Halfway Through April

Time passes. Some things change. Others don’t.

We have noticed that the policy of silencing inconvenient voices continues over at RC.

And we have also noticed some snipping going on at CA.

Some of this is no doubt due to the very real requirements for blog proprietors to manage their blog, particularly in keeping it on topic. Steve McIntyre is snipping quite a bit, but generally makes it evident that he is doing so, and explains why. RC, in contrast, simply refuses to post contributions that don’t meet its preconceived positions, or that question the IPCC et al science. They do allow some dissenting opinion in, but only enough to give the appearance of a ‘debate’.

It would be interesting indeed to read all of the posts that they reject! We see but a sample of them here, and usually only where people who have tried to post at RC comment about having their posts rejected. We are getting a few direct posters telling us about their experience.

Overall, the tide seems to be turning in favour of those questioning the science. For the record, the position of this blog is that we must do our best to really understand what is going on. However, we have formed the view that CO2 is, at best, a minor player in the game.

There is no doubt that man is having an impact on the climate. We see that in the Urban Heat Island effect that is evident to anyone who has a thermometer reading outside temperature in their car. We see it in local and regional effects resulting from land use, as Roger Pielke Sr continually reminds us. An example of the latter is the well documented case of the disappearing snows of Mt Kilimanjaro which are acknowledged to be the result of local forest clearing rather than AGW.

The whole focus on CO2 is diverting attention from the many real issues. One of the risks of the current dilemma is that increasing public scepticism about AGW alarmism could cause us all to become complacent, and not deal with the real issues, of which there are many.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Halfway Through April”

  1. rcrejects Says:

    Here is a comment posted on 4 April at CA on the Trouet et al 2009 – “Scuppering the Deniers” thread.

    26 Hank: April 4th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    Another great article. Hoist ’em on their own petard! I especially enjoyed it since it works so nicely with Gavin Schmidt’s April 1st lecture at realclimate.org (entitled “Advocacy vs. Science”) on the dangers of seizing on every latest paper as confirmation of one’s own understandings and prejudices. Do you suppose Gavin imagines that his bromides wouldn’t be beneficial to all camps of this debate?

    I apologize if this comment seems if it would be better placed over at realclimate, but all my posts over at the impartial, non-advocacy blog get censored.

  2. rcrejects Says:

    Here is a post that appeared at RC in the Wilkins Ice Sheet Collapse thread. Dawn complains about being censored – Gavin acknowledges that is the case, and gives his reasons why.

    Dawn Says: 8 April 2009 at 10:38 AM

    I didn’t go anywhere, I have tried to reply without success. Apparently the host is selective on what gets posted.
    I am very informed and have been civil so I can’t imagine what the problem is.
    I’ll have to imagine that the more germane and well said arguements a skeptics posts the least likely they will show up.

    [Response: Actually it’s the complete opposite. Try posting without the attitude and without tiresome links to long debunked nonsense. – gavin]

  3. mondo Says:

    I had a post rejected at RC the other day. I thought it quite a reasonable question. If anything, I was trying to be helpful. However, Gavin obviously didn’t agree!

    At RC. Science v Advocacy thread.

    mondo Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    20 April 2009 at 6:02 AM

    A question about Science V Advocacy. How come you guys never engage with the issues raised at CA, WUWT, The Air Vent, or The Blackboard?

    Seems to me that the issues/questions there are serious, and deserve considered response. Failure to respond looks like a concession. You do have answers, don’t you??

    Perhaps this is (at least in part) why the skeptics are gaining ground?

  4. rcrejects Says:

    Claims of ‘censoring’ at another sceptical site. Frequent RC poster Barton Paul Levenson says that has been trying to post at JoNova’s site, so far without success. I note however, that Boris, who if I am not mistaken generally supports the AGW position, is getting lots of airtime there at the moment. It is Anzac weekend in Oz, and also the Easter break at schools and universities, so Jo may not yet have seen BPL’s post. Perhaps she pre-approves regular posters, but requires approval for new posters. Or perhaps BPL has ended up in the Spam bucket. I know that it took me a while to notice that TCO’s posts here had ended up in the Spam bucket.

    At RC, Friday Roundup 2 thread:

    Barton Paul Levenson Says:
    25 April 2009 at 6:28 AM
    I posted a couple of detailed replies to posts at JoNova’s Australian climate-denier blog several days ago, and they still haven’t shown up. Waiting…

    Barton Paul Levenson Says:
    27 April 2009 at 5:35 AM
    Still no posts of mine showing up at JoNova’s blog. And all my posts just happened to disagree vigorously, but politely, with the science illiterates posting there. What a coincidence. I wonder if, just by coincidence, anyone else who defends real science there also gets censored.

  5. rcrejects Says:

    Uh Oh!! I just checked JoNova’s site again, and there, posted on 24th April, are two posts from BPL, in an earlier thread than the latest one where Boris is holding forth bigtime. BPL will have to tell us how many posts he lodged at JoNova’s site, and whether they were censored or not. However, it looks to me that JoNova failed in fact to adopt the RC censorship style. What you say BPL? I notice that when I last looked at RC, you hadn’t acknowledged that JoNova had actually put your posts up.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/

    For the record, here are BPL’s two posts:

    277 Barton Paul Levenson: April 24th, 2009 at 3:56 am

    Ann Kit-Littler posts a particularly stupid ad hominem about AGW theory being a neo-pagan religion. How does that cover people like me, a born-again Christian, or Dr. John Houghton of the IPCC, ditto? Neither of us is a pagan in any way.

    How about debating the actual issue instead of finding ways to insult the people you disagree with?

    and:

    278 Barton Paul Levenson: April 24th, 2009 at 4:14 am

    John “Jack” Leicester posts a message so chock full of scientific errors it’s hard to know where to start pointing them out. I guess I’ll just take each one in the order it appears.

    “Dave Evans has already pointed out that scientists 2003 studies of ice cores clearly show that atmospheric increases in CO2 FOLLOW, NOT LEAD, atmospheric increases in temperature by 800 years. Therefore, one can say that CO2 does NOT cause global warming and, therefore, global warming, as hypothesized, and, if it exists at all, is not human caused.”

    Your “therefore” is a non sequitur. Yes, in a natural deglaciation, CO2 follows temperature, because the slight warming from Milankovic variations causes the oceans to emit carbon dioxide, solubility of CO2 in seawater going down as temperature increases. That is not what is happening now. The new CO2 is not coming from the ocean, it is coming from fossil fuels, as we can tell from the radioisotope signature (Suess 1955). And carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas. In glacial cycles, the Milankovic variations are not, in and of themselves, enough to explain the observed temperature variations. You need CO2 as an amplifier.

    “Further, the global warming models and the climatologists who make them are simply playing heuristic games. A proper scientific model of climate cannot be created on grids with wide meshes. It would take hundreds of Fourier series 2nd order equations of all of the relevant parameters to even begin to model the environment. The equations are unsolvable with any of today’s computers. Nor will they probably ever be solved.”

    Manabe and Strickler published a pretty good radiative-convective model of the atmosphere back in 1964. Since then the models have improved considerably. Your assertion that they can’t model climate accurately is pretty lame in view of the fact that they DO model climate accurately.

    Most of the climate models have set the heat transfer of the atmospheric components to zero.
    Huh? What? What does “the heat transfer of the atmospheric components” even mean?

    “That is an unscientific fraud. Also, Water vapor is not taken into account properly because it is not accurately measureable in the atmosphere.”

    Every RCM and GCM in the world accounts for the radiative effect of water vapor, and where in the world did you get the idea that it can’t be measured in the atmosphere? There are all kinds of ways to measure it, varying from sampling bottles to satellite radiative transfer methods.

    Yet, atmospheric water has the greatest capability of intercepting infrared heat; and, especially, heat FROM the sun, of which the infrared component is about 45%. No mention of this is made in any climatological modeling or data.
    That last sentence is just wrong. As I said, they all take it into account. And there are reams of data about it.

    “No one seems to have questioned the mechanisms of exactly how atmospheric gases “trap” heat in the atmosphere or how it is retransmitted back to earth’s near surface atmosphere.”

    I think John Tyndall pointed out that it worked back in 1859, as a result of his lab experiments, and the explanation for how it happens is a consequence of quantum mechanics. This is all something you could have learned with a Google search.

    “Climatologists appear to have forgotten that heat rises and that most of the heat transmitted from earth to the troposphere is through conduction and convection.”

    Sensible heat transfer from Earth’s surface to the atmosphere averages about 17 watts per square meter. Latent heat transfer is about 80. Radiative is about 356. See Trenberth et al. 2009, which I believe is available on the web as a preprint. An earlier Earth atmospheric energy budget, Kiehl and Trenberth 1997, is also available and gives similar figures.

    “Gas molecules get excited when heated. Their kinetic energy increases. They expand.”

    Molecules expand?

    ” They ascend to higher altitudes, transmitting this heat to their colder surroundings until stability is achieved. Radiation in the infrared spectrum is not a factor in the heat transmission to the atmosphere”

    356 watts per square meter, Jack.

    ” just as it is not the main cause of heat rising (temperature increasing) in a greenhouse. This is scientific misconduct to suggest such a similarity.”

    No, it is scientific illiteracy on your part not to understand the process and sheer bloody-mindedness to infer from your lack of understanding that scientists are somehow being dishonest. Physician, heal thyself.

    ” The radiant heat earth transfers to the atmosphere is virtually insignificant.”

    356 watts per square meter, Jack.

    “Physicists have tried to duplicate this ‘heat trapping’ mechanism in the labs. They have doubled the current atmospheric value of CO2 and measured the two most important characteristics: the capability of the gas to transmit heat and to diffuse it, isochorically.”

    Huh? What? Come again?

    ” There were no changes in theseheat transfer or diffusivity values in any of the gas components or with atmospheric air with the doubling of Atmospheric CO2.”

    That would certainly come as a surprise to the guys at NASA who compiled the HIGHTRAN and HIGHTEMP databases. Wonder where they got their figures? Or where Tyndall got his way back in 1859?

    ” The conclusion was that, if there had been significant changes in these characteristics, “we would have found a new ’superinsulator’ never previously found on earth”.
    Atmospheric trace Gases, such as CO2, Methane, etc. cannot reflect heat.”

    Nor does the greenhouse effect depend on gases reflecting heat, or anything else. Where did you get the idea that reflection was involved? Scattering in the thermal IR is almost zero.

    ” Heat can be reflected only by a gas in a liquid or solid phase, such as water (clouds). So, no heat is ‘reflected’ back to earth from such fictitious sources as “greenhouse gases”.”

    See above. The greenhouse gas doesn’t work by reflection.

    “Finally, and obviously, heat from a cold source (the atmospheric temperature averages – 18 Deg. Celsius) cannot be transmitted to a warmer area (earth’s near atmosphere with avg. temperature +15 deg. Celsius) without mechanical work, as in a refrigerator. Climate models that have created this are in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They have created a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.”

    Nope. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says there cannot be a NET transfer of heat from colder to warmer object without added work. But there is no net transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground. The atmosphere at about 255 K mean temperature radiates about 333 watts per square meter to the ground, and the ground at about 288 K radiates 356 watts per square meter to the atmosphere, so the net transfer is from ground to atmosphere and there is no violation of 2LOT. I’ve given all you the figures you need above to calculate the entropy. Do the math.

    “The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a scientific falsehood.”

    No, it’s physics established now for 150 years.

    ” Climate models are unscientific.”

    Scientists use them all the time.

    ” The whole hypothesis of global warming is a scientific fraud.”

    You are too easy with accusations of fraud, friend. Just because you don’t understand the science doesn’t mean the scientists are lying. Stop bearing false witness.

    ” It was created by a Discredited United Nations IPCC, which studies were never of the reliable double blind type and whose published results were never peer reviewd or allowed for comment by the government ’scientists’ involved.”

    Well, of course not, since the IPCC reports are reviews of the literature, not the literature itself. But they list the studies they are reviewing. Read the AR4 and see. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers there.

  6. rcrejects Says:

    Being everhelpful, I just put up the following post at RC.

    76 rcrejects Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    27 avril 2009 at 7:57 PM

    Re BPL posts #33 25th April and #59 27th April.

    Actually BPL, I see that JoNova did put up two of your posts on 24th April. Maybe you have been looking in the wrong thread. Your posts are up at http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/.

  7. rcrejects Says:

    I see that RC has put my post up. Thanks guys!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: