Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand

Your tone worries me. You pose as a neutral observer seeking information is slipping. More and more you resemble a conspiracy theorist like golf Charlie.

Nov 22, 2016 at 9:44 AM | Entropic man

Which bit of global warming as a result of man's activities, has not been manufactured by climate scientists? You are succeeding in portraying yourself as a perpetrator of the big conspiracy that 97% of climate scientists have been embroiled in. Given the falsified evidence used by Cook and Skeptical Skience, many of the 97% could plead entrapment as a defence (or equivalent, depending on the Law in their land)

The relative merits of playing snail tennis, through a volleyball net, strung above garden walls are intriguing. Based on observed evidence, Martin A is right, and you are not.

Nov 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A: the original point was that Venus, despite having an atmosphere that is nearly ALL greenhouse gases (97% CO2), has, at altitudes where it is Earth-equivalent pressure (1 at.), temperatures that are the same as the Earth would have, were Earth the same distance from the Sun as Venus, even though the atmosphere of Earth is comprised mainly of non-greenhouse gases (99% N2 & O2). Does this not indicate that the entire “greenhouse gas” conjecture is flawed?

Nov 22, 2016 at 3:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

GC: to be fair to ALL other scientists, this mythical 97% is actually 65 out of 67 (or something like that). It does seem a shame that 99.997 of ALL scientists are being tarred by the same brush that should only be used on the original 65. Perhaps we should stop using ratios with this, and use the actual numbers involved; that it does severely weaken the alarmists’ arguments should be a good enough reason to do so.

Nov 22, 2016 at 3:20 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Raical Rodent, I am all for fairness, especially around maths.

Climate Science invented the 97% figure, and keep trotting it out, led by Skeptical Skience and their conspiracy advocates at The Guardian and in The White House.

It is obvious to me, that you and 97% of intelligent life forms on Earth, know the 97% Consensus is a total lie. But until it is denounced by those climate scientists who value their work, and have been diligent and non-political about it, they are siding with the conspiracy activists within the "majority" of all climate science, and at least 97% of climate science is going to get binned.

As Entropic Man seems happy to endorse the views of those dependent on the 97% Conspiracy for their financial survival, despite the best efforts of you and others on this blog, he is welcome to nail the 97% Flag to his mast, and sink with it.

I would love to know which bits of climate science should be saved. EM is clearly not interested.

When it comes to ECS, the work of Lewis and Curry is probably right, because it upsets the 97%. EM would rather deflect, by accusing me of conspiracy. That is all climate science has to offer now. Not much to put on it's EdStone. RIP?

Nov 22, 2016 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A. I get it now. You are arguing that additional new energy is being added, whereas I was arguing that your analog means that more energy is retained. Nevertheless your garden ends up with more snails! Surely that's what's important?

Nov 22, 2016 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

GC: true. But it would certainly take the wind from the sails of any who trumpet “97%!” should you reply: “You mean the 65 out of 67 of those who responded to a questionnaire that the questioners considered qualified to respond?” You could follow up with: “Of course, if only 67 were actually considered qualified to respond, why was the questionnaire sent out to over 10,000?”

And it is you who is being called the conspiracy theorist!?

(By the way, it might have been 77 out of 79; I cannot remember the actual numbers, and was hoping someone would correct me.)

Nov 22, 2016 at 5:26 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

ACK

An alternative analogy is an overcoat. This insulates your body. You produce the same amount of heat as before, but lose less to your environment.

The reduction in heat loss makes the difference between comfort and hypothermia.

Another analogy is a tank of water.

The tank has a hose at the top to pour in water and a tap at the bottom to let out water.
The hose is heat entering the system(insolation minus albedo) and the tap is OLR. Water =energy

Adjust the tap until water enters and leaves the tank at the same rate with the tank half full. The volume of the water in the tank represents the energy content of the climate system and the water level represents the temperature.

Close the tap slightly to simulate a stronger greenhouse effect and a reduced OLR. Water is now leaving the tank at a lower rate. As a result the volume and level rise.

As the head of water rises, so does the pressure at the tap. The outward water flow increases until it matches the inward flow at the hose. Water level and volume stabilise at a higher level.

No water magically appears. Water enters at the same rate, but changing the outward flow rate by adjusting the tap ends up changing the amount of water in the tank

Nov 22, 2016 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Golf Charlie

Are you a conspirator?

I think of a conspiracy theorist as one who sees conspiracies even when there are none.

Conspiracy theories are a convenient belief for a conservative. They give you an excuse to reject informationn you would prefer not to believe.

Unfortunately, to paraphrase Philip K Dick,

Reality is what continues to exist even after you stop believing in it.

Nov 22, 2016 at 6:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM. An alternative analogy is an overcoat. This insulates your body. You produce the same amount of heat as before, but lose less to your environment.
The reduction in heat loss makes the difference between comfort and hypothermia.

Your overcoat analogy will not work without further elaboration. If you produce the same amount of heat and your overcoat reduces heat loss, you eventually will boil. An overcoat works by slowing the rate at which you lose heat. This increases the temperature inside your coat. The temperature increase also increases the temperature gradient across the overcoat and that increases the heat flux until the heat produced by your body passes through the overcoat and is lost to the outside at the same rate. Your body does not produce any more energy, it is just the energy gradient that changes. After equilibrium is reached not even the heat flux has changed because this is set by the rate your body generates heat which should remain more or less constant.
You don't lose less heat to the environment - you lose exactly the same.

Nov 22, 2016 at 6:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Radical rodent

Does this not indicate that the entire “greenhouse gas” conjecture is flawed?

No. It is just a coincidence. Nor are conditions at 1 bar on Venus comparable to Earth. At the 1 bar level Venus has a continuous sulphuric acid cloud layer.How does that affect the temperature?

I look forward to your explaination for Venus having a surface temperature of 730K while absorbing less energy than Earth.

Nov 22, 2016 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A: the original point was that Venus, despite having an atmosphere that is nearly ALL greenhouse gases (97% CO2), has, at altitudes where it is Earth-equivalent pressure (1 at.), temperatures that are the same as the Earth would have, were Earth the same distance from the Sun as Venus, even though the atmosphere of Earth is comprised mainly of non-greenhouse gases (99% N2 & O2). Does this not indicate that the entire “greenhouse gas” conjecture is flawed?
Nov 22, 2016 at 3:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

RR - I have always thought that H D Huffman's observation demands an explanation, even if it is simply "it's nothin more than pure coincidence". Explanations that lead to a conclusion along the lines 'the entire “greenhouse gas” conjecture is flawed' result in my losing interest in reading any further and instead looking for interesting rubbish for sale on Ebay.

The simple model of the greenhouse effect (a spherical black body, surrounded by a shell of greenhouse gas that intercepts all photons emitted by the black body and then re-radiates them upward or downward with equal probability) is:

1. So simple that there is no possibility for error in analysing the simple model using the basic laws of radiative physics.

2. Sufficiently similar to the situation of the Earth whose atmosphere is not all that far (I can't remember the numbers and I won't look them up at the moment) from being opaque to long wavelength infra red, that it's hard to think of a mechanism by which the Earth could behave other than similarly to the very simple model.

Plus there are plenty of other reasons (eg spectral measurements of the Earth's radiation) that there is no real scope for thinking that its explanation is flawed.

So far as I can make out, arguments that the greenhouse effect does not exist or that it is not understood correctly seem to boil down to being the equivalent of stating that physics as taught in 1st year chemistry, physics or engineering courses is wrong.

The 99% (or whatever) non greenhouse gases can be disregarded. What matters is the effect of the greenhouse gases.

0.04% CO2 sounds a very small proportion. Even 0.5% water vapour (don't forget the water vapour) sounds small.

But what counts is not the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. What counts is the proportion of radiation emitted from the ground that gets intercepted by ghg molecules before making a getaway to space. As I said, I can't remember the figure offhand, but it's orders of magnitude more than 0.04%. I'm certain that EM can remind us if he cares to do so.

Nov 22, 2016 at 6:25 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

ACK

You are getting it.

Before you put on the overcoat your body is losing heat faster than it makes heat. The overcoat reduces the rate of heat loss to a level at which heat production matches heat loss and you become comfortable.

Heat loss is a function of outside conditions. As outside temperature decreases heat loss increases.

On a mild day the overcoat may reduce your heat loss below your heat production and you start to overheat. Take off the overcoat!

On a very cold day the overcoat may not insulate you enough. You still have a net body temperature reduction. You then need a parka instead.

What did you think of the tank analogy?

Nov 22, 2016 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM. Don't be so condescending. I pointed out that your analogy had major errors that you fail to acknowledge. Couldn't be bothered with your tank analogy when you could get the overcoat analogy so wrong. Did you not read my last sentence?

Nov 22, 2016 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

I like the analogy of a house which is well insulated, double glazed, with heavy velvet curtains and a small (or large) heater. Then someone closes the curtains causing a rise in inside temperature until someone else opens the back door and lets the heat out. In the earth's case there could be many types of back door, including ice free arctic, volcanic eruptions, changes in albedo, changes in cloud cover there are probably drafty windows and doors we don't know about.

Nov 22, 2016 at 7:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Conspiracy theories are a convenient belief for a conservative. They give you an excuse to reject informationn you would prefer not to believe. [sic]
There is another version of that:
Conspiracy theories are a convenient belief for a socialist. They give you an excuse to reject information you would prefer not to believe.
Odd how it works, whatever prejudice you might hold. I’m sorry, Entropic man, but you have rejected far more evidence presented to you than you have presented evidence for us “conservatives” (hohohoho) to mull over.

You, too, EM, have found that there are very few analogies that are not seriously flawed, though I do think yours are quite good, even though ACK has a point in his critique. SandyS’s analogy of the draughty house is probably better – you know there is at least one door or window open somewhere; you just can’t find it (or them).

As for the coincidence of Earth and Venus having the same equivalent temperature… erm… that is a little too much of a coincidence, for me. An interesting exercise might be to determine what the surface temperature of Mars would be, were Mars to be the same distance from the Sun as Earth, then compare that with the actual temperature on Earth at altitudes where the pressures are Mars-equivalent. If they just so happen to be the same, would that be another coincidence?

Nov 22, 2016 at 8:41 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The back radiation thing only works if it introduces a delay (more snails in the garden). However, that is not the mechanism claimed for it so why try to defend it by making up more duff stuff?
What about side radiation? As radiation exposure is received from all sides it is clear that any point where side radiation is measured would increase in temperature just by measuring. Clearly bonkers!
All radiation, except that from the sun has to imparted its energy, has shot its bolt, has gone tits up. It does nothing unless it is delayed. And that is not how the theory goes. The theory claims that back radiation does work. That theory is clearly bollocks.

Nov 22, 2016 at 9:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

Next theory: increasing CO2 raises the height at which radiation, on average, escapes to space. Higher is colder so less escapes.
There is no evidence that this occurs. It is proposed as a mechanism to satisfy the fact that there is a GE and CO2 change has a major roll in that.
It competes against back radiation. Why two theories?

Nov 22, 2016 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

Ssat: there is only one thing that supports the “greenhouse theory”, and that really is more of a “blanket theory”: when there is a blanket of cloud at night, surface temperatures do not fall as fast as when the night skies are clear. Something is slowing the heat loss; might I suggest that that “something” is the visibly apparent cover of cloud. How it reduces surface heat loss could be up to conjecture, but I would suggest that it is a combination of radiation inhibition and convection being restricted.

(Cue derisive cries of “Oh, you don’t think scientists have thought of that one, do you, eh?” Well, yes, they probably have – but have they had the courage to pursue that non-consensus idea?)

Nov 22, 2016 at 10:14 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin A:

Explanations that lead to a conclusion along the lines 'the entire “greenhouse gas” conjecture is flawed' result in my losing interest in reading any further and instead looking for interesting rubbish for sale on Ebay.
Oh. I am sure that you have assured us that you retain an open mind; odd for you to admit that, in some areas, you do not.

Nov 22, 2016 at 10:19 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ssat. I'm not really defending/attacking any theory - merely pointing out that simplistic theories (snails, overcoats) from any source (EM, Martin A) don't really work.

Nov 22, 2016 at 10:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

EM, thankfully I had honest science teachers at school. As a result of Mann and his disciples, including the fraudulent 97% Consensus conspitators, I now take no climate scientists' word for anything (unless they have incurred the wrath of Hockey Teamsters)

I have reason and evidence to conclude the guilt of climate science for crimes against all humanity. Climate science never had any evidence against CO2 at all.

Are you going to deny this aswell, and plead the Nuremberg defence, that you have been acting under orders?

I have just been trying to establish which bits of climate science SHOULD be saved. It seems that Judith Curry has the relevant qualifications and experience, to know what can be rejected outright, and what needs to be saved. It is the stuff in the middle that those experts from the IPCC approved list should be banned from adjudicating on.

I have absolutely no idea about Curry's political leaning, if any exists. Climate scientists made it political, not me, or anybody else.

Nov 22, 2016 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

ACK

Of course the overcoat analogy has flaws. It was intended just to make the point that the greenhouse effect acts as an insulator and not some way of producing magic energy from nowhere.

The tank analogy is the one which goes into detail, answering most of your criticism of the overcoat.which is why I suggest you read it.

You are very grumpy tonight. You OK?

ssat

Not two theories, but two ways in which the greenhouse effect generates a warmer surface.

Nov 22, 2016 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

ACK

Of course the overcoat analogy has flaws. It was intended just to make the point that the greenhouse effect acts as an insulator and not some way of producing magic energy from nowhere.

The tank analogy is the one which goes into detail, answering most of your criticism of the overcoat.which is why I suggest you read it.

You are very grumpy tonight. You OK?

ssat

Not two theories, but two ways in which the greenhouse effect generates a warmer surface.

Radical rodent

Mars? The data's all publicly available. Go for it.

Nov 22, 2016 at 11:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"It seems that Judith Curry has the relevant qualifications and experience,"
@golf charlie

Have you seen the briefing document that Judith Curry is working on aimed at Lawyers. It provides a viewpoint of the current GCMs.

Climate models for Lawyers

Mick.

Nov 22, 2016 at 11:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterMick J

Martin A

Here are your energy budget figures.

Nov 23, 2016 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man