Sunday, 12 November 2017
Saturday, 11 November 2017
Renewable Energy supporters are either:
Once upon a time I was a green 'eejit' too. (1) I believed in renewable energy. I thought our government were idiots for not using it to replace fossil fuels. E.g. for making electricity. (2) I also believed in global warming, or climate change, as they call it today. and (3) I though that chemicals in the environment could be killing us with cancer. Back then, I considered myself a well-educated, serious, responsible, person. I read the liberal-left press. They told me renewable energies were scalable, and doable. I believed them. Then, in 2006, two acquaintances told me I was wrong renewables, are too expensive. That was the beginning. I took notice. If renewable energy could not decarbonize our economy, then what? However, the thing that really piqued my interest in the energy debate was the Internet film "Thorium Remix 2011", by Gordon McDowell which was mostly based on Kirk Sorensen's nuclear power presentations of the Oak Ridge Molten Salt Reactor Experiment(s) from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Here I found the solution to global warming, and plentiful energy for the world. A 'non-carbon' power source. Almost infinitely scalable. It emitted no CO2, ran in breeder mode, so needed practically no fuel. Did not make any appreciable amount of waste. Could make power for less than the price of coal. Posed no meaningful risk to anyone because it ran at atmospheric pressure (or close). No possible accident posed a risk of releasing dangerous amounts of radiation over large areas. What was not to like? Why didn't everyone support this idea? Who could possibly oppose it?
That was my real introduction to the energy debate. I read papers and books to understand the issues. I researched. I blogged from April 2014. The pros and cons of each technology. The risks of nuclear power. Especially radiation. I also became interested in human pathology: the green movement in particular. Their peculiar, ambivalent attitude towards our fellow humans. I'd always known there was a neo-Malthusian contingent in the green movement; from reading Murray Bookchin's Re-enchanting Humanity, back in the 1990s. And from attempting to discuss the pros and cons of technology with greens. My discussions got nowhere. Every argument I raised in favour of something like nuclear power, GMOs, etc. was greeted with but, ..., the Precautionary Principle! Yet I thought neo-Malthusians were a minority of greens. Now, with COP23 refusing to discuss nuclear power, it's dawned on me that neo-Malthusians rule them. Both politically and intellectually.
There's a tendency, in common sense thought, to look at the world in terms of scarcity. Scarcity is the natural state of things. Yet our natural faith in scarcity as the way the world works is both wrong and lazy. Julian Simon explained why in "The Ultimate Resource". Human ingenuity overcomes most obstacles.
End of the long digression/biography
So how is it that I believe renewable energy supporters are either:
First do the maths. If you propose to replace fossil fuel use with renewable energy it has to work. Otherwise you are in camps (1, neo-Malthusian), or (4, worse. e.g. you are just in it for the money or your career). Renewable energies do not work very well. The arguments against it, in most places, and in most forms, are compelling
- David MacKay: Sustainable Energy – without the hot air
- A reality check on renewables
- John Morgan: ERoEI, The Catch-22 of Energy Storage
- Scientific American Sokalized, by Howard “Cork” Hayden.
- Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation, by Ferruccio Ferroni and Robert Hopkirk
- "Thorium Remix 2011", by Gordon McDowell
The arguments above kill renewable energy. The nuclear power alternative is just so much better. If you are still a believer, but have not done the maths yourself then you are either an idiot (can't do maths), or a dilettante (too lazy to do it, happy to take someone else's word). The actual exclusion of nuclear power from the table at COP23 tells us that the majority of environmentalists saving the planet at COP have ulterior motives. They are not very interested in decarbonizing the economy. When people yelling Fire in a crowded theatre aren't running for the exit, then you know something dishonest is going down. Beware. Another development is Mark Z Jacobson taking his scientific critics to court for defamation. This original blog title was: 'Renewable Energy supporters are either evil or stupid' That's all folks.
Sunday, 5 November 2017
Following on from Prof. William Happer's remarks on how the green-house gas effect really works.
The greenhouse effect is often explained in terms of carbon dioxide absorbing long-wave infrared (LWIR) rays leaving earth's surface as the surface cools. Then re-emitting the radiation at the same wavelength. It cannot happen in this manner, so why do 'scientists' describe it this way? Scientists claim they don't believe fairy stories. But some clearly do. A CO2 molecule, in air, typically experiences about 1 billion collisions with other air molecules each second. One second is about the time it would take to re-emit the LWIR it absorbed. In reality, when LWIR is absorbed, it is typically thermalized. Meaning: the energy in the LWIR is shared with other air molecules. This will raise the general temperature of air. But will remove energy from CO2 so that the radiation can't be emitted at the same frequency it was absorbed at.
The absorption length for the existing concentration of CO2 is around 25 meters i.e. the distance to reduce the LWIR intensity by 1/e.
What actually happens is that those radiation frequencies at which CO2 absorbs well are removed from LWIR leaving earth. Yet a proportion of the LWIR, originating from earth's surface is unaffected by any greenhouse gas (GHG). Ignoring scattering it goes straight out to space and earth does, indeed, cool.
So only a proportion of LWIR leaving earth is subject to the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE). Even that energy is not 'trapped'. It is all eventually lost to space. Most of the LWIR subject to GHGE is absorbed by water vapour, not CO2. Much of the LWIR is ignored by GHG. This implies we need more sophisticated GHGE models, which treat different radiation bands according to how GHG affects them. There are clearly some unanswered questions here.
- In terms of energy, what proportion of LWIR is entirely unaffected by the GHGE?
- Why do climate scientists insist on treating all LWIR in the same way. With the same macro equations which ignore the actual frequencies absorbed and ignored by GHG?
- After air is warmed due to thermalization, at what frequencies does the air emit radiation to cool down?
- When cooling down, which air molecules emit (O2, N2, H2O, CO2, ... ?), and at what frequencies?
- What would a true GHGE model look like?
- Can we model the effect of clouds and GHG together to write a proper model?
Those are just some of the questions on my mind.
Saturday, 9 September 2017
|Subject: Another dumb question from Dave
|From: David Burton||Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:48 PM|
To: William Happer
|From: William Happer||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM|
To: David Burton
|From: David Burton||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:46 AM|
To: William Happer
|From: David Burton||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM|
|From: T||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:03 PM|
To: David Burton
|From: David Burton||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:31 PM|
|From: T||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:46 PM|
To: David Burton
|From: David Burton||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM|
|From: Robert G. Brown||Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:29 PM|
To: David Burton
|From: David Burton||Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:52 PM|
To: William Happer
|From: William Happer||Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:05 AM|
To: David Burton
Sunday, 6 August 2017
Once upon a time, about 4 years ago, I was a climate believer. I believed the mainstream (IPCC) projections for climate change, and blamed most of it on carbon dioxide.
It seemed reasonable to decarbonize the energy system. I became a bit of a nuclear power advocate. I read books on nukes. I did introductory online courses on nuclear power. I noticed how the energy issue was totally partisan and divided right down the middle.
On one side were pro-nukes, on the other side the 'greens'. The greens were united along several lines. They:
- opposed nuclear power
- supported green issues
- worried about global warming
- were keen to reduce human energy use
For them, the debate was not about saving the planet by stopping carbon dioxide emissions. It was about saving the planet from the scourge of humanity.
The other side: pro-nukes was split. It included eco-modernists, conservatives, nuclear industry people, liberals and lefties.
I could not help notice that the news sources worrying about climate change were doing two things:
- opposing nuclear power
- greatly exaggerating climate change effects, and engaging in a little war against people they called 'deniers'.
Early on, I wanted nothing to do with any of these 'deniers'. They were right wing. They must be wrong. Right?
It slowly dawned on me that the only reasonable people refuting this climate alarmism in the news sources were the 'deniers'. What about all the reasonable people - those who accepted the mainstream IPCC analysis? Where were they in this debate? How come they weren't refuting the obvious over-exaggerations in the media?
The answer is that the 'mainstream' believe the establishment can only be goaded into action by exaggeration. So they stand by and let the hard-core green movement exaggerate. That was my first wake up call. My second wake up call came when I noticed the greens blaming global warming on nuclear power. What kind of good, ethically upright person, has any truck with that kind of politics. No me. That's the point when my pro-humanism kicked in and I dared to think the unthinkable. What if carbon dioxide was not much at fault for climate change? Then I looked at the evidence. The more evidence I looked at, the longer the term for the evidence: thousands, and even millions of years - the more I too turned into a 'denier' too. I have to call myself a skeptic.
I think CO2 has some effect on climate. I think it should warm climate mildly, but only a quarter to a third what IPCC say. I expect 0.6C per doubling of CO2. Q: What about the warming which has already happened? I hear you say. Surely that proves CO2 guilty? A: No.
- Because we've seen no real warming for 18 years now. If it's 90% the fault of CO2, there cannot be a hiatus, but there is.
- When you tell me what caused the Medieval Warm Period, then I'll believe there's such a thing as climate science. Till then it's climatology again.
Saturday, 5 August 2017
The current "consensus" says: the GHGE is very important at the equator (so climate models say). Approximately between +20º and -20º latitude. This extra heat 'trapped there' rises and settles down at the poles thereby warming the planet. This extra trapped heat is due to more CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Models say 24% of the GHGE is due to CO2. That about 72% is due to water and ~ 4% to other gases (mostly Ozone).
Let us move away from assumptions and models (alarmism) to basic science (below), which no one can dispute:
- The sun angle controls water vapour content of the atmosphere. So the atmosphere in the equatorial zone is 80× to 90× more H2O than CO2. [see diagram below]
- Water is a much more powerful GHG than CO2 because the bonds in water have far more degrees of freedom so can undergo far more electron bond transitions. It's these bond transitions which cause infrared (IR) radiation absorption. CO2 can only absorb IR at 3 frequencies. Water absorbs at dozens of frequencies.
- A plot of GHG forcing against water vapour in the atmosphere shows "the upper limit to the back radiation of GHGs is approximately 420 W/m² at water vapour concentration of approximately 32,000 ppmv, or an H2O/CO2 ratio of 80:1; (2) the lowest back radiation is 97 W/m² at the South Pole" where the ratio H2O:CO2 is 1:1.
This Is The Clincher:
Consider at the South pole where CO2:H2O is 1:1 and GHGE = 97W/m². If that is 24% due to CO2, it means CO2 effect = 23W/m² (at the poles). Moving on to the equator: CO2 is well-mixed so it's also 23W/m² out of 420 W/m² there. That means only 5.5% of GHGE at equator (where it really matters) is due to CO2.
The GHGE is said to be responsible for warming the climate by 33ºC above what it would be with no GHGE. From -18ºC to +15ºC. (Averaged). The US state of North Carolina has an average temperature of about 15.3ºC. NC is located latitude 33° 50' N to 36° 35' N. On Average that's 34.2 °N Let's treat it as the average place on Earth. Assume the ratio of H2O to CO2 = 34:1 there. Implying GHGE ~ 345 W/m². Subtract the part due to CO2 then it is 345 -23 = 322 W/m² due to H2O and O3.
What's the maximum CO2 GHGE?
Let us do a basic maths back of the envelope calculation to give us a maximum for the CO2 GHGE. It can not be more than half of the polar effect. Because even at the poles there's as much water in the atmosphere as CO2, and water is a more powerful GHG [see the last diagram below for a comparison of water and carbon dioxide GHGE]. Let's say the upper limit of the CO2 GHGE is 33% (at the poles) = 33 W/m². Let's count squares in the diagram above. 7 × 33 ÷ 50 = 4.62 squares show CO2 GHGE. The diagram has ~ 49 squares. 4.62 ÷ 49 = 9.5%. That puts an upper limit on the CO2 GHGE of 9.5%. 9.5% of 33ºC = 3.1ºC. (given earth's surface is 33ºC warmer than it would be with not GHGE.)
Remember how the effect of more CO2 tails off logarithmically?
So the CO2 GHGE is already nearly maxed out at about 3.1ºC, and most of that was due to the first 20ppm of CO2 in that atmosphere. Doubling CO2, from 280ppm to 560ppm does not double the effect. It only increases by a fraction of a degree.
Saturday, 15 July 2017
Climate models cannot model the climate
- Models rely on untested, assumptions e.g. of constant relative humidity with rising temperatures. This is an 120 year old assumption no climate modeler thinks worth testing. Why not?
- The ground station data that models use is mostly incomplete. Especially so over oceans which are 70% of earth's surface
- Models omit many causative factors, such as the Sun (it's various cycles both long and short-term), Volcanoes, ...
- Models do a poor job describing ocean circulation, and ocean heat emission (e.g. from El Niño). Oceans act as heat reservoirs, and hold 1000 × more heat than the atmosphere can. So oceans are crucial to any good model. Climate modelers understand oceans badly.
- Scientists have an incomplete understanding of weather and climate. e.g. Do clouds have a net warming or cooling effect? They cannot say for certain.
- Models work at too course a resolution to be 'simulations', which they, wrongly, claim to be.
- The climate is more complex than modelers make out. They can only run their models by grossly simplifying things.
- It would take about a hundred million, trillion years to run a computer model at something close to the correct resolution.
- A fundamental model mistake is an assumption that IR absorbed by GHG is retransmitted instantaneously. That's both impossible and wrong. Reemission of absorbed IR will take many hundreds of milliseconds. During each millisecond, a molecule will collide with 1 million other air molecules. So any IR (heat) absorbed will be shared with them. Or 'thermalized'. So the 'heat' to be retransmitted as IR is in fact dissipated to the surrounding atmosphere. This rather messes up the downwelling IR model.
Leading experts at modeling have consistently explained that climate models cannot be trusted. So anyone claiming climate model accuracy is denying both modeling best practice and science.
1. Leading Expert Modeler, Prof. Christopher Essex, tells Why Climate Models Hardly Better Than Hocus Pocus: “Welcome To Wonderland”!
2. According to expert modelers: Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong:
Scientific forecasting knowledge has been summarised in the form of principles by 40 leading forecasting researchers and 123 expert reviewers. The principles summarise the evidence on forecasting from 545 studies that in turn drew on many prior studies. Some of the forecasting principles, such as ‘provide full disclosure’ and ‘avoid biased data sources,’ are common to all scientific fields. The principles are readily available in the Principles of Forecasting handbook.
We then audited the IPCC forecasting procedures using the Forecasting Audit Software available on ForPrin.com. Our audit found that the IPCC followed only 17 of the 89 relevant principles that we were able to code using the information provided in the 74-page IPCC chapter. Thus, the IPCC forecasting procedures violated 81% of relevant forecasting principles. It is hard to think of an occupation for which it would be acceptable for practitioners to violate evidence-based procedures to this extent. Consider what would happen if an engineer or medical practitioner, for example, failed to properly follow even a single evidence-based procedure.
- Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, in Climate Change: The Facts.
Saturday, 8 July 2017
The answer in a nutshell : mathematical trickery.
The IPCC equation for the Feedback factor, used to calculate climate sensitivity, is given on AR4, WG1, page 631, footnote 6. It is:
Under these simplifying assumptions the amplification of the global warming from a feedback parameter λ (in W m-2 °C-1) with no other feedbacks operating is
1 ÷ (1 + λ ÷ λp) where λp is the ‘uniform temperature’ radiative cooling response (of value approximately –3.2 W m-2 °C-1; Bony et al., 2006). If n independent feedbacks operate, λp is replaced by (λ1 + λ2 + ... λn).
|- 40% variance||FF[low]||0.18||0.21||0.24||0.27||0.30||0.33||0.36||0.39||0.42|
|+ 40% variance||FF[high]||0.42||0.49||0.56||0.63||0.70||0.77||0.84||0.91||0.98|
Let's consider just how easily we can arrive at a high climate sensitivity value from what looks like a midling feedback factor. The IPCC give their modelers a feedback factor of 0.5 to use
(= λ ÷ λp above, which is a unitless number). Jessica Vial's team were tasked with coming up with (inventing?) this number; as they did. To this central estimate, they add and subtract ±40% (2 standard deviations up or down) because they say they want to cover 95% of eventualities. This is shown in the table (above). Rows 2, 3, and 4 show the feedback factor with -40%, 0%, and +40% adjustments (labeled: FF[low], FF[mid], FF[high]). With a feedback factor of 0.65 (only 0.15 more than their central estimate), the +40% figure for climate sensitivity = 11! That means the equation projects a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm from pre-industrial times will give an average 11C temperature increase at earth's surface. Don't worry. It's a maths trick it's not real. Unfortunately the likes of Angela Merkel, Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn, countless Tories seem to believe in magic, faeries, and impossible maths equations.
Christopher Monckton has a lot to say on this mathematical trickery here and here. I've yet to read chapter 3 of Bode's "Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design", 1945, from which it looks like the climate modelers stole their feedback ideas. But pray, don't blame Dr. Bode (RIP). The climate modelers did a slight of hand by not using the whole of the forcing in their equation. By only taking the difference in forcing, they created an equation just balanced on the edge of a catastrophe. This has been the climate sensitivity equation since 1979. It predates the IPCC and is used for all 5 IPCC reports. I will elaborate more in another blog. For now: please watch Monckton's talk at the Heartland’s 12th International Conference on Climate Change. After I think I can explain it better, I'll blog it again. I want to show the difference between just using differences (as they do) and what they should do (putting all the forcing in).
How and why does this con work?
You may think the boy that cried wolf story is 'true' of people, in the sense the story chimes with us. That we disbelieve people we know are lying to us. It ain't so. When the liars pose an existential threat to our existence, when they make it a matter of the survival of humanity, then, sadly, we listen to them, again and again. That's why the climate feedback equation is like that. Because with just a bit of tweaking, it can threaten our very existence, and guarantee climate alarmists an audience for their doom-mongering. It's not really about the climate for them. Don't be fooled. It's about putting the brakes on human technological progress. Tying us down, enslaving us to our fears, so we won't be able to harm the environment.
Saturday, 17 June 2017
I read here about a revolutionary new battery which:
So there are 3 or 4 big issues with electric cars: (1) The long time taken to recharge during which the car is useless, (2) Short range, (3) Lack of infrastructure, (4) Low energy density of batteries compared to liquid fuels like gasoline. This causes the weight of the engine/fuel to be much higher. So lowering the efficiency.
I discussed the prospects of electric cabs with one of the cab drivers who drives me on my daily journey to work. He thinks electric cars need to be a lot better to be useable as cabs. Meanwhile the local council want every cabbie to have an electric cab in 5 years. My cabbie thinks the local council don't give a toss whether the tech works or not. I think they just want to be seen to be 'saving the planet'.
PS: The local council in question is St Albans in England. It's not a "socialist" council, nor is it Enviro-Stalinist. It is split between Tories and Lib Dems. The electric cab initiative is mostly Lib Dem - who are like a light green Green Party.
"We are now consulting on the Councils proposals to introduce fully electric Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles to be licensed. The consultation will last for 12 weeks and will end on 15th June 2017,we hope to report the responses to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee on 18th July."
Sunday, 4 June 2017
How did the UN come to believe that 99.9% of substances/activities they'd tested might pose a cancer risk?
The Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research wrote a recent article about how the UN's cancer agency IARC flat out refuse to say that coffee is safe to drink.
For decades, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) warned coffee drinkers that their favorite beverage might cause cancer. Finally, the agency updated its assessment in June 2016 and downgraded coffee to Group 3 or “not classifiable as carcinogenic to humans.” While this decision is a step in the right direction, it raises new questions and concerns.
First, IARC did not categorize coffee as Group 4, “probably not carcinogenic to humans,” even though there is considerable evidence supporting the health benefits of coffee consumption, including protection against Parkinson disease, liver disease, type 2 diabetes and liver cancer. Second, IARC’s decision to classify coffee in Group 3 rather than Group 4 represents a pattern of ignoring scientific evidence that supports certainty and the safety of products and behaviors. In fact, IARC has examined almost 1,000 agents over the past 30 years, only once classifying a substance as Group 4. IARC has explained this by saying that to be downgraded to Group 4, science would have to “prove a negative,” a statement that is neither reasonable nor useful to the goal of providing meaningful information to the public. In the end, IARC’s treatment of coffee provides another example of the urgent need to reform both the Agency and its processes.
This blog is my attempt to explain how this peculiar state of affairs arose
The idea that science should 'have to “prove a negative,”' seems to me to come straight out of what's now called 'precautionary thinking'. It also defies the scientific method. How did they do that? The IARC seem to have taken the precautionary principle, PP, and cubed it. The original PP said we should place a moratorium upon technologies which might have the potential to cause widespread environmental change (foreseen or unforeseen), posing a potential existential threat to life. The PP was the environment movement's alternative to cost benefit analysis, CBA. A kind of 'radical' risk analysis. Their arguments against GMOs, nuclear power, atmospheric carbon dioxide, and recently, nanotechnology, try to derive existential threats from otherwise benign technology. I sense the PP was only ever there to avoid CBA. Today enviros often call it 'precautionary thinking', with an implication that it's a way to looking at the world, rather than a principle to be applied in extremis (as the PP was supposed to be). I would not be surprised to find the IARC have never published or acknowledged a CBA of coffee. Please tell me I'm wrong.
Saturday, 13 May 2017
Per IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 prior to year 1750 CO2 represented about 1.26% of the total biospheric carbon balance (589/46,713). After mankind’s contributions, 67 % fossil fuel and cement – 33% land use changes, atmospheric CO2 increased to about 1.77% of the total biosphere carbon balance (829/46,713). This represents a shift of 0.51% from all the collected stores, ocean outgassing, carbonates, carbohydrates, etc. not just mankind, to the atmosphere. A 0.51% rearrangement of 46,713 Gt of stores and 100s of Gt annual fluxes doesn’t impress me as measurable let alone actionable, attributable, or significant.
And in some other words.
Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 Gt (+/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y (+/- ??) flowing among those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know? BTW fossil fuel between 1750 and 2011 represented 0.34% of the biospheric carbon cycle.
555 ----- = 1.2% 46713
Sunday, 12 March 2017
From the blog: Knowledge Drift; The Science of Human Error
The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, GHG, tails off logarithmically. On doubling CO2, from 280ppm (pre-industrial level) to 560ppm an extra 3.7 W/m2 warming is expected.
That is expected to lead to about 1ºC warming of the average global surface temperature. Note: more CO2 does not cause 'global warming', it just slows down the rate of loss of atmospheric warmth. All other things being equal that would cause warming. All other things are not equal. There is a negative feedback operating called the Stefan–Boltzmann effect. As temperature rises the rate at which black bodies emit heat increases according to the 4th power of temperature. When the temperature increases the Stefan–Boltzmann relation means that everything else (ground and oceans) emits more black body heat. This extra heat is eventually radiated to space so is lost to the climate. This built-in negative feedback on temperature rise keeps earth's temperature at a reasonable level : a temperature rise leads to a faster emission of black body (LWIR) heat. The black body formula (Stefan–Boltzmann relation) used to calculate how much heat is being dissipated to space is P = 5.76 × 10-8 × T4 where P is power in watts per square meter and T is temperature in degrees K or Kelvin. So the amount of LWIR emitted increases according to the fourth power of the temperature.
|CO2 radiative forcing||Stefan–Boltzmann effect|
(W / m²)
(W / m²)
|P||T (ºC)||Net warming|
(W / m²)
Comment: multiple catastrophic errors
The errors climate alarmists seem to have made are many-fold:
- Eliding how the CO2 GHG effect tails off logarithmically,
- Assuming the atmosphere is a heat sink. It is not. The oceans are earth's heat sink. Earth's atmosphere has a tiny heat capacity compared to its oceans. Oceans have over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere
- Misuse of this saw them to invent 'catastrophic warming' by putting all their extra heat into the atmosphere! (which it isn't going to hold!). It was a convenient con because a body with a small heat capacity can (in theory) be made to warm quite fast!
- Logically, it would make more sense to put their extra heat into the oceans. Because the amount of heat which could, in theory, warm the atmosphere by 10ºC can only warm the oceans by 0.01ºC. Fail. Put the heat in the oceans and catastrophic global warming is not 'catastrophic'.
- Ignored basic physics of the Stefan–Boltzmann negative feedback.
- The majority of climate models miss (forget, or never bothered to consider) many ocean oscillation effects. These are like smaller versions of El Nino. In the North and South Atlantic and Indian oceans. In this situation an area of the ocean collects warm water. Heat is transferred to the atmosphere by evaporative cooling, etc. So oceans heat the atmosphere. Not CO2. CO2 just slows down the rate of cooling. Ocean oscillations give global warming records a bumpy or spikey appearance.
- ... on to infinity. There will always be yet one more 'error' they're prepared to make to push their alarmist/Luddite/Malthusian political agenda.
Friday, 10 March 2017
Global circulation models - AKA climate models claim to be legitimate because they say they can hindcast previous atmospheric temperatures. i.e. They claim their model projections reproduce past climate. For example: The global cooling period from the early 1940s to mid-1970s. This was done by adding a special factors (aerosols) for this period which they claim is no longer important today. Some people this is just fabricated data to give the GCMs a gloss of legitimacy. Just about all GCMs run too hot. They mis-forecast future temperatures too hot.
This is another 'reblog' of a comment.
Ladies and Germs,
Have you looked at the model-hindcasting/fabricated-aerosol issue, as described below?
The climate models do not honestly hindcast the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975, because their authors fabricated false aerosol data to force hindcasting.
Therefore, the models cannot forecast anything, because they cannot hindcast. except through fraudulent inputs.
The climate models cited by the IPCC typically use values of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) values that are significantly greater than 1C, which must assume strong positive feedbacks for which there is NO evidence. If anything, feedbacks are negative and ECS is less than 1C. This is one key reason why the climate models cited by the IPCC greatly over-predict global warming.
I reject as false the climate modellers’ claims that manmade aerosols caused the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975. This aerosol data was apparently fabricated to force the climate models to hindcast the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975, and is used to allow a greatly inflated model input value for ECS.
Some history on this fabricated aerosol data follows:
More from Douglas Hoyt in 2006: