Evidence for Global Cooling
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Evidence for Global Cooling
The evidence from orbiting temperature
sensing devices shows that the earth has been
COOLING slowly (about 0.06 degrees per
decade) since 1979, when satellites first started
taking global temperature measurements.
The recent Nature article establishes the
accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
the assertion that any global warming is occurring.
Surface based sensing stations cannot be regarded
as reliable, and the retreat of glaciers in
some parts of the world is countered by the fact
that glaciers are growing in other parts of
the world.
For the proof of global cooling check out
this site:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Actual charts of the satellite temperature data
can be found here:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
The sensing systems have now been checked and
rechecked and verified by concurrent balloon based
sensing of the same sites- global COOLING is a reality.
The false doctrine of "global warming" is much like the
mistruth told in the IQ debate- science has been
corrupted by political pressures. Many scientific careers
are now bet on the false premise of Global Warming- but the
truth will eventually prevail and I predict that we will see the greatest
reversal in the history of science- and the most embarrassing.
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
William Connolley
In article c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" <efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:
>The recent Nature article establishes the
>accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
>the assertion that any global warming is occurring.
This is a misrepresentation. There is a recent (25/9/97) article by
Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the controversy
is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes, but even
they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.
But quite apart from this, S+C don't claim that the surface is cooling. They
accept that sfc measurements show warming, at least as far as I can judge from
their page. They attempt to reconcile the two, by claiming the atmospheric
structure is more complex thatn previously thought, but certainly don't
claim that the sfc is cooling.
>For the proof of global cooling check out this site:
>http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
I looked at the site, and found it disturbingly partisan. I have no complains about
the science there - mostly above my head without more effort than I cared
to put in - but the interpretative text around it is, to my view, somewhat
biased in favour of S+C. Trenberth is mentioned, but he is "conclusively
refuted" or some such - hardly a fair description of the current state of play.
And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the satellite
record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be occurring?
What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just cyclic?
- William
---
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
Michael Tobis
William Connolley (w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk) wrote:
: And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the satellite
: record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be occurring?
: What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just cyclic?
John McCarthy coined the term (though I think I developed the idea
independently) of "lawyer's science". McCarthy seems to believe that
only "environmentalists" behave this way, but I think climate change is a
clear case to the contrary. The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of public opinion,
not to form a coherent theory. They are therefore eager to cast the
thorny questions of greenhouse emission public policy as a question of
guilt or innocence.
The people we hear from in usenet are as often as not the most
easily swayed members of the jury. That is, their philosophy is
ill-equipped to deal with global problems so they are strongly
inclined to deny the existence of such problems. (They are bolstered
by the existence of others whose philosophy is exactly oppositely
inclined!)
So when the facts say "a controversial satellite record, which
has the broadest possible area coverage but some potential bias, shows modest
cooling over its short record that, if proven valid, reflects a need for
weaker convective coupling to the middle atmosphere in general
circulation models", the propaganda says "The only way to get a
complete measurement of the entire world without the use of dubious
statistical techniques is from a satellite. And what does the satellite
record show? Lo and behold! (S + C reference) shows that the troposphere
has actually cooled! So where is this infamous global warming?" and the
susceptible self-righteous reader concludes that "So-called global warming is
a leftist conspiracy. The most accurate measurement is from satellites,
and these show the world is actually cooling!" Note that the propaganda
doesn't actually come out and *say* this, but it encourages the casual
reader to believe that this is what was said.
No offense to those few outliers from the consensus who actually
contribute to the science is intended here, particularly not
to Spencer and Christy nor to Richard Lindzen.
But most "skeptics" are not proposing any alternative hypothesis.
They merely operate from faith that human activity cannot inadvertently
modify climate. (Some of these people *also* believe that *deliberate*
climate modification, on earth or other planets, is possible. One
wonders how they manage to hold both ideas in their brains at the
same time.) When asked for a defense of their claims, they point to
carefully selected observational evidence. Since they have no
coherent alternative hypothesis, they are forced to believe
that the climate system has some special properties making it not
amenable to the methods of physical science!
(Both camps of lawyers invoke "chaos theory" without the slightest
idea of what it implies for climate science! This is particularly exasperating.
The claim usually amounts to "science has proven that you can't prove
anything. Ergo to be safe you should move toward Extreme_A/Extreme_B!"
That damned butterfly has already caused a lot more damage than one
lousy hurricane!)
Unfortunately, the analogy to a jury situation is strong here. People
are trying themselves and their own behavior as far as fossil fuel
consumption is concerned. The presumption of innocence means that the
defense lawyers' job is to promote doubt and confusion in the jury.
An alternative theory is a nicety that is rarely presented in
a practical litigation. The same is true of policy debates.
The "balance of evidence" is insufficient to convict under a presumption
of innocence. The majority of the skeptics' literature is designed to
promote the absurd model that it is the guilt or innocence of greenhouse
gases that is at stake, rather than finding a path through a continuum of
scenarios, some of them very alarming. Once this "yes/no" picture is
created (with the willing connivance of the press that loves a battle
and despises reasoned discourse) those with an economic interest at stake
can easily whip up "reasonable doubts" in the "jury".
Whenever responsible people play this game (witness the Chapter 8
controversy) they lose. It is essential that the discussion avoid
the "yes/no" flavor that the less responsible economic interests
are trying (with remarkable success) to push it into. The real
issue is finding the right balance between short run (construed as
economic) and long run (construed as environmental) risks and benefits.
No rational discussion would choose a policy of ignoring all risks on
one side until the other side is "convicted" of a crime. Unfortunately,
there are motivated individuals who benefit from this "criminal trial"
model on the extremes of this and many other issues. Both the public
in general and the relevant science in particular bear the costs of
abandoning discourse in favor of a jury trial model.
mt
John McCarthy
Michael Tobis includes:
John McCarthy coined the term (though I think I developed
the idea independently) of "lawyer's science". McCarthy
seems to believe that only "environmentalists" behave this
way, but I think climate change is a clear case to the
contrary. The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of
public opinion, not to form a coherent theory. They are
therefore eager to cast the thorny questions of greenhouse
emission public policy as a question of guilt or innocence.
I have to agree that a substantial amount of the arguments
against the occurrence of global warming are lawyers' science.
Nevertheless, global warming is still uncertain.
I still favor waiting before taking drastic
action, the costs of which will be very high. Tom Moore is
probably right that the main effects of global warming will be
benign.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Michael Tobis
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein (efr...@worldsciuni.com) wrote:
...
<multiple repetitions of essentially a paragraph or so of stuff
obtainable from mass media misinformation with absolutely no
sign of requested supporting evidence>
...
: Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Since you insist on claiming this credential, perhaps you could tell
us what sort of doctorate you hold, when and from what institution
it was obtained, your thesis title if any, and what bearing it has on the
discussion?
mt <-- suspected, on the internet, of being a dog>
Don Libby
Michael Tobis wrote:
>
snip
> No rational discussion would choose a policy of ignoring all risks on
> one side until the other side is "convicted" of a crime. Unfortunately,
> there are motivated individuals who benefit from this "criminal trial"
> model on the extremes of this and many other issues. Both the public
> in general and the relevant science in particular bear the costs of
> abandoning discourse in favor of a jury trial model.
>
> mt
An astute observation, and a depressing one at that, since I believe
history shows the outcome tilts in favor of non-science (or non-sense?)
- Galileo lost, Rome won, Clarence Darrow lost, William Jennings Bryan
won, etc.
--
Donald L. Libby (dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu)
To reply by e-mail -- remove nospam! from the address line.
Opinions are my own.
Visit: http://www.biostat.wisc.edu/prevmed/network/
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
William Connolley <w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk> wrote in article
<344c9...@wltss01.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk>...
> In article c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein"
<efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:
> >The recent Nature article establishes the
> >accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
> >the assertion that any global warming is occurring.
>
> [....] There is a recent (25/9/97) article by
> Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
> this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the
controversy
> is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes,
but even
> they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.
The evidence is plain in my view- the satellite data has now been proven
conclusively to be accurate. Multiple satellites and balloons
measuring the same site obtain identical temperatures. The
satellite sensors are so sensitive that they detect atmospheric
warming caused by a full moon. The satellites orbit the globe,
measuring the entire planet precisely (not just one
isolated glacier or continent), as no other measurement
system can hope to do. The atmosphere is cooling
at all depths measured. Slow Global Cooling is the new reality.
>
> But quite apart from this, S+C don't claim that the surface is cooling.
They
> accept that sfc measurements show warming, at least as far as I can judge
from
> their page. They attempt to reconcile the two, by claiming the
atmospheric
> structure is more complex thatn previously thought, but certainly don't
> claim that the sfc is cooling.
The subtle language employed by the satellite people
does little to hide their actual views- they are just being polite.
Anyone can see what they are truly implying- that
Global Warming is not happening. Political pressure prevents
them from speaking more strongly on the issue- they
fear for their jobs should they speak the heresy aloud.
>
> >For the proof of global cooling check out this site:
> >http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
>
> I looked at the site, and found it disturbingly partisan. I have no
complains about
> the science there - mostly above my head without more effort than I cared
> to put in - but the interpretative text around it is, to my view,
somewhat
> biased in favour of S+C. Trenberth is mentioned, but he is "conclusively
> refuted" or some such - hardly a fair description of the current state of
play.
After examining the data, I believe it is fair to say that the satellite
data
has now been conclusively proven to be accurate.
Many scientists who have placed their prestige on the
line supporting Global Warming are now in a state of denial-
but the satellite data persists, grows stronger each year, and
the reality of slow Global Cooling cannot be ignored any longer.
>
> And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the
satellite
> record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be
occurring?
> What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just
cyclic?
>
> - William
> ---
> William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk |
http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
> Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for
myself
One thing that is surely heating up is the growing conflict
between the satellite people and the Global warming advocates.
The satellite people have been silenced by political
pressures long enough- they are now starting to speak up.
The best data shows that slow Global Cooling is an empirical
reality. Theory must match observation.
As for the reasons slow Global Cooling is occurring, there are many
possibilities. Ice core studies clearly show rapid historical
temperature variation is the norm for our planet. Whatever the cause
it is seems to be overpowering any greenhouse effect- perhaps particulate
atmospheric contamination is a good candidate.
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Paul D. Farrar
On 21 Oct 97 11:40:14 GMT, w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William
Connolley) wrote:
>In article c...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" <efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:
>>The recent Nature article establishes the
>>accuracy of this data and plainly calls into dispute
>>the assertion that any global warming is occurring.
>
>This is a misrepresentation. There is a recent (25/9/97) article by
>Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
>this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the controversy
>is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes, but even
>they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.
>
>But quite apart from this, S+C don't claim that the surface is cooling. They
>accept that sfc measurements show warming, at least as far as I can judge from
>their page. They attempt to reconcile the two, by claiming the atmospheric
>structure is more complex thatn previously thought, but certainly don't
>claim that the sfc is cooling.
>
>>For the proof of global cooling check out this site:
>>http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
>
>I looked at the site, and found it disturbingly partisan. I have no complains about
>the science there - mostly above my head without more effort than I cared
>to put in - but the interpretative text around it is, to my view, somewhat
>biased in favour of S+C. Trenberth is mentioned, but he is "conclusively
>refuted" or some such - hardly a fair description of the current state of play.
So how do you feel about the employment of a shill? Remember the Dave
Dooling character who keeps popping by to tell us about the wonderful
MSFC Web pages? According to his own Web pages, he is a public
relations man for Marshall Space Flight Center (Spencer's employer).
He also posts his discoveries from their computers. Note also the
stylistic similarities between Dooling posts and the MSFC pages.
(Note also the similarities to Goldstein's. He seems to have gotten
more of his post from the Web pages than from Nature.)
I was very disappointed by the exchange in Nature. (It is in
"Scientific Correspondence", rather than an article as Goldstein
says, since it is discussion of a paper (Hurrell and Trenberth) rather
than a research paper.) I would like to have seen Christy and Spencer
attempt to show that H&T's reasons for saying calibration shifts
sneaked into the record (when it was stitched together from different
instruments) were invalid. H&T based this on shifts they found in the
relations between other climatic variables and the MSU2R readings at
the time of instrument changes. Perhaps C&S will try in a later
publication. For this one, they simply reiterated previous claims of
validity. I'm not saying I buy H&T's thesis, either, but it can be
difficult to prevent calibration shifts when remotely determining the
calibration tweaks for splicing together records from instruments that
don't read the same out of the box and aren't in the same orbit. It's
going to get worse: the instrument design is being updated. I don't
know if the new one has been launched yet.
Most satellite meteorology books, such as Kidder and VonderHaar, have
a simple discussion of these instruments. For those wanted something
more detailed, one possibility is Grody's chapter in Janssen's
_Atmospheric remote sensing by microwave radiometry_ .
>
>And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the satellite
>record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be occurring?
>What is supposed to be driving it? Is it supposed to be a trend or just cyclic?
>
>- William
>
>---
>William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
>Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
>
>
So why does "World Science University" have a .com address?
--
Paul D. Farrar
http://www.datasync.com/~farrar
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Don Libby <dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<344D0D...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> >
> snip
> > The subtle language employed by the satellite people
> > does little to hide their actual views- they are just being polite.
> > Anyone can see what they are truly implying- that
> > Global Warming is not happening. Political pressure prevents
> > them from speaking more strongly on the issue- they
> > fear for their jobs should they speak the heresy aloud.
> snip
> >
> > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
>
> Fear for their jobs, eh? Perhaps this explains the good doctor's need
> to fabricate a false identity to hide behind? Judging from his
> fascination for ethnic variation in IQ scores as it relates to
> proportional representation in the media and educational institutions,
> I'd have to guess he is another run-of-the mill net nazi, maybe even the
> infamous Jeremy Miller himself. Not content to refer to yourself as
> "anonymous nobody" any more? Fine. You'll go on being one just the
> same.
> --
> Donald L. Libby (dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu)
>
You have proven my point with your reply. I response to my
presenting the satellite data for global cooling you call me
a "Nazi" and use personal attacks! Anyone who dares dispute
the "established fact" of global warming is now subject to
kind of persecution you have just demonstrated.
The satellite data is clear and proven to be accurate-
and it shows that the Earth is slowly COOLING.
There are NO other reliable systems for measuring
global temperature- none!
Environmental politics is corrupting science on this issue.
The best evidence shows that global warming is not happening.
For the proof of global cooling check out
this site:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Actual charts of the satellite temperature data
can be found here:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Paul D. Farrar
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:51:15 GMT, far...@datasync.com (Paul D. Farrar)
wrote:
[...]
>
>So how do you feel about the employment of a shill? Remember the Dave
>Dooling character who keeps popping by to tell us about the wonderful
>MSFC Web pages? According to his own Web pages, he is a public
>relations man for Marshall Space Flight Center (Spencer's employer).
>He also posts his discoveries from their computers. Note also the
>stylistic similarities between Dooling posts and the MSFC pages.
>(Note also the similarities to Goldstein's. He seems to have gotten
>more of his post from the Web pages than from Nature.)
[...]
Let me clarify. I am not saying Dr. Goldstein of World Science
University.com is a shill. He is a Usenet Personality, and he is
here to save the world, mainly from reproduction by persons of
low IQ scores, as well as climatologists. (Hmm...)
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Paul D. Farrar <far...@datasync.com> wrote in article
<344d417d...@news.datasync.com>...
>
> Let me clarify. I am not saying Dr. Goldstein of World Science
> University.com is a shill. He is a Usenet Personality, and he is
> here to save the world, mainly from reproduction by persons of
> low IQ scores, as well as climatologists. (Hmm...)
>
> Paul D. Farrar
More personal attacks! This is the fate of anyone who dares point
out that global satellite data proves that global warming is
not happening.
The satellite data is clear, unambiguous, and now proven
to be correct. Slow global COOLING is the new
scientific reality.
Let me remind you that Science is not about what we want,
what is good or bad, it is not about desired outcomes or
what is best politically- science is about facts.
The best data available now shows that the earth is slowly cooling-
that global warming is not happening. There are NO reliable
systems for measuring global temperature variation
other than satellites! None! And the satellite data is solid.
For the evidence of global cooling check out
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
Michael Tobis <to...@scram.ssec.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<62ils0$i...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
> [....]
> So when the facts say "a controversial satellite record, which
> has the broadest possible area coverage but some potential bias, shows
modest
> cooling over its short record that, if proven valid, reflects a need for
> weaker convective coupling to the middle atmosphere in general
> circulation models", the propaganda says "The only way to get a
> complete measurement of the entire world without the use of dubious
> statistical techniques is from a satellite. And what does the satellite
> record show? Lo and behold! (S + C reference) shows that the troposphere
> has actually cooled! So where is this infamous global warming?" and the
> susceptible self-righteous reader concludes that "So-called global
warming is
> a leftist conspiracy. The most accurate measurement is from satellites,
> and these show the world is actually cooling!" Note that the propaganda
> doesn't actually come out and *say* this, but it encourages the casual
> reader to believe that this is what was said.[................]
> mt
>
You have rationalized the satellite evidence away without
any serious consideration that it may be true- that the
earth may indeed be cooling. Why the denial? The satellite data is the best
system we have for measuring global temperature variation-
the ONLY reliable system for taking global measurements.
That evidence grows stronger every year- that the earth is slowly
cooling..... that is the new truth of the matter.
Occam's Razor anyone?
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
John Daly
Michael Tobis wrote:
> The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
> arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of public opinion,
> not to form a coherent theory. They are therefore eager to cast the
> thorny questions of greenhouse emission public policy as a question of
> guilt or innocence.
John Daly replies:
The skeptics are not demanding sacrifices of anyone, are not threatening
the public with carbon taxes, restrictions on motor vehicles, or home
heating. The pro-warming lobby is the side making all the demands for
draconian policies. That being the case, the onus of proof of the
urgency of any action rests with them, not the skeptics.
> But most "skeptics" are not proposing any alternative hypothesis.
Wrong again. The skeptics have a coherent theory that carbon dioxide, a
trace gas, will only have a trace effect on climate. Global warming of
about +0.25 deg within the next 100 years is a common prediction by many
of the skeptics, a prediction fully consistent with physical data coming
in from around the world (satellites, ground-based non-urban
temperatures, high latitude temperatures etc.)
If you want that alternative hypothesis formally described, my own
website provides one such description at
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/miniwarm.htm
The filename `miniwarm' was very appropriate for the hypothesis being
put. But as I said earlier, the skeptics do not need to present any
alternative hypothesis at all since it is not they who are creating the
hysteria or demanding totalitarian measures against a non-problem.
> They merely operate from faith that human activity cannot inadvertently
> modify climate.
Quite wrong again. We have already modified climate, are doing so now,
and will do so in the future. But these modifications are marginal, as
per the +0.25 deg warming prediction above.
> (Some of these people *also* believe that *deliberate*
> climate modification, on earth or other planets, is possible. One
> wonders how they manage to hold both ideas in their brains at the
> same time.)
Climate modification has only been suggested (not by skeptics
necessarily) to achieve local or regional effects, such as damming the
Bering Strait etc. The effect of such measures would be tiny on a
global basis, but may be noticeable on a regional level (eg. slight
rainfall changes). Here in Tasmania, we do it all the time with cloud
seeding to fill hydro-electric dams.
> When asked for a defense of their claims, they point to
> carefully selected observational evidence. Since they have no
> coherent alternative hypothesis, they are forced to believe
> that the climate system has some special properties making it not
> amenable to the methods of physical science!
Wrong again. We invoke primarily physical evidence and physical
science. Modelling, which is what the pro-warmers rely on is not
science, just a caricature of science. This is particularly so if the
models fail to make valid predictions and if they are used as a tool to
discredit observations. In recent years, they have become political
tools, not scientific ones.
> (Both camps of lawyers invoke "chaos theory" without the slightest
> idea of what it implies for climate science!)
But we do know what it does to climate models. It makes them over-react
to small input changes. especially so when non-linear positive feedback
equations are used (Stefan-Boltzmann equation)
> This is particularly exasperating.
Life was'nt meant to be easy.
> An alternative theory is a nicety that is rarely presented in
> a practical litigation. The same is true of policy debates.
The skeptics are a whisper battling a megaphone. The fact we are heard
says more about the strength of what we say than about the
susceptibilities of the audience.
> The majority of the skeptics' literature is designed to
> promote the absurd model that it is the guilt or innocence of greenhouse
> gases that is at stake, rather than finding a path through a continuum of
> scenarios, some of them very alarming.
You miss the point here. Are we to tell the public that they must
endure a draconian, even totalitarian, energy regime with the mother of
all taxes, on the strength of only ONE of those scenarios? Until and
unless it can be conclusively shown BY REFERENCE TO OBSERVATIONS, NOT
MODELS, that there will be significant warming, or that such warming
will be harmful, then the skeptics have both the right and obligation to
tell the world's public that all their self-inflicted economic pain is
likely to be in vain and condemn hundreds of millions of people to
unemployment and poverty.
> Whenever responsible people play this game (witness the Chapter 8
> controversy) they lose.
Hardly lose. The IPCC is now seen as a political/bureaucratic body by
the public, not a scientific one. That perception is also an accurate
one.
> It is essential that the discussion avoid
> the "yes/no" flavor that the less responsible economic interests
> are trying (with remarkable success) to push it into.
You can avoid it all you like, but that's what you will be served up
with both before and after Kyoto. Even if a treaty is signed, the
campaign against poverty will go on, every tax will be fought, every
restriction will be resisted, and political candidates will indulge the
Green obsessions at their peril. Signing treaties is the easy bit (a
stroke of the pen), enforcing them is something else, and that's where
the Kyoto treaty will hit the dust.
> The real
> issue is finding the right balance between short run (construed as
> economic) and long run (construed as environmental) risks and benefits.
"Balance" is a soft, intellectually decadent concept. You must win or
lose, there's no balance or half-measures, just as there is no balance
in the scientific debate. The models are right or they are wrong. I am
fully satisfied they are wrong - based on physical evidence which
contradicts their key outputs (eg. polar warming).
> No rational discussion would choose a policy of ignoring all risks on
> one side until the other side is "convicted" of a crime.
By all means, we may have a rational discussion, but if you expect the
skeptics to engage in such discussion with the threat of poverty and
carbon taxes hanging over society, then think again. No free man
engages in `rational discussion' under duress. Take away the
hysterical push for `action now' and debate can become cooler and more
rational. Until then, we will do what you are doing - campaigning for
what we believe with all the resources we can muster.
> Unfortunately,
> there are motivated individuals who benefit from this "criminal trial"
> model ...
For goodness sake, at least drop that word `model'. It's becoming a
worn-out cliche. And would you class yourself as `un-motivated'?
> Both the public
> in general and the relevant science in particular bear the costs of
> abandoning discourse in favor of a jury trial model.
The adversary system, of which jury trials are a part, are a much better
system for extracting the truth than the closed peer-review system which
has become corrupted in recent times by political and ideological
pressures. We would gladly accept any challenge to put our view up to
public trial. But would you?
John Daly
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly
William Connolley
In article j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net, "Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" <efr...@worldsciuni.com> writes:
>William Connolley <w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
>> [....] There is a recent (25/9/97) article by
>> Spencer and Christy rebutting a previous article by Trenberth etc, and
>> this is followed by a response by Trenberth rebutting S+C. So, the
>> controversy
>> is not settled - is the satellite record reliable or not? S+C say yes,
>> but even
>> they wouldn't claim the trend is significant. T says no.
>The evidence is plain in my view- the satellite data has now been proven
>conclusively to be accurate.
Hmmm... but its not plain in my view, nor in Trenberths view. Why do you think
I should prefer your opinion to Trenberths? Do you claim more expertise than him?
>The atmosphere is cooling at all depths measured.
No, the near-surface (1.5m) measurements show warming, and over a far longer period.
>The subtle language employed by the satellite people
>does little to hide their actual views...
I think I'll stick to reading what they actually say.
>but the satellite data persists, grows stronger each year, and
>the reality of slow Global Cooling cannot be ignored any longer.
Even S+C don't claim that their results show a *significant* cooling - so
why are you claiming it?
>> And quite apart from all this: have those who wish to believe that the
>satellite
>> record shows cooling ever given any reason why this cooling should be
>occurring?
>The satellite people have been silenced by political
>pressures long enough
Could we stick to science, please?
>As for the reasons slow Global Cooling is occurring, there are many
>possibilities. Ice core studies clearly show rapid historical
>temperature variation is the norm for our planet.
This is twaddle. Rapid change is extremely uncommon in the ice core record, if indeed
it ever occurs at the rates theory suggests we will see in the near (50y) future.
What proportion of the last 100 kyr do you think has seen global sfc temperatures
change at > .1 oC/decade, then? If you think that rapid change is the norm,
presumably you believe it occurs more than 50% of the time. I would guess less
than 1%.
- William.
Onar Aam
>The point of the vast majority of the "skeptics'"
>arguments is to put doubts in the minds of the jury of public opinion,
>not to form a coherent theory. They are therefore eager to cast the
>thorny questions of greenhouse emission public policy as a question of
>guilt or innocence.
In science there is a rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so
extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence. Does such
extraordinary evidence exist? No. In fact, even by "ordinary" scientific
standards the evidence are scarce. Doing weather forecasts 100 years into
the future is hazardous to put it mildly.
In a court room the same logic applies, extraordinary claims
(i.e. of guilt) requires extraordinary evidence. Therefore the lawyers'
science is perfectly legit in this case.
Onar.
Hydratwo
>From: on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
>Date: Wed, Oct 22, 1997 14:38 EDT
>Message-id:
states:
> In a court room the same logic applies, extraordinary claims
>(i.e. of guilt) requires extraordinary evidence. Therefore the lawyers'
>science is perfectly legit in this case.
What is the lawyers science? I have been involved as an expert witness in legal
environmental (haz waste mainly) cases. From my limited experience would not
consider this science as much as word smithing. In any case, I agree that long
term prediction is sketchy at best (definatly not my expertise), but climatic
changes with respect to geologic time are common. If it can happen in the past
could happen in the future.
Can large scale events drastically change weather patterns on a small scale?
Most likely. Take the example of when (excuse sp.) Krakatoa erupted, from what
I remember reading many of the NE US states had a winter without end due to
the dust in the atmosphere.
Onar Aam
Daly writes:
>If you want that alternative hypothesis formally described, my own
>website provides one such description at
> http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/miniwarm.htm
I've read your page quite thoroughly and while I think you make
legitimate points there are also very many things that at best are
inaccureately presented, or at worst completely wrong. In order to
reduce the ring of toy-science from the skeptics' camp you should
address these points. On your page you write:
"The present energy `flux' at the surface of the earth is 387 watts
per square metre (wm-2), 148 wm-2 of which results directly from the
recycling action of the Greenhouse Effect. The other 239 wm-2 is solar
insolation, ie. light and heat energy from the sun reaching the surface."
It has been pointed out that there is NOT radiative balance at the
surface. There is a lot more radiation coming in to the surface than
going out. Therefore you must at the very least specify that the 387
wm-2 number is longwave IR radation _from_ the surface. The same problem
recurs later on your page when you calculate greenhouse radiation at
different latitudes. Again it seems that you (wrongly) assume radiative
balance. It has been pointed out that it looks like you are calculating
"greenhouse radiation" subracting solar radiation from LWIR upward
radiation. If this is the case then you should correct it. If your numbers
are based on the upward longwave IR radiation then you should explicitly
state so and disregard downward atmospheric radiation altogether.
Even though there is no radiative balance at the surface it is legitimate
to assume total heat flux balance since the temperature at the surface on
average is in balance. This means that the extra energy disappears into
other drains (primarily upward convection). HOWEVER, even though it is
legitimate you have to state explicitly why it is legitimate.
Furthermore you use the differences in radiation (LWIR data if I'm correct)
and temperature at the poles and the equator to calculate K/wm-2. This
method gives an unreasonably low figure since there is a constant
transport of heat from the equator to the poles. This should be accounted
for.
Finally, using short term cyclic variations in equatorial temperature due
to the eccentricity of the earth orbit is not necessarily indicative of
the change in temperature of a permanent change in the solar constant. This
is readily demonstrated by the variations in the solar constant due to
internal processes in the sun. Variations in solar radiation within 11-year
cycles do not show up in the global temperature data because the cycle
length is too short for an equilibrial response to the change. Therefore it
is unlikely that the current cyclic variation is as large as the change due
to a permanent 7% reduction in solar radiation.
Onar.
Michael Tobis
iI thank John Daly for his fine exemplar of just the sort of
divisive invective that I refer to.
The ownership of the word "draconian" must be conceded to
the skeptics. The "burden of proof" arguments he proposes
are pure manipulation of symbols and can be matched, shiver
for shiver, by genuinely "draconian" arguments.
He attributes his position to "data" and opposes this to "models"
as if there would be no evidence of a problem in the absence of
computers.
He even falls for the bait and blithers incoherently about chaos!
(As far as I can tell, his response on that point was meaningless.)
He makes the usual selections of observational evidence and manages
to see what he desires, and then insists (while accusing his opponents
of a totalitarian motivation!) that no action can even be contemplated
unless the data satisfies him in some unspecified way. The casual reader
may miss the point that this amounts to a recipe for inaction until
such time as action is long overdue, perhaps catastrophically so.
He pauses briefly to add a bit to the ludicrous slanders of the IPCC
scientific working group, and offers us the following divisive,
intemperate, and substantively false assertion:
: "Balance" is a soft, intellectually decadent concept. You must win or
: lose, there's no balance or half-measures, just as there is no balance
: in the scientific debate. The models are right or they are wrong. I am
: fully satisfied they are wrong - based on physical evidence which
: contradicts their key outputs (eg. polar warming).
Then he goes on to challenge the science to a debate in a courtroom!
I respectfully decline if the answer is to be reduced to a single
bit. Models, computer or otherwise, are neither true nor false.
They are merely more or less useful. Every decision of any kind is
based on a model. The extent of involvement of a computer is not
particularly essential. The focus on computer models rather than
theory as developed, in part, through use of such models, comes
from the political fringes, not the scientific center.
However, he does offer us a pointer to what he claims are substantive
arguments:
: If you want that alternative hypothesis formally described, my own
: website provides one such description at
: http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/miniwarm.htm
Unfortunately he loses me in the first paragraph. His entire argument
appears based on a surface infrared flux change of under 2 watts
per CO2 doubling. This amounts to assuming the conclusion he wants.
His only reference for this matter is not fully identified.
He does acknowledge the widely accepted figure that the radiative
imbalance at the tropopause under a CO2 doubling is 4 w/m^2, but
he does not explain how this is balanced in the middle atmosphere,
allowing for a smaller change at the surface.
His argument in section 1 is incompatible with his argument in section 2
by elementary reasoning, left as an exercise for the reader. Section
2 shares the unsubstantiated assumption of section1, however.
His argument in section 3 is invalid, as it fails to account for
horizontal heat transfer. Under the same logic, the temperature at
the equator would in fact be much higher than is observed. However,
there is a heat transfer mechanism away from the equator, called
"weather" which tends to smooth out temperature shifts due to local
forcing. This does not apply to global forcing. Sections 4 and 5
suffer from the same fallacy.
As far as the argument in section 6 goes, I believe that both the
observed cooling and the observed change in radiation at the surface
have been misstated. It is my understanding that current knowledge
as emodied in GCMs correctly predicted the global temperature shift
of about half a degree Celsius.
None of these arguments constitute a coherent theory as to what happens
to the extra energy. All of them conveniently ignore water vapor
feedback, paleoclimate evidence and the historical record.
Of course, that's not the point. The effort here isn't to do science,
it's to simulate science, to find some simulation of expertise to
balance real expertise in the eyes of a jury. This technology, as
I say, is alarmingly well-developed because it's highly motivated
in numerous circumstances, therefore it's well-funded.
This is, in my opinion, at the heart of the decline of democratic politics.
It's particularly exasperating for me to be lumped in with the
"draconians". Early response is intended to *avoid* abrupt "draconian"
shifts in the economic system, not to promote them by procrastination.
I begin to wonder whether it is not the *same* interests promoting
irresponsible paranoia about greenhouse emission restraint on one
side of the political spectrum *and* irresponsible paranoia about
nuclear power on the other. Both present a much bigger threat to
coal interests than to anyone else. Neither is being discussed
sensibly in the public sphere in the face of virulent propaganda.
What an odd coincidence!
mt
John Alway
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> Don Libby <dli...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in article
> <344D0D...@facstaff.wisc.edu>...
> > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein wrote:
> > snip
> > > The subtle language employed by the satellite people
> > > does little to hide their actual views- they are just being polite.
> > > Anyone can see what they are truly implying- that
> > > Global Warming is not happening. Political pressure prevents
> > > them from speaking more strongly on the issue- they
> > > fear for their jobs should they speak the heresy aloud.
> > snip
> > > Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
> >
> > Fear for their jobs, eh?
Certainly this is a factor. Some people find it hard
to find the courage to speak up against standard dogma,
much like it would have been difficult to speak up against
religion in the Dark Ages. These are _real_ phenomenon.
[...]
> You have proven my point with your reply. I response to my
> presenting the satellite data for global cooling you call me
> a "Nazi" and use personal attacks! Anyone who dares dispute
> the "established fact" of global warming is now subject to
> kind of persecution you have just demonstrated.
Dr. Robert Balling is a top notch atmospheric
scientist who pointed out that the satellite data is
statistically significant. He has a web site for
those who want to find him.
> The satellite data is clear and proven to be accurate-
> and it shows that the Earth is slowly COOLING.
> There are NO other reliable systems for measuring
> global temperature- none!
However, this is just over the last 18 years. I don't
think you can conclude this trend will continue
indefinitely. Trends up and down occur all of the time.
There are several excellent sites on the subject
of global warming (what warming?), but the one which
is very educational is the following:
He also gives the track record of the modelers
here:
http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm
> Environmental politics is corrupting science on this issue.
> The best evidence shows that global warming is not happening.
Ayn Rand said it well when the movement was in its
infancy (paraphrasing) "they steal the prestige of science
to scare people". They haven't changed in two decades.
> For the proof of global cooling check out
> this site:
> http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
>
> Actual charts of the satellite temperature data
> can be found here:
> http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm
Or, another worth while source is the statement of
Dr. Richard Lindzen, who is very blunt and to the point
(a pleasant change). He points out how he was misrepresented
in the IPCC report. Dr. Lindzen is a rare breed. He has a high
degree of personal confidence and integrity, and won't let
lemings bulldoze him. Independent minded to the very end, and
so knowledgable and competent in the field that nobody can bulldoze
him.
(He was on the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour one time, and so
thoroughly refuted his opposite number on the subject of
GW that they don't dare have him back. His opponent stooped
to the level of going after Lindzen's credentials when all else
failed, and that failed miserably as well!)
His statement is here:
http://www.senate.gov/~epw/lind0710.htm
...John
Peter
In article <62lh7o$jmo$1...@snipp.uninett.no>, on...@hsr.no says...
>In science there is a rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>evidence. The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so
>extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
>that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence. Does such
>extraordinary evidence exist? No. In fact, even by "ordinary" scientific
>standards the evidence are scarce. Doing weather forecasts 100 years into
>the future is hazardous to put it mildly.
It seems to me as though the environmentalists, on the whole, are not cognizant
of the economic costs of the solutions they propose to environmental problems.
This does not mean the problems aren't serious, just that they are much more
difficult to solve--and expensive--than they appear at first glance to be. Where
I get upset with the "skeptics" is that they try to say that all the scientists
who support theories of say, global warming are liars and charlatans whose true
motive is to destroy free-enterprise. I do agree that, if we panic over global
warming, the result *could* be to destroy--or at least, seriously damage free
enterprise. What bothers me the most is the degree of paniciness on both sides
of this debate.
Dr. Efram E. Goldstein
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote in article
<344E9E...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>...[...]
> There are several excellent sites on the subject
> of global warming (what warming?), but the one which
> is very educational is the following:
>
> http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1/
>
[....]
Or, another worth while source is the statement of
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, who is very blunt and to the point[...]
> His statement is here:
> http://www.senate.gov/~epw/lind0710.htm
>
> ...John
>
Thanks for links- they are truly worthwhile.
It is clear that a growing number of scientists
are speaking against the unproved hysteria that
is known as "global warming".
Dr. Efram E Goldstein
Onar Aam
>Unfortunately he loses me in the first paragraph. His entire argument
>appears based on a surface infrared flux change of under 2 watts
>per CO2 doubling. This amounts to assuming the conclusion he wants.
>His only reference for this matter is not fully identified.
>
>He does acknowledge the widely accepted figure that the radiative
>imbalance at the tropopause under a CO2 doubling is 4 w/m^2, but
>he does not explain how this is balanced in the middle atmosphere,
>allowing for a smaller change at the surface.
Even though you use the 4 wm-2 figure you only get a warming of
0.75 K using Daly's method. That's quite close to the "mainstream"
skeptics such as Lindzen et al.
>His argument in section 1 is incompatible with his argument in section 2
>by elementary reasoning, left as an exercise for the reader. Section
>2 shares the unsubstantiated assumption of section1, however.
Not by much. The linearization in method 1 is a close approximation to
method 2.
>His argument in section 3 is invalid, as it fails to account for
>horizontal heat transfer.
Doesn't have to. The only assumption Daly makes in method 3 is that
the heat flux from the equator is approximately the same during the
northern summer as in the southern summer.
>Under the same logic, the temperature at the equator would in fact be
>much higher than is observed.
Doesn't matter as long as Daly only employs temperature *difference*.
One source of error, however, is that it requires more radiative
forcing to heat up the equator than in colder places.
> However,
>there is a heat transfer mechanism away from the equator, called
>"weather" which tends to smooth out temperature shifts due to local
>forcing. This does not apply to global forcing. Sections 4 and 5
>suffer from the same fallacy.
Yes, but if you'd actually check the correlation between radiation
and temperature you would see that it isn't all that far off. As
expected actual temperatures are lower at the equator and higher near
the poles than suggested by the radiation, but not by very much.
>None of these arguments constitute a coherent theory as to what happens
>to the extra energy. All of them conveniently ignore water vapor
>feedback, paleoclimate evidence and the historical record.
Actually, since the method is a statistical overall one all feedbacks are
taken into account. Basically he is comparing "before" and "after".
Whatever happened in between is irrelevant since it becomes sedimented in
the "after". However, that said, I think the methods he present generally
give too small numbers. If there is a 4 wm-2 forcing at the surface then
the Stefan-Boltzmann equation suggests that the warming will be roughly
0.75 K.
Onar.
Michael Tobis
John Alway (jal...@icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier) wrote:
: (He was on the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour one time, and so
: thoroughly refuted his opposite number on the subject of
: GW that they don't dare have him back. His opponent stooped
: to the level of going after Lindzen's credentials when all else
: failed, and that failed miserably as well!)
I saw that, and have commented on it here. In my opinion both Lindzen
and his opponent Michael Oppenheimer did execrably, for different
reasons. Oppenheimer's attacks on Lindzen's credentials were ludicrous,
but Lindzen's technical hair-splitting amounted to avoiding the issue
and failing to communicate with the audience.
The real fault, as usual, lay with the journalists who insisted on
framing the matter as a debate rather than as a discussion. No one
representing mainstream climatology was there.
I have the utmost respect for Richard Lindzen's accomplishments,
and I think he and his ideas should be treated with serious and
polite consideration, but he does not represent the mainstream of
scientific thinking on this issue any more than Oppenheimer does.
Framing the discussion as a debate is inexcuseable. Debates should
be about goals and principles. When facts are at issue the job of
journalism should be to reveal them, not to promote arguments about
them. In fact, it was this very program to which Alway refers that
made me understand the extent to which even the best journalism is
responsible for the polarization, and irresponsible propagation of
mutual contempt that replaces serious discussion. Only once the
public understands the issues should the debate begin, and at present
the understanding is very low thanks to the "debate" model that
imagines climatology to be a discipline riven by a fierce debate
between two imaginary camps.
This tragic circumstance is aided and abetted not only by people
like Mr Alway who are totally attached to one "side". The worst
part is that it is aided by those who are charged with objectivity,
even the most responsible journalists, who manufacture a noisy
and rancorous debate out of the fringes of a broad consensus.
mt
Phil Hays
Onar Aam <on...@hsr.no> wrote in article <62lh7o$jmo$1...@snipp.uninett.no>...
> Doing weather forecasts 100 years into the future is hazardous to put it
mildly.
I predict that the average temperature for January 2197 is going to be
colder than the average temperature for July 2198 in London, England. I
doubt if many would call that an extraordinary claim, yet it is a climate
prediction 100 years into the future, and I also think that I could buy
insurance against this prediction failing very cheaply. Hazardous
forecast? Almost a sure thing.
And do notice the important difference between weather and climate.
The court room metaphor misses on some of the important aspects of global
change. A far better metaphor is insurance. How much insurance (in the
form of limits to releases) should we buy against the threat of a warming?
--
Phil Hays
Michael Tobis
Onar Aam (on...@hsr.no) wrote:
: Even though you use the 4 wm-2 figure you only get a warming of
: 0.75 K using Daly's method. That's quite close to the "mainstream"
: skeptics such as Lindzen et al.
Lindzen's proposed mechanism, if he still holds to it, is more
complicated than assuming the feedbacks are zero as you are still
doing. Furthermore, even the simplest radiative convective models
show the imbalance increasing as you go downward.
: >His argument in section 1 is incompatible with his argument in section 2
: >by elementary reasoning, left as an exercise for the reader. Section
: >2 shares the unsubstantiated assumption of section1, however.
: Not by much. The linearization in method 1 is a close approximation to
: method 2.
Well, yes, but it's not a different line of evidence, just the same
calculation with one (of many) dubious simplifications removed.
: >His argument in section 3 is invalid, as it fails to account for
: >horizontal heat transfer.
: Doesn't have to. The only assumption Daly makes in method 3 is that
: the heat flux from the equator is approximately the same during the
: northern summer as in the southern summer.
But, alas, this assumption is faulty. See fig. 2.11 in Hartmann's
_Global Physical Climatology_, e.g., (Academic Press, 1994).
: Yes, but if you'd actually check the correlation between radiation
: and temperature you would see that it isn't all that far off. As
: expected actual temperatures are lower at the equator and higher near
: the poles than suggested by the radiation, but not by very much.
Oh please. The radiative equilibrium temperature at the polar night
is close enough to absolute zero to not be worth bothering about -
especially when the moon is in the dark phase! The same figure I cited
above shows the anual average energy import at the poles to exceed
80 watts per square meter, with the amount much larger in winter.
: >None of these arguments constitute a coherent theory as to what happens
: >to the extra energy. All of them conveniently ignore water vapor
: >feedback, paleoclimate evidence and the historical record.
: Actually, since the method is a statistical overall one all feedbacks are
: taken into account. Basically he is comparing "before" and "after".
OK, fair enough. His crude calculations in the first two points ignore
feedback. The last three merely ignore the existence of weather.
: Whatever happened in between is irrelevant since it becomes sedimented in
: the "after". However, that said, I think the methods he present generally
: give too small numbers. If there is a 4 wm-2 forcing at the surface then
: the Stefan-Boltzmann equation suggests that the warming will be roughly
: 0.75 K.
If there is a 4 w/m^2 total forcing at the surface, we agree. I presume we
also agree that a doubling amounts to a 4 w/m^2 forcing at the top. The
question is what that means at the bottom. Lindzen once proposed a mechanism,
not apparent in subsequent observations, that would reduce that forcing, but
Daly merely pulls a figure out of a hat (with an incomplete and unverifiable
citation), and calls that a theory.
mt
Paul D. Farrar
On 23 Oct 1997 05:11:59 GMT, on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) wrote:
>>Unfortunately he loses me in the first paragraph. His entire argument
>>appears based on a surface infrared flux change of under 2 watts
>>per CO2 doubling. This amounts to assuming the conclusion he wants.
>>His only reference for this matter is not fully identified.
>>
>>He does acknowledge the widely accepted figure that the radiative
>>imbalance at the tropopause under a CO2 doubling is 4 w/m^2, but
>>he does not explain how this is balanced in the middle atmosphere,
>>allowing for a smaller change at the surface.
>
>Even though you use the 4 wm-2 figure you only get a warming of
>0.75 K using Daly's method. That's quite close to the "mainstream"
>skeptics such as Lindzen et al.
But Daly's method is worthless. It's not just his numbers that are
wrong, it's also that he simply has no idea of what physical processes
are going on. One cannot simply grab some energy flux number from any
random level of the atmosphere and plug it into the Stefan-Boltzmann
relation to get the temperature change at the surface. That relation
is good only for black body radiation, such as the emission rate by
the skin of the earth's surface. Daly is also doing things backwards.
Where do those forcing numbers come from? They are not some intrinsic
property of CO2. They are determined by doing the radiation
calculations in a physically realistic way. Since the atmosphere is
emitting, absorbing, scattering, convecting, condensing etc., one must
integrate the equations for these processes through the atmosphere, in
a way that meets specified boundary conditions, usually at the top of
the atmosphere, and the calculation will give the changes in forcing
and temperature at various levels. We do not seem to be able to get
through to you how bad Daly's stuff really is, but to a meteorologist,
oceanographer, or maybe even just about any physical scientist, it is
truly awful. He gives his spiel about how bad models are, but his
method is a model too, just one with no connection to the observed
atmosphere. And everything he tries to do has already been done,
reasonably well, by someone who knew what he or she was doing.
One cannot understand or participate in critical discussion of this
material without some knowledge of the physical processes and what has
been observed in the atmosphere. A start would be Kiehl & Trenberth in
the Feb _Bull. of the Am. Met. Soc._ (This will be on their Web page
soon, if not already: www.ametsoc.org); Chapter 6 of Peixoto & Oort,
_Physics of Climate_; and whatever the corresponding section of
Hartmann, _Global Physical Climatology_, is. More advanced works are
by Goody, Goody&Yung, Liou, and Kondratyev.
[reminder cut]
Onar Aam
>Lindzen's proposed mechanism, if he still holds to it, is more
>complicated than assuming the feedbacks are zero as you are still
>doing. Furthermore, even the simplest radiative convective models
>show the imbalance increasing as you go downward.
I never disputed that. What I said is that we can assume _effective_
radiative balance, i.e. that the downward radiation surplus is
drained out of the system (most notably through the hydrological cycle).
The point is that we don't have to know where the extra radiation is
drained, but we DO know that it IS drained. If it weren't the
surface temperature would on average escalate wildly, something which is
not the case. Since radiation is the only major source of heat at the
surface and since the temperature is on a yearly average pretty constant
we can assume _effective_ radiative balance. It's cheap -- I know -- and
it's a gross oversimplification, but when you do this and check upward
LWIR radiation with corresponding temperatures you find that there is an
extraordinary correlation. The average temperature on earth is 15 C or
288 K. The average LWIR surface radiation is about 390 wm-2. Using
Stefan-Boltzmann this gives a a temperature of
T = (390/56.7e-9)^0.25 = 288 K = 15 C
Note that in this calculation horizontal heat transfer can be ignored
since this already has been accounted for in the average numbers.
>: Not by much. The linearization in method 1 is a close approximation to
>: method 2.
>
>Well, yes, but it's not a different line of evidence, just the same
>calculation with one (of many) dubious simplifications removed.
Well, sort of. I agree that it more or less is the same argument
rephrased, because implicit in the method is that there is a strong
correlation between radiation and temperature, as indeed -- remarkably
-- is the case. I do, however, think that it is a valid point to compare
"before" and "after" atmosphere, i.e. to demonstrate what the increased
radiative forcing atmosphere has contributed in the past. The reason that
method 1 and 2 gets such similar results is precisely due to what I showed
above, that there is such tremendous correspondance between average
longwave infrared radiation and average temperature.
>: Doesn't have to. The only assumption Daly makes in method 3 is that
>: the heat flux from the equator is approximately the same during the
>: northern summer as in the southern summer.
>
>But, alas, this assumption is faulty. See fig. 2.11 in Hartmann's
>_Global Physical Climatology_, e.g., (Academic Press, 1994).
By how much? In which direction? You are aware that a smaller actual
seasonal difference makes even Daly's numbers too high. If the
differences are more or less negligable (+/- 1 K) then this has no
great impact on Daly's calculation.
>: Yes, but if you'd actually check the correlation between radiation
>: and temperature you would see that it isn't all that far off. As
>: expected actual temperatures are lower at the equator and higher near
>: the poles than suggested by the radiation, but not by very much.
>
>Oh please. The radiative equilibrium temperature at the polar night
>is close enough to absolute zero to not be worth bothering about -
>especially when the moon is in the dark phase!
Ehm, as someone (who, btw, strongly disagreed with Daly) pointed out,
in the longwave infrared region the earth is virtually a black body.
Even snow is black in this region. (That's indeed why it's meaningful
to use the LWIR radiation and why Stefan-Boltzmann's equation isn't
too far off.) Therefore, unless, the temperature at the poles is 0 K
-- which it is not -- there *will* be a non-zero radiation there.
>The same figure I cited above shows the anual average energy import
>at the poles to exceed 80 watts per square meter, with the amount much
>larger in winter.
That's very interesting because this is approximately the amount of
energy that is "missing" in Daly's polar numbers. At Mawson Station
(68 degrees south) there is an average radiation of 168 wm-2 while there
is an average temperature of -11.5 C (261.5 K). The actual temperature
suggests that if there were radiative balance there _should_ be a
radiation of 265 wm-2. In other words 265-168 = 93 wm-2 is missing and
must have gotten there by other means. (read horizontal convection)
93 wm-2 is pretty close to 80 wm-2, don't you think? And when you then
take into account that there is much less upward convection at the poles
than elsewhere it's not a stretch of imagination to see that the
remaining energy comes from downward atmospheric radiation. The situation
at the equator is the opposite. In singapore (1 degree north) the mean
temperature is 28 C (301 K) and the LWIR radiation is 515 wm-2. The
temperature suggests that the radiation _should_ have been 465 wm-2. In
other words 515-465 = 50 wm-2 is transported out. Some of this probably
disappears with upwards convection whereas a large portion of it is
transported horizontally towards the poles. I would be very interested
to hear if the article you site also says something about the heat
transport from the equator. (This should naturally be less than 80 wm-2
since the equatorial belt has a lot larger area than the polar belt) I
would also be interested to hear if the article says something about at
which latitude there is a horizontal heat flux balance (i.e. where the
incoming heat from the equator equals the outgoing heat to the pole).
According to Daly's figures (and his hypothesis of a global
temperature/LWIRR correspondance) this should be at about 40-45 degrees
south, i.e. about halfway between the equator and the pole. At
Maatsuyker Island the mean temperature is 11.5 C and a LWIR radiation of
369 wm-2. The temperature suggests that there should be 371 wm-2 of
radiation here, i.e. an almost perfect match.
>: Actually, since the method is a statistical overall one all feedbacks are
>: taken into account. Basically he is comparing "before" and "after".
>
>OK, fair enough. His crude calculations in the first two points ignore
>feedback.
No, not in method 1. He looks at what the earth would be like before an
atmosphere with the current albedo. (-18 C) and compares it with the
after atmosphere scenario (15 C). Temperature and radiation are path
independent variables. This means that they can be measured independently
how the system ended up like that. Hence all feedbacks are taken into
account. The global temperature is a summary of all feedbacks. I agree
that assuming a correlation between LWIRR and temperature ignores feedback
and assumes effective radiative balance on average. That is, if you like,
Daly's hypothesis. And he does not back that hypothesis up with processes
to show that it is correct, but rather uses measurements and observational
data to show such correlation. And indeed, as I've shown above, there IS
a very strong statistical correlation.
>The last three merely ignore the existence of weather.
But _I_ haven't. When you take weather into account, Daly's calculations
change upwards, but not by much.
>If there is a 4 w/m^2 total forcing at the surface, we agree. I presume we
>also agree that a doubling amounts to a 4 w/m^2 forcing at the top.
I agree that 4 wm-2 is the number at the top, yes. As a worst case scenario
I also assume the number to be 4wm-2 at the surface, and I will stick to
this until I see evidence to the contrary.
>The question is what that means at the bottom.
Yup.
>Lindzen once proposed a mechanism,
>not apparent in subsequent observations, that would reduce that forcing, but
>Daly merely pulls a figure out of a hat (with an incomplete and unverifiable
>citation), and calls that a theory.
Well, forget about that figure then and use the 4 wm-2 figure instead.
Daly's numbers then become:
method 1: 0.88 K
method 2: 0.75 K
method 3: 0.38 K
method 4: 0.87 K when weather is accounted for
method 5: 0.45 K
method 6: 0.51 K
giving an average increase of 0.64 K for a 4 wm-2 forcing at the surface.
That's in the lower end of the "mainstream" skeptics.
Onar.
Onar Aam
>But Daly's method is worthless. It's not just his numbers that are
>wrong, it's also that he simply has no idea of what physical processes
>are going on.
I agree that Daly's method is primarily a statistical one, not one
based on actual physical models.
>One cannot simply grab some energy flux number from any
>random level of the atmosphere and plug it into the Stefan-Boltzmann
>relation to get the temperature change at the surface.
As far as I understand the data he is using is the LWIR radiation at
the surface, and you yourself have stated that the earth is approximately
black in that region.
>Daly is also doing things backwards. Where do those forcing numbers
>come from?
He sites others. Apparently he does not dispute the models' forcing,
but rather their tranlsation into temperature change.
>They are not some intrinsic property of CO2.
I can't see that he is claiming this anywhere, either.
>Since the atmosphere is
>emitting, absorbing, scattering, convecting, condensing etc., one must
>integrate the equations for these processes through the atmosphere, in
>a way that meets specified boundary conditions, usually at the top of
>the atmosphere, and the calculation will give the changes in forcing
>and temperature at various levels.
Agreed.
>We do not seem to be able to get
>through to you how bad Daly's stuff really is, but to a meteorologist,
>oceanographer, or maybe even just about any physical scientist, it is
>truly awful.
I can only speak for myself here and not attribute a model to Daly, but
the assumption he seems to be making is that the surface is _effectively_
in radiative balance. This means that any surplus downward atmospheric
radiation is assumed to be drained from the surface. (via upward
convection etc.) Whether you like it or not this assumption is sound. The
reasoning goes as following:
1) the only significant source of heat at the surface is radiation.
2) the surface mean temperature is approximately constant.
3) Hence the surface is in heat flux balance (i.e. just as much heat is
transported to the surface as is transported away from it.)
4) Hence there is effective radiative balance. (i.e. the surplus downward
radiation is drained out by other means than radiation)
This does NOT necessarily mean that there is a correlation between upward
radiation and temperature, but rather that there is a statistical
correlation. For some non-obvious reason this ratio appears to equal 1 on
a global mean. This is even true locally when we take horizontal heat flux
from the equator to the poles into account. The statistical correlation
is simply remarkable. I can only speak for myself, but I am not claiming
anything other than a statistical correlation. Any prediction made on this
would be an extrapolation of a significant statistical correlation.
>He gives his spiel about how bad models are, but his
>method is a model too, just one with no connection to the observed
>atmosphere.
He seems to be basing his argument on the surface LWIR radiation data.
He is not making statements about the atmosphere as such, only about
the surface temperatures. I can't see any wrong in using this data then,
especially when I've showed that there is a strong statistical correlation,
even at a particular latitude.
Basically the hypothesis can be summarized as the following: the surplus
downward radiation is on average cancelled out by various energy drains.
I don't account for those drains, I leave that to be shown by others. What
I use to support that notion is that there is a very strong statistical
relation between LWIR radiation and temperature (when equator-pole heat
flux is taken into account). Sure, you can criticize me for not physically
accounting for those drains, but that does not explain away the
extraordinary statistical correspondance.
Onar.
David Gossman
Peter wrote:
>
>
> It seems to me as though the environmentalists, on the whole, are not cognizant
> of the economic costs of the solutions they propose to environmental problems.
> This does not mean the problems aren't serious, just that they are much more
> difficult to solve--and expensive--than they appear at first glance to be. Where
> I get upset with the "skeptics" is that they try to say that all the scientists
> who support theories of say, global warming are liars and charlatans whose true
> motive is to destroy free-enterprise. I do agree that, if we panic over global
> warming, the result *could* be to destroy--or at least, seriously damage free
> enterprise. What bothers me the most is the degree of paniciness on both sides
> of this debate.
Given the single minded approach to solving the "problem" by limiting
CO2 emissions without any attempt to look at alternatives, perhaps you
should reconsider that the impact on free-enterprise may be the real
objective of at least some of those involved, particularly those with a
history of pushing socialist agendas in the political realm. How many of
the scientists involved in identifying the phenomena of global warming,
wether or not it is a man made phenomena and wether or not the impact is
as large as some models say, are looking at potential solutions other
than the extremely costly approach of limiting CO2? Those scientists are
either conciously or blindly supporting the political agenda with which
you express concern. Doesn't that deserve critisism? I would agree with
your concern about the "skeptics" as I doubt that the majority of them
have looked at alternative solutions as well.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
Scott Nudds
"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:
: More personal attacks! This is the fate of anyone who dares point
: out that global satellite data proves that global warming is
: not happening.
They don't prove, let alone indicate anything unless you can extract
surface temperatures from the average through the air column.
"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:
: The satellite data is clear, unambiguous, and now proven
: to be correct.
Sorry, it's anything but clear.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: In science there is a rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary
: evidence.
There is absolutely nothing extraordinary to the claim that blocking
the radiation into space of surface heat from the earth will cause the
surface of the earth to warm. It's no different than claiming that
blankets keep people warm at night.
The prevalence of blankets, coats, gloves, hats, ear muffs, etc, in
this world are ample proof of this effect.
But apparently not ample enough for denialists.
(Onar Aam) wrote:
: The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so
: extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
: that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence.
This is interesting. Usually the denialist camp insists that since
the planet has seen these very changes before that they are nothing to
worry about. - as if an ice age is nothing to worry about.
Now we have a denialist claiming that the changes are so extraordinary
that they can not be believed.
Clearly denialists will say anything to protect their faith.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
John McCarthy wrote:
: Tom Moore is probably right that the main effects of global warming
: will be benign.
Here McCarthy attempts to moderate Moore's proposals. Presumably he
believes that accepting a small deception will make accepting a larger
one easier.
---
I am Founder and President of Atheists for the School Prayer
Amendment, which has got six members in the last ten years. - John
McCarthy - Sept 97
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:
: conclusively to be accurate.
An accurate measure of what weighted average through the air column?
"Dr. Efram E. Goldstein" wrote:
: The satellite sensors are so sensitive that they detect atmospheric
: warming caused by a full moon.
A precise average. How do you extract the surface temperature from
the average? What precisely is being measured?
It certainly isn't surface temperature is it?
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
(Peter) wrote:
: I get upset with the "skeptics" is that they try to say that all the
: scientists who support theories of say, global warming are liars and
: charlatans whose true motive is to destroy free-enterprise. I do agree
: that, if we panic over global warming, the result *could* be to
: destroy--or at least, seriously damage free enterprise. What bothers
: me the most is the degree of paniciness on both sides of this debate.
Global Warming denialists are simply doomsters who panic when they
finally see limits to fossil fuel consumption.
For the most part, environmentalists support a rational approach to
the global warming problem. The immediate adoption of a "no regrets"
emission control policy that reduces emissions through the advancement
of technical changes in consumption and efficiency improvements that
will inevitable be brought on line anyhow - but decades hence.
Improvements in efficiency of consumption are a kind of progress that
some irrational minds fear.
--
<---->
Onar Aam
> There is absolutely nothing extraordinary to the claim that blocking
>the radiation into space of surface heat from the earth will cause the
>surface of the earth to warm.
That's true. It IS however extraordinary to claim that slight increases of
a trace gas will warm the earth in the order of several degrees AND that
this warming is harmful.
> But apparently not ample enough for denialists.
Hey, you seem to be spreading the word "denialist" around quite
uncritically.
>: The apocalypctic claims of environmentalists are so
>: extraordinary, as are the costs of their proposed preventive actions,
>: that we should expect them to present extraordinary evidence.
>
> This is interesting. Usually the denialist camp insists that since
>the planet has seen these very changes before that they are nothing to
>worry about.
What do you mean "denialist camp"? Are you incapable of addressing me
outside your narrow prototype of people who disagree with you? I happen
to be developing environmental technology, and are therefore one of the
people who would benefit most from an ambitious treaty at Kyoto. Despite
this opportunity to personal gain I oppose it. Why? Not because I am a
"right-wing denialist" or because I am supported by industry, but because
I cannot consciensciously support the waste of tax-payer's money. Reducing
CO2 emissions to 15% below 1990 level will have NO impact on global climate,
regardless of what climate sensitivity you use.
> Now we have a denialist claiming that the changes are so extraordinary
>that they can not be believed.
No, I am saying that the claims are so extraordinary that they require
extraordinary evidence. All scientists agree that we can easily wait 20-30
years before we start more progressive emission reductions. In 20-30 years
we will know a lot more about climate change. Why, oh, why then not wait
until we have the amount of evidence that would justify such actions?
Onar.
Scott Nudds
David Gossman wrote:
: Given the single minded approach to solving the "problem" by limiting
: CO2 emissions without any attempt to look at alternatives, perhaps you
: should reconsider that the impact on free-enterprise may be the real
: objective of at least some of those involved, particularly those with a
: history of pushing socialist agendas in the political realm. How many of
: the scientists involved in identifying the phenomena of global warming,
: wether or not it is a man made phenomena and wether or not the impact is
: as large as some models say, are looking at potential solutions other
: than the extremely costly approach of limiting CO2?
Alternatives to reductions in CO2 emissions have been considered.
There are <no> practical alternatives.
Gossman and others doesn't want to believe this, such is their fear of
change. He would rather treat the symptom rather than the disease.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
John Alway wrote:
: Dr. Robert Balling is a top notch atmospheric
: scientist who pointed out that the satellite data is
: statistically significant.
Alway thinks that satellite data is "statistically significant". What
he does not know is what was measured by this "stistically significant"
data.
John Alway wrote:
: Dr. Lindzen is a rare breed. He has a high
: degree of personal confidence and integrity, and won't let
: lemings bulldoze him. Independent minded to the very end, and
: so knowledgable and competent in the field that nobody can bulldoze
: him.
And even Lindzen admits that there will be further warming as CO2
levels rise.
Isn't it strange how denialists like Alway ignore such facts.
---
"Is there any common ground? Of all people, Michaels insists there could
be. "When it comes to it, the modellers and the sceptics are not so far
apart," he says. Indeed, if pressed, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer and
other sceptics suggest a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise
average temperatures by between 1 and 1.5 'C. And 1.5 'C is the bottom
end of the modellers' range of predictions." - NEW SCIENTIST: 19 July
1997
--
<---->
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : Given the single minded approach to solving the "problem" by limiting
> : CO2 emissions without any attempt to look at alternatives, perhaps you
> : should reconsider that the impact on free-enterprise may be the real
> : objective of at least some of those involved, particularly those with a
> : history of pushing socialist agendas in the political realm. How many of
> : the scientists involved in identifying the phenomena of global warming,
> : wether or not it is a man made phenomena and wether or not the impact is
> : as large as some models say, are looking at potential solutions other
> : than the extremely costly approach of limiting CO2?
>
> Alternatives to reductions in CO2 emissions have been considered.
> There are <no> practical alternatives.
Please do provide the appropriate references and a brief explanation as
to why such alternatives cannot work. PS How many trees did you plant
last year?:)
>
> Gossman and others doesn't want to believe this, such is their fear of
> change. He would rather treat the symptom rather than the disease.
>
Mr Nudds - to suggest that it is I who fear change is perhaps amoung the
silliest things you have ever said. It is in fact you who fear change.
It is you who would like any excuse, including "global warming" to drag
the human race back to the barbarism of socialist and totalitarian
policies in order to prevent anything from changing - including advances
in technology that continue to provide the human race with greater and
greater control of our environment and of ourselves.
David Gossman
Scott Nudds wrote:
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : most costly solution that anyone could come up with.
>
> Why is that? This 9 watt high E light above me is saving me money as
> it saves energy. It seems silly for you to insist that I must burn
> another 41 watts of coal or oil to generate light that I already have.
It still places more CO2 into the atmosphere than you personally remove.
I don't spend money I don't need to either. On the other hand you want
to lower the standard of living to accomplish a goal that is unknown and
untested. I simply suggested that 1 billion dollars/year is a lot less
than 100 billion dollars/year a point that you conveniently clipped and
ignored. Or do you dispute my math.
>
> David Gossman wrote:
> : If it were to turn
> : out to be a problem, man made or otherwize, it seems that some fine
> : particulate dispersed into the upper atmosphere would me a much more
> : cost effective solution.
>
> How typical - treat the symptom not the disease.
How about wait to verify the magnitude and treatment till after the
disease is confirmed instead of treating everyone with an antitdote that
could be more deadly than the disease. You have based your conclusion
that a disease exists on models that can't even accurately predict the
past! How can you possibly expect them to reliably predict the future? I
do not claim that the phenomena does not exist, just that it has not
been studied enough to determine the real magnitude and all of the
factors of cause and effect.
>
> How long are you going to throw smoke into the air? You do realize
> don't you that once you start, you can't stop blowing smoke. To do so
> means an extremely rapid rise in temperature - far faster than we will
> see in the next 100 years.
What smoke? Fine particulate dispersed into the upper atmosphere can be
carefully controlled on a year to year basis to reflect the optimal
amount of sunlight wether or not any warming is due to CO2 or a small
increase in solar flux which has also been suggested. If on the other
hand we are at a cusp and can anticipate a decrease in solar flux the
additional CO2 will be a clear benefit in stabilizing temperatures at
what is geologically an unusually high level. Of course we could all go
your route and return to living in caves and simultaneously kill of the
majority of humans -why don't you admit that that is what you would
prefer.
>
> You are simply adding another burden to your children and their
> children and so on, for the next thousand years.
Me thinks the "burden" comes from the socialist policies of the likes of
you!
>
> Bad decision.
>
Disagreement from you is a virtual confirmation in my mind that I may be
onto something.:)
Michael Tobis
David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
: Michael Tobis wrote:
: >
: > David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
: >
: > None. These are different fields. Various mitigation efforts are
: > being considered by other scientists, both in the public and the private
: > sector. Deliberate aerosol releases are an exception, but this confuses
: > the symptom (global warming) with the disease (rapid climate change)
: > so the reason it isn't seriously being considered is because it isn't
: > a serious response. Sensible mitigation responses involve methods
: > for removing greenhouse gases after they have been emitted or in the
: > emission process. I believe that a wide variety of such approaches
: > are under consideration.
: First you define "sensible" very narrowly and then you try to claim that
: a variety of paaroaches are being studied. I suggest one alternative
: that has a projected annual cost of < 1 billion dollars/year as a
: comparison with the current press reports of 100 billion dollars/year
: for the adminstration proposal and all you can do is say that it isn't a
: serious response - why not?!
Because they address the symptom (global warming) and not the disease
(rapid climate change), exactly as I said. More specifically, while
aerosol releases could cancel out the change in global mean temperature,
their impact is not the exact opposite of greenhouse gases - the
temperature structure and hence the patterns of climate would continue
to be subject to accelerating disruption. What's more, this would
amount to a commitment to a mitigation strategy for centuries after
the disruption. So the annual cost isn't an especially good measure.
These releases would have to occur for many generations after the
carbon got used up.
I don't know where you got either of your numbers.
mt
David Gossman
Michael Tobis wrote:
>
> David Gossman (dgos...@gcisolutions.com) wrote:
>
> : First you define "sensible" very narrowly and then you try to claim that
> : that has a projected annual cost of < 1 billion dollars/year as a
> : comparison with the current press reports of 100 billion dollars/year
> : for the adminstration proposal and all you can do is say that it isn't a
> : serious response - why not?!
>
> Because they address the symptom (global warming) and not the disease
> (rapid climate change), exactly as I said. More specifically, while
> aerosol releases could cancel out the change in global mean temperature,