Fair Use Note

WARNING for European visitors: European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent. As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. Learn more about this notice and your responsibilities.

Thomas Paine

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

Friday, November 18, 2011

18 November - Blogs I'm Following

 'Climate Science' has been coming up. Just scroll down for the regular repost from my Dashboard on Google's Blogger

 Chart : How the Climate Change Deniers Won

( 'Deniers' is standard spin positing a confrontational situation involving lying by others. Who lied first ?  Worse...who's pushing an agenda ? )

  • The IPCC's climate science was organised from the start to prove that CO2-GW caused the amplification of TSI increase at the end of an ice age.  Hansen says so.  The problem is that more recent data show the CO2 increase in air is a follower of temperature rise, so that rise came from some other process. That's what I believe I have worked out.

    Anyway back to the IPCC.  It assumes nonsensical 'back radiation', probably another mistake it can't back down from.  However, to overcome the inconvenient truth that there has been no recent warming [15 years], it assumes a correction factor - polluted clouds cool the earth by 'reflecting' more solar radiation and, according to Hansen, it's just doubled.

    There is no such science yet it's widely believed in the 'discipline'.  That's because it's a confidence trick. It's what would happen if the Sagan 'two stream approximation to aerosol optical physics were correct, but it's not.  it only works for thin clouds.

    The key is here: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/si...

    Twomey discovered that thin cloud became brighter in satellite images and worked out the Mie theory for this process.  Unfortunately, being a good physicist he used 'spherical albedo 'which asymptotes to unity.  This confused many people because in reality, for cloud cooling you must use hemispherical albedo and that tends to 0.5.  The upshot is that despite Twomey's warnings the people who control climate science mistakenly applied his maths to thicker clouds as well for which albedo can reach 0.9.

    By 2004, the satellite people [and they have a problem too] said 'No way Jose'.  So, NASA swapped Twomey's correct physics with the knowingly fake 'surface reflection' argument to keep the theoretical -0.7 W/m^2 'cloud albedo effect' cooling [Figure 2.4, AR4].  There is no experimental proof of this and the theory is wrong.  Therefore, the IPCC's CO2 'climate sensitivity' is at least a factor of 9 too high.

    Having had 40 years' post PhD experience in applied physics including running big projects, my conclusion is that this one stinks. It's a massive fraud to try and hide the initial mistakes.
    show less
  • When CO2 increases in the atmosphere it has a warming effect on the world. That's basic physics uncontested by any climate scientist in the world.

    "Anyway back to the IPCC. It assumes nonsensical 'back radiation', probably another mistake it can't back down from. However, to overcome the inconvenient truth that there has been no recent warming [15 years], it assumes a correction factor - polluted clouds"

    There has been warming in the last 15 years and backradiation is directly observed.

    This is what is odd about your post. Something very strange because you go into a lot of detail about clouds but your statements about back-radiation and warming in the last 15 years are fundamentally wrong. It's like Einstein making a basic math error. Doesn't make sense.

  • The fact that CO2 is a GHG is not contested.  However, there is absolutely no experimental proof outside aerosol noise that it has been experimentally observed for the Earth.  The evidence is this honest paper by Jeff Kiehl: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007

    Over the past decade, there has been no warming of the atmosphere or the oceans. Real CO2-AGW cannot be more than about a ninth of that claimed by the IPCC median level and may well be controlled by negative feedback to net zero [notice net]

    The observation of Prevost exchange energy should not be interpreted as proof of 'back radiation'.  If you measure the difference of signals up and down to eliminate exchange energy you get an exponential decrease with height as the IR from the Earth's surface is absorbed.  This experiment has been done by a Dutch PhD student who shinned up an 800 foot radio mast.  It will be published formally soon.

    Basically, apparently because Trenberth didn't have the physics, this mistake has propagated through 30+ years unchallenged.  It's got to stop.

    My analysis of the optical physics is entirely novel and based on four decades of experience in research.  Just look at rain clouds getting dark underneath and that result is totally opposite what the aerosol optical physics in the models predicts.  No-one in climate science looked out the bloody window to cross reference the modelled fantasy with reality.

    If you can't take that, sorry, but ask any professional physicist whether back radiation is real or whether the Sagan equation[ Eq. 19] here [ http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs... ], based on the assumption of one optical process, can predict why rain clouds with coarsening droplets have high albedo?

    The latest ploy of the new Lysenkoists is to claim only PhDs in climate science have the right to analyse publications.  Well, Judith Curry's teaching material is available on line; some of the physics, the above, is wrong.  I've been conned by people better than Trenberth and Hansen.

 

On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II:  Towards Rebuilding Trust

Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you will.  I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org   and the other at climateprogress.org.  Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and the diversity of opinions expressed at the different blogs was quite interesting.  Hence I am distributing this essay to a number of different blogs simultaneously with the hope of demonstrating the collective power of the blogosphere to generate ideas and debate them.  I look forward to a stimulating discussion on this important topic.
................ we have an editorial published in Science on February 10 from Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Science, that begins to articulate the trust issue: “This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole. What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.”  While I applaud loudly Dr. Cicerone’s statement, I wish it had been made earlier and had not been isolated from the public by publishing the statement behind paywall at Science. Unfortunately, the void of substantive statements from our institutions has been filled in ways that have made the situation much worse.

LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER?

 Robert Lamb appears to be at the heart of the BBC's environmental programmes scandal. He set up the Television Trust for the Environment in the 1980s and ran it until around 2005. Over the past few years, he formed and now runs his own outfit called One Planet Pictures. He also helped establish, and is now an executive producer of, Dev TV. 

Under the template created by Mr Lamb, it currently (according to its latest charity commission return - h/t Tony Newbery, Harmless Sky) generates more than £1.4m a year of support from sources that include various greenie tranzis and government departments that have an EU-driven climate change agenda. From the beginning, again under Mr Lamb's nakedly aggressive political agenda and template, its goal was to disseminate unbridled greenie alarmist propaganda in accordance with the UN agenda. 

 

Welcome to the Reading List. Here are all the updates from any blogs you follow and sites you've joined using Google FriendConnect.

 

Posted by opit at 7:35 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)