoint with very little evidence to back up that view. Very little is linear in reality, right?🙂

  95. wayne says: anuary 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    “Salvatore, just so you won’t think no one understands and is paying any attention to what you are writing I just had to stop and comment back to you here, your thought on the non-linearity about some most-stable point in the mean temperature was immediately registered upstairs, for me anyway.”

    Wayne, stability is very closely coupled to spontaneity , the subject of the Rudy Clausius 2nd law.

    “Let’s see if I have you correct. You are saying there may very well be some naturally stable point in the temperature and any forced variance from that stable point (solar set), plus or minus, will take proportionately but not linearly (exponential comes to mind) more and more force to push it away from that stable point. I very much have held that same viewpoint with very little evidence to back up that view. Very little is linear in reality, right?🙂 ”

    Think of a post in the ground aligned with to the gravitational force vector. That post may have a lovely countersunk hole in the top. A stable point for a bowling ball to rest. There is no spontaneity that will/must cause the bowling ball to jump from a wiggly lower surface to the other stable but wiggly top of post. Is this your non-linearity? The damn thing has no mathematical expression whatsoever. -will- 🙂

  96. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: there is no evidence solar variability back then was greater then today, or the variations of the parameters for Milankovitch Cycles were different then today.

    I’m not sure what timescale you are discussing when you say “back then”. When?
    The 10Be record gives us 10kyr of solar variability, modulated to a small extent (10% or so according to McCracken) by geomagnetics.

  97. Rog let me ask you because I think your knowledge in this area is superior.

    How much do you think solar variation has varied say over the last 100,000 year period? Do you think it is greater then say .4%? If so is there evidence and what is the greatest variation of solar variability that at least has some evidence to back it up with?

    Same question for Milankovitch Cycles do you think the parameters involved example obliquity variation have been different in the past as opposed to what is thought presently?

    thanks

  98. Yes Wayne . I am trying to say if a certain mean climate is present on earth it will cause the sensitivity of the climate to be less sensitive/more sensitive to a given force then if it were at some other mean temperature.

    For example if the climate of the earth were near a glacial threshold I think it would be much easier for given forces to change the overall mean climate of the earth then if the mean climate of the earth was solidly in a glacial or inter -glacial state.

    At the same time the earth dynamic in that ocean/land arrangements ,land elevation, a rogue extra terrestrial impact ,a super nova in the vicinity of the earth ,a rogue super volcanic eruption , earth magnetic field strength have to be taken into account to some degree and would impact the impact climatic forces acting upon the earth would have .

    The climatic forces what ever will always impact the climate of the earth but at times much more or much less I think due to the mean state of the climate/earth dynamic at the time of the given force.

    That is what I am trying to say.

  99. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: I doubt it’s as much as 0.4%. But, becaus of the way the ocean integrates the energy, it’s not so much how much the sun’s output varies, but how long it stays near a maximum or minimum that matters. Or if there are two extrema in quick succession. See for example the plot Rick Salvador did of our model, which replicates Steinhilbers 10Be based solar activity reconstruction well. I’ve annotated Rick’s plot with the names of the maxima and minima.

  100. Duration is key that is for sure. So you think even during the Maunder Minimum solar variability was not that great and it was the duration of sub- solar variation although not that great which had the climatic impact?

    So maybe we could say .2 % decrease in solar variation over a long duration of time is going to recipe to have a pretty significant impact to one degree or another?

  101. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore: Yes. Especially if these small variations are amplified by change in albedo.

  102. Rog, I want to know if you agree or not or partially with my post done Jan 11 at 0749 pm.

    If you do not agree at all I would like to know why? Thanks.

  103. I agree ,I hope it happens.

  104. wayne says:

    “Think of a post in the ground aligned with to the gravitational force vector. That post may have a lovely countersunk hole in the top. A stable point for a bowling ball to rest. There is no spontaneity that will/must cause the bowling ball to jump from a wiggly lower surface to the other stable but wiggly top of post. Is this your non-linearity? The damn thing has no mathematical expression whatsoever. -will- :)”

    Will, as I wrote that to SDP I was more thinking of the example of a grandfather clock pendulum still and hanging motionless at the bottom and that bottom point is the equilibrium ‘T’ of 288 let’s say, set by the solar insolation. In that example it would take very little forcing of any kind to push it but a small displacement from that stable point but it would be increasingly harder and harder to force it further, either way… not linear. More like that analogy.🙂

  105. wayne says:

    Will, in fact this has a little to do with why I have been sitting through some of those lectures on generic ‘fields’, like scalar temperature or wind speed fields and for your information I had just skipped the first lecture on special relativity, it was Ray that drug that into that other conversation. Besides, I have sat through another series of Susskind’s lecture specifically on that subject of releativity but that’s carrying it too far when speaking of ‘climate’.

    I guess you could say that the AGWer’s seem to wrongly use that pendulum example and say that co2 concentration somehow resets the T at the bottom stable point to a higher temperature which is wrong I feel, co2 adds no additional energy (forcing) into the overall system and it is only a change in the insolation that can actually reset the stable point away from that 288 K, lets say. I guess you could also say a change in the complete l.w. spectrum signature could also reset the value of the ‘bottom’ but I don’t think tjat is even possible at some constant insolation amount of energy input and that has to do with what I have been investigation on the apparently perfectly stable hydrostatic environment lapse of 0.0065 K/m set by the molecular composition in all of those equations i laid out in that previous “lone sceptic” thread.

  106. But, because of the way the ocean integrates the energy, it’s not so much how much the sun’s output varies, but how long it stays near a maximum or minimum that matters.

    Rog says which is another important part of this climate puzzle. This makes much sense.

    I think it is a combination of what has been being discussed here over the past few days coming from both sides of the issue.

  107. wayne says: January 11, 2015 at 11:50 pm

    Will, in fact this has a little to do with why I have been sitting through some of those lectures on generic ‘fields’, like scalar temperature or wind speed fields and for your information I had just skipped the first lecture on special relativity, it was Ray that drug that into that other conversation. Besides, I have sat through another series of Susskind’s lecture specifically on that subject of releativity but that’s carrying it too far when speaking of ‘climate’.

    The lectures clearly identify the difference in a field (potential) for power transfer and any actual power transfer. With EMR the opposing field strictly limits any power transfer. The result is the only power transfer in the direction of the lower field strength. Very similar to the Clausius spontaneous power (heat) don go in the direction of higher potential.

  108. suricat says:

    Hi TB. You’ve a long response to your article here. It would be ‘impolite’ of me to not make any comment upon this subject, however, please forgive any inconsistency of my comments due to my not reading the ‘whole thread’.

    ‘All important’ is to be ‘honest’ in your dialogue and state ‘whether/or not’ you understand the dialogue of your co-respondent. If you don’t ‘fully’ understand one-another, debate is made more difficult.

    I’ll start near to the date of my post.

    Best regards, Ray.

  109. oldbrew says:

    wayne says; ‘co2 adds no additional energy (forcing) into the overall system’

    In which case any temperature change in one part of the system has to be offset by an opposite change somewhere else. Where is this ‘somewhere else’ supposed to be in AGW theories?

  110. oldbrew says: January 14, 2015 at 9:05 am
    wayne says; ‘co2 adds no additional energy (forcing) into the overall system’

    ” In which case any temperature change in one part of the system has to be offset by an opposite change somewhere else. Where is this ‘somewhere else’ supposed to be in AGW theories?”

    Why would you ever male such a claim? Temperatures and power levels are cyclic everywhere near this planet!

  111. suricat says:

    Collectively; wayne, oldbrew and Will Janoschka.

    From my understanding, the AGW hypothesis relies upon ‘energy translation’ from ‘higher vibrational frequencies/shorter wave-lengths’ into the ‘OLR’ (Outgoing Long-wave Radiation/s) spectra. IOW, a ‘resonant energy translation’ is enabled by collisional impact between molecules. This phenomenon (‘wing’ energy absorbed during molecular collision) exists mostly at atmospheric pressures within Earth’s atmosphere where convection regulates energy transfer and its effect is almost ‘negligible’.

    As oldbrew implies, the ‘energy’ is already ‘in the system’ and being ‘dealt with/moved’ by other systems that are in place where this occurs.

    However, Will asks “Why would you ever male (make?) such a claim?” and I concur with a caveat. UVa is the most variant component of insolation and is also the most ‘penetrating’ wave-length into ‘ocean depth’. Our oceans are cooled by the ‘Clausius Clapeyron’ relationship and our world is mostly covered at the ‘recognised’ surface with ‘water’.

    I think that TB is correct in his assumption that ‘ocean depth’ energy data should be included with ‘atmospheric’ energy data. Do the math and get back to me Will.😉

    Best regards, Ray.

  112. suricat says: January 16, 2015 at 3:17 am

    “Collectively; wayne, oldbrew and Will Janoschka.”

    “From my understanding, the AGW hypothesis relies upon ‘energy translation’ from ‘higher vibrational frequencies/shorter wave-lengths’ into the ‘OLR’ (Outgoing Long-wave Radiation/s) spectra. IOW, a ‘resonant energy translation’ is enabled by collisional impact between molecules. This phenomenon (‘wing’ energy absorbed during molecular collision) exists mostly at atmospheric pressures within Earth’s atmosphere where convection regulates energy transfer and its effect is almost ‘negligible’.”

    Good God Ray, No
    The AGW hypothesis is but FRAUD. There is absorption by the surface and atmosphere of solar EMR flux at most all wavelengths. Most absorption results in the conversion of EMR power to chemical power accumulated as biomass and latent heat of evaporation of water. This conversion of solar radiant power delivered, results in a different power, and sometimes accumulated as your sensible heat energy. This conversion has not anything to do with various frequencies. All power is accepted at all absorptive frequencies. The excess power is discarded to space at whatever frequencies that are available by any mass for exitance to space. Almost all exitance is from WV molecules over wide bandwidths because of the huge dipole moment of such WV.

    “As oldbrew implies, the ‘energy’ is already ‘in the system’ and being ‘dealt with/moved’ by other systems that are in place where this occurs.”

    “However, Will asks “Why would you ever make such a claim?” and I concur with a caveat. UVa is the most variant component of insolation and is also the most ‘penetrating’ wave-length into ‘ocean depth’. Our oceans are cooled by the ‘Clausius Clapeyron’ relationship and our world is mostly covered at the ‘recognized’ surface with ‘water’. ”

    “I think that TB is correct in his assumption that ‘ocean depth’ energy data should be included with ‘atmospheric’ energy data. Do the math and get back to me Will.😉 ”

    I can do the electromagnetic radiative equations. I have no idea of how ocean energy is converted into atmospheric water vapor. 🙂

    “Best regards, Ray.”

    Thank you for your interest in the imponderable -will-

  113. oldbrew says:

    @ Will J: it wasn’t so much a claim as a question.

    If extra CO2 is, as alleged by some, altering the distribution of energy in the system then every plus (e.g. higher surface temps as claimed by AGW) must also produce a minus if there is no ‘new energy’.

    Where do we go to measure the minus e.g. Antarctica? Note: that’s not a claim😉

  114. wayne says:

    oldbrew, you seem to be leaving out the columnar mass. For a fixed columnar mass, fixed gravitational field and fixed composition you are logically correct, the total energy is fixed, in and out, but what I am finding is that the environmental temperature profile cannot change its slope because that is mass/molecular composition/gravity dependent. What this would imply is it takes a warming of the stratosphere at the inversion altitude for the surface to warm and vise versa if the lower stratosphere at that inversion point (at about 100-200 hPa) cooled. Somewhat related to R&C’s paper.

    Just compare our atmosphere to all other atmospheres. After all, our atmosphere is just another atmosphere.

    PS:
    If I am spotty commenting here any longer at Talkshop, I’m having some real problems with someone (TB, tchannon, WordPress ?) dicking around with “HTTPS:” in the URI’s recently and this site is now wanting to save or access files to my computer that is banned on the security side. Instead of posting here I am going to wait for someone to fix this hopefully-temporary problem and reverts to HTTP-only as it should be. It’s a real hassle on this end!

  115. oldbrew says:

    wayne: could you report any wordpress problem via the ‘Help’ link at the top of the page, or ‘Help Page’ below – thanks.

  116. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 16, 2015 at 11:11 am

    “Good God Ray, No
    The AGW hypothesis is but FRAUD………”

    I can associate with your emotion Will, but emotional energy isn’t going to add to the thrust of any argument. Did you miss the bit where:

    suricat says: January 16, 2015 at 3:17 am

    “This phenomenon (‘wing’ energy absorbed during molecular collision) exists mostly at atmospheric pressures within Earth’s atmosphere where convection regulates energy transfer and its effect is almost ‘negligible’.”

    ???

    I’ve only stated the ‘AGW hypothesis’ as it has be made evident to ‘me’.🙂

    Back to Will Janoschka says: January 16, 2015 at 11:11 am

    “I can do the electromagnetic radiative equations. I have no idea of how ocean energy is converted into atmospheric water vapor. :)”

    Well, I suppose that was somewhat presumptuous of me. However, from your last post here, you ‘do’ mention that: “Almost all exitance is from WV molecules over wide bandwidths because of the huge dipole moment of such WV.”.

    ‘In my humble opinion’ (IMHO) this is also due to the temp/altitude that H2O undergoes during a ‘change of phase’ from ‘water to ice’, or ‘vapour to water’. The ‘chemical conversion’ just releases ‘heat/energy’ at above ambient temps for the region that the ‘change of phase’ occurs. Thus, confusing any ‘radiative analysis’ and giving rise to both a ‘dry’, and ‘wet’ lapse rate.

    ‘To be honest’ (TBH) Will, without a ‘full’ and ‘in depth’ knowledge of the atmosphere and its constituents at the time of measurement. The atmosphere seems ‘chaotic’.

    Why? Because energy from the ocean’s depths ‘lengthens’ the rate at which energy absorbed by the oceans/seas is made available for ’emission to space’. Thus, there’s a ‘lag’. Please realise that ‘insolation’ only plays its part in ‘charging’ Earth’s systems and I’m attempting to describe ‘some of’ the means of the ways that Earth’s systems ‘cool’. This is solely about OLR, with some reference to insolation for the purpose of the ‘timings’ between the ‘absorption’ of energy and the ’emission’ of that same energy.

    “Thank you for your interest in the imponderable -will-”

    The subject isn’t “imponderable” Will. For ‘starters’ see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

    I’ll get back when you understand this better.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  117. suricat says: January 17, 2015 at 4:06 am

    “The subject isn’t “imponderable” Will. For ‘starters’ see:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation
    I’ll get back when you understand this better.🙂 ”

    The cc relation is not the imponderable.
    The latent heat of evaporation for H2O is approx 2400 Joules per gram. 100g of atmosphere with 1% WV must generate this much heat when it condenses in the atmosphere. This equivalent of a 24 degree rise in the temperature of the 100 g of atmosphere. This is the only “why” to the lower saturated lapse rate. Since the annual average rainfall is 92 cm,this is accounts for an “additional” 75 W/m^2 to be continuously radiated to space from the atmosphere mainly via the existing WV with its large dipole moment..

    The imponderables:
    1. How and why exactly does the WV proceed to a liquid while in the atmosphere?
    2. How and why exactly does the biomass and ocean create the atmospheric WV?
    3. What process/system controls the amount of atmospheric WV at all times?

    Only after these questions have answers can any understanding of the atmosphere be possible.
    All the Kings horses and all the Kings horses-asses have nary a clue!

    -will- 🙂

  118. suricat says:

    Will Janoschka says: January 17, 2015 at 7:29 am

    “The cc relation is not the imponderable.”

    It’s refreshing to hear that Will, but it’s late for me and I’ll get back to you. If you want something to ‘ponder’ in the meantime, think ‘clouds’.🙂

    Best regards, Ray.

  119. Brian H says:

    “The consequent” is merely a failure to disprove. Lack of a predicted consequent is disproof. See Feynman; if the observation fails to match theory, the theory is wrong. No matter the stature of the theorizer or his skill in post facto rationalization.

  120. Brian H says:

    When AR4 announced that there was no test or data to provide ECS average or most likely figures, but that experts had 90% confidence (one sigma!) in the one provided, and then AR5 upped the ante by failing to provide one because estimates were too broad and disparate, but expert consensus in warming had grown to 95% (two sigma!!) a litmus test was established.

    Anyone who failed to howl in outrage at this perversion of science immediately disqualified themselves from having any scientific credibility or right to express an opinion on any scientific question and have it treated with respect. This is permanent; the irrefutable proof of lack of judgement and/or integrity is iron-clad.