Another error made by climate consensus is they treat all earth's warming the same, whether the origin of warming is solar or back-radiation. But is it not at all the same.
Evaporative cooling. Reality versus climate models
The sun directly warms earth's atmosphere, ground and water surfaces. We can demonstrate it experimentally. For some reason, climate scientists have a very hard time measuring warming from back-radiation! It's especially difficult to measure back-radiation warming earth's water surface, oceans etc. No studies show back-radiation warming earth's water surface. Yet they assume warming from this back-radiation is greater than warming from sunlight!
This is partly because back-radiation (infrared) can only penetrate mere micrometres (µm) into water before it is absorbed. Note: 1 metre = 1 million µm. Sunlight can penetrate up to 100 metres before it is all absorbed, and most sunlight is absorbed within 10 metres. As such the sun's energy can warm earth's oceans. This warmth can be kept to affect our climates.
In contrast, back-radiation only warms a very thin, microscopic, skin layer on top of oceans (thermal skin layer, TSL). Sunlight warms oceans deeply; back-radiation does not. Most of the back-radiation warming is pretty quickly lost.
Heat is lost from water surface in 2 ways: called evaporative cooling and black body radiation. About 50:50.
Evaporative cooling.
Energy can be used by water in 2 ways:
It can warm water - to raise the temperature.
It can break chemical bonds which otherwise keep water as a liquid. These are the so-called hydrogen bonds keeping liquid water in chains of about 6 molecules:
(H2O)6 (liquid) + LHV --> 6 H2O (vapour)
In this second case the water temperature does not increase when it absorbs the LHV energy. Instead, LHV changes the state of water from liquid to vapour. The water vapour then evaporates. This kind of energy is called latent heat of vaporisation (LHV).
Once evaporated, water vapour joins the water vapour cycle of about 9 days. It takes about 8 days for the water vapour to ascend the atmosphere, and about 1 day for it to make clouds and turn to precipitate. It then comes back down to earth as rain, hail, sleet, or snow.
Water vapour, WV, ascends slowly (because it is lighter than normal air). After 8 days WV reaches the upper troposphere. There it condenses, and releases LHV it absorbed previously. LHV then radiates out to space (but some comes back down to earth: because atmospheric radiation by gases is omnidirectional). This kind of surface cooling system is called "evaporative cooling". It is responsible for about half the heat lost by the surface. The other half is lost as black body radiation.
Let's get back to the problem of measuring the effect of back-radiation warming the surface. Climate models assume sunlight and back-radiation are equivalent. That the same energy amount, has the same warming effect - no matter the frequency of radiation. As we just saw, this assumption is nonsense. Climate scientists don't have experiments measuring backradiation from carbon dioxide warming the surface. Oceans cover 71% of the earth. It's agreed (by skeptics and warmists) that over 90% of climate warming works through ocean warming.
Infrared penetration into water against radiation frequency. Wong & Minnett, 2018. The main carbon dioxide absorption band is for 15µm / 666 cm-1. This shows a penetration into water no further than ~ 4µm. Note: 0.005 cm = 50 µm.
The penetration depth obtained from I(–z) = I0 exp(–a(–z)) (equation (1)) with Rimg obtained from Bertie and Lan (1996)
This is a huge flaw in consensus climate science.
Citation
Elizabeth W. Wong & Peter J. Minnett, 2018. The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation Full | pdf
Elizabeth W. Wong ; Peter J. Minnett; 2016.
Retrieval of the Ocean Skin Temperature Profiles From Measurements of Infrared Hyperspectral Radiometers—Part II: Field Data Analysis
Bertie, J. E., & Lan, Z. (1996). Infrared intensities of liquids XX: The intensity of the OH stretching band of liquid water revisited,
and the best current values of the optical constants of H2O(I) at 25°C between 15,000 and 1 cm−1. Applied Spectroscopy, 50(8), 1047–1057.
The modern left are hard to make sense of. At first the left seem to be a bunch of victims. From a Nietschean perspective, one might conclude they seek religious rebirth. So they can wreck the revenge of the slaves once again, to turn the table on their masters (the capitalists)! It's not at all like that. The unifying thread in leftism is the culture war. When the old Soviet Empire died, beginning 1989, the left finally understood that the socialist economy fails because it creates inefficiencies all over the place. They came to believe they can never win an economic argument because Capitalism is intrinsically, effecient at allocating resources by markets. In place of arguing for a socialist economy the left initiated various culture wars. Such as: climate, trans rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, anti-racism, feminism? [note the question mark]. I'm making it sound like a conspiracy which it isn't. The seeds for cultural Marxism were sown in the 1930s when Antonio Gramsci began writing his Prison Notebooks. Gramsci's work was translated from Italian. It became hot intellectual property in the 1970s among the New Left; as they sought their own brand to distinguish themselves from the Leninist and Trotskyist politics of the, then current, far left.
Feminism kind of stands out here as a non-left concern. By the 1970s feminism had become a career and lifestyle concern for hetero women. Almost all women. Conservative women may not have been calling themselves Feminist but they adopted many of the formal demands of the feminist movement. Feminism always grated against Marxism too. Especially radical feminism but also middle class feminism. It seems to me that feminist thinkers, more so than gay, environmentalist, or anti-racist thinkers, were adept at challenging Marxism. In contrast trans rights offer leftists a blank slate to wage a culture war with. Almost a new kind of secret weapon! The constituency (of trans people) may be tiny, but lefties can make up whatever they want, provided it rhetorically "advances trans rights". Today's apparent conflict between women and trans people (men) is best seen as a chess move in the culture war.
By 1980s other Marxisms such Andre Gorz's Existentialism/Critical Theory fusion began to arrive too. All pointing to cultural politics. All these other concerns: women's equality, anti-racism, environmentalism, gay rights were to trump economics. The title of his book gives it away: "Farewell to the Working Class - An Essay on Post-Industrial Socialism". All strands in Marxism were moving to culture to argue for change. By the late 1980s, Marxist economics was almost dead. So rather than see this as something planned one must understand it as leftists occupying the ground at Universities and adjusting anti-capitalism to mean something new: a new culture rather than a new economy. It morths into a culture war because with such flimsy politics, one must constantly go on the offensive to rally one's troops into an anti-capitalist army. As Hegel (or his anti-mirror: Marx) might have said: modern left politics became a culture war because that was the only niche an opposition could occupy.
More than 200 media outlets and journalists partnered together with activists to coordinate and hype climate change news before the 2019 U.N. climate summit.
Two of the largest media outlets — BuzzFeed News and HuffPo — did not disclose their role in the project to their readers, a Daily CaIIer News Foundation review found.
The project raises questions about whether journalists should work side-by-side with activists to hype climate change.
Over 250 news outlets and journalists partnered with Columbia University School of Journalism’s flagship magazine to shape control of “climate crisis” coverage in the lead up to the United Nations climate conference. The coverage-coordination initiative included directing how much time, space and prominence should be devoted to the coverage, and asking that climate “news” be added to seemingly unrelated stories.
Some of the biggest media outlets in the country, such as CBS and Bloomberg, joined the effort. But others, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, declined to participate in a project they reportedly feared appeared activist in nature. More troubling, a number of the major outlets that joined did not disclose participation to their readers.
In addition to CBS and Bloomberg, the effort, called Covering Climate Now, involved BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, the Center for Public Integrity, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair and The Weather Channel, among many others. BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post were among the major outlets that did not disclose the coordination. When asked by the Daily CaIIer News Foundation, the lack of disclosure was criticized by the Society of Professional Journalists.
The coordination effort was organized in part by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), a nonprofit that represents professional journalists and was traditionally focused primarily on journalism ethics. Covering Climate Now’s founders hope to continue elevating climate news even after the project ends. The effort’s target was the lead-up to, and coverage of, the U.N. “Climate Action Summit,” held Sept. 15-23.
BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.
Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September. The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.
WaPo and others did not contribute because they believe Covering Climate Now has the “aroma” of advocacy, he complained in September.
“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR posted May 22. Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”
Covering Climate Now has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.
Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.
Thunberg’s activism and Covering Climate Now’s media blitz seemed to fall flat with the crowd of United Nations diplomats: No major promises were made to tackle climate change at the summit. The European Union, for instance, didn’t go along with environmentalists’ wishes and set a goal to be carbon neutral by mid-century out of fear that such ambitions would tank its member state’s struggling economies.
“Large parts of the mainstream media have stopped pretending to strive for objectivity in their reporting,” Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic and director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told the DCNF. “On the climate issue, many outlets and reporters are now publicly boasting about the fact that they are promoting their own prejudices on the grounds that increasing global energy poverty is a noble cause.”
Ebell was not the only energy advocate to criticise the program. “This is nothing more than what used to be known as ‘civic journalism’ … or propaganda for the left dressed up as news reporting,” Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com publisher, told the DCNF. He also suggested the media are being hypocritical. They would thrash the fossil fuel industry if it attempted to recruit reporters in a quest to support natural gas, Milloy said.
Much Of The Content Was Not Disclosed
BuzzFeed News and HuffPost did not divulge their participation in Covering Climate Now in any of the articles they published on climate change during that week, according to a DCNF review of the project. They never mention the words “Covering Climate Now” in any of their posts during the week-long coverage leading up to the climate summit.
HuffPost did not respond to numerous requests for comment while BuzzFeed News said the partnership did not affect the outlet’s coverage. “Our coverage of climate change is year-round and unaffected by outside partnerships,” Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for BuzzFeed, told the DCNF.
Covering Climate Now published a list of articles on its website throughout September that promoted climate coverage.
Nearly 40 of the articles on the list of 128 failed to mention the project. The list included pieces from CBS News, Bloomberg News and The Nation, all of whom produced pieces that failed to mention their participation in an outside project designed to direct their editorial bent. Many of the articles on the list bore labels containing the words “Covering Climate Now” but do not otherwise explain what the project entails or which groups are involved.
CBS News, which has not returned requests for comment, produced a Sept. 21 feature on clear cutting in Oregon that did not include a disclosure. The title of that feature was “Who should be in charge of America’s ancient forests: industry or environmentalists?” which discussed the impact clearing U.S.’ forests has on the environment and if private companies should be allowed to use forests.
CBS News included disclosures on articles throughout September that discuss how Americans feel about climate change. The channel also mentioned its participation in a Sept. 17 feature highlighting how U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is considering a summit to discuss ways of re-invigorating the Paris Climate agreement, which he says needs to be re-booted.
Bloomberg News, for its part, published a statement on Sept. 16 announcing its role in the project, but the outlet still produced content that did not contain disclosures. The outlet published a Sept. 22 article titled “Big Oil Prepares to Defend Big Gas as Climate Week Begins,” which discusses how the oil industry is defending the use of natural gas as a clean alternative to coal. The article did not mention the outlet’s participation in Covering Climate Now.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg founded Bloomberg News. Bloomberg, who flirted with the idea of running for president in 2020 and filed in the paperwork to participate in Alabama’s Democratic primary, has devoted much of his philanthropic work to funding various anti-coal projects. Bloomberg News has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.
The Nation, Covering Climate Now’s co-founder, published a 2,400-word article on Sept. 18 with an alarmist headline suggesting that Americans are “fueling the next global extinction.” The piece did not contain a disclosure but notes that it was originally published by Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch.com, though the DCNF was unable to locate the article on Engelhardt’s website.
The Nation, which announced the project in a July post, also published a journalistic piece on Sept. 19 by Nation associate editor Zoe Carpenter that fails to mention Covering Climate Now. Nobody from the outlet has responded to requests for comment.
Wealthy Climate Activists Also Participated
Covering Climate Now was aided by wealthy advocacy groups, some of which help journalists edit and craft stories discussing climate change from an alarmist perspective. One nonprofit group associated with the project is Climate Central, which provides extensive guidance to reporters.
“We contribute data and charts plus a science reporter and an editor,” the group’s website notes. “For a text story, we help craft a feature in a way that puts climate change in appropriate and accurate context. For broadcast media, we provide story and interview suggestions and help develop and review scripts.”
Climate Central has not responded to the DCNF’s request for detailed information about how it contributes to journalists’ content. The group is funded in part by the Energy Foundation, a charity providing grants to various groups with the hope of transitioning the U.S. away from fossil fuels.
Is This Ethical?
Reuters did not participate in the project, yet its editors did not object when Yereth Rosen, a freelancer for the wire service, contributed. Reuters, which opposes advocacy journalism, dismissed any suggestion that Rosen’s contributions are inappropriate.
“We do not see this cause in conflict with the Trust Principles. All stories, under the Trust Principles, are required to be accurate, fair and free from bias. Ms. Rosen’s work for Reuters has been exemplary in this regard,” Brian Ross, Reuters’s ethics and standards representative, wrote in an Aug. 15 email reviewed by the DCNF.
Ross was responding to an Aug. 13 email complaint from a former reporter who was concerned about Rosen’s role in Covering Climate Now. The person made the complaint through the outlet’s online support option. Reuters was more circumspect in later emails to the DCNF on the subject.
“While we do not comment on individuals in our newsroom, all Reuters journalists, including freelancers, are bound by our Trust Principles of ‘integrity, independence and freedom from bias,’” Heather Carpenter, a spokeswoman for Reuters, told the DCNF.
“Our journalists are to remain free from personal conflicts on the subjects they are assigned to cover,” she added. Reuters has not made Rosen available for comment nor did it address whether it is appropriate to allow an external group to dictate what content its reporters publish.
“We encourage journalists to be transparent,” Lynn Walsh, a national member and former president of the Society of Professional Journalists, one of the oldest groups representing journalists, told the DCNF. “If they did not include any disclosure there is nothing we can do though. SPJ is not a regulatory body.” She went on to say that any group involved must explain exactly what the project entails.
Why Didn’t WaPo And The NYT Contribute?
Most legacy media are unwilling to break away from the idea that journalism should not advocate for a position, according to Hertsgaard, who co-founded Covering Climate Now in part to impress upon journalists the importance of covering climate without feeling compelled to provide a platform to climate skeptics.
“The New York Times is not on there, The Wall Street Journal is not on there, The Washington Post is not on there,” Hertsgaard said in a September podcast with Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of CJR. Hertsgaard was referring to the major outlets that did not contribute content to Covering Climate Now.
“This has an aroma — in their minds — of activism,” Hertsgaard continued, explaining why the big three legacy outlets preferred not to join. He and Pope noted Covering Climate Now intends on breaking up that perception by wrapping climate coverage in the blanket of science rather than politics.
The Post refused to comment for this story. The NYT, WSJ and Hertsgaard have not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.
Advocacy-style journalism is the new in-thing, according to David Blackmon, an independent consultant and analyst who has nearly 40 years experience in the energy industry.
“I don’t think that anyone would object to any of it if they were upfront about their agenda,” he told the DCNF. “There’s no effort to properly identify agenda-driven pieces. They are backed up with factual information, but it usually tells just half the story. It’s become the norm.”
Blackmon, a Forbes contributor, noted that much of the reporting is one-sided and focuses exclusively on one narrative: Climate change must be stopped at any cost. Such reporting rarely gives coverage to the economic consequences of climate activists’ preferred policies, he noted.
“We are at a point where we were at the turn of the 21st century,” Blackmon told the DCNF. “You had partisan affiliated outlets and almost no objective journalism at all. We’ve gone to that place after a period of time.
Page of links to articles and points critical of greenhouse gas models.
The writings below are radical challenges to the IPCC / 'climate consensus' greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, model. They don't all agree there's no greenhouse gas effect. They do agree that what's presented as settled science of the greenhouse gas effect is pseudoscience. Even supporters of the greenhouse gas effect below can't give it more than 10% of the climate warming claimed for it.
This nameless, core model is behind all climate doom and pseudoscience. It's the original 'crime' which all the rest of bad climate science, and fraud is trying to cover up. It's almost like a murder novel = someone makes a mistake, they try to cover it up by committing a little crime. Then they have to cover the little crime up too. Before you know it, they're committing murders to cover up their cover-ups! Consensus climate science is full of this kind of stuff. But no actual murders, not so far. Not unless we include the policy crime of promoting energy poverty and energy scarcity.
The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox, by Roy Clark. This is the book which radically freed my mind from the greenhouse gas effect
myth. Roy Clark does not actually say there is no greenhouse gas effect. He says the effect is so small, and the model so bad, that it doesn't matter what mainstream science says about the greenhouse gas effect. We won't know until we measure and model it properly.
On Roy Clark's website, there are a number of important papers.
Joseph Postma: 33 °C of greenhouse gas warming is wrong. This error is due to climate consensus getting the wrong location for effective emission height of earth's cooling (using the Stefan-Boltzman Law)
The 'Slayers': Slaying the Sky Dragon, by John O'Sullivan. This is the original anti-GHGE book. I didn't find it too easy to read as it jumps about a bit and feels like a collection of essays rather than a book. It probably needs rewriting by just one person.
Data of 20 million radioisondes is analysed. Scientists plotted molar density against pressure to discover equations of state for troposphere & tropopause
"data from the weather balloons has shown quite categorically there is no greenhouse effect"
-- Dr M. Connolly, time=52:41
... there is no empirical scientific evidence whatever for a 'greenhouse effect' from any so-called 'greenhouse gases'.
The thermal gradient/enhancement in the Earth's troposphere comes from auto-compression and convection - not from any non-existent "Greenhouse Effect"...
-- Robert Holmes, Twitter: @1000Frolly, YouTube,
We have more people, more wealth, more buildings today than in 1980 or 1992 etc.
So a 1980 event that caused, say $950m in inflation-adjusted losses, would certainly cause > $1B today
But it is not included
Here's 9 events from 1980 not included by NOAA
Obviously a simple count of losses above a threshold is problematic because loss potentials change over time.
So why not just present total economic losses, with no threshold?
Brilliant idea . . .
Here then is total US "Hazard Losses" (from Sheldus/ASU) presented as a percentage of US GDP (via OMB) for 1980-2016 (bounded by NOAA start, Sheldus end).
The lack of any upward trend is notable
The down trend over this time period was due to a drought of big US hurricanes 2006-2016 (since ended)
Compare to NOAA over same period
So when we raised these issues back in the day, NOAA held a workshop & published a paper
They concluded:
"It is difficult to attribute any part of the trends in losses to climate variations or change, especially in the case of billion-dollar disasters"
Despite all this, the billion dollar disaster time series lives on as zombie science.
It is simple, seems to fit a narrative, and utterly misleading.
So to help protect you from this particular zombie, I have prepared the attached graph to deploy when it attacks!
In chemistry the term acid test means a basic test which gives one precise information. A bit like a flame test tells you whether a substance contains calcium, sodium, copper or iron. Hoping you did flame tests at high school, so you know what I'm on about!
I've had much difficulty communicating with the climate faithful (those poor souls who've lost their minds to climate hysteria). Over very basic things. For example, when I talk about basic climate models I mean, for example, the model of Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, or one of Jim Hansen's models. Most of them published in science journals. I don't mean computer code from a General Circulation Model. Because I'm a computer programmer and I know it's senseless to reverse engineer computer code to try to work out the coder's intention.
I going to deal with this ambiguity about what basic climate models mean by proposing the climate model acid test™. It's not really trade marked, you, too, can do it. I will propose to the climate faithful, that we go online, find one of these basic climate models, and we do a textual analysis looking all basic assumptions and predictions made. Then look for the science behind those basic assumptions. For eample, when they say "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more opaque to infrared". Let's look for the basic scientific studies showing this. If the climate modeler says: "more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in less out-going longwave radiation energy emitted to space", then this too is a clear, simple, assumption which must be verified and quantified by basic experiment. Eventually, by finding all these basic experiments, we can figure out what assumptions, and predictions, made by climate models are rock solid, and which may not be quite right.
The point of the climate model acid test is not to win believers to my side. It is to show naive people how science should be done; how genuine skeptics should think.
"... Here we report the first ever in situ observations of atmospheric waves in Venus’s thermosphere (130–140km) at high latitudes (71.5◦–79.0◦). These measurements were made by the Venus Express Atmospheric Drag Experiment (VExADE)5 during aero-braking from 24 June to 11 July 2014. As the spacecraft flew through Venus’s atmosphere, deceleration by atmospheric drag was sufficient to obtain from accelerometer readings a total of 18 vertical density profiles. We infer an average temperature of T = 114 ± 23 K and find horizontal wave-like density perturbations and mean temperatures being modulated at a quasi-5-day period ..."
--from the abstract.
Not actually at the poles but between latitude 70° and 80°. The actual poles will be even colder. They inferred an average temperature 114 ±23 K (91 to 137 K; -182 to -136 C). That was the average they got. The actual coldest would've been even colder!
Red crosses and the red line are normalized temperatures, T/Tmean, with the mean value Tmean = 114K
This is far colder than the coldest temperature found on earth. At the surface the coldest temperature measured on earth was: −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica (East Antarctic plateau, latitude 78°S, elevation 3.5km) on 21 July, 1983 by ground measurements. During the middle of the Southern winter.
If the greenhouse gas effect were as important for Venus's climate as they say, this greenhouse gas effect would be felt predominantly at the poles. It would warm the poles. Something very fishy happened with our understanding of Venus's climate. Looks like we have it very wrong. The models of Venus's runaway greenhouse gas effect tell us that an earth-like Venus became too hot for life due to its atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide, CO2.
These temperature measurements are atmospheric, and earth does have two layers in its atmosphere which get cold (mesopause and tropopause), but not nearly as cold as these Venusian measurements.
"plunging the craft into the atmosphere above the poles, where the probe encountered an atmosphere thinner than previously modeled"
... thinner than previously modeled...? Not thinner than previously measured. This is really sad. Our science is being destroyed by idealism, masquerading as "settled science". We've been swindeled by James Hansen and his band of climate pseudoscientists.
Abstract: Waves are ubiquitous phenomena found in oceans and atmospheres alike. From the earliest formal studies of waves in the Earth’s atmosphere to more recent studies on other planets, waves have been shown to play a key role in shaping atmospheric bulk structure, dynamics and variability1–4. Yet, waves are difficult to characterize as they ideally require in situ measurements of atmospheric properties that are difficult to obtain away from Earth. Thus, we have incomplete knowledge of atmospheric waves on planets other than our own, and we are thereby limited in our ability to understand and predict planetary atmospheres. Here we report the first ever in situ observations of atmospheric waves in Venus’s thermosphere (130–140km) at high latitudes (71.5°–79.0°). These measurements were made by the Venus Express Atmospheric Drag Experiment (VExADE)5 during aerobraking from 24 June to 11 July 2014. As the spacecraft flew through Venus’s atmosphere, deceleration by atmospheric drag was sufficient to obtain from accelerometer readings a total of 18 vertical density profiles. We infer an average temperature of T = 114 ± 23 K and find horizontal wave-like density perturbations and mean temperatures being modulated at a quasi-5-day period.
