Like racism, climate denial is likely to be with us for a long time – Miami shows us that, even as the water laps up around climate denier’s ankles, they continue to find reasons to look away. Humans are just like that.
Is organised climate science denial finished?
After global heat records were continually broken over the last decade, and as sea levels rose and scientists reported the accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, you might be forgiven for thinking the debate over climate change had shifted.
No more arguing over the science? It’s more about the policy now, right?
Well, wrong. At least according to a new study that has looked at 15 years worth of output from 19 conservative “thinktanks” in the United States.
“We find little support for the claim that ‘the era of science denial is over’ – instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period,” the study concludes.
The conservative thinktanks under the microscope are the main cog in the machinery of climate science denial across the globe, pushing a constant stream of material into the public domain.
The study, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, analysed more than 16,000 documents published online between 1998 and 2013 by mainly US groups like the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.
Contrary to some commentators, the study found attacks on science had increased in later years. At the same time, the thinktanks were focusing less on policy issues.
These findings are supported by recent investigative news reports, which show that since the 1970s, top executives and scientists in the fossil fuel industry have been well aware of the evidence that their products amplified climate-warming emissions. They conducted their own extensive research on the topic and participated in ongoing scientific discussions. The American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group, even circulated the results to its members. By 1978, a senior executive at ExxonMobil proposed creating a worldwide “CO2 in the Atmosphere” research and development program to determine an appropriate response.
Unfortunately, that path wasn’t taken. Instead, in 1989, a group of fossil fuel corporations, utilities and automobile manufacturers banded together to form the Global Climate Coalition. This group worked to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, was not adopted by the United States. In public statements, the Global Climate Coalition continued to deny that global warming was occurring and emphasized the uncertainty of climate science.
The spreading of misinformation continued. In 1998, API, Exxon, Chevron, Southern Co. and various conservative think tanks initiated a public relations campaign, the goal of which was to ensure that the “recognition of uncertainties (of climate science) becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”
While that coalition disbanded in 2001, ExxonMobil reportedly continued to quietly funnel climate misinformation through “skeptic” think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute, until 2006, when its funding was exposed. The company — the nation’s largest and wealthiest — continues to work with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a so-called public-private partnership of corporations and conservative legislators, to block climate change policies.
For years, ExxonMobil had been a participant in public efforts to sow doubt about climate change. Yet at at the same time, the corporation was at the leading edge of climate science and its executives were well informed regarding the scientific consensus on climate change. This allegedly deceitful conduct has generated public outrage and recently led New York’s attorney general to initiate an investigation into whether ExxonMobil has misled the public and investors about the risks of climate change.
It turns out that a lot of Americans still don’t know much of anything at all about climate change, but the majority do know something. That’s according to a poll reported by WUWT (and probably some other climate conspiracy blogs), as well as various media outlets. The poll was conducted by Monmouth University. (Climate denial blogger)Anthony Watts has a guest article by David Middleton. The headline reads:
Poll: 73% of Americans reject so-called AGW consensus (but you wouldn’t know it from the headline)
Now what that shows is that David Middleton, unusually for a science denier, understands that since around the middle of last century, the scientific consensus is that probably all the warming we’ve had is because of human activity. What has shocked him is that the media reports it differently. He’s appalled at a headline that reads:
Poll: 70 percent believe in climate changeSo am I, but for different reasons. From where I sit (in Australia) it should read: “Poll: 70 per cent believe in climate change” or better yet: “61% in the USA know that humans are contributing to climate change”.
David wants people to read the results differently. He would prefer that the headline showed that 22% don’t think climate change is happening and 8% don’t know whether it is or not.No, that’s not quite it.
What he wants people to understand is that only 27% of respondents know that humans are primarily responsible for climate change. (He pushed the point that the scientific consensus is with the 27%, which might explain the “thoughts”. )
There are a lot of Americans (34% judging by the responses) who think that climate change is about half and half from human activity and natural causes. Add that to the 27% and you get 61% who think that humans have caused at least half the warming or more. That’s not too bad, given we’re talking about America, where people suffer disinformation from Fox News and denier politicians. It’s not good either.
AV splutters:
and
As Bernard J on other blogs is fond of writing WRT such as AV, ‘it is always projection’.
Yep!
Ok guys, re adrianvance, as amusing as this is, I feel the same way as if I saw a gang of kids tying cans to a cat’s tail. It’s just a little cruel to treat the mentally debilitated in this way, so let’s be a little more compassionately disciplined,and DNFTT.
What’s cruel is allowing Adrian to keep “asking for it” (and subjecting the rest of us to his craziness). You have been like a sheepherder that stakes out his dumbest sheep in a valley full of wolves. Adrian has served his purpose as a bad example—he has also gotten the Crock hit count way up (is 148 on a single thread a record?), which is never a bad thing, but he has outlived his usefulness.
We DID start talking about the persistence of climate change denial but soon lost the thread when Adrian made it “all about him” and his fractured science after only 6 or 8 comments, and started shilling his book. You have put others like Adrian out of their misery much more quickly in the past—why have you allowed him so much leeway? (Has he promised you a cut of the $60 million he is going to make on his fuel farms? LOL)
Poor baby: Cannot deal with intelligent responses or authentic people who use their real names, real resume’s, real lists of publications and real facts! I, and anyone who looks into it will see that I have reported fact and am soon releasing a step-by-step “experiment,” actually a demonstration, that will show you all the talk about CO2 ruling the atmosphere, “forcing,” etc. is nonsense. Furthermore:
In “Experiment in Climate Change” that will be on Amazon Kindle for 99 cents or $1.99 depending on their rules as they set the price when you “go low,” we also explain the Le Chatelier concept and equation, step-by-step in the way that made my work in science films the most popular in the school market for 30 years and for all the most prestigious publishers in educational materials. Britannica flew me from California to Chicago every year to be at a table where of was “Doctor for a day,” as I was the only man there without a Ph.D. as the largest round table in the Chicago Loop. Seated to my right, every year, was Dr. Al Baez, physicist and father of Joan Baez, as he was my standing consultant who would review all my scripts for EBF and I have to put up with the ravings of a man who hides behind a pseudonym, has no academic credentials, published credits or good sense. His manners and language are gutter ready and his thinking process mal neurotic. Nonetheless, I will continue to stand for what is right and try to save my country, culture and science.
You are at odds with the producer of this blog, unless you have not noticed, which would not surprise me as your perceptual and analytical skills are clearly attenuated if not missing. Perhaps you are the one who should leave and take with you your silly name twistings, fables and confusions.
“ZZZZZZzzzzzz…….!!!” says the bull.
adrianvance has argued that since water vapor molecules are much more common in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide molecules the greenhouse effect is almost entirely due to water vapor, swamping the effects of carbon dioxide.
caerbannog666 rightly pointed out that:
In fact, water vapor density drops roughly by a factor of 2.7 for every 2 km and carbon dioxide by 2.7 for every 8 km, or alternatively water vapor density is cut in half for each additional 1.5 km in altitude whereas carbon dioxide is cut in half for each additional 5.5 km. In the lower layer of the atmosphere known as the troposphere, temperature drops with increasing altitude, falling at 10 °C/km where relative humidity is 0% but 5.5 °C/km where relative humidity is 100%. These are known as the dry and moist lapse rates.
In terms of the greenhouse effect, the main action occurs at higher altitude. Near the surface, pretty much all of the infrared radiation that can be absorbed is being absorbed by water vapor, not carbon dioxide. Adding either carbon dioxide or water vapor isn’t going to change the degree of absorption. What really matters are the higher layers of atmosphere where for a given frequency of infrared radiation the relevant greenhouse gases have fallen off enough that the atmosphere turns semi-transparent. This is the point at which a photon emitted by a greenhouse gas molecule stands a decent chance of escaping to space.
At higher altitudes, absorption of infrared radiation by water vapor falls off. In addition, with partial pressures, the lines of absorption of water vapor and carbon dioxide become more narrow. There is less overlap. So for the absorption lines where carbon dioxide acts water vapor is much less of an issue. You can explore what changes in the concentrations of gases will look like at different altitudes looking up or down with ModTran online. However, ModTran is an approximation. If you want the empirical data ModTran is based off of at the online HiTran database. It contains data on over a million lines of absorption by various molecules.
Satellites are able to image water vapor and carbon dioxide from space. The higher the concentration of carbon dioxide the more opaque the atmosphere is to the frequencies in which carbon dioxide acts and the higher the altitude at which photons escape to space. We are even able to measure the concentration through satellite imaging so accurately that when we compare these measurements against flasks of air obtained by planes and measured in laboratories the difference is less than 2 parts per million (ppm). In the troposphere, higher altitudes imply lower temperatures and lower temperatures imply that carbon dioxide will glow less brightly. As such, we are able see plumes of carbon dioxide rising off the east and west coasts of the United States in this image.
Raising the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce the infrared brightness of the atmosphere further, reducing the rate at which energy is lost to space, resulting in an imbalance between the rate at which energy enters and leaves the atmosphere. The climate system will absorb more energy than it loses, warming up until at the altitudes were infrared radiation escapes to space it glows brightly enough that total upwelling infrared radiation once again balances the downwelling sunlight that is absorbed by the climate system.
Raising the temperature at higher altitudes will imply a warmer surface. Higher temperatures at higher altitudes reduce the convection that otherwise cools the lower layers of the atmosphere, and thus when the average altitude at which infrared radiation is lost to space increases the surface warms according to the lapse rate.
Anyway, if people are interested in exploring this further I have a webpage at Climate Gardian, Science of Doom has a thirteen part Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect and twelve part Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation, and there are a great many other online resources such that you can go as far as you want to go.
The science is there, and it is the same science that makes weather satellites, lasers, fighter jet infrared vision and even microwave ovens work. But all of this is quite irrelevant to those who argue against the science. Their opposition is ideological, or in the case of fossil fuel companies like Exxon, financial. When they argue against the science this is simply a proxy war so that they can avoid having to discuss policies since they know that if they argue policy such as a revenue neutral tax on carbon that is balanced by reductions to sales, income or corporate taxes they are likely to lose.
What incredible BS: At the surface there are 4.9 x 10^-2 moles of water vapor per liter, but only 2.6 x 10^-4 moles of CO2 Thus, there are 188 times as many water vapor molecules as CO2 molecules and each absorbs seven times as much energy for a net effect of 1316 times water vapor over CO2 so it is having 0.0759% the heating effect as that of water vapor at the surface.
It is true that water vapor declines with altitude with the formation of clouds, generally starting at 5000 feet and rising to about 18,000 where air pressure is 1/2 what it is at the surface. The quantity of CO2 is directly proportional to pressure, thus it will have 1/2 the heating effect at 18,000 that is does at the surface. It is well known the temperature approaches zero degrees Celsius at that altitude which confirms there is very little heating effect from anything, much less a poor absorber like CO2 with only 1.3 x 10^-4 moles per liter is barely detectable, much less significant.
“Greenhouse gas” is a myth. A greenhouse incorporates clear panes of glass or plastic that function as direction filters that are totally reflective as angles less than 45 degrees and transmissive at angles greater, as the sine of the angle of the radiation, up to 90 degrees where it is unity, or “1,” i.e. 100% transmission, which, of course, it approaches, but never achieves.
If we rise to 41,000 feet, where the temperature is well below zero Celsius degrees the water vapor presence is nil, but the CO2 concentration has again dropped by 50% to 6.5 x 10^-5 moles per liter and virtually undetecable, as well any heating effect.
The story told by the anthropogenic global warming, freak-a-zoid panic pushers is just that: a story, but one with which they have fleeced America for billions of Dollars, done trillions in damage, per Forbes analysts, and destroyed science education turning its exponents into story tellers of great greenhouses in the sky.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzz…….!!
(accompanied by FOUR farts and one scratch of scrotum)
adrianvance writes:
… and later:
I stated in the comment you are responding that what matters in terms of the enhanced greenhouse effect is primarily the increase in greenhouse gases where the atmosphere becomes semi-transparent to infrared radiation. This is at higher altitudes, and this is where carbon dioxide becomes an important player.
Please see:
But the proof is in the pudding. We are able to infrared image carbon dioxide due to it reducing the rate at which thermal energy is lost to space in the same way that we are able to image water vapor and use infrared imaging to see atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide increase over the years. It is why we are able to measure carbon dioxide concentrations by means of satellite and why these measurements are to within 2ppmv of flask measurements.
Please see:
adrianvance states:
Measurements at the surface show that as temperature rises so does the specific humidity.
From the abstract:
Furthermore, we are seeing an increase in upper troposphere water vapor that has taken place and is attributable to human activities.
Please see:
adrianvance wrote:
A greenhouse works by allowing energy in the form of sunlight to enter but reducing the rate at which energy is lost until the temperature inside the greenhouse increases enough that energy is lost at a higher temperature. A regular greenhouse works principally by reducing the rate at which heat is lost due to moist air convection. The atmospheric greenhouse effect works by reducing the rate at which heat is lost to space due to the emission of long wave, infrared radiation.
You yourself acknowledge the fact that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb energy in the form of infrared radiation.
Please see:
Now if as you state the greenhouse effect is a myth, why is it that I find About 184,000 results referring to it in Google Scholar?
“But the proof is in the pudding. We are able to infrared image carbon dioxide due to it reducing the rate at which thermal energy is lost to space in the same way that we are able to image water vapor and use infrared imaging to see atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide increase over the years. It is why we are able to measure carbon dioxide concentrations by means of satellite and why these measurements are to within 2ppmv of flask measurements.”
The above, and everything else you have written, are bullshit.
adrianvance writes:
… and later:
I stated in the comment you are responding that what matters in terms of the enhanced greenhouse effect is primarily the increase in greenhouse gases where the atmosphere becomes semi-transparent to infrared radiation. This is at higher altitudes, and this is where carbon dioxide becomes an important player.
Please see:
But the proof is in the pudding. We are able to infrared image carbon dioxide due to it reducing the rate at which thermal energy is lost to space in the same way that we are able to image water vapor and use infrared imaging to see atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide increase over the years. It is why we are able to measure carbon dioxide concentrations by means of satellite and why these measurements are to within 2ppmv of flask measurements.
Please see:
adrianvance states:
Measurements at the surface show that as temperature rises so does the specific humidity.
From the abstract:
Furthermore, we are seeing an increase in upper troposphere water vapor that has taken place and is attributable to human activities.
Please see:
adrianvance wrote:
A greenhouse works by allowing energy in the form of sunlight to enter but reducing the rate at which energy is lost until the temperature inside the greenhouse increases enough that energy is lost at a higher temperature. A regular greenhouse works principally by reducing the rate at which heat is lost due to moist air convection. The atmospheric greenhouse effect works by reducing the rate at which heat is lost to space due to the emission of long wave, infrared radiation.
You yourself acknowledge the fact that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb energy in the form of infrared radiation.
Please see:
Now if as you state the greenhouse effect is a myth, why is it that I find About 184,000 results referring to it in Google Scholar?
“Greenhouse gas” is a term that got into the literature as a comity cue and code. The message is, “You let me get away with my bullshit and I will not object to yours.”
A greenhouse gathers heat by a physical process wherein radiated energy enters a 90 degree wide window and if re-emitted energy is not on that path it is trapped in the enclosure, hence the heat gain. The probability of that happening is about 1 in 132 considering the three planes involved.
To accomplish a “greenhouse effect” a gas would have to form a transparent solid cover at an altitude of 40,000 feet and there is no way CO2, or any other gas, can do that.
This is all subterfuge for people who know only pay taxes to support more Ph.D. scientists and who have sold out for it. It is the greatest scam and tragedy in our history and is quite capable of destroying the nation just as it has seriously harmed science education.
It is absolutely incredible that “The World’s Greatest Science Teacher” would say the following:
“A greenhouse gathers heat by a physical process wherein radiated energy enters a 90 degree wide window and if re-emitted energy is not on that path it is trapped in the enclosure, hence the heat gain. The probability of that happening is about 1 in 132 considering the three planes involved”.
“To accomplish a “greenhouse effect” a gas would have to form a transparent solid cover at an altitude of 40,000 feet and there is no way CO2, or any other gas, can do that”.
Conflating the physics of an actual “greenhouse” with the “greenhouse effect” in this way is something a well-informed high school physics student would not do., never mind the TWGST.
“A transparent SOLID COVER…”? Lord love a duck, but that has rendering me speechless (almost).
OK, in summary, we have an individual who:
1) Does not understand why water vapor is not a well-mixed gas in the troposphere.
2) Does not understand why a condensing greenhouse gas cannot act as a climate forcing agent.
3) Thinks that additional CO2 reduces warming by forcing H20 molecules out of the atmosphere.
4) Thinks that looking at the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere doesn’t make sense because it’s very cold there.
5) In spite of (1)-(4) above, fancies himself as a climate expert with more expertise than all the climate-scientists at the world’s leading universities and climate-research labs.
6) Expects people to take him seriously in spite of (1)-(6) above.
Typo correction:
6) Expects people to take him seriously in spite of (1)-(*5*) above.
A truthful, climate physicist will tell you that the atmosphere is controlled by the Le Chatelier Equation which for air is:
[N2] x [O2] x [H2O] x [CO2] / [H2Oliq.] = Kt
Where nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and CO2 are all gases in the numerator and water is liquid in the denominator. Usually CO2 is not included as it is a trace gas and of no physical significance in the atmosphere, but we will here include it for the sake of the discussion. “Kt” is the constant.
The only substance in the system that can leave it on Earth is water where it can be either liquid or gas in the Earth range of temperatures. Therefore we rearrange the elements algebraically to:
[H2Oliq] x Kt / [N2] x [O2] x [CO2] = [H2O]
Which tells us that increasing CO2 decreases water vapor in the air and that reduces atmospheric heating as each H2O molecule absorbs seven times as much IR energy as every CO2 molecule. That is exactly what has happened as we have increased CO2 as we have been in a temperature decline for 19 years
The irony of this is that Jim Hansen was on the team of six Ph.D.s who did the original atmospheric computer simulation in 1971 and they predicted an ice age was imminent, but the Congressional Committee they tried to alarm could not figure out how to tax an oncoming glacier. When Jim returned with Al Gore, who was very tax hip Al talked about a carbon tax and and elected antenna went up. It is just that simple.
So adding a molecule to the atmosphere means that an H20 water molecule must condense out to make room? Just want to clarify.
That is an over-simplification of the phenomenon, but it is essentially correct and you will find chapters on this in every college Chemistry text for “100” leve beginning courses to “400” level senior college texts and grad level books. The essence of it is there is a balance and this is the theoretical basis of rain, clouds and so on.
Would the last one out please turn off the lights?
Gladly. (And your lights have already been turned off—-for a long time)
Dumboldguy: What would you say if you had a complete brain? Your name is right, but I’ll put money on the fact that you are odd-looking and your mother dresses you funny.
Yep, there’s some of that junior high humor of Adrunk’s. Goes well with his junior high understanding of science.
No they did not. The media took statements out of context and blew up a storm of misleading stories. This sorry red-herring has since been repeated without references let alone context in order to discredit certain scientists.
The Le Chatelier Principle applies to a closed system therefore has little direct relevance to this discussion. If it were otherwise then we should contact such as R G Barry and R J Chorley as well as Ray Peirrehumbert immediately.
But there is another flaw in applying this principle to the Earth’s dynamic systems – what is it?
It is a matter of record that Jim Hansen was one of the six NASA scientists who designed the climate computer modeling system that predicted we were going into an ice age in 1971. The story has been published many times, including in TIME in a lead issue that caused considerable alarm.
Studies of the Vostok ice cores have concluded we are 40,000 years overdue for an ice age as one has happened nine times in the last 450,000 years very shortly after our temperature spiked up to present levels due to solar cycles. The sun has been producing more radiation than usual for 40,000 years and it could end at any time.
The atmosphere is a closed system with air in a “gravity bottle” that is so effective we lose less than 100 kg of gas per year and most of it is hydrogen and helium which are of no consequence to life on Earth. To escape gravity a molecule at the top of troposphere has to achieve a velocity greater than 25,000 miles per hour and very few do as molecular motion is collision driven and they at any angle in three planes and that is a highly unlikely event. It happens most often to hydrogen and helium as they are the lightest elements and Ke = mv^2 the smaller lighter molecules have an advantage as the square of their mass.
Unlike your mind it is not. If you don’t know why there is little hope.
Which kinda backs up the conclusion I made, note that I did mention the media’s role in misquoting and repeating the misquoting as covered here:
The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers.
and then there is this:
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus (PDF)
And I think you will find this issue covered in one of Peter’s excellent Crocks videos – I’ll leave that for you to find as homework.
“The atmosphere is a closed system with air in a “gravity bottle” that is so effective we lose less than 100 kg of gas per year…”
The atmosphere is an open thermodynamic system. Yes, the volume is fairly constant, but that has nothing to do with changes in thermodynamic equilibrium, which is specifically the measure of interest. Besides, the Le Chatelier Principle has no effect on nonreactive mixtures of gasses. The burning of fossil fuels does reduce the amount of free oxygen, but at ~400ppm over 250 years, is chemically insignificant in changing the reaction rates of VOCs, ozone, sulfates, nitrates or other reactive gasses.
40,000 years overdue for a glacial period? Give me a break. Peak Holocene was only 8,000 to 11,000 years ago.
The Dunning-Kruger is very strong in this one, a very low caliber of internet galileo. He’s been so wrong about so much, and his response is an effluence of red herrings, which invariably are equally ridiculous.
While the Le Chatelier principle is most often applied to ions in solution it is of great use in the engineering of industrial processes involving gas phase reactions for the productions of chemicals. (See the Haber Process in any basic college Chem I text.) And, it certainly applies to the atmosphere in the manner I have used it in “Vapor Tiger” and soon-to-be-released “Experiment in Climate Change.”
Solar radiation has varied over that period with little overall trend although during the last 10K years the trend is sharply down.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html
However the glacial interglacial cycles of this period are driven by orbital changes as is also shown in the above cited. At this moment in time we should have been heading out of the interglacial as all orbital factors are at or near minimum forcing levels.
That this is not the case should give you pause for though as to what is driving the continued increase in warming if solar irradiance levels at TOA are at or near minimum for the period stated (by you).
1. “Water vapor is not a well-mixed gas in the troposphere?” Where do you get that idea. In the light of Graham’s Law that the velocity of molecular motion is inversely proportional to it’s density, water vapor will be 5.9 times better mixed with other gases than CO2, but mixing is not really an issue as the atmosphere is pretty well homogenous.
2. “Forcing” is a BS concept as there is no hierarchy in molecules. That is an idea that died in 1832 with the Wohler synthesis.
3. Per Le Chatelier CO2 does cause water to precipitate, but there is so little of it that the effect is barely detectable. It is in the hundredths of a degree in our demo in “Experiment in Climate Change” soon to be released.
4. The CO2 freaks claim the upper atmosphere is heated to high temperatures by CO2, but it is freezing cold up there every day!
5. Hardly, I am only exposing the fraudsters in white coats that have ripped of off for $50 billion since 1988, done $7 trillion in damage to the economy, per the Forbes analysis, and destroyed science education to the point our tech firms are having to hire foreign trained scientists and engineers as ours can’t do the problems.
6. My well over 800 published films, articles and books have been read by millions and I am probably the best known educational producer in history both here and in the Soviet Union where they bought one of every one of my films, made 30,000 illegal copies and I got mail from all over their nation, but no money save the royalty on one title. Guess why I was long an anti-communist.
“….in the Soviet Union where they bought one of every one of my films, made 30,000 illegal copies…”
Now I remember where I may have heard ADrunk’s name before! It has been eating at me, but I couldn’t dredge it up fully. I’m not sure which of these scenarios is true—-do any other old dogs here recall any of this?
1) At the height of the Cold War, the Soviets produced a series of programs for use in the schools showing how Soviet science was so superior to that of the U.S. that it was going to help them surpass us and “bury” our country. Adrunk’s films were Exhibit A of how badly things were going in science education in the U.S…………OR
2) Adrunk’s films were used in teacher training programs as examples of bad science, as well as bad ethics, since they were so full of lying BS…….OR
3) The Soviets (who believed Lysenko, if everyone remembers) were totally taken in by ADrunk’s BS and used it in their schools, leading to the collapse of Soviet science, then the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
I hope someone can confirm that it was the third one, because I am a huge fan of irony, and it would be truly ironic if the blatherings of a bat-shit crazy egomaniac like ADrunk led to “peace in our time”.
According to Vance at Climate etc (aka The Curry House) this:
Seems Vance’s history is as shaky as his climatology. Now I found that and much else, enough to bury Vance but that would be to over-egg as he is well under already, by simply searching on: “Adrian Vance” AND “Science” AND “Soviet”.
Not surprisingly Vance crops up at JunkScience as does a certain Russell C – birds of a feather indeed.
There is an old adage about ‘not arguing with old men’ and I figure it applies especially to old men with abundant white hair. Nuff said.
If you have any doubt of what I say about Michael Mann here read the famous Phil Jones “smoking gun” regarding Michael’s “Nature trick” erasing it:
————————
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
if anyone is still paying attention, you really would save yourself a lot of embarrassment if you actually
looked into what the email was talking about, as I have in multiple interviews and videos, list here.
and then ask yourself, “what does one hide by adding in REAL TEMPS”….?
Me: So adding a molecule to the atmosphere means that an H20 water molecule must condense out to make room? Just want to clarify.
Adrianvance: That is an over-simplification of the phenomenon, but it is essentially correct …
Well, there’s a little problem with that logic — to create a molecule of CO2, you have to combine a C atom with an 02 molecule. So the addition of a molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere will be accompanied by a removal of an 02 molecule, leaving the total number of molecules in the atmosphere unchanged.
And before you try to mention it, no, the oceans have *not* been outgassing CO2. Chemistry (falling ocean pH) and simple bean-counting math (i.e. calculating how much CO2 humans have been putting into the atmosphere) rules out that possibility.
If you examine quantities involved the amount of oxygen removed that way is utterly insignificant and I can give you the numbers if you insist.
The point is that this equation, developed by one of the finest physical chemists and educators of the early 20th century, who was a highly acclaimed lecturer at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), is purposely ignored by the promoters of this fraud in favor of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation that is in Calculus, which 99.9% of the general public is ignorant; so flawed and unreliable a sub-routine referred to as “Antoine” after the author has been patched in, but even that does not work where Le Chatelier does quite well.
In my “Experiment in Climate Change” demo where we increase the CO2 in the experimental atmospheric demonstrator flask, the IPCC predicts a “2 to 3 Celsius degree increase for the 100 ppm added, but my modification of Le Chatelier predicts a very small, like 0.04 degree C rise and when you run it there is no visible change, but hey! Go ahead and believe this crap, pay the new taxes, sequester CO2 and buy a new jet aircraft for me. But, I prefer not to live in what our corrupt elected ruling class will leave for us as they loot the Federal coffers, take the kickbacks and more.
Your comments on the significance of the increased CO2 on the seas are way out of line, but I leave it to you to research. I have an entire, documented chapter on that issue in “Vapor Tiger.”
Please summarize, in a sentence or two, how I am wrong.
I am not used to, nor do I ever, bow to an unreasonable order such as yours, but in the fewest words possible let me say: CO2 form the bicarbonate ion in water and it is a very weak acid. Where only 1.6 grams of CO2 are soluble per liter of sea water and never is never in great concentration and it is very poorly ionized. As well, there is a lot of free calcium ion in sea water from the solution of limestone from the continents and that grabs CO2 quickly to make an insoluble precipitate of CaCO3.10H2O that falls to the sea floor to form limestone in conjunction with CaSO4.10H2O.
The “pH,” which is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion in moles per liter, of sea water ranges between 8 and 8.2, slightly basic where neutral is 7. NASA recently spent ten million Dollars on a series of oceanographic expeditions in response to the claimed reduction of marine pH only to find no change. This is another bit of enviro-Nazi fiction.
Replenishment of carbonate ions via terrestrial weathering is a slow process, so the supply of carbonate ions can be depleted if CO2 levels increase rapidly enough.
This happened during the PETM and is happening now. That fact that you are unaware of this (or choose to overlook it) demonstrates that you are not a serious person.
All you have demonstrated here is that you are able to crib material from undergraduate science textbooks. That may play at a fundamentalist megachurch, but it doesn’t play here.
The decomposition of limestone is responsible for 160 of the 166 gigatons of CO2 produced annually according to the work of Dr. George Woodwell as published in the January 1978 Scientific American and in two of there books on CO2 soon thereafter.
Man is only responsible for six gigatons, 3.2% and if we were to cut our contribution by 80% per Al Gore we would only reduce the annual output by less than 3% which is statistically insignificant.
I can visualize Adrunk flipping madly through the pages of his Handbook of Fine-Sounding Denier Bullshit and Mindless Talking Points to come up with the “facts” in this comment.
Anyone who needs the antidote (truth) might want to look at this piece. It will counter the waves of nausea induced by Adrunk’s poisonous blathering.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/
Actually, about 50% of that oxygen bound to carbon from fossil fuels has so far been removed by carbon sinks (at a slowly decreasing rate that does follow Le Chatelier’s Principle). So, according to adrian’s hypothesis, there is more room for H2O to evaporate. It’s made up nonsense, of course.
“4. The CO2 freaks claim the upper atmosphere is heated to high temperatures by CO2, but it is freezing cold up there every day!”
How wrong can you be. No such claim is made, but by the straw man you have constructed. The actual claim is that above the tropopause, the upper atmosphere will cool, as has been confirmed by satellites. One shouldn’t confuse absorbed and re-emitted radiation in a near vacuum with sensible heat.
So the upper atmosphere CO2 that dominates the upper atmosphere with a microscopic trace quantity, because the air is so thin, absorbs lots of IR and ships it to the bulk of the atmosphere below while not affecting the temperature of its’ own surroundings where it is well below zero Celsius degrees? You are really “forcing” this one!
A junior high school General Science student may swallow this nonsense, but not anyone that has an IQ over 90 and can read a little physics.
Why are you people so eager to be ridiculous, pay higher taxes, support new bureaus that will make you ride buses, bicycles and buggies, give up the quality of your life and return to an America served by sailing ships, horse drawn vehicles, water power and hand tools supporting a population of no more than 70 million people! What happens to the other 250 million people? I will tell you, they starve, but before that they will revolt over your utter nonsense and shorten your lives considerably.
Actually air temperature above the tropopause warms considerably. Up to 1500C. It isn’t caused by CO2 though.
Here is an explanation at a level you should be able to understand, were you not so blinded by your equally ludicrous political ideology.
http://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html
You are misinterpreting the data of particle velocities translated into temperature as it is a measure of molecular motion, but in rarefied atmospheres there is not enough of it to have the same effect as at the surface. This is a very basic, and common, mistake. Understand that at ever higher altitudes the temperature declines.
The areas on the moon in darkness are at temperatures of -250 Celsius degrees for example. Temperature is a measure of molecular motion and when there are few to no molecules there is no heat. Such is the case in the stratosphere and space.
Gonna grammar-Nazi myself here: that should be “… rule out that possibility.”
Not only is Mr. Vance way smarter and more awesome than anyone else here, but so was his dog.
From http://www.amazon.com/Adrian-Vance/e/B001KISKQW
On February 19, 1976 Mr. Vance got a “Certificate of Appreciation” award from the Los Angeles Police Department “in grateful recognition of his generosity in make available to officers of this Department the talents and training of his German Shepherd, Boris. The ready willingness of Mr. Adrian Vance to become involved and to make available his valuable dog in a potentially hazardous situation deserves the gratitude and approbation of the entire Los Angeles Police Department.” This incident was critical to the LAPD administration’s realization that trained dogs could be of value in police work and they are now employed by the LAPD.
When it comes to self-esteem, even The Donald can’t top this guy.
I do hope you are sincere in your comment as Boris was a noble, incredible dog who made a real difference in Los Angeles and the LAPD. Many police officers were thankful that his performance that day broke the resistance to an LAPD “K9 Corps” that has served the LAPD very well, saved the lives of several officers and performed outstanding service in keeping the peace and bringing criminals to justice.
AV pulled this from some orifice:
So, AV, explain what procedure(s) this is describing.
One “procedure” that surely was associated with Adrunk’s comment was him flipping madly through the pages of the Denier’s Handbook to find some piece of long-debunked and long-discredited denier garbage to throw against the wall and waste our time. How long has it been since “Climategate” was put to rest and forgotten by all but the morons?
Adrunk is doing it now as he looks for more “throw against the wall stuff” to include in what will be another half-assed and half-witted reply to you. I will predict that he will include some of his “phractured physics” in the reply, as well as some mindless right-wing ranting.
I am reminded of what I heard many policemen say back during my working days.—–“Never argue with a drunk”—-and that’s why I keep refereing to our new resident moron as Adrunk—-I like to play with words, and our boy Adrunk epitomizes the “drunk” that the cops didn’t argue with—-they just locked them up and forgot about them, something we should do with Adrunk. Soon.
I am not sure what Phil Jones meant by “real temps” as those in the long-standing record of that period drawn from data of plants, particularly wine grapes in England, I believe all the way to Scotland, but the investigators were alarmed by the word “trick” and there are more than a dozen other such emails that they felt supported the idea that data manipulation and collusion were involved.
Nowhere else in all of this is Mann’s version of that period accepted, i.e. the lack of temperature gain for that 500 year period. Other plant range data from China has confirmed the Medieval Warming period was world-wide and Mann was never able to explain why he made the changes, i.e. on the basis of what evidence so the phrase “real temps” is more likely than not a snide remark and one referring to a set of temperatures that would fit their version of that period.
You are not sure, because you never bothered to find out. I did.
Jones simply meant, the actual thermometer surface temperatures that are regarded as reliable, as opposed to the defective tree ring series he was replacing, for clarity, for an illustration on the cover of a non-science pub, a program for a meeting of nonscientist bureaucrats.
detailed explanation here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
again, playlist here
The first video does not work and the second ignores the period in question: 800 AD to 1300 AD. That is the period Michael Mann flattened with his “trick.” Furthermore: Mann’s methods were criticized when it was known he based his entire hypothesis on one tree! Proper tree ring data is drawn from a number of trees, like 100, not one.
The tree ring data after the 50’s probably better describes what has been happening than the data the “Global Warmer Gang,” GWG, promote as the recording stations were all in increasingly urbanized locations where the local temperatures were rising as a result of all the heat generated by homes, cars, truck and industrial facilities. One such station had the little hut holding the temperature recorder within 20 feet of a fast food restaurant kitchen exhaust fan blowing on it directly! Records that have been compiled from stations without urbanization are more in line with the decline than what the GWG’s promote.
When your institution, or business, it supported by government funding it is easy to go along with what they want and they want very much to tax carbon combustion, build bureaus on it filled with young guys in beards, Mackinaws and caribiners in their beltloops, driving SUV’s with snow tires year-round spouting the latest environmental BS while mispronouncing John Muir’s name, “Mee-oor” instead of “Moo-ir” as it is spelled. They love to correct people in conversation when they pronounce it correctly. They only get away with it as they have badges and clipboards on which they write gibberish, the language of government lackeys.
And finally: What you contend is refuted and opposed by the Le Chatelier equation that I have noted and explained hereon and is never mentioned in any of the GWG gang’s work because it refutes it in one iteration.
first you say you “don’t know” what the email is talking about, then you give a detailed (wrong) explanation.
You’re on your own.
I said on reading it I was not sure what he was saying, but the investigators came to a conclusion based on what was said, implied and alluded to in the entire body of emails. I then went on to explain what happened, like the fact Michael Mann erased the Medieval Warming based on the data from one tree section! That alone casts considerable doubt on the work.
Bull rolled over, farted, said “What the hell is The Drunk talking about with “INVESTIGATORS” and “CONCLUSIONS”, it was all made up denier bullshit”, and went back to ZZZZZZzzzzzz…….!!
I will add “IMPLIED and ALLUDED to” are not very scientific.
All your continued posting of tired denier bullshit does, Adrunk, is cast “considerable doubt” on your intelligence, integrity, sanity, and motivation for continuing to post here on Crock.
AV
That response earns the ‘not even wrong’ epithet.
It is clear that you are either totally misinformed or engaging in a propaganda exercise – making stuff up. Instead of wasting our time why didn’t you take the simple steps to discovering what were the processes and the issues that require them to be used? It would be very easy to find the true stories behind this particular email, and others that were ‘stolen’ at the same time (this is the real crime here), as Peter has just demonstrated.
That you should glibly write ‘..there are more than a dozen other such emails that they felt supported the idea that data manipulation and collusion were involved’ robs you of any lingering respect anybody may have for you.
By repeating false statements from others in this way you are now as totally exposed as Hans Christian Andersen’s ‘Emperor’.
You, sir, are a joke.
Goodbye from me!
Unless ….?
Gee, don’t go away mad, Lionel. I am only explaining the same line of thinking and analysis that caused an official assigned team of scientist-investigators that there was a proverbial fox in the henhouse.
The East Anglia Climate Research Unit emails were not stolen; they were published and where they were from people paid with public tax money there could be no crime in publishing them as the people have a right to see for what they have paid. It is just that simple.
The Faculty Senate of the University of Pennsylvania and the UN IPCC both prostituted themselves by endorsing Mann and his “trick” as they were getting millions of US Federal Dollars and did not want that spigot shut off. That too is amazingly simple.
This “global warming” thing is a fraud attributing to a trace gas, normally ignored in climate science, to have demon-like powers capable of “forcing” other molecules into behaviors for which they are not otherwise capable.
They have fleeced the American taxpayer of $55 billion to date and according to Forbes have caused $7 trillion in damage to the economy and in my analysis destroyed science education as our graduates cannot to the problems on the job and high-tech employers are having to hire foreign trained scientists and engineers as ours suck.
“….an official assigned team of scientist-investigators….”???
That may be one of the funniest things Adrian the Drunk has ever said on Crock!!
Assigned by whom and in what way “official”? And “an” implies ONE team—-how many teams in total examined the emails, how many of them WERE scientists, and why did they ALL disagree with your “team” of deniers who started with the conclusion and worked back to cherry-pick and distort what they needed to support it.
It’s like saying “Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Fox Newsies are the official assigned team of sane commentary in American Broadcast Journalism” and that they too don’t start with the desired conclusion and work back from there, picking “truth” to support it from their anal orifices just as Adrunk does.
And why doesn’t The Drunk just give us numbers for his endlessly repeated stock bullshit paragraphs like the last two here. He could just end a comment with “…and add #14 and #27 to my other bullshit” and save himself and us some time. We could all then respond with “#1”, which would stand for “just more deluded and demented denier bullshit”—it would be the only one we needed to deal with The Drunk.
Need I say more than notice the anonymous “dumboldguy,” hiding behind a pseudonym uses insulting, offensive, crude, rude, impolitic, improper, anti-social language to me, about me and my writings. Most blog editors would remove his comments for soiling the blog with his insane, insulting ravings, but then my responses would be meaningless.
The official committee of investigators was originally assembled by the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Several English newspapers had their own experts look into the matter as East Anglia University was in the UK.
The “deniers” include some of the top names in the business: Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr. Robert Essenhigh, Dr. William Gray, Dr. Jay Lehr, Dr. Robert Spencer and the Petition Project of the University of Oregon has 39,000 signatures of scientists, engineers and physicians who believe “anthropogenic global warming” is a scam for money, power and politics. The first man to sign that petition was Dr. Edvard Teller, the inventor of the hydrogen bomb. I have worked for some of these men, editing their papers as I am known for the clarity of my communication and ability to translate their papers into something everyone could understand, but here I receive only hate from the likes of maniacs hiding behind “handles” like “dumboldguy.”
Adrunk, Peter allows you to keep posting your bullshit here because you are by far the BEST “worst example” of a lying piece of s**t denier that Crock has ever seen, and we all need to be reminded of how immoral, unethical, ignorant, and demented all you deniers are. Your very existence is “…insulting, offensive, crude, rude, impolitic, improper, and anti-social” for the decent human beings who frequent Crock and are concerned about the fate of the planet and the human species. Your writings are enough to make one puke.
This comment really exposes you for the charlatan and paid denier whore that you are. First, there is NO group called the “United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, and never has been. You transcribed it from your Manual of Bullshit for Climate Deniers too quickly and got it wrong.
It is obvious that you meant to say the Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which is an invention of The Heartland Institute designed to cause confusion because the name is so close to the REAL panel of international experts and scientists that discuss climate change—the IPCC.
“Several English newspapers had their own experts look into the matter as East Anglia University was in the UK”, you say? Yes the (suitable-for-housetraining puppies) Daily Mail and the other trashy sensation-seeking UK tabloids did try to make something out of it, but soon gave it up as Climategate was debunked many times over. It has been dead for 5 years EVERYWHERE except in the denier blogosphere and the minds of demented anal orifices like you.
I am simply floored that you would call any of these people “the top names in the business”. Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr. Robert Essenhigh, Dr. William Gray, Dr. Jay Lehr, and Dr. Robert Spencer are all Heartland Whores of the highest rank, and the only business they are “top names” in is the business of climate change denial and taking money from fossil fuel interests. They are Merchants of Doubt. Check out their “rap sheets” on desmogblog (and Adrian Vance doesn’t even rate a mention there because he is so inconsequential).
“I have worked for some of these men”, you say? So, we now have an admission from you that you are indeed a Heartland Whore, a nameless minion who “edits their papers”. No wonder so many of their writings seem so f**ked up when you read them—-the hand of The Drunk has made them so!
Anyone who mentions the Petition Project is a denier moron, because it too has been discredited and debunked many times over the years. Your little “description” of the petition shows how duplicitous you are.—to wit:
1) The petition IS NOT AND NEVER WAS a project of the University of Oregon. It was promoted by another charlatan, a paid climate change denier with ties to Heartland.,
2) Of the 39,000 signatures of scientists, engineers and physicians, only 100 or so are from anyone who has any right to call themselves a climate scientist. More than 1/2 were engineers, not “scientists”, and physicians are not “scientists” either.
3) It is a COMPLETE AND UTTER FABRICATION—A LIE—to state that the signers were in agreement that “anthropogenic global warming” is a scam for money, power and politics”. NO SUCH WORDS appear ANYWHERE in the Petition, as you would know if you had actually read it. YOU LIE WITHOUT SHAME!
4) Although the Petition Project proudly shows Teller’s signature at the top of its home page, he is NOT the first man to to sign it, but he displays nicely the fallacy behind the petition—that just because someone is the “Father of the Hydrogen Bomb” or an engineer, or a physician he should have any credibility commenting on climate change.
As for “hate”, it’s too bad we can’t time-travel back to Tombstone AZ in 1880, Adrunk, because I would show you what happens to people like you in a simpler and more honest world where people like you were dealt with face-to-face. It is the curse of the internet and the modern world that people like you are allowed to impose your dishonesty and outright lunacy on the rest of us.
Good Lord, “dumboldguy” you are coming unglued! Take your medication and lie down. You need some couch time. It is incredible that you would call me “crude, rude, anti-social, etc. when you are the one doing the irrational raving. I have done nothing more than document your raving ignorance and resounding stupidity.
The Petition Project, at http://www.PetitionProject.org, is a project of The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which is affiliated with the University of Oregon as it was started by a group of doctors at their College of Medicine. They would probably like to examine you, “dumboldguy.”
Dr. S. Fred Singer was the Director of the US Weather Bureau Satellite Division for 30 years. Dr. Robert Essenhigh was the Chairman of the Dept. of Climate Sciences at the University of Ohio for decades. Dr. William S. Gray was with the University of Colorado and became famous as “Dr. Hurricane” making highly accurate predictions of hurricanes for many years. Dr. Jay Lehr, is with the University of Arizona as a leading climatologist and Dr. Robert Spencer is with the University of Alabama in the Climate Department.
I became familiar with the first three men when I was hired by Doubleday & Co. to authenticate a set of scripts they had commissioned to two Harvard Ph.D.s for the film series “Energy Now.” They were out to make a name for themselves and seeking fame and fortune through panic power claiming the planned 1,000 new nuclear power plants would turn America into a steam bath with all the water vapor from the cooling towers.
The Editor in Chief at the Irvine, CA film unit of Doubleday knew me and that I had just returned from Europe on an Encyclopaedia Britannica Film reconnaissance trip and not looking for a project, but agreed to do an analysis for $3000, she brought them to me. I did some work, wrote a short paper, looked up the leading names in the business and sent them copies. All three agreed with me there was no problem. Doubleday offered me a re-write and production contract, which I took. That was my contact point with them and some editing work came from it. I am sure they checked me out carefully. These are serious men of consequence, dumboldguy, and you are not.
Nonetheless, when Hansen and Gore popped up in 1988 I was ready for them by virtue of my training, experience and accomplishments, of which you have none, dumboldguy.
Adrian Vance
The Drunk says that DOG is “coming unglued” and that I need to “take my medication”? That’s a rather unscientific and amateurish diagnosis, and since I have a much better understanding of the workings of the human brain than The Drunk does, I will offer him a more meaningful diagnosis in return. I am doing it from across the country, of course, so I suggest that he check in with his regular mental health provider to get the help HE so obviously needs. I want to warn everyone that Adrian seems to have several conditions that are difficult to treat, so don’t get your hopes up that he will become a contributing member of the Crock community anytime soon.
When The Drunk first appeared on Crock, I said to myself “Just another NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) sufferer with delusions of grandeur—makes classic displays of grandiosity”. The condition is difficult to treat, and when it manifests itself by the sufferer making inane and moronic denier comments on a site dedicated to debunking such, it is actually kind of humorous and calls for ridicule (and since he asked for it…).
Lately, I have become rather concerned—-The Drunk appears to be having small psychotic breaks and is displaying more and more symptoms of really pathological behavior. I speak of his inability to keep facts straight and his incessant evasion and lying, all signs of a sociopath-psychopath. It has been estimated that 1 in 25 people is a sociopath, and I’m afraid our boy is the “1”.in our midst..
I have blown him out of the water for his “truth fails” re:
1) UNIPCC-NIPCC-IPCC
2) Climategate
3) Calling Heartland Whores and deniers “the top men in their field”
(And he can’t even keep the names straight of these men he “knows” so well—who the hell is ROBERT Spencer? He doesn’t work at UAH)
4) The Oregon petition
Does The Drunk respond rationally to my destruction of his bullshit? NO, as is true of one with his personality disorders, he doubles down by spouting even more BS about the Heartland Whores and throwing yet another HUGE LIE out there. He says:
“The Petition Project, at http://www.PetitionProject.org, is a project of The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which is affiliated with the University of Oregon as it was started by a group of doctors at their College of Medicine.”
That may be Adrunk’s biggest whopper yet, and the fact that he is so shameless about telling it is truly worrisome. The OISM has NEVER been affiliated with the U of O, and it was NOT started by a group of doctors affiliated with their College of Medicine. It was started by a bunch of quacks and charlatans, NOT ONE of whom ever attended the U of O. The truth about the OISM is easy to find, which makes one question why Adrunk keeps lying about it. He is either very deluded or he thinks we are stupid. Here’s one source of CREDIBLE info on OISM and it’s founders.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Read it and weep, Adrunk. It proves yet again what a shameless liar you are.
While the text may support your contention, but I did not see where it did, the data does not. The satellite data is significantly closer to the trendline and appears to be a refinement by perhaps a full standard deviation.
Uh, Adrian? You really need to try harder to “match up” your replies with the comments they “go with”. They make little sense even when you do, but none at all when they are just dropped like random turds by a wandering mutt.
as the recording stations were all in increasingly urbanized locations where the local temperatures were rising as a result of all the heat generated by homes, cars, truck and industrial facilities. One such station had the little hut holding the temperature recorder within 20 feet of a fast food restaurant kitchen exhaust fan blowing on it directly! Records that have been compiled from stations without urbanization are more in line with the decline than what the GWG’s promote.
Why don’t you test your claim with my EZ global-temperature calculator app — available at http://tinyurl.com/nasa-hansen5. Installing and using it should be a snap for someone as technically talented as you are.
If you don’t trust the tinyurl.com shortened link, here’s the full link to the app on my Google drive archive:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6RS1tRTBjODI4N00/edit
All you need to do is install VirtualBox (a free Oracle product available at http://virtualbox.org), unzip the file you downloaded from the tinyurl.com link above, import the GlobalTemperatures*.ova file, press the VirtualBox “Start” button.
You can then start pointing and clicking your way to your own global-average temperature results using stations that *you* choose. You can select rural-only stations, urban-only stations, or individual stations of your choice via mouse-clicks.
You can also filter stations by record length, etc.
The app shows results computed from adjusted *and* raw temperature data, plotted alongside the official NASA results so that you can compare your own results with NASA’s.
The algorithm I implemented is a very “dumbed-down” gridding/averaging procedure — it’s simple enough that I could teach first-year programming-students to code it up.
Here’s a discussion-board message that I posted that shows what I was able to do that app: http://forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5337377&postcount=222
Why don’t you give it a try and post a link to screenshot or two of your results here?
(Reposted with inactive links in an attempt to bypass the “moderator’s bin”.)
AdrianVance said,
as the recording stations were all in increasingly urbanized locations where the local temperatures were rising as a result of all the heat generated by homes, cars, truck and industrial facilities. One such station had the little hut holding the temperature recorder within 20 feet of a fast food restaurant kitchen exhaust fan blowing on it directly! Records that have been compiled from stations without urbanization are more in line with the decline than what the GWG’s promote.
Why don’t you test your claim with my EZ global-temperature calculator app — available at tinyurl.com/nasa-hansen5. Installing and using it should be a snap for someone as technically talented as you are.
If you don’t trust the tinyurl.com shortened link, here’s the full link to the app on my Google drive archive:
drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6RS1tRTBjODI4N00/edit
All you need to do is install VirtualBox (a free Oracle product available at virtualbox.org), unzip the file you downloaded from the tinyurl.com link above, import the GlobalTemperatures*.ova file, press the VirtualBox “Start” button.
You can then start pointing and clicking your way to your own global-average temperature results using stations that *you* choose. You can select rural-only stations, urban-only stations, or individual stations of your choice via mouse-clicks.
You can also filter stations by record length, etc.
The app shows results computed from adjusted *and* raw temperature data, plotted alongside the official NASA results so that you can compare your own results with NASA’s.
The algorithm I implemented is a very “dumbed-down” gridding/averaging procedure — it’s simple enough that I could teach first-year programming-students to code it up.
Here’s a discussion-board message that I posted that shows what I was able to do that app: forums.sandiegouniontribune.com/showpost.php?p=5337377&postcount=222
Why don’t you give it a try and post a link to screenshot or two of your results here?
I am not in the habit of taking such off-the-wall suggestions especially when what you propose is dubious. Furthermore, while I have several tablet computers and a Kindle Fire that are all capable of doing what you suggest. I have kept my very conveniently small clamshell cell phone rather than get an awkward, oversized for a phone, undersized for a tablet, hard to read device.
I have given you enough to educate yourself and prove what I say for your own satisfaction. I will soon release a thoroughly documented experimental system, or “demo,” that will let you prove for yourself that what I say is true. Do not forget that I will become very wealthy if all you goofballs get your wish, so go your best. My conscience will be clean.
Well then, at least check out this cool animation I created some time ago.
It shows global temperature results for adjusted and raw data computed from exclusively rural stations, starting with one station and then adding one new station at a time.
All stations were selected at random.
I’ve included the official NASA global temperature results so that you can see for yourself how my 1-40 raw station results for both the raw and adjusted GHCN datasets compare with the NASA results.
Here’s the link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6aV94WTdoa2E4Umc/view
My own 1-40 rural-station raw and homogenized/adjusted data results are plotted in red and green, respectively. The official NASA results are plotted in blue.
Note how the global-warming trend for my rural results (raw and adjusted data) converges quickly to the NASA trend, even though I stop a 40 stations (while NASA uses about 6,000).
My results show very clearly that your claim about non-urbanized station data is completely wrong.
I should not have to explain to you that your strategy was flawed. Where you were picking stations “at random” you will still be including those where urbanization would have an effect. Given your total temperature gain was not a full degree it is clear you included the urbanization effect.