A comment on Reddit’s policy which I noted in passing at another site, and copied for future reference:
“Censorship is the younger of two disgraceful sisters. The other is called Inquisition.”
– Johann Nepomuk Nestroy, Austrian dramatist, actor, and playwright (1801-1862)
Though I’m never one to endorse censorship I do have some sympathy for their dilemma, denialist trolls can overrun some sites making reasonable discussion impossible, a quick visit to Anthony Watt’s site will verify my point.
Denialist?
Funny, my example of trolls ruining the discussion would’ve been people like dcguy or dnguy or whatever his name is, or Baghdad Jim.
Anthony and his crew do a very good job of limiting the nuts who try to hijack threads with talk of HARP, chemtrails, or some of the barycentric solar system stuff. They love debate on relevant topics, though. Judith Curry has recently limited comment nesting to try to keep discussions more under control, as too much of it was just snarky back-and-forth stuff in deeply nested comments.
Any “reasonable” discussion of human induced climate change would begin with
1) Global temperatures have not risen in 17 years and counting, and are well below the mean projections of the models
2) During the above interval, CO2 levels have risen an additional 30% above what are believed to be pre-industrial levels
3) Extreme weather events have not become more frequent, in fact, the opposite appears to be the case compared to previous cooler eras
4) Sea level rise has not accelerated above the natural, long established rate
5) Global ice cover is increasing, and even summertime Arctic sea ice saw a significant rebound from the low end of a very limited observation data set just this year
In short, there is no observational evidence that global temperatures are sensitive to CO2 levels at all, or that warming of the Earth, should it resume, presents any dire consequences. These are facts.
But, I suspect your notion of “reasonable” begins with “global warming is real and overwhelmingly due to human activity, so how can we interpret the observations to be consistent with that ‘fact’?”
That isn’t even the most fundamentally important bit. The danger of man made climate change is based on climate modeling but the current state of climate models is enormously primitive. The idea that there are any trustworthy or accurate models of the Earth’s climate is rather far fetched. There are huge holes in climate models, such as the effects of cloud cover, which have still not been sufficiently filled in. And, of course, they have all proven incapable of predicting the climate over the last ~2 decades.
The evidence is most consistent with the theory that existing climate models are merely kludges with large numbers of tunable parameters and thus able to fit nearly any type of data given enough effort. Their lack of predictive ability is explained easily by the fact that all models have been tuned to a given period of climate data in the mid 20th century and selected to show extensive climate warming over the 21st.
A major improvement over the CMIP5 models, based on the past 20 years of data, would be a climate model built entirely out of Legos.
17 years was famously picked by some of “the team” as indicating the point at which global warming couldn’t be statistically refuted. That one blew up in their face, which is why we’re using it as a metric.
The current rate of sea level rise isn’t really known, because we can’t measure it to better than a few cm via satellite. What we’re doing is interpolating, extrapolating, smoothing, and guessing so that the satellite numbers seem to match what we think the sea level is probably doing, based on long term trends, and then rectifying that with the tide gage measures, which have their own problems.
According to Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave Hypothesis, the Arctic should have been losing ice coverage over the past decade, and for the next two decades is going to be ice-bound as can be, all from natural causes relating to the North Atlantic circulation, etc.
The above comment is in response to Andrew’s comment below, which is evidence that this blog needs to follow NASA risk mitigation procedures, as I said in a thread above.
Hrm… Needs editing
The above comment [1][2], is in response to Andrew’s comment below [3], which is evidence that this blog needs to follow NASA risk mitigation procedures[4], as I said in a thread above[5][6][7], even though Andrew didn’t bother to read my post[8], as Rand pointed out [9], even though I’m pretty sure Andrew was playing along (unsourced – doesn’t meet the new blog standards).
My apologies if this comment fails to meet the new blog standards.
If we’re picking 17 years as the non-cherry picked cherry picked standard, does this mean if we wait until 2016 so that 1998 is no longer included in the non-cherry picked cherry picked standard, and there is no rise in temperature above 2013 that we can then say that the “pause is over? As without the exceptionally strong El Nino year of 1998 to hold the start of the non-cherry picked cherry picked standard period up, we will see a rise in temperatures from 1999 to 2016 inclusive?
If “the current rate of sea level rise isn’t really known” how can Bart claim: “Sea level rise has not accelerated above the natural, long established rate”? Does this unproven claim of his breach the new blog standard, and if not, why not??
According to Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave Hypothesis,. . . snip
Does sighting an hypothesis, which are a dime a dozen, break the new blog standard? If I could borrow Hop David’s December 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm hypothesis: I know a person who believes the earth is flat. He argues a round earth is a hoax perpetrated by the powers that be. I don’t have an opinion, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
Does sighting this hypothesis that the Earth is flat give weight to a refutation of the theory that the Earth is round?
Does sighting an hypothesis to cast doubt on a theory breach the new blog standard?
Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave paper was well received and may be the most important advance in our understanding of the natural climate system in decades.
In contrast, CAGW isn’t even a scientific theory, because a theory has to be at least theoretically falsifiable, whereas global warming theory is compatible with all possible outcomes, and indeed every possible weather event is cited as proof of its truth.
so-and-so’s paper was well received and may be the most important advance in our understanding of the natural climate system in decades.
I’ve heard too often to take seriously.
. . . global warming theory is compatible with all possible outcomes, and indeed every possible weather event is cited as proof of its truth.
Nonsense, the theory is based on radiation physics and makes the prediction that with increased GH gas concentrations in the atmosphere the Earth will have a radiation imbalance with a slowing of radiation escape from Earth, resulting in a net increase in the energy trapped in the hydrosphere and atmosphere. This will be detectable as an increase in temperature of the hydrosphere and atmosphere.
Actually, the theory is based on a whole bunch of unsupported assumptions about atmospheric positive feedbacks, which aren’t panning out at all.
One of Judith Curry’s positions is that the twenty years spent modeling were largely wasted, and that the modeling impeded climate science by diverting attention and resources from the task of actually tying to understand how the climate system works. Her Stadium Wave paper was about how heat actually moves from state-to-state and region to region in the climate system, so that the large natural variations can be better understood.
Warmists are wrestling with some of the same issues, and a recent paper attributed the stall in temperature increases to natural variations. Unstated, of course, was that if natural variations are large enough to completely mask global warming for twenty years, then they would be large enough to have created the earlier rise.
1) Global temperatures have not risen in 17 years and counting, and are well below the mean projections of the models
17 years? Why 17 years?
Because that’s a cherry pick period, how about 14 years, or 20 years?
2) During the above interval, CO2 levels have risen an additional 30% above what are believed to be pre-industrial levels
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, over the last 17 years CO2 has risen 10%, since pre-industrial times it’s risen 40%
4) Sea level rise has not accelerated above the natural, long established rate
The current rate of SLR is about 3mm/yr, roughly twice as fast as the long term (1880 to 2011) trend.
5) Global ice cover is increasing, and even summertime Arctic sea ice saw a significant rebound from the low end of a very limited observation data set just this year
Global land ice cover is decreasing, only the East Antarctic ice sheet is increasing in mass, and not by enough to offset mass loss of the West Antarctic, Antarctic Peninsular and Greenland ice sheets. Sea ice mass in the Antarctic is slightly increasing evidently due to faster glacial flow rates from the continent, but the increase is not by enough to offset sea ice mass loss in the Arctic.
The claim that “summertime Arctic sea ice saw a significant rebound from the low end of a very limited observation data set just this year” is a deliberate misrepresentation, again based on a cherry pick, in September 2012 we had the lowest sea ice mass in the Arctic ever recorded, the September 2013 ice mass was higher than 2012, but still in line with the longer term downward trend.
1) Because 17 years is how long it’s been going holding steady or declining. Anything 17 years or less.
2) Read more carefully. It is the delta from pre-industrial times which is important.
3) ?
4) First, wrong. Second, 3mm/yr? Gosh, in 100 years, it would rise less than a foot! Better build an Ark!
5) it’s roughly only a 30 yr record, and so what? It’s increasing right now, and all indications are it will continue to do so. This is a big yawn.
1) Anything 17 years or less. Wrong
2) A 30% increase from pre-industrial times? Wrong
4) First, wrong. Wrong
5) It’s increasing right now, and all indications are it will continue to do so. Wrong.
1) wrong
2) wrong
3) ???
4) wrong
5) wrong
Hey, I can play this game, too!
There is insufficient evidence that the sea level is rising significantly faster than historical norms (of about 0.5-1 mm/year). The satellite data cannot reliably be calibrated and so the we have to fall back on tide gauge data which are not reliable due to silting, which has accelerated greatly in industrial times, and other geological changes unrelated to the actual sea level. The most objective analysis of all the available data is most consistent with sea level rise in the 1mm/year range.
1. Moderation isn’t censorship.
2. If you want to have a conversation about climate change science – or anything really – that doesn’t involve existentialist debates, that’s your choice.
3. Every article I’ve seen reporting on this seems to not understand Reddit – at all.
Reddit is divided into subreddits, which have moderators, much like IRC is divided into channels. The moderators of a subreddit decide and enforce the policy. If you don’t like it, you go to another subreddit. If enough people do this, the subreddit dies.
I happen to think the /r/science moderators are a bunch of dicks and their policy on this, and many other things, is counter-productive, but ya know what I do? I just don’t go to those subreddits.
On the other hand, there’s plenty of subreddits I do go to that are full of users who will happily call you names as much as look at you, and even threaten you directly using Reddit’s private message message feature. Some moderators who actually enforce civility in these subreddits would be very much appreciated.
1. Moderation isn’t censorship.
2. If you want to have a conversation about climate change science – or anything really – that doesn’t involve existentialist debates, that’s your choice.
3. Every article I’ve seen reporting on this seems to not understand Reddit – at all.
Snark is Civility
Censorship is Moderation
Free Expression is an Echo Chamber
(OK, OK, do I have to constantly ‘splain myself and this is a reference to Orwell?)
Bart, a few comments on your points:
1)Take out the adjustments and who knows about the surface temperatures?
2)Dig in to the way sea level rise is done and it all gets problematic to say what, if anything is happening. It seems reasonable that there is some remnant rise after the end of the last ice age. Maybe.
3) The polar ice has varied before. There is good historical evidence for this.
The chemtrails guys get very short shrift at WUWT for good reasons. The warmists get met with evidence based arguments.
Don’t even get me started. The whole thing is a gigantic CF and unfolding fiasco. But, I was just trying to stick to things that everyone ought to agree are hard facts.
What are chemtrails and why are their “guys” considered dodgy?
Chemtrails is the conspiracy theory that the contails left by airplanes are really someone (Big Government™ and/or Big Business™) spraying the populous with chemicals for nefarious purposes. You’ll usually hear them on Coast to Coast between the 9/11 Truthers and the UFO types.
“The whole thing is a gigantic CF and unfolding fiasco. ”
But, but, I thought that CF was banned! (Cue snare drum rim shot.)
That’s CFL. CFs remain abundant globally!
As I remember it the argument was that global warming would be caused by increased CO2 in the air trapping the heat from the sun in the atmosphere. Films that explain this then show a graphic of a giant arrow (representing heat) coming through the atmosphere, bouncing off the ground and stopping short of the atmosphere. If the heat can’t get out through a CO2 barrier, how does it get through the barrier in the first place?
Ok, I’ve refuted Global warming, now how do I refute Global Cooling?
The giant arrow represents incoming solar radiation, mainly visible light, which can pass through the atmosphere unimpeded, the surface absorbs this energy and reradiates it as heat infrared radiation, which is impeded in leaving the Earth by greenhouse gases.
That’s right. The incident power flux above the atmosphere is 1,318 W/m^2. At least that’s the average. It actually varies by 6.9% every six months, between the earth’s aphelion and perihelion. So six months after aphelion, the incident power flux is almost 91 W/m^2 higher than it was at aphelion.
Of course, about 30% of the power (on average) is reflected into space without affecting the climate. That’s the average albedo of the earth. But it can change by more than 10% in a matter of hours with rapid changes in cloud cover. So that is a 132 Watt/m^2 difference.
The solar constant even varies by 0.1% on an erratic basis, or 1.3 Watt/m^2.
The “power imbalance” produced by greenhouse gases is estimated to be 0.6 W/m^2. The uncertainty on that number, according to its author, is +/- 17 Watt/m^2.
In sum, we have a 91 Watt/m^2 variation at a very reliable 6.3E-8 Hz, overlaid with a 131 Watt/m^2 variation at up to (say) 2E-5 Hz, overlaid with another variation of 1.3 W/m^2 at unpredictable frequency…but we can pick out 0.6 Watt/m^2 and say it’s due to human beings…with an uncertainty of +/- 17 Watt/m^2.
This is why we need concentration camps for you denialists….
Where’d you get the +/- 17W, I’m finding +/- 0.15W?
It’s a pity that the term “denialist trolls” just doesn’t have the punch to arouse among the populace the mindless, murderous hatred that I (as a newly-minted Leftist member of the Democrat Party) and my Comrade Andrew W would like. My German ancestors had it better. They could just say “Jews,” and it was enough to get their countrymen to sweep our…I mean, their enemies out of the way. Those were the good old days, weren’t they Andrew W?
Well you’ve obviously never visited Watt’s site, terrible place, a true mad house.
Oh, I have been, and I agree! The question is, how do we get them into death camps, where they belong?
I’m appalled and disgusted by your suggestion, these people should be humored, great joy can be derived from their ignorant stumbling about trying to make black white and white black. Death camps should be reserved for people who can cause real hurt, like clarinettists.
A comment on Reddit’s policy which I noted in passing at another site, and copied for future reference:
“Censorship is the younger of two disgraceful sisters. The other is called Inquisition.”
– Johann Nepomuk Nestroy, Austrian dramatist, actor, and playwright (1801-1862)
Though I’m never one to endorse censorship I do have some sympathy for their dilemma, denialist trolls can overrun some sites making reasonable discussion impossible, a quick visit to Anthony Watt’s site will verify my point.
Denialist?
Funny, my example of trolls ruining the discussion would’ve been people like dcguy or dnguy or whatever his name is, or Baghdad Jim.
Anthony and his crew do a very good job of limiting the nuts who try to hijack threads with talk of HARP, chemtrails, or some of the barycentric solar system stuff. They love debate on relevant topics, though. Judith Curry has recently limited comment nesting to try to keep discussions more under control, as too much of it was just snarky back-and-forth stuff in deeply nested comments.
Any “reasonable” discussion of human induced climate change would begin with
1) Global temperatures have not risen in 17 years and counting, and are well below the mean projections of the models
2) During the above interval, CO2 levels have risen an additional 30% above what are believed to be pre-industrial levels
3) Extreme weather events have not become more frequent, in fact, the opposite appears to be the case compared to previous cooler eras
4) Sea level rise has not accelerated above the natural, long established rate
5) Global ice cover is increasing, and even summertime Arctic sea ice saw a significant rebound from the low end of a very limited observation data set just this year
In short, there is no observational evidence that global temperatures are sensitive to CO2 levels at all, or that warming of the Earth, should it resume, presents any dire consequences. These are facts.
But, I suspect your notion of “reasonable” begins with “global warming is real and overwhelmingly due to human activity, so how can we interpret the observations to be consistent with that ‘fact’?”
That isn’t even the most fundamentally important bit. The danger of man made climate change is based on climate modeling but the current state of climate models is enormously primitive. The idea that there are any trustworthy or accurate models of the Earth’s climate is rather far fetched. There are huge holes in climate models, such as the effects of cloud cover, which have still not been sufficiently filled in. And, of course, they have all proven incapable of predicting the climate over the last ~2 decades.
The evidence is most consistent with the theory that existing climate models are merely kludges with large numbers of tunable parameters and thus able to fit nearly any type of data given enough effort. Their lack of predictive ability is explained easily by the fact that all models have been tuned to a given period of climate data in the mid 20th century and selected to show extensive climate warming over the 21st.
A major improvement over the CMIP5 models, based on the past 20 years of data, would be a climate model built entirely out of Legos.
17 years was famously picked by some of “the team” as indicating the point at which global warming couldn’t be statistically refuted. That one blew up in their face, which is why we’re using it as a metric.
The current rate of sea level rise isn’t really known, because we can’t measure it to better than a few cm via satellite. What we’re doing is interpolating, extrapolating, smoothing, and guessing so that the satellite numbers seem to match what we think the sea level is probably doing, based on long term trends, and then rectifying that with the tide gage measures, which have their own problems.
According to Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave Hypothesis, the Arctic should have been losing ice coverage over the past decade, and for the next two decades is going to be ice-bound as can be, all from natural causes relating to the North Atlantic circulation, etc.
The above comment is in response to Andrew’s comment below, which is evidence that this blog needs to follow NASA risk mitigation procedures, as I said in a thread above.
Hrm… Needs editing
The above comment [1][2], is in response to Andrew’s comment below [3], which is evidence that this blog needs to follow NASA risk mitigation procedures[4], as I said in a thread above[5][6][7], even though Andrew didn’t bother to read my post[8], as Rand pointed out [9], even though I’m pretty sure Andrew was playing along (unsourced – doesn’t meet the new blog standards).
My apologies if this comment fails to meet the new blog standards.
If we’re picking 17 years as the non-cherry picked cherry picked standard, does this mean if we wait until 2016 so that 1998 is no longer included in the non-cherry picked cherry picked standard, and there is no rise in temperature above 2013 that we can then say that the “pause is over? As without the exceptionally strong El Nino year of 1998 to hold the start of the non-cherry picked cherry picked standard period up, we will see a rise in temperatures from 1999 to 2016 inclusive?
If “the current rate of sea level rise isn’t really known” how can Bart claim: “Sea level rise has not accelerated above the natural, long established rate”? Does this unproven claim of his breach the new blog standard, and if not, why not??
According to Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave Hypothesis,. . . snip
Does sighting an hypothesis, which are a dime a dozen, break the new blog standard? If I could borrow Hop David’s December 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm hypothesis:
I know a person who believes the earth is flat. He argues a round earth is a hoax perpetrated by the powers that be. I don’t have an opinion, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
Does sighting this hypothesis that the Earth is flat give weight to a refutation of the theory that the Earth is round?
Does sighting an hypothesis to cast doubt on a theory breach the new blog standard?
Judith Curry’s Stadium Wave paper was well received and may be the most important advance in our understanding of the natural climate system in decades.
In contrast, CAGW isn’t even a scientific theory, because a theory has to be at least theoretically falsifiable, whereas global warming theory is compatible with all possible outcomes, and indeed every possible weather event is cited as proof of its truth.
so-and-so’s paper was well received and may be the most important advance in our understanding of the natural climate system in decades.
I’ve heard too often to take seriously.
. . . global warming theory is compatible with all possible outcomes, and indeed every possible weather event is cited as proof of its truth.
Nonsense, the theory is based on radiation physics and makes the prediction that with increased GH gas concentrations in the atmosphere the Earth will have a radiation imbalance with a slowing of radiation escape from Earth, resulting in a net increase in the energy trapped in the hydrosphere and atmosphere. This will be detectable as an increase in temperature of the hydrosphere and atmosphere.
Actually, the theory is based on a whole bunch of unsupported assumptions about atmospheric positive feedbacks, which aren’t panning out at all.
One of Judith Curry’s positions is that the twenty years spent modeling were largely wasted, and that the modeling impeded climate science by diverting attention and resources from the task of actually tying to understand how the climate system works. Her Stadium Wave paper was about how heat actually moves from state-to-state and region to region in the climate system, so that the large natural variations can be better understood.
Warmists are wrestling with some of the same issues, and a recent paper attributed the stall in temperature increases to natural variations. Unstated, of course, was that if natural variations are large enough to completely mask global warming for twenty years, then they would be large enough to have created the earlier rise.
1) Global temperatures have not risen in 17 years and counting, and are well below the mean projections of the models
17 years? Why 17 years?
Because that’s a cherry pick period, how about 14 years, or 20 years?
2) During the above interval, CO2 levels have risen an additional 30% above what are believed to be pre-industrial levels
Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, over the last 17 years CO2 has risen 10%, since pre-industrial times it’s risen 40%
4) Sea level rise has not accelerated above the natural, long established rate
The current rate of SLR is about 3mm/yr, roughly twice as fast as the long term (1880 to 2011) trend.
5) Global ice cover is increasing, and even summertime Arctic sea ice saw a significant rebound from the low end of a very limited observation data set just this year
Global land ice cover is decreasing, only the East Antarctic ice sheet is increasing in mass, and not by enough to offset mass loss of the West Antarctic, Antarctic Peninsular and Greenland ice sheets. Sea ice mass in the Antarctic is slightly increasing evidently due to faster glacial flow rates from the continent, but the increase is not by enough to offset sea ice mass loss in the Arctic.
The claim that “summertime Arctic sea ice saw a significant rebound from the low end of a very limited observation data set just this year” is a deliberate misrepresentation, again based on a cherry pick, in September 2012 we had the lowest sea ice mass in the Arctic ever recorded, the September 2013 ice mass was higher than 2012, but still in line with the longer term downward trend.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
1) Because 17 years is how long it’s been going holding steady or declining. Anything 17 years or less.
2) Read more carefully. It is the delta from pre-industrial times which is important.
3) ?
4) First, wrong. Second, 3mm/yr? Gosh, in 100 years, it would rise less than a foot! Better build an Ark!
5) it’s roughly only a 30 yr record, and so what? It’s increasing right now, and all indications are it will continue to do so. This is a big yawn.
1) Anything 17 years or less. Wrong
2) A 30% increase from pre-industrial times? Wrong
4) First, wrong. Wrong
5) It’s increasing right now, and all indications are it will continue to do so. Wrong.
1) wrong
2) wrong
3) ???
4) wrong
5) wrong
Hey, I can play this game, too!
There is insufficient evidence that the sea level is rising significantly faster than historical norms (of about 0.5-1 mm/year). The satellite data cannot reliably be calibrated and so the we have to fall back on tide gauge data which are not reliable due to silting, which has accelerated greatly in industrial times, and other geological changes unrelated to the actual sea level. The most objective analysis of all the available data is most consistent with sea level rise in the 1mm/year range.
1. Moderation isn’t censorship.
2. If you want to have a conversation about climate change science – or anything really – that doesn’t involve existentialist debates, that’s your choice.
3. Every article I’ve seen reporting on this seems to not understand Reddit – at all.
Reddit is divided into subreddits, which have moderators, much like IRC is divided into channels. The moderators of a subreddit decide and enforce the policy. If you don’t like it, you go to another subreddit. If enough people do this, the subreddit dies.
I happen to think the /r/science moderators are a bunch of dicks and their policy on this, and many other things, is counter-productive, but ya know what I do? I just don’t go to those subreddits.
On the other hand, there’s plenty of subreddits I do go to that are full of users who will happily call you names as much as look at you, and even threaten you directly using Reddit’s private message message feature. Some moderators who actually enforce civility in these subreddits would be very much appreciated.
1. Moderation isn’t censorship.
2. If you want to have a conversation about climate change science – or anything really – that doesn’t involve existentialist debates, that’s your choice.
3. Every article I’ve seen reporting on this seems to not understand Reddit – at all.
Snark is Civility
Censorship is Moderation
Free Expression is an Echo Chamber
(OK, OK, do I have to constantly ‘splain myself and this is a reference to Orwell?)
Bart, a few comments on your points:
1)Take out the adjustments and who knows about the surface temperatures?
2)Dig in to the way sea level rise is done and it all gets problematic to say what, if anything is happening. It seems reasonable that there is some remnant rise after the end of the last ice age. Maybe.
3) The polar ice has varied before. There is good historical evidence for this.
The chemtrails guys get very short shrift at WUWT for good reasons. The warmists get met with evidence based arguments.
Don’t even get me started. The whole thing is a gigantic CF and unfolding fiasco. But, I was just trying to stick to things that everyone ought to agree are hard facts.
What are chemtrails and why are their “guys” considered dodgy?
Chemtrails is the conspiracy theory that the contails left by airplanes are really someone (Big Government™ and/or Big Business™) spraying the populous with chemicals for nefarious purposes. You’ll usually hear them on Coast to Coast between the 9/11 Truthers and the UFO types.
“The whole thing is a gigantic CF and unfolding fiasco. ”
But, but, I thought that CF was banned! (Cue snare drum rim shot.)
That’s CFL. CFs remain abundant globally!
As I remember it the argument was that global warming would be caused by increased CO2 in the air trapping the heat from the sun in the atmosphere. Films that explain this then show a graphic of a giant arrow (representing heat) coming through the atmosphere, bouncing off the ground and stopping short of the atmosphere. If the heat can’t get out through a CO2 barrier, how does it get through the barrier in the first place?
Ok, I’ve refuted Global warming, now how do I refute Global Cooling?
The giant arrow represents incoming solar radiation, mainly visible light, which can pass through the atmosphere unimpeded, the surface absorbs this energy and reradiates it as heat infrared radiation, which is impeded in leaving the Earth by greenhouse gases.
That’s right. The incident power flux above the atmosphere is 1,318 W/m^2. At least that’s the average. It actually varies by 6.9% every six months, between the earth’s aphelion and perihelion. So six months after aphelion, the incident power flux is almost 91 W/m^2 higher than it was at aphelion.
Of course, about 30% of the power (on average) is reflected into space without affecting the climate. That’s the average albedo of the earth. But it can change by more than 10% in a matter of hours with rapid changes in cloud cover. So that is a 132 Watt/m^2 difference.
The solar constant even varies by 0.1% on an erratic basis, or 1.3 Watt/m^2.
The “power imbalance” produced by greenhouse gases is estimated to be 0.6 W/m^2. The uncertainty on that number, according to its author, is +/- 17 Watt/m^2.
In sum, we have a 91 Watt/m^2 variation at a very reliable 6.3E-8 Hz, overlaid with a 131 Watt/m^2 variation at up to (say) 2E-5 Hz, overlaid with another variation of 1.3 W/m^2 at unpredictable frequency…but we can pick out 0.6 Watt/m^2 and say it’s due to human beings…with an uncertainty of +/- 17 Watt/m^2.
This is why we need concentration camps for you denialists….
Where’d you get the +/- 17W, I’m finding +/- 0.15W?
It’s a pity that the term “denialist trolls” just doesn’t have the punch to arouse among the populace the mindless, murderous hatred that I (as a newly-minted Leftist member of the Democrat Party) and my Comrade Andrew W would like. My German ancestors had it better. They could just say “Jews,” and it was enough to get their countrymen to sweep our…I mean, their enemies out of the way. Those were the good old days, weren’t they Andrew W?
Well you’ve obviously never visited Watt’s site, terrible place, a true mad house.
Oh, I have been, and I agree! The question is, how do we get them into death camps, where they belong?
I’m appalled and disgusted by your suggestion, these people should be humored, great joy can be derived from their ignorant stumbling about trying to make black white and white black. Death camps should be reserved for people who can cause real hurt, like clarinettists.