torsdag 13 januari 2011

Skeptics Missing the Main Argument, Unfortunately

Both Anthony Watts (WUWT) and Lubos Motl (Reference Frame) comment on Kevin Trenberth's upcoming talk at the American Meteorological Society meeting on Jan 26 on Communicating Climate Change with the thoughtful title ClimategateThoughts.

Watts and Motl are a bit skeptical to Trenberth, but they seem to accept the energy budget of Trenberth underlying CO2 climate alarmism, discussed at length on this blog.

The following questions present themselves:
In short, why are skeptics not skeptic? Maybe because they view themselves as physicists, and
physicists believe in the "greenhouse effect" and Trenberth's energy budget.

Watts and Motl are joined by Lindzen and Spencer as "skeptic physicists" confessing to the "greenhouse effect" with a miraculous ability of turning a thin atmosphere into a "heat-trapping blanket". There must have been something seriously wrong with physics education during the 20th century.

Here is the basic belief to which Lindzen confesses:
  • It is generally acknowledged that simply doubling CO2 should lead to a warming about 1 degree Centigrade.
Lindzen does not understand that here "general acknowledgement" is achieved by making this
statement into a definition of no-feedback climate sensitivity. Lindzen does not want to know that a (generally acknowledged) definition does not say anything about any reality, but is just a play with words, as empty as saying that there are 100 centimeters on 1 meter.

This is unfortunate because CO2 climate alarmism is based on this no-feedback sensitivity of 1 C, which then is argued to possibly become an alarming 3 C by positive feedback.

But you cannot get anything from a definition and without the 1 C to start with, the real game has to start with 0 C and this feedback game is completely open, as explained in Climate Feedbacks with Nothing to Feed On. It is not even clear if more CO2 will cause cooling, or warming or nothing.

It is unfortunate that a skeptic physicist like Lindzen does not appear to be willing to see this, (and therefore feels obliged to invent negative feedback which may be questioned). Why? Lindzen can't be so stupid that he can't see the trick used to create climate alarmism out of nothing, from a definition. But why is he willing to interprete a definition as a physical fact?

Lindzen is in good company with Judith Curry:
  • Well, burning fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities have undoubtedly changed the climate and even weather patterns, the butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil, and all that.
And all that: Anything is possible in physics science fiction.

What is the cost of the fiction, in the US? About $4 billion next year into climate change
research (NSF 1.6, DOE 0.6, Nasa 0.4, NOOA 0.4, DOI 0.2). Enough to pay 40.000 full-time
researchers. A good size army.

Of course peanuts compared to the $14 trillion of federal budget deficit. Anyway, what about say $1 billion to skeptic climate science? About 10.000 full-time skeptics. And it would be well spent money, since it could save the $4 billion. Maybe something for new Congress looking for cuts?

PS Lindzen repeats his mantra in A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action:
  • However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2).
Lindzen does not understand that this mantra is precisely what underlies "Precipitous Climate Action" and so his argument is rather for than against doing something drastic quickly.

7 kommentarer:

  1. Lubos Motl has commented on black body radiation and accepted the claimed average average surface temperature of 288K although it is clearly not in his field of expertise. Lubos is a great proponent of string theory which I do not really understand. However, Miles Mathis at outlines his view that the string theory does not make mathematical sense. Maybe there is something in Mathis's theory of Unified E/M fields

  2. Often it is the lukewarmers that spread the most confusion.

    First of all, very few of them (if any) has made any effort to check what the greenhouse hypothesis is about (made painfully obvious by Stilbs, Ribbing et al.). Instead they communicate some superficial version of it, ressembling something of a lukewarm blanket.

    Secondly, they don't seem to understand the role of positive feedbacks underpinning the whole theory. If, as they claim, the earth would freeze to an alarming temperature of -18 deg C without the greenhouse effect, the oceans would freeze to ice and the most abundant and potent greenhouse gas H2O would decrease rapidly.

    Yet they insist on the notion that positive feedbacks are something that will not occur from the present climate, but from now on negative feedbacks will dominate. However, they never mention any of these negative feedbacks or what they would consist of. Actually, within the greenhouse paradigm it is very hard to spot any obvious negative feedbacks at all.

  3. Furthermore, the "blanket analog" needs to be thoroughly scrutinized. The greenhouse effect is not anything like a blanket as I've pointed out before but is worth repeating.

    It is often said that GHG "heats the atmosphere" but that is not true, according to the hypothesis they heat the lower atmophere and cool the upper atmosphere. Why do I keep on repeating this? Well, because if they acted like a blanket and heated the entire atmosphere A TEMPERATURE INCREASE WOULD BY ITSELF BE A POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Think about it, higher temperature - more radiation - more greenhouse effect - higher temperature - more radiation and so on.

    Yet people perpetuate this misnomer, and they do it for a reason. Which reason do you think?

  4. "Why are Watts and Motl not skeptical to the backbone of CO2 alarmism: Trenberth's energy budget?"

    Because, stupid as they are, they are actually much cleverer than you are.

  5. This is possible, but to prove it they have to say something. To ignore and be mute and look out through the window, is not a clear proof of superior cleverness, although it is often attempted.

  6. Dear Prof Claes,

    I am still waiting for the paper edtion of your book to be available here in the Uk. Any idea of when that will happen?

    I am a fan Dr Ball's work and am indeed look forward to reading the book!

  7. Listen to this talk by Dessler and Lindzen

    In particular the statement of Lindzen min 49-52,

    "The models have to be correct.......................................................................................................the only thing we can say about this is that the data must be wrong, either this data or that data or both"

    Proper scientific method?