From John Cook and the University of Queensland’s Denial 101 video series.
Dr Sherwood is Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales.
Sherwood discusses climate feedback effects, the history of climate science, climate denial objections to the science, and the structure of scientific revolutions.
This month is the 100th anniversary of the theory of general relativity, and the 20th anniversary of the 4th IPCC report which found a “discernible human influence” in the climate. Here is a quote from Einstein about the acceptance of his theory that ties the two anniversaries together:
“This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”
Love the calm voice of reason quality to Sherwood’s interview. Such a refreshing break. I see some of my old textbooks on his shelf – Jackson “Classical Electrodynamics” is de rigor for all doctoral physics types – it was a bear to work through those problem sets in my Stanford days long ago.
Try this one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/spencer-points-out-hypocrisy-blogosphere-twitterverse-explodes/#comment-202235
I am surprised anyone pays any attention to Spencer for two reasons:
1) he and John Christy published some faulty science in the 1990s which was not discovered until 2005 when Mears and Wentz of RSS discovered algebraic errors in Spencer and Christy’s diurnal correction algorithms (published in the 2005-09-02 issue of Science magazine; a publication of the AAAS):
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/climate_science.html#bad-science
Nothing wrong with this because “people make mistakes” and “science is self correcting”. Spencer and Christy acknowledged their errors to-their-peers in the following issue (nothing wrong with this either) but they continued to tell the public that Earth’s climate was cooling. (in effect, they gambled that non-scientists would never learn the truth or see the AAAS publication; this all came out in the climategate email hacks of 2009)
2) he is now on the board of professional denier organization by the name of the “George C. Marshall Institute”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
I am assuming this position pays a whole lot more (I have been told $700k per year) than his previous position with UAH and/or NASA.
A third reason for not paying attention to anything Spencer says is to read his books. I was shocked when I saw the degree of waffling that is laced throughout his so-called “science”, particularly oin Global Warming Blunder. The words “perhaps, maybe, it appears, if-then, seems to”, and similar “qualifiers” appear everywhere. He is a master of the bald assertion, and spouts his “definitive science” without much factual backup.
No one on “Science of Doom” (including DeWitt Payne) can refute what I wrote there.
The Solar radiation is the ONLY radiation that could warm the ocean if it were strong enough, because the back radiation does not penetrate below the surface. In fact the back radiation is pseudo scattered and none of its energy is converted to thermal energy. Even if there were such a conversion all within a few nanometers of the surface, that extremely thin layer would obviously boil and evaporate, and so the warming there would not influence the rest of the water below to any measurable extent.
So you are left with only Solar radiation of 168W/m^2 on average that could potentially raise the ocean temperature. The only problem for you is that Stefan and Boltzmann would turn in their graves if you claimed that such low radiation levels could explain anything remotely close to the observed temperatures. It can’t. It would only “warm” a flat, asphalt-covered Earth to about -40C. And that’s why the entropy maximization process that I have been telling you about, and have explained with valid physics, is the ONLY possible mechanism that can, and does, keep the oceans at observed temperatures. I’ve been right all along, and that’s why no one has even attempted to refute my hypothesis, not even for AU $10,000. It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the linked peer-reviewed papers, the video and my book.
“newclimatechangetheory” your science is quite some distance from accepted physics. The stuff you posted would get you failed in any science course.
Your entitled to what ever opinions you wish but when its facts you talk about you can’t make those up with out being reminded that climate science is coherent peer reviewed and covers the whole area of technologic progress we currently enjoy.
We have the future of civilisation at stake currently and mixed up dodgy stuff does not lead to a discussion that is needed.
The current climate theory is backed by the worlds governments through the IPCC and is very conservative. Making up your own theory does not mean anything.
My physics is derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
In that you have neither read my papers or book, or my website, or watched my videos, and in that you haven’t a clue as to what I have explained and probably have no correct understanding of the necessary entropy maximization process, then I dismiss your comment as being totally unfounded. In so far as your gullible acceptance of the pal-reviewed climatology pseudo science, I have pinpointed errors in such and my new comment below (if it passes moderation) demonstrates one such obvious error in the claims that direct radiation to the surface explains surface temperatures.
I got my First Class Honors in Physics in the 1960’s and have helped many students understand physics over the decades since then – something you apparently don’t understand as you are obviously chickening out of discussing anything I have put forward. Physicists who have read and understood my papers and book have agreed that it is breakthrough science, but of course it’s not yet in academic courses, and so any academic with his or her head buried in the carbon dioxide hoax, or motivated financially (such as yourself) to maintain the status quo is going to attempt to smear my explanation without a word of discussion of the actual content.
Yawn. Another self-described science-denying ‘genius’ whose crackpot theory is the victim of a conspiracy by every scientific organization on the planet.
Perhaps you would have more success if you changed your web identity to “ModernDayGalileo”?
In other words you have no valid response to the valid refutation of the GHE which I have provided above, in the new comment below, in my website, my videos, my book and my two peer-reviewed papers – reviewed by physicists who, unlike yourself, understand maximum entropy production and its relevance. Well you won’t get the AU $10,000 reward for proving me wrong.
What I write is supported by copious evidence and experiments with centrifugal force that completely debunk the foundation “building block” of the GHE conjecture regarding supposedly isothermal tropospheres in the absence IR-active gases.
If water vapor were to warm and do most of 33 degrees of warming, then rain forests with 4% water vapor should be well over 50 degrees hotter than dry regions with 1% water vapor at similar latitude and altitude. They are not. So that proves that you are personally gullible and seriously lacking correct understanding of thermodynamics because you believe the hoax.
You waste our time. We will not attempt to “refute” your weird science, since we are believers in the “Duchess Principle” as practiced by Alice. To wit:
“I quite agree with you,” said the Duchess; “and the moral of that is–‘Be what you would seem to be’–or if you’d like it put more simply–‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'”
“I think I should understand that better,” Alice said very politely, “`if I had it written down: but I can’t quite follow it as you say it.”
“That’s nothing to what I could say if I chose,” the Duchess replied, in a pleased tone.
“Pray don’t trouble yourself to say it any longer than that,” said Alice.
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 9)
I very much enjoyed the talk. It covered much of what I have been reading in contemporary climate science but in a very short time period.
The focus on cloud feedback and it’s unsolved nature was good to hear about. Its often glossed over.
The fact that we knew about the science of global warming well before it became apparent was another good point.
It matches a second year lecture in Chemistry in 1975 at UNSW where a lecturer told us we need to solve the carbon cycle balance issue in our life times as CO2 was building up in the atmosphere and at some point that would lead to global warming.
My old lecturer proposed solar, wind, hydro and nuclear as solutions.
The scientific basis has been known for a very long time, but now fossil fuel interests are threatened financially we see attacks on science.
Comment on nuclear: I have always been pro-nuke because I believed to to be a whole lot safer than any other technology -and- it emits no CO2. So last night I was on Netflix where I stumbled on a documentary titled “Pandora’s Promise” where I learned that nuclear is safer than any other energy source including solar which involves lots of toxic chemical during manufacturing. Looking at literature from that time shows that the anti-nuke movement was orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps in an effort to throw people off-the-scent, the literature suggested solar as an alternative which, I am certain, no one at that time would ever though could eventually challenge fossil. View the movie then make up your own mind.
Speaking as someone who was deeply embedded from childhood in the grassroots anti nuclear movement, and reading “Nucleonics Week” in middle school, the “fossil fuel orchestration” is nonsense, since it’s the same companies that were pushing both technologies. ( as this contemporary cartoon shows)
http://gaspgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/solar-power-cartoon-isnt-feasible.jpg
There was never an “either-or” contemplated – fossil or nuclear. If you look at the energy demand predictions from the mid to late 60s, projections were that, with the assumed demand doubling every 10 years, (7 percent annual increase), and the twin assumption that electricity consumption was inseparable from economic growth, – projections were for thousands of new nuclear plants, AND another couple thousand coal fired plants by the turn of the century. (just in the US)
Those economic assumptions were crushed by the OPEC oil embargo and market fluctuations of the 70s. Nuclear was over by 1977 – well before the real mass-market, pop-star driven anti-nuclear movement gathered strength from Three Mile Island.
It was also assumed that those thousands of nuclear plants around the world would be fueled by pure bomb-grade plutonium from a planned generation of breeder reactors. Imagine a world with Al Qaeda, ISIS, and ton quantities of bomb material being shipped around on a constant basis.
And I know, I know, there’s all this “new”nuclear and thorium talk. By all means, take fifteen years and build one if you can, and operate it for 20 years to assure potential investors that it works. In the meantime, renewables will be taking over.
Worth noting some interesting articles on the subject
A bit of cold hard practicality
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/12/18/energy-markets/wishful-thinking-and-misinformation-open-letter-nuclear-lobbyists
Some Blue Sky from a major Corporation
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-lockheed-martin-pursues-compact-fusion.html#ajTabs
And one you may be unaware of. Repeated in other sites also.
However not classed as due to the Nuclear Industry.
Which raises severe questions as to the veracity of the figures for deaths from Nuclear accidents and leakage
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/residents-in-st-louis-dying-in-record-numbers-from-world-war-ii-radioactive-waste/news-story/3626e996b759f6e4694abe61b7416975?sv=676bc881e867abadae7ff5862bfd3c54
Not sure why you’ve posted these links, as “interesting” as they are.
The first is a letter posted by the head of Friends of the Earth Australia’s anti-nuclear campaign. FOE has been anti-nuclear for 40+ years, and I was a member of FOE myself way back when I also was anti-nuclear. It raises the tired old anti-nuclear weapons proliferation argument and misrepresents the state of the latest power reactor technology. This type of propaganda is what causes environmentalists to be labelled as kooks and motivated reasoners—similar to the worst of the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO left-wing folks, and the flip side of the coin of the Lamar Smiths, James Inhofes, and other AGW deniers on the right.
Regarding the second link, do not sell your Solar Roadway stock to invest in Lockheed-Martin’s fusion power “dreams”.
Regarding the third link, it is a BIG reach to try to make a connection between radioactive waste from weapons manufacture dumped back in the 1940’s allegedly causing cancers and the “dangers” of nuclear power generation in 2015. We’ve come a long way in our understanding how NOT to contaminate the environment since Love Canal NY and Times Beach MO.
PS I wonder why Coldwater Creek was only recently “discovered”, since it’s only 15 or 20 miles from Times Beach, and MO is kind of a hotbed for contamination and cancer clusters (many of which are thought to result from fallout from weapons testing, again unrelated to nuclear power generation).
” I learned that nuclear is safer than any other energy source including solar which involves lots of toxic chemical during manufacturing. ”
How many people have been harmed by PV manufacturing? Google doesn’t seem to come up with anything.
Nuclear – thousands of attributable deaths. Cancer in the thousands.
Google is as mindless as you are, but if you had searched instead for deaths from nuclear power you wouldn’t have found much either Nuclear-powered electricity generation has been directly responsible for fewer deaths over its entire history than fossil fuel power causes every few days, and the CO2 and assorted toxics associated with PV manufacture are not inconsiderable.
So far, the death roll from Fukushima is ~20,000 from the tsunami itself, ~700 to 1,000 from the evacuation (heart attacks, stress on the sick and old folks, suicides), and NONE from radiation.
Even Chernoblyl was directly responsible for only ~50 deaths, and they were the first responders.
“….thousands of attributable deaths. Cancer in the thousands…” is pure BS. The biggest threat to both the Chernobyl and Fukushima folks appears to be psychological disorders, not cancer.
An author came on a Crock thread a while back and touted his book “Climate Gamble—Is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future” (Partanen and Korhonen, 2015). Only 99 pages and 10 bucks from Amazon, and it will provide you with the education about nuclear power that you so sorely need.
“Google is as mindless as you are, ”
What the fuck is wrong with you? A disease? A medication problem?
An inherent bitterness> Or are you just a miserable asshole?
Jeesh!?!
Correction: After reading this comment, it is obvious that Google is NOT as mindless as gingerbakedbrain. Google is a search engine, and follows its algorithms, and that often results in many “hits” that are pretty dumb and even weird, but at least it has SOME sort of “thought process” that it follows. Gingerbakedbrain apparently doesn’t, and, rather than take my advice to get educated and dispel his ignorance about the “hazards” of nuclear power, he chooses to instead get emotional and sling ad hominems at me, always the last resort for someone who can’t refute the message—-attack the messenger.
Gingerbakedbrain asks: “What the fuck is wrong with you? A disease? A medication problem? Or are you just a miserable asshole?”
No, I’m just a dumb old guy who happens to know enough about this topic to tell gingerbakedbrain that he’s a miserable asshole that is so full of S**T that he might be considered to be “diseased”, and that he needs to cut the dose of HIS “medication”—-I speak of 100% pure Vermont Maple Syrup Vodka.
Move over jimbills, I’m beginning to see why you don’t talk to GB anymore.
(and BakedBrain? Buy the book I mentioned or try googling the truth about “Nuclear – thousands of attributable deaths. Cancer in the thousands”. By all means share with us what you find.
““….thousands of attributable deaths. Cancer in the thousands…” is pure BS. ”
Tell it to the U.N. investigators, who ascribe 4,000 deaths to it.
Tell it to “WHO’s specialized agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released the following estimates: : 9000 excess cancer deaths among the 6.8 million people living in the most affected regions of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine and 16,000 excess cancer deaths for Europe as a whole through 2065.” (http://science.time.com/2011/04/22/how-many-did-chernobyl-kill-more-than-4000/)
Tell it to the Union of Concerned scientists who ascribe:
“If we apply the lower and upper confidence bounds, we find a range of 27,000 to 108,000 excess cancer cases, of which 12,000 to 57,000 would be fatal.”
Tell it to the New York Academy of Sciences – est. in 1817 – who just published a book (http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908)
which ascribes 985,000 deaths world-wide to Chernobyl.
So again, dog – what the fuck is wrong with you, you nasty motherfucker?
What’s apparently “wrong with me” is that I respond to someone who says things like “…what the fuck is wrong with you, you nasty motherfucker?” on a reasonably “polite” forum like Crock, and to people like me who are far better educated in science than he is and are trying to be his friend by telling him he is full of shit. Would Einstein say that I met his definition of insanity by thinking that gingerbakedbrain will ever see the light? (or stop hitting the maple syrup vodka too much?). Again, he shows that those who can’t argue from knowledge and facts must resort to ad hominems.
Lets put the figures from his “evidence” for nuclear energy “slaughter” in context. Air pollution kills ~4000 people EVERY DAY in China alone, and that adds up to 1.6 MILLION a year. That’s one country, and the worldwide estimate for premature deaths due to air pollution is ~7 MILLION. Yes, radiation can be harmful, and it is causing some “premature” deaths, but the numbers are a drop in the bucket.
I asked GB for some citations, so he dutifully googled and found some “evidence” for us. And remember that the numbers he cited (without really understanding them) are the ever famous “projections”, and don’t take into account the cancers that are caused by all the toxics we have introduced into the environment at the same time we began using nuclear power.
Yes, GB, you ARE full of shit and ARE guilty of spreading ignorant non-science here on Crock.
“Tell it to the U.N. investigators, who ascribe 4,000 deaths to it”—-Big whoop! That’s one day’s toll from air pollution in China.
“Tell it to “WHO’s specialized agency, (IARC) who released the following ESTIMATES THROUGH 2065”—-that’s 50 (FIFTY) freakin’ years from now. And sourced from a TIME article by a writer who is a bit on the fringe. That’s Google for ya—-it finds “stuff” but only mindless science-ignorant fools like GB are capble of misinterpreting and misusing it.
Tell it to the Union of Concerned Scientists? I have belonged to UCS since the 1970’s, have read much of their stuff, and can tell you that you are misrepresenting the facts a bit with your quote:
“If we apply the lower and upper confidence bounds, we find a range of 27,000 to 108,000 excess cancer cases, of which 12,000 to 57,000 would be fatal.”
And your most laughable “reference” is to Global Research, the website for the Center for Research on Globalization, a whacko right wing group that supports many conspiracy theories. The very fact that GR published an article in support of this book should make you run for the exits rather than cite it. But you’re not educated about Global Research and science and the biology of nuclear radiation, so I guess we can forgive your ignorant opinions.
FYI, gingerbakedbrain, the NY Academy has had some controversy about whether or not they should have published that piece of garbage book by some half-assed Russian no-name scientists with its wild claims of 985,000 deaths from Chernobyl. Here’s a critique by a real scientist—-ask me to explain any of the science you don’t understand. And the interesting thing is that the book was not really sponsored by the NYAS, but by Greenpeace, and is part of the anti-nuclear BS propaganda war that some environmental groups fought. If you read the Climate Gamble book, you’ll learn more about all that.
http://atomicinsights.com/devastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment/
In conclusion, I will say once again that nuclear power is the ONLY virtually carbon free source of large amounts of electricity available to us at present. Its dangers have been way overblown, and we need to heed Hansen et al and include it in the mix if we want to head off the 2 degee C temperature rise.
Real world temperature data proves water vapor causes the surface temperature to be lower, and just as well because the mean surface temperature would be over 300K without water vapor and the resulting clouds that increase albedo from about 10% to about 30%.
No one has produced a study showing water vapor warms, so the greenhouse conjecture is smashed.
My study is in the Appendix of this peer-reviewed paper …
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
and the results were …
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C
The reasons why water vapor cools can only be explained with CORRECT physics – also in the above paper.
Radiation (solar or back radiation) reaching a planet’s surface is NOT the primary determinant of the mean surface temperature.
BEWARE! Any comment that cites a “peer-reviewed paper” by Douglas Cotton, which paper has Principia Scientific International listed prominently among its “references”, is an invitation to travel down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. Mr. Cotton has apparently been banned by a number of climate blogs for “weird science”.
Go to this comment and the following one and argue with correct physics or nothing. PSI is not a valid source of information pertaining to planetary surface temperatures and I am not a member thereof. Clearly you are stumped yourself regarding the physics which you don’t know or understand, and you probably don’t even know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about. That is the fundamental reason as to why you are so personally gullible as to believe each 1% of water vapor causes about 20 degrees of warming, thus making rain forests with 4% about 60 degrees hotter than dry regions with 1% – IF the IPCC were correct that is. Frankly I pity gullible people.
Please go to this comment and the following one and argue with correct physics or nothing. PSI is not a valid source of information pertaining to planetary surface temperatures and I am not a member thereof. Clearly you are stumped yourself regarding the physics which you don’t know or understand, and you probably don’t even know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about. That is the fundamental reason as to why you are so personally gullible as to believe each 1% of water vapor causes about 20 degrees of warming, thus making rain forests with 4% about 60 degrees hotter than dry regions with 1% – IF the IPCC were correct that is. Frankly I pity gullible people.
The link for the above-mentioned comment is …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/6-10-of-global-warming-for-chicago-detroit/#comment-202262
Yes, if one goes there, the comment stream shows that even the commenters on Roy Spencer’s blog hold our boy in low regard—-the best one:
Doug ~ Cotton says:
November 21, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Is there any reason why I should not point out errors that are promulgated by hoaxers and serve no purpose other than to support themselves financially and promote the killing of thousands of innocent persons in developing countries?
jimc says:
November 22, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Yes. You’re confused, wrong, obnoxious, and ridiculously repetitive.
jimc speaks for us on Crock as well—-go away, Dougie.
Frankly, I myself pity deluded people. Since I am not deluded, I will not argue whacky physics with one who is. Reread Paul Whyte’s comment—he nailed it.
Not a single hoaxer I’ve ever seen writing blog comments is actually able to explain with valid physics why the mean surface temperature of the Earth is what it is. They completely overlook the T^4 relationship in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations just for starters.
Yet, even though they obviously don’t understand or even know about the mechanism which does determine that surface temperature, they presume to understand what the mechanism is which they claim will lead to a warming of that surface temperature supposedly all caused by one molecule of you-know-what in each 2,500 other molecules in our atmosphere.
Oh well, if anyone happens to be interested in finding out what the real mechanism is that has been confirmed as correctly explaining all planetary temperature data, they could spend a couple of hours studying what I have spent many thousands of hours working out here* and confirming with studies and experiments.
* http://climate-change-theory.com
Funny about that
“one molecule of you-know-what in each 2,500 other molecules in our atmosphere”
Yet you would accept that without that insignificant trace molecule life as we know it could not exist.
Perverse reasoning to say the least
Took me a while to get around to watching this but most definitely worth it. I will share this on my facebook page, whereupon there will be a deafening silence in response. I know this, because every single time I share climate related stuff, I get the same response.
newclimatechangetheory, by the way, appears to be one of those “self-taught” “physicists” who think they’ve figured out the answers nobody else can see. One word for people like that: Arrogance.
I shared this video on my facebook page, knowing full well that I would receive a defeaning silence as a response. And that is exactly what happened. Then I posted a picture of my breakfast and got plenty of likes. It’s so unreal to me that this is how people respond. If I think too much about it, it will make me depressed, so I will move on.
Don’t leave me hanging.
what did you have for breakfast?
Crepes…
Cripes! You had CREPES for breakfast? And what, pray tell, did you top your crepes with?
(I had an Eggo frozen waffle, and topped it with Smuckers blackberry-black raspberry jam).
PS I don’t FB or twitter. Is it normal practice to post pictures of one’s breakfast on FB? And to get “plenty” of likes in response? I am not only a dumb old guy, I am an out of touch old guy (OOTOG for short).
I don’t normally put pictures of my breakfast up, but since I made crepes for the kids, it was a “special occasion”. But to be honest, people post pictures of their dinners all the time. It’s almost like a selfie… 🙂
We had cut up bananas, strawberries and kiwis, topped with home-made whipped cream with fresh lemon juice. It was pretty good. So I guess people like THAT topic better than the other one…