Harry and Andrew Adams are the climate commenters of the year

And don’t say it’s false balance just because there’s one from each side of the fence. I have a chart! With error bars! Marty was a close third. Kim was a sentimental favorite, but she doesn’t post long enough comments over at Judith’s.

Hello from Shanghai. I have no idea how come I can suddenly access this site or how long this will last. If I can, I will post something more germane in the coming days.


113 responses to “Harry and Andrew Adams are the climate commenters of the year

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/mitch-mcconnell-s-wife-sits-on-the-board-of-a-group-working-to-kill-the-coal-industry-041726501.html

    The real agenda is out. Who is really behind the war on coal. Bloomberg is heavily invested in shale gas.

  2. http://worldnpa.org/npa-conference-update-call-for-papers/
    The NPA conference is now accepting papers skeptical of conventional theories of climate (no politics please) as well as other accepted theories.

  3. Gee Tom, this is the longest gap in your posts. Is everything okay?

  4. Hello all–from Los Angeles. I just flew in from Shanghai for a research project. Marty, you have shamed me. I have no excuse other than the press of business.

    I’m fine (other than jet-lagged, something that seems to have more of an effect on me every year).

    As access to climate blogs is limited in China, I have been basically following a handful of sites that have to serve as a proxy for the overall dialogue. My impression is that things have not advanced dramatically, although there does seem to be an infusion of fresh commenters replacing those who have tired of the struggle.

    I woke up at three in the morning–thanks to very romantic hotel neighbors–and looked at a number of climate sites that I haven’t been able to see from China, principally Bart Verheggen’s and Jeff Id’s. I started looking at old conversations from posts as far back as 2010. I found it a fascinating record. I think someone could do something with it.

    Of course, when I started this blog, I basically scraped some old comments of mine from the same places and put them up here as my initial posts, so I guess it’s unsurprising that the archive holds value for me. But still, I maintain that the climate blogs will power many a dissertation in the future.

    How are all of you? I miss blogging and I miss exchanging comments with all of you. One of the sites I can still access is Judith’s–another is Climate Audit. If you see me commenting over there, say hi.

    • Tom, Glad to see you’re okay. I’m planning a conference and two authors who were involved in the Pattern Recognition in Physics affair are coming. And one who thinks sea level is dropping. This should be interesting. I’ll give your blog an exclusive on what they present

  5. The archive does hold value. I wish someone would archive all of the pre-internet editorials on global warming, back when it was being pushed by George Will and Cal Thomas.

  6. file:///C:/Users/martin/Documents/NCGTJournal,v2,n3%20September%202014.pdf
    The best article I read recently on sea levels by Cliff Ollier. Scroll down to pg 87.

  7. It’s been a year and I guess we have all moved on to other things. It’s been great. Good bye
    Stay tuned, I may announce a new blog.

  8. Climate Researcher

    A review of the new book “CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014” by about 24 authors – available here.

    The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 “Sun Shunned” in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun’s orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.

    The rest of the chapters on the “science” do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth’s surface temperatures. Instead the “lukes” all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.

    Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquired out of the atmosphere.

    All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun’s radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.

    Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That’s even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.

    Hence all the “luke” authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don’t know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.

    That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the “lukes” who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.

  9. You have kept up very well with literature and blogs, except for one thing: you still think carbon dioxide is responsible for some part of global warming, however weak it may be. This is untrue. Its heating effect is clearly zero and the greenhouse effect Hansen claimed to have proved in 1988 simply does not exist. This follows from the existence of the Hiatus or whatever you want to call the cessation of warming that started 18 years ago. It is totally incomprehensible to model makers and IPCC ideologues who are still trying to prove its absence. Anthony Watts kept track of their peer reviewed articles but gave up after their number exceeded 50. That means over 50 so-called “scientists” desperately want to prove that the hiatus does not exist. I am fascinated by the ones looking for missing heat in the ocean bottom. Only a few days ago another one came out with a big fanfare. Fact is, the Arrhenius greenhouse theory used by the IPCC firmly predicts existence of greenhouse warming whenever carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere. As the Keeling curve shows, we have been adding carbon dioxide to air for the last 18 years but their is no warming. In case you are not a scientist, I should mention that any theory that makes wrong predictions is considered faulty and belongs in the waste basket of history. There is a nice place for the greenhouse effect of Arrhenius there, right next to phlogiston, another theory of heat that failed. The truth is that we have had a greenhouse theory that accurately predicts the present state of climate called the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It has been out since 2007 but you don’t know about it because IPCC found its predictions unpalatable and has been successful in suppressing and vilifying it on the web. They did not dare come out with any peer reviewed criticism, however, because they knew their science was defective. MGT predicts what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the air. The greenhouse effect is thereby nullified and anthropogenic greenhouse warming or AGW does not exist. MGT differs from the Arrhenius greenhouse theory in being able to handle more than one greenhouse gas at the same time. Arrhenius applies only to one, carbon dioxide. According to the MGT carbon dioxide and water vapor, the two most important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, establish a joint optimum absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it starts to absorb IR, just as Arrhenius says. But that will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor starts to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming is possible. Note that water vapor is integral to the absorption control process and is not introduced by an external ad hoc claim that it triples warming as is done by Arrhenius.This explains why constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for the last 18 years has failed to cause any warming. And the missing heat in the ocean bottom they still seek? It simply left the atmosphere and cannot be called back to create that imaginary warming they still want to wish upon us.

    • Arno,
      Oddly enough Anthony Watts disagrees with you: There is a CO2 GHE.
      The question has always been: How sensitive is the atmosphere to CO2?
      The answer appears to be “not so much”.
      Arguing against the GHE does not help you, skeptics in general or understanding the issue.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s