Does this mean there's no such thing as a greenhouse. What about all those winter tomatoes?

Alrighty then, here's an experiment you can do Kate...

Make sure its a sunny day....today for instance.
Get in your car.
Roll up the Windows.
Tell us if the car is still cool after an hour.

Coffee in a thermos doesn't get hotter because NO HEAT IS BEING ADDED. But the Earth has heat added because the sun is shining on it.

More CO2 means that more of this heat cannot be re-radiated out. And while this heat is being held back, MORE heat is added.

No wonder CONS on this blog believe the sun is pumping out more heat while simultaneously pumping out less energy.

It's interesting that Kate and the putz who wrote that article are unfamiliar with the priciples of a greenhouse. But what can one expect from CONservative ideologues.

If you put cold coffee in a thermos - say less than room temperature - and leave it sitting in the living room, it WILL get warmer, it just takes a long time.

In addition, not all the Earth's heat is from external sources (ie. the sun), a lot of it is produced WITHING THE EARTH - Coffee doesn't produce it's own heat. You put a heater in a thermos of coffee, and it's definitely going to get hotter. Faster than if it was not in a thermos.

If the atmosphere is the Earth's thermos, and it's composition is changing, to be fair we don't really know what that's doing. Could be increasing the insulation or decreasing it. The majority of scientists say it's increasing it.

I can guarantee that the situation is NOT as simple as coffee doesn't get hotter in a thermos. Coffee and a thermos is a poor substitute for water(salt and fresh)/ice caps/glaciers/atmosphere (all ratios of various gases)/land/trees/you see where I'm going with this right?

Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.

That statement is very misleading since it only applies to objects with no heat being added (such as a thermos bottle).

If there is a source of heat for the object, then reducing the heat loss will indeed result in an increase in temperature. Essentially, the temperature would rise until the object was again giving off as much heat as it was receiving then it would remain in equilibrium.

As an actual argument against AGW this whole document notably weak.

Regards,
John

Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object - if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.

Think of sleeping under a blanket - is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?

The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets warmer.

For a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html

Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.

That statement is very misleading since it only applies to objects with no heat being added (such as a thermos bottle).

If there is a source of heat for the object, then reducing the heat loss will indeed result in an increase in temperature. Essentially, the temperature would rise until the object was again giving off as much heat as it was receiving then it would remain in equilibrium.

As an actual argument against AGW this whole document notably weak.

Regards,
John

I remember reading, I think it was in a paper by Lord Monckton, about an experiment done by a German physicist early in the 20th Century. He made a pair of identical black cavities, and installed thermometers in each. One was glazed over with ordinary glass (which blocks long-wave IR), and the other was glazed with a clear pane of rock salt (which passes long-wave IR freely). He placed the apparatus out in the sunlight, and both cavities warmed to the same temperature. NO significant difference.

The conclusion was that a greenhouse works, NOT by preventing the re-radiation of heat, but by preventing the convection of heated air. Roll down the windows on your parked car, and it cools very rapidly. Leave them down an inch or so when you park, and it never gets that hot to begin with.

This would be a very easy experiment for a kid to duplicate for a science fair experiment, BTW. Of course, it might not be a winner, because it might yield politically-incorrect results.

put coffee in the thermo,measure the temperature 6 hours later
now increase the insulation ,add the coffee again the next day ,read the temp 6 hours later.
it will be higher..
Im on your side of GW ,but the posted example of the thermos is just plain wrong..

I would agree that the article is ludicrous - it has holes big enough to fly Al Gore's private jet through.

...However, one thing that I've never had explained to me properly is - If the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causing the earth to heat up (because it's preventing this same heat from escaping the earth again), why is this increased amount of CO2 not reflecting more solar radiation (away from the earth) in the first place and preventing this heat from ever reaching the ground?

I only dimly remember the "global cooling" scare of the 70's, but didn't it use the same premise? (the earth was freezing because all the pollution (including CO2) was reflecting back sunlight)

"Flaiming Polar Bears": Good name for a rock band, eh!

What is more interesting is what happens as the temperatures warms due to CO2 and other stresses. All plants and animals have evolved coping mechanisms - sweat, stomatas etc. Obviously the Earth must also have developed its own processes to regulate temperature. After all, both CO2 and temperatures have been significantly higher and lower in past eras. The very fact that temperatures are now "taking a breather" despite increases in human CO2 would indicate that there are many other factors and/or counterbalances that are not fully understood.

why is this increased amount of CO2 not reflecting more solar radiation (away from the earth) in the first place and preventing this heat from ever reaching the ground?

Because of the relative wavelengths of light. CO2 is transparent to most of the incoming visible light, which is what heats the ground. The light (infrared) re-radiated from the ground is what CO2 can absorb and re-emit. More CO2 means more infrared light intercepted by the atmosphere and trapped.

If you want to block incoming light, it's sulfer compounds in the atmosphere that do that, but the resulting acid rain is a problem.

Jim: If the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causing the earth to heat up (because it's preventing this same heat from escaping the earth again), why is this increased amount of CO2 not reflecting more solar radiation (away from the earth) in the first place and preventing this heat from ever reaching the ground?

Because there is a change of frequencies involved. The radiation transmitted to the earth has most of its energy in the form of visible light (i.e. the maximum solar output is in the visible range). However the earth emits most of its energy in the IR spectrum. At the concentrations involved, CO2 is transparent to visible but not to IR.

Regards,
John

What does it matter if the global warming sience is wrong?
If they're right we've done something to stave off the carbon problem for awhile.
If they're wrong we have invested in things like wind, solar, hybrid vehicles and other energy saving attitudes.
Is that a bad thing?

I am a skeptic, not a denier. There is little doubt that the earth would be much cooler were there no CO2 or methane in the atmosphere. The real argument, which engages both mainstream skeptics, and actual climatologists, who are interested in the physical world, and not rhetoric and politics, and which is very much an open question, is "how much?"

As the evidence comes in, the answer more and more looks like "not all that much" since your fellow Canadia Steve McIntyre pointed out that measurements of sea temps from teh sixties were too cool, this, ironically means that the accelerated warming that had the warmy's panties in a bunch was in fact overstated.

The fact that a microscopic drop in solar output co-incides with recent, well documented, cooling of the oceans suggests that the CO2 effect is small, but to argue that it is non-existent is just ridiculous.

that should read "science" dummy

Gerry there's a host of things wrong with this. Here's just a few:

"What does it matter if the global warming science is wrong? If they're right we've done something to stave off the carbon problem for awhile."

Even if they are right, the Copenhagen Consensus papers show that it is wasted effort given the more urgent priorities we have for limited funding.

"If they're wrong we have invested in things like wind, solar, hybrid vehicles and other energy saving attitudes.
Is that a bad thing?"

Yes, because none of these things are economic on their own, and all serve to simply increase the cost of energy and hence increase energy shortage and hence poverty.

What's worse, there is strong reason to suspect that the motives behind the AGW advocates are not honest. Namely that what they really want is an end to modern industrial society, something they've been campaigning for in various guises for close to two centuries. With AGW, they think they've finally got a big enough scarecrow to get the public to listen to them. Hence, the cooking up of a dubious theory with little fundamental science behind it and a lot of bogus but impressive looking computer generated hallucinations constituting not science but propaganda. In short, it's just another chapter in Voltaire vs. Rousseau.

The question is not "is there a greenhouse effect" because we know there is one. You take a quick look at Mars and Venus, you can see the greenhouse effect bigtime. Mars doesn't have one, Venus does. Earth has one as well. CO2 is a component of it. These are givens, what a Conservative like myself calls a "fact".

Question is, which has not been well answered at all in my estimation, HOW MUCH effect does human generated CO2 have on the climate? Is it enough to warm the planet by 2 degrees in a hundred years? Is it enough to warm the planet even a little bit? Or is it a drop in the ocean and will have zero measurable effect?

To date I remain unconvinced by the Global Warmers, they don't seem like serious people and their measurements are crap.

That ok with you, Murray?

A while back the propagandists for the warmies spent a considerable effort to produce a "refutation" of the greenhouse effect and tried to diseminate it in the blogosphere so that they could then crow over all of the people who fell for the hoax. Nobody bit beyond a few commenters on climate sites, some of whom may well have been trying to spread the hoax to help the cause, but this link is a waste of time and, in the words of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, serves only to bring ridicule on climate skeptics. It is hard enough to argue with these people without stuff like this out there.

Phantom, you have good reason to be skeptical. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly at saturation, because nearly all of the frequencies of insolation which can be absorbed by CO2 are being absorbed and reradiated by CO2 as infrared. Because of this near-saturation effect, each increment of CO2 has less impact than the previous one.

CO2 only has a significant effect if CO2 creates a positive feedback in the atmosphere for other greenhouse gases which are not at saturation, such as water vapour. However, other than computer simulations, there is no such evidence that such positive feedbacks exist. IPCC AR4 depends upon the existence of these positive feedbacks for all of its models.

Finally, any increase in the earth's temperature must be reflected in an increase in temperature of the upper troposphere. Despite the claims made by Hansen, Jones et.al. no such increase in tropospheric temperatures has taken place.

Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object - if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.

Think of sleeping under a blanket - is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?

The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets warmer.

For a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html

"In short, it's just another chapter in Voltaire vs. Rousseau."

I'll take Rousseau's Tommy Douglas over Voltaire's George Bush any day.

From a mechanical engineering perspective, this article has a great deal of drastic oversimplification, as do the arguments against it.

In general, if the rate of heat loss of a body is reduced, and the rate of heat addition is held constant, then the temperature of the body will increase.

This increase will usually result in a reduction of heat input, and an increase of heat output, using the classic three mechanism of convection, conduction, and radiation. At a certain point, heat goes in as fast as heat goes out, and the temperature stops changing.

In the example given, the heat loss is reduced with insulation while heat generation is held constant. The temperature will then increase until the heat loss is stabilized with the heat input. Most of the examples cited ignore the underlying assumptions: constant heat generation, variable heat loss with temperature, variable resistance to heat loss, variable resistance to heat input.

It isn't simple. Even incredibly simple theoretical arrangments can be computationally difficult, never mind real world problems. The climate modellers claim to be able to do what they do ... resists explanation.

Phantom, you have good reason to be skeptical. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly at saturation, because nearly all of the frequencies of insolation which can be absorbed by CO2 are being absorbed and reradiated by CO2 as infrared. Because of this near-saturation effect, each increment of CO2 has less impact than the previous one.

Interesting this...considering it was explained to you that CO2 is transparent to visible light (allowing it to come through the atmosphere to be absorbed by the ground), but absorbs infrared light (which the ground emits). More CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared absorbed as its radiated from the ground and prevented from radiating out to space.

And what does "CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly at saturation" mean anyway? Does this mean that so much CO2 has built up it will start condensing out, like water does? Is there an innate atmospheric carrying capacity that will not allow the atmosphere to carry more CO2?
Are you implying that we can pull coal and carbon out of the ground and burn it with impunity and not put more CO2 into the atmosphere because its "saturated"?

By the way, the atmosphere can get saturated with water. That's what 100% humidity refers to.

Murray Rennie:

"...More CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared absorbed as its radiated from the ground and prevented from radiating out to space...."

Not true, at least in the simple sense that it appears you assume it works. The atmosphere is saturated in certain wavelengths that CO2 adsorbs and adding more CO2 only moves the probable capture point a bit lower for these wavelengths.

There are other considerations, however, such as broadening the capture spectrum of CO2 by adding more CO2, but as correctly noted by cgh, this is a diminishing returns relationship whereby each increment of CO2 broadens the band by smaller and smaller increments.

Regards, BRK

Heat flows from hot to cold. An insulating device, such as a Thermos, simply slows this down. When the respective temperatures become equal, heat flow stops.

A polar bear trapped inside a thermos bottle, so to speak, would eventually overheat and expire. This is because the polar bear, itself, is a heat source and the extra layer of insulation would trap this heat, thereby raising its temperature. But not, dare I suggest, to the point of self-igniting :-)

Mr. Schreuder: Tsk, tsk.

There is a huge error in the first graphic at the link. Solar insolation is 1360 watts per square meter, not 343. It doesn't change the overall conclusions (the results would be proportional), but an error like that gives ammunition to those who would discredit the results.

This entire war on global warming is not about weather, temperature, gases, polar bears or anything of that stuff. It's about the protection money they want us to pay.

What that money can possibly do other than impoverish us is beyond explanation but that is why we need to get some 'splainin' done. The sun in my sky has no financial problems. What really is the money for?

I think we know what happens to the money, who gets it and how none of it will do anything about saving us from ... well having to see polar bears drown, then we will be on the right track. We need to concentrate on the money!!!!

To continue to argue the science is a waste of time. They (the climate brokers and their loons) simply won't accept facts, evidence or proof of any kind that they are wrong. They are after the wealth and destruction of the Western economies. So is Islam with their oil prices and stupid archaic religion. For that matter, so is Barrack Hussein Obama and his down-trodden, self-pitying gang of under achieving Negroes.

Our only chance is to stop with the Mr. Nice guy routine and start refusing to pay up. Stop feeling sorry for the alleged down-trodden or should we say less-motivated peoples of the world. Stop caring about a climate that we simply cannot control any more than we can control the activities of the sun or the ocean currents or the cloud formations.

We have a right to enjoy the successes of our efforts. While the rest of the world continued down the path of failure, violence, totalitarianism, communism and socialism we were smarter. We were more peaceful, cooperative and hard working. Why can't we have what we earned and enjoy our lives without having to continually deal with the global muggers and the climate freaks.

They should all be in China where the real pollution is taking hold. We are already working on fixing ours with better technology, not forced sacrifice. China's pollution will dwarf the USA's. They have already passed the US in output of green house gases and other real toxic shit. Go and bug them for a generation or two and see where that gets ya.

My understanding is that CO2 absorbs infrared energy radiated from the earth and transfers this energy to the atmosphere through kinetic impacts. Very little of this energy gets re-radiated back to the earth..
As for the water vapour positive feedback caused by AGW? It has to be compared to the negative feedback caused by clouds and rainfall.When the negative is added to the possitive we find that what was first seen as a problem is no longer a problem. Upon looking deeper, that problem, increasing CO2, begins to look like the solution. If plants produce more food with increasing CO2, and we are concerned about people dieing of starvation then we need to work to produce more CO2.

"They are after the wealth and destruction of the Western economies. So is Islam with their oil prices and stupid archaic religion. For that matter, so is Barrack Hussein Obama and his down-trodden, self-pitying gang of under achieving Negroes."

I am curious about the venomous debate on this blog in regards to global warming. It seems this statement may reveal a thinly disguised hatred haboured by some posters. Is there more to this than disliking solar panels?

When's the next clan meeting?

Now, what would happen if you stuffed the polar bear into the Thermos? I bet that the coffee would get warmer.

And what would happen if you stuffed the Thermos into the polar bear? I bet that the polar bear would get slightly warmer, as by eating you it would be adding your body heat to its own.

Nice try at misdirection Mr Hawke. Islam IS trying to bring us down, and Obama DOES draw a huge percentage of his support from blacks who believe that their lack of advancement has nothing to do with their own efforts or lack thereof.

And now your comment-

"I'll take Rousseau's Tommy Douglas over Voltaire's George Bush any day.

Do you mean the same Tommy Douglas that advocated eugenics? Funny, but I don't recall Bush advocating forced sterilization and sequestering of those he thought to be inferior. Some hero you've got there Mr Hawke!

The global warming "save the planet" campaign is communism under a different name.

again a lot of speculation on incomplete science. tim in vermont, we would be quite dead without co2 in the atmosphere. no amount of co2 will increase the temp of the planet. stop thinking you are gods and have the ability to destroy the planet. we can make it dirty and kill each other of but when all is said and done the planet will still be here. at some point, millions maybe billions of years from now, the planet will be a cold, dead, dry rock. or a super nova will occur and wipe everything in this part of the universe away.

Leftists in Fort Mac claim taking crude oil from the surface soil is an environmental crime, leftists here claim spilling the same crude oil on the surface soil is an environmental crime.
Leftists think CO2 sequestration is the salvation of the planet while simultaneously claiming water sequestration requests from BigOil(if the form of water/polymer flooding) the impending destruction of mankind.
Leftists cry about the carbon dioxide BigOil puts into the environment, but say absolutely zero about the hydrogen dioxide BigOil simultaneously puts into the environment(hydrogen dioxide has a much higher specific capacity for everyone that that never bothered to learn anything in 9th grade chemistry class(which most leftists seems to have done)).

The point of the comment is that leftist hypocrisy simply has no bounds or equal...

Until I hear serious talk about developing non-fossil fuel technologies, with a real plan rather than capitalist bashing of feel goodism, I'm not interested in government collecting one more cent from me. No amount of conservation here in Canada or in Europe or US will make a bit of difference, regardless of one's AGW views, as long as China and India continue to increase their output.

What is it about this that Stephan Dion does not want to understand?

Ed @ 4.18pm - sorry, the argument is bs, regardless of the number. Schreuder does not know what he is talking about. The dynamics do matter.

Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object - if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.

Think of sleeping under a blanket - is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?

The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets warmer.

For a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html

Simple equations of heat dispersal show that if you slow down heat loss of an object you must increase the temperature of the object - if there is a heat source warming the object in the first place.

Think of sleeping under a blanket - is your body warmer than if you throw the cover off?

The analogy of coffee in a thermos is incorrect because it leaves out the heat source. Think rather of a pot on the stove with the heat turned on: what boils faster, a pot with a lid or a pot with the lid off?

If you've done any cooking you know that the covered pot comes to a boil faster and boils more furiously. This is because with greater insulation, the substance in the pot is actually hotter.

The heat source in this case is the sun. The object is the earth. Put a transparent blanket on it and it gets hotter.

And for a scientific review of Taken by Storm, see http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/07/not-taken-by-storm.html.

How much of global warming denial is all about anger and not at all about science?

Ken,
There is a lot of anger out there because of overly simplistic arguments like your own. Sure, CO2 absorbs LW IR. The amount it absorbs is dependent on a lot of factors however, for instance a colision of molecules (three body process) is required for some frequencies, and these colisions are less common in cold temps. And the direct impact of CO2 doubling is not large. The high predictions of climate sensitivity come from feedback effects that have been theorized, but not proven, and which have not been observed.

Your simple analogy of a blanket cannot possibly be extended to a chaotic system like the planet. For example, when CO2 heats air and it rises, the convection short cuts the IR slowdown that CO2 creates. What if the increased convection causes more cloud formation? Don't try and tell me that cloud formation is understood in terms of the climate models, because it is not. Perhaps the reason the warming is not what is predicted is that increases in cloudiness are increasingly reflecting sunlight away from the surface? You don't know the answer to this, nor does RealClimate or any other propaganda site you might refer to.

So please take your inapplicable sixth grade thermodynamics and ....

Murray Rennie, you are talking of a real greenhouse effect, where air is not allowed to circulate, essentially halting cooling by convection.

The planet Earth cools by radiation into space. If more energy is absorbed by the Earth, mostly from teh Sun, then the temperature of the earth wil;l rise by the quarter power (^^1/4) until the increased radiation (Stephan-Botlzmann) balances the incoming energy. Note I say "absorbed" as the planet's albedo causes much of teh received energy to be reflected.

Nothing we can do on the planet's surface can heat the planet perceptively.

At most, increases in CO2 might, and note the italics, cause a minor redsitribution of thermal patterns.

AGW is a HOAX! A SCAM!

CO2 is not pollution.

CO2 makes trees and plants grow; it is a fertilizer.

CO2 makes the world greener.

If the planet warmed 5 Centigrade, it would be good. All those northern landmasses (Canada Russia) would support teaming life and the Sahara would become green again.

If only AGW were true, we would have the power to make the planet more verdant

When's the next clan meeting?

Posted by: Gerry Hawke at 4:47 PM

at my place on the 18th, jackass!!!!

"When's the next clan meeting?
Posted by: Gerry Hawke at 4:47 PM
at my place on the 18th, jackass!!!!"

Cool. Should I bring a fruit salad?

"In general, if the rate of heat loss of a body is reduced, and the rate of heat addition is held constant, then the temperature of the body will increase."

OK, let's apply this to my 30 year old house. It is constructed of 2x4 walls with R-12 insulation. If I were to wrap my house in Styrofoam SM and increase it's insulating value to say R-20 or R-30 it would slow down the rate of heat loss, absolutely. But the only way the inside temperature would increase is if my furnace wasn't thermostatically controlled, hence the 'addition of heat' mentioned above. Frankly the whole statement is quite basic and a moot point really.

The thermos story is really a case of apples and oranges. It's vacuum sealed, where the earth is not. The heat source is within the thermos itself, not from the outside (the sun).

Incidentally, I had the chance to wrap my house in Styrofoam last year when I had it re-sided. I declined because any energy saving payback on doing this would be decades down the road. Sure my monthly bill would be slightly lower, but the initial cash outlay is a little ridiculous. Same reason I didn't spring for the extra $2000.00 it would have cost for a super high efficeinet furnace 4 years ago. I opted for a 'high mid-efficient', considering half the natural gas bill is service and administrative charges anyway. Payback is a b!tch!

Likewise with Kyoto. Why should Canada,who contributes only 2% to this ficticous phenomenon risk iminent bankruptcy for something that will do little more than make a handful of liberal arts majors feel good about 'doing their part to save mommy earth?'

Kyoto is nothing more than the Pet Rock of the new millenium. Think P.T Barnum and K-Tel snake oil boy Ron Popiel folks.

This is a personal message for Gerry Hawke.

Gerry, I have known you for quite a few years. In that time, I believe the only thing I have ever shown you and Pat is generosity. Nor do I recall ever being impolite or insulting in you home.

This does not seem to be enough to satisfy you.

You come to my private property, and you behave like an arrogant, idiotic jerk. You throw around slurs and insult me.

What kind of person behaves like that?

Look hard into the mirror when you ask.

"you behave like an arrogant, idiotic jerk. You throw around slurs and insult me."

The lady of hate shows herself.

"Gerry, I have known you for quite a few years. In that time, I believe the only thing I have ever shown you and Pat is generosity"

ban me so I don't have to read this crap.

"So is Islam with their oil prices and stupid archaic religion [islam is younger than christianity]. For that matter, so is Barrack Hussein Obama and his down-trodden, self-pitying gang of under achieving Negroes."

You people sadden and scare me.

Tim at 07:33: "Sure, CO2 absorbs LW IR. The amount it absorbs is dependent on a lot of factors however, for instance a colision of molecules (three body process) is required for some frequencies, and these colisions are less common in cold temps. And the direct impact of CO2 doubling is not large. The high predictions of climate sensitivity come from feedback effects that have been theorized, but not proven, and which have not been observed."

Just going back to my high school physics, does this "collision of molecules" not depend on normal pressure and density of the gas (CO2)? (thats why; "these colisions are less common in cold temps": no?)
Does the CO2 in the atmosphere not molecularly disperse with the dozen or so other gases?
It seems to me "theorized, but not proven" takes a whole new meaning here? Only in the LAB you say?

I think Kate should do a little herd thinin', but this is her house.

KoGMIM: Hydrogen Dioxide? Do you perhaps mean Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Ed......OH NO...not the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide!!!That substance should be banned,like DDT. Where do I go get a research grant??? heh

Gerry, Gerry, Gerry. Ban you? Why should she? You have free will. If you don't like it here, stay away. Nobody except you can compel you to come here.

So sorry that your pathetic attempt at leftard martyrdom (oh frabjous joy I've been banned by Kate at SDA) has gone awry. No virgins for you!

Well, these analogies are not really accurate, or are badly worded.

If we consider that the earth is in a steady state, or near steady state, then the heat incoming from the sun MUST equal the heat outgoing (or be absorbed in some proces, say like photosynthesis).

A polar bear generates heat metabolically at a rate equal to the rate of heat loss (through it's fur). The bear is in a steady state (at whatever is a bear's normal temp)

The thermos does not generate any heat at all, there is just a continuous (though low) loss of heat through the container walls. It is not in a steady state as it will cool, given time.

If you add more energy to the coffee in the thermos than can escape through the thermos walls, then it will get hotter.

So, it is probably better to argue to what effect C02 acts as an insulator than to say that insulation doesn't matter.

If we stuck Earth in a thermos, that still allowed the sun's energy in but greatly slowed down the rate of heat loss, then the Earth will heat up. It will heat up to a temperature on the blackbody curve at which point the rate of heat loss through the thermos now equals the incoming energy.

I think what Hans is trying to argue, is that we already have CO2 in our atmosphere and that we have already heated up to equal the solar input, thus we won't heat up anymore.

AGW proponents get around this by several explanations, the least of which is that there is a time delay. However, the record seems to clearly indicate that this, in fact, not the case with CO2.

In the end, there are much better arguments out there against AGW and I would suggest that Hans re-write this to more clearly explain the problem with not nearly so many flaws in his analogies.

After all, you are trying to convince lefties, and they have notoriously thick heads!!

Note: AGW deniers don't have problems poking holes in the "science" of both sides of the issue. Which is why you see a lot of AGW deniers criticise this article.

Well, these analogies are not really accurate, or are badly worded.

If we consider that the earth is in a steady state, or near steady state, then the heat incoming from the sun MUST equal the heat outgoing (or be absorbed in some proces, say like photosynthesis).

A polar bear generates heat metabolically at a rate equal to the rate of heat loss (through it's fur). The bear is in a steady state (at whatever is a bear's normal temp)

The thermos does not generate any heat at all, there is just a continuous (though low) loss of heat through the container walls. It is not in a steady state as it will cool, given time.

If you add more energy to the coffee in the thermos than can escape through the thermos walls, then it will get hotter.

So, it is probably better to argue to what effect C02 acts as an insulator than to say that insulation doesn't matter.

If we stuck Earth in a thermos, that still allowed the sun's energy in but greatly slowed down the rate of heat loss, then the Earth will heat up. It will heat up to a temperature on the blackbody curve at which point the rate of heat loss through the thermos now equals the incoming energy.

I think what Hans is trying to argue, is that we already have CO2 in our atmosphere and that we have already heated up to equal the solar input, thus we won't heat up anymore.

AGW proponents get around this by several explanations, the least of which is that there is a time delay. However, the record seems to clearly indicate that this, in fact, not the case with CO2.

In the end, there are much better arguments out there against AGW and I would suggest that Hans re-write this to more clearly explain the problem with not nearly so many flaws in his analogies.

After all, you are trying to convince lefties, and they have notoriously thick heads!!

Note: AGW deniers don't have problems poking holes in the "science" of both sides of the issue. Which is why you see a lot of AGW deniers criticise this article.

Frenchie 77:

Show me a AGW argument as bad as this one and I will happily shred it with you.

What I find ironic is that the idea that - in regards to IR the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 and thus no additional warming will take place - is just as false as the above from a technical point of view yet it will still be brought up again and again.

Regards,
John

"What I find ironic is that the idea that - in regards to IR the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 and thus no additional warming will take place "

The problem is that there will always be some moron putting forth arguments like the above, so I can't really call it a straw man, but just because you prove some idiot on the street wrong, does not prove your side to be right.

There are legitimate arguments about the current level of saturation of CO2, saying it is currently saturated though is just wrong.

"Show me a AGW argument as bad as this one and I will happily shred it with you"

How about the argument that CO2 in the atmosphere can be understood as being like a blanket?

Ummmmmmmmmmm hockey stick anyone?

Please shred that one!

Then when you're done:

1) model predictions
2) junk data, based on poor sites for data acquisition (weather stations) used for those models
3) Al Gore/Suzuki - just shred them anyways, I know they are not really theories, more like bad dreams!!

let's get through these ones first, then we can bring up all other nastiness in science!!

Ummmmmmmmmmm hockey stick anyone?

Please shred that one!

Then when you're done:

1) model predictions
2) junk data, based on poor sites for data acquisition (weather stations) used for those models
3) Al Gore/Suzuki - just shred them anyways, I know they are not really theories, more like bad dreams!!

let's get through these ones first, then we can bring up all other nastiness in science!!

"ban me so I don't have to read this crap."

*Bogglement!* That's right up there with the original posted article that led to this discussion. Whatever happened to deleting the bookmark?

Tim: I would call the blanket more of an incomplete analogy. It is not scientifically correct but then analogies are not usually intended to be. This does not usually matter if you do not extrapolate the analogy too far. However the thermos bottle analogy is extrapolated to an erroneous conclusion (letting alone that the underlying physics as described are wrong and that the thermos does not duplicate conditions since there is no net external heat added).

Frenchie77: Are you trying to tell me that a very obvious error in grade school physics is equivalent to a very subtle issue in a principle component analysis that people can't even agree on yet?

Regards,
John

John Cross: ".....that a very obvious error in grade school physics is equivalent to a very subtle issue in a principle component analysis that people can't even agree on yet?..."

Equivalent - in what way? Do you mean equivalent in "it's bad science" or equivalent in propaganda terms? Or some other equivalence?

Scientifically: Not agreed upon, really, do you still beleive there is validity in the hockey stick and that the error is subtle?

Propaganda wide : the hockey stick is one of the main basis for AGW action, e.g. it is the reason why the alarmists are going nuts!

This paper by Hans is not going to convince anyone that AGW is a crock that didn't already think so. It has next to no propaganda value, at all!!

So please, if we are going to focus on exposing poor science or propaganda, it is best really to start at the top.

When the IPCC holds up a chart (h-stick) one year as a main display item, and then sheepishly downgrades it in following years, then yes, I think we need to take a closer look at ALL the IPCC science and propaganda.

Sorry for the double postings before, I swear I only hit the button once

the blanket analogy is like explaining how an engine works by saying it's like lighting a match. It is so over-simplified that it becomes meaningless and so no reasonable inferences can be drawn from it. In other words, it is a useless analogy physically, useful only rhetorically. By that I mean that the user of the analogy then substitutes some inference from it that cannot be supported in any way in the real world as a way of lying outright, or at best, unintentially misleading the listener.

Of itself, it explains less than nothing.

If a blanket warms us half a degree in the end, where is the harm? This would be well withing natural variablity. I don't think you can get a lot more warming out of CO2 than that for a doubling, unless you add hypothetical feedbacks, which is where the really scarey stuff comes from, the unproven, un-observed, hypothetical feedback.

Frenchie77: In regards to propaganda, well this story has been picked up and scattered far and wide. It was even highlighted by the winner of the Best Canadian Blog for 2007!

But I was talking about equivalent in regards to the science. For example as I said Schreuder's points are easily picked apart using highschool physics. In regards to the hockeystick I would challenge you to write an explanation about the relevant parts that a highschool student would understand.

Tim: but the analogy of the blanket (while physically wrong) does illustrate the idea that adding CO2 will cause more warming.

I would challenge you to find the idea that the following analogy applies to: "You might as well believe that your image in a mirror can burn your face".

Regards,
John

Oh look what came out today.

Water vapor, you know "di-hydrogen monoxide" is supposed to be the main driver in global warming because it is supposed to increase with the small temp rise produce by CO2 multiplying the effect. You know, the positive feedback that I talked about?

Well, looks like, according to NASA, it ain't happening!

"You’ve probably heard many times how water vapor is actually the most important “greenhouse gas” for keeping our planet warm, with an effectiveness far greater than that of CO2..." Anthony Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature/

Shorter version, we have no idea what increasing CO2 will do to future climate, none whatsoever. And we are supposed to spend trillions mitigating this "problem."

"I would challenge you to find the..."

Why, I said it was ridiculous. And your blanket analogy says absolutely nothing about "how much" because it can't. YOu can't get to extinct polar bears from there.

Funny, isn't it, how global warming deniers, AIDS/HIV deniers, evolution deniers, anti-vaccine nuts, all start to sound the same after a while...

(I was going to mention another set of deniers but don't want to Godwin the thread.)

"You come to my private property, and you behave like an arrogant, idiotic jerk. You throw around slurs and insult me."

For the record, ladies and gentlemen, I am strongly against any kind of censorship (except for kids). This is important because I suspect most of you will think otherwise.

Keegstra should have been fired and ignored, Zundel should have been ignored, Ahenankew ignored, Steyn ignored. No one should ever be charged with a crime because they say things others don't agree with.

Some of you write some nasty stuff but I defend your right to do so.

Carry on.

Wow Mark, thanks for the bulletin regarding what it feels like inside a closed mind.

John Cross: "...to the hockeystick I would challenge you to write an explanation about the relevant parts that a highschool student would understand..."

Ahhh John, you follow the standard process:

First, AGW supporters say it is so simple that a high school student can understand. It is just CO2 as the main culprit, we have it all modelled, the science is settled and if we restrict CO2 then the problem will be solved.

Second, when criticism does arise, the criticised problem is so subtle and complex that high-school students couldn't possibly understand. So let's not bother them with it and just leave the discussion within the realm of experts, who of course all support AGW.

Besides, I don't need to write such a discourse, it's been done by several, just Google.

Propaganda, you really think that this paper compares with Al's litttle movie, or the media circus that surrounds every IPCC announcement? Really?

It really is time to stop with the red herrings and discuss the facts.

Let's see if a high school student could understand this.

We have a reconstructed the history of temperature, based on tree rings, that show it has never been warmer than today, as long as we use a single set of bristlecone pines in Colorado in the mix. If we take that single set of trees out, oddly, it turns out that it *has* been as warm a thousand years ago as it is today, even if we do everything exactly the same. Even if we randomly remove and add in tree ring series from the other sets of cores.

So, (this part is ironic) we can accurately determine the temperature history of the globe only if we include tree rings from Colorado, and if those Colorado tree rings did not exist, we would be unable to use this method for climate analysis.

Next objection:
"Even if the hockey stick is wrong, that doesn't prove anything about global warming."

Err, yes it does, it proves that if it was as warm before as it is now, the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than claimed. It also says that we first have to rule out natural variablity before we can cry global warming. How do we do this? Why simple, we look at the signature that CO2 induced warming would produce. That'll do it, problem solved! Except, and you know what is coming next, the signature has not been found. RealClimate says that the uncertainties are so great that you cant prove they are wrong! Whatever, smacks of desperation to me. RealClimate says that wind patterns show that their models are right, so they take that over direct temperature measurements by thermometers and satellite. Who is sounding desperate? The warmies.

This is why the warmies cling to the hockey stick, long after it has been discredited.

John Cross, you are perpetuating myths about the hockey stick. It is not about "subtle issue in principal components", that is simply more propaganda and shows that you simply don't understand the issue. MBH 98 & 99 contains false statements and is an excellent example of fraudulent science. The authors calculated two statistics, RE and R2, they only reported the positive values of R2, and quite deliberately did not report values that indicated statistically insignificant results. That they calculated R2, despite Mann's public denials, should not be in doubt as the code released shows an R2 calculation, and R2 IS reported for the 1815 step.

Their 15th century results fail R2, the calculated it, they reported statistical significance based on RE, a statistic that is insufficient when used on non-iid data, ipso facto, scientific fraud. Note that Wahl & Amman 2007 CONFIRMS an R2 of essentially 0 for the 15th century network.

Other points beside the statistical, the Bristlecone pines records show poor correlation with local temperature and no justification has been provided to link as a temperature proxy. In fact the original data collection was reported in a paper that explicitly claimed they were correlated to CO2 increases and not temperature. Note also the (embargoed) recent work by Linah Ababneh apparently showing how abnormal the original bristlecone data was. The Gaspe Cedars series was improperly extended by 3 years to include it in the first network, and the Gaspe data has been "cherry picked" anyway and should be considered unreliable. How many points do you want ?

Until the AGW propagandists like yourself can come around to actually acknowledging the truth about the fraudulent nature of some of the pro-AGW work, your challenges to the anti-AGW work lacks any integrity.

Note that this does not prevent me agreeing that the argument in the article above is rubbish, omitting the very obvious fact, pointed about by just about every second poster, that the earth receives radiation from the SUN, and hence cannot be compared to a thermos. Dumb argument but not one representative of most skeptics. Note however that additional CO2 has an approximately logarithmic increase to the base warming.

I have time only to touch on some highlights but do wish to thank Kate for posting this subject. Given the present climate of opinion, that took some guts.

1. The pdf in question was an email from Schreuder to Peiser and not intended as a formal scientific document. Those familiar with thermal transfer were expected to get the gist, however.

2. The thermos is of course an analogy. Since the IPCC scenario has a flat earth absorbing a constant amount of radiant energy, the temperature of this surface stays constant, thus simplifying the matter of how energy is distributed from that point on. Hot coffee in a perfect thermos would have a constant temperature too, you see. But greenhouse physics proposes that the energy re-radiated back to the radiating surface raises its temperature. Thus again coffee in a thermos: Does reflecting the infrared emitted by the coffee raise its temperature? No. Some abstract thinking is demanded to grasp the parallel, though. And, it seems, some knowledge about how a thermos work.

3. Rolling up your car windows under the blazing sun down minimizes two forms of heat loss to the surroundings, convection and conduction, thus maximizing heat gain. If C & C are reduced to zero, only one other means of losing thermal energy exists, that of radiating (as electromagnetic infrared) the energy it has acquired, an inefficient process compared to the other two. Is the earth like a sealed car baking in sunlight, then? Yes, because it is surrounded by a vacuum which can neither convect not conduct that heat, thus giving earth but one option to dissipate its thermal energy with. In other words, "greenhouse gases" do not "hold heat in" – (indeed, satellites see the earth emitting the same amount of radiant energy as it receives) – but space severely limits its heat-loss options by providing only a vacuum. Again, this is why a thermos surrounds the goods with a vacuum, to minimize heat lost via contact with other objects.

4. More material can be found at Schreuder’s site

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/FAQ.pdf

Alan Siddons

John Cross:

"...What I find ironic is that the idea that - in regards to IR the atmosphere is saturated with CO2..."

As you are likely well aware that is true for some frequencies, probably most of the CO2 capture spectrum. There's a good diagram showing that over at realclimate.org, if memory serves correct under the "What Angstrom didn't know" posting

Regards, BRK

Tim in Vermont: "Err, yes it does, it proves that if it was as warm before as it is now, the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than claimed."

Not really. The past CO2 numbers are lower than today's. Having high temperatures without high CO2 says nothing about the sensitivity of the climate to warming from CO2. What it does say is that CO2 is not a necessary condition for rising temperatures. No climatologist I know of has ever claimed that CO2 is a necessary condition nor that other conditions could not contribute to warming.

Tim in Vermont: "It also says that we first have to rule out natural variablity before we can cry global warming. "

Both natural variability and CO2 caused variation suggest predictions unique to each situation. Predictions are at the heart of the scientific method and allow us to falsify one hypothesis over another. The natural variability hypothesis has to be broken down into individual components because the number of possible causes other than CO2 is quite high, making a general category 'natural variability' useless. Several components leave measurable fingerprints, such as each of the Milankovitch cycle systems, and Solar forcing. Right now we are not at a point where the Milankovitch cycle would produce warming.

The recognition of the Milankovitch cycle was instrumental in predictions of cooling in the '50s and '60s.

Solar forcing is also measurable. The cycles experienced by the sun are somewhat regular and predicable. We are currently at a low point.

see: "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich.

NOAA: "Detection and attribution (“D&A”) studies attempt to represent an observed climate data set as a linear combination of the climate signals (“fingerprints”) arising from different forcing factors and the noise of natural internal climate variability."

Sounds like they do consider forcings other than CO2.

Tim in Vermont: How do we do this? Why simple, we look at the signature that CO2 induced warming would produce. That'll do it, problem solved! Except, and you know what is coming next, the signature has not been found.

Some predictions possible:
Factor: -surface -troposphere -stratosphere
Solar: -warming -warming -warming
volcanism: -cooling -cooling -warming
GHGs: -warming -warming -cooling
Ozone: -warming -warming -slight cooling
SO4: -cooling -cooling -none
Aerosols: -cooling -warming -????
Land use: -cooling -???? -none

We are currently experiencing what is predicted by GHGs and to a lesser extent, Ozone. That looks like a signature.

"2. The thermos is of course an analogy. Since the IPCC scenario has a flat earth absorbing a constant amount of radiant energy, the temperature of this surface stays constant, thus simplifying the matter of how energy is distributed from that point on. Hot coffee in a perfect thermos would have a constant temperature too, you see. But greenhouse physics proposes that the energy re-radiated back to the radiating surface raises its temperature. Thus again coffee in a thermos: Does reflecting the infrared emitted by the coffee raise its temperature? No. Some abstract thinking is demanded to grasp the parallel, though. And, it seems, some knowledge about how a thermos work."

Sorry, but there is a difference between a thermos which has a preset temperature and does not receive nor radiate energy and a system where the amount radiated is equal to that received. In the latter, the balance can be changed by either changing the amount received or radiated. The analogy is terribly flawed.

"In other words, "greenhouse gases" do not "hold heat in"

As explained in another post, GHGs do indeed reduce the amount of heat radiated into space. If they did not, the Earth would have temperatures similar to the moon (slightly modified by the ability of water to retain heat longer than atmosphere).

The analogy sucks.

Tim in Vermont: Funny. :) No problem mate. Thanks for the insight into reality-denial.

As for me, I'll go with the science, if that makes me a 'closed mind', so be it. Some people keep their minds so open their brains fall out...

"As for me, I'll go with the science"

I was looking for the first hint you actually understand "the science." Since you haven't, I will have to correct your sentence just a little bit, what you should have written is "as for me, I will go with what newspaper editors tell me the science is." I couldn't argue with that one.

As far as signatures go, the tropospheric warming which is supposed to be the hallmark of a GHG warming is a ORDER OF MAGNITUDE lower than that predicted by the models. Maybe it is measurement error, who knows, but there are two independent data sets that show it to be so. So they must both be wrong in the same way, which is what realclimate is now claiming.

As for my link to Watts, it appears to be incorrect. Watts seems to have misunderstood his data. This still doesn't produce a warming signature specific to CO2 however. When a skeptic gets something wrong, it seems like warmies can come out of the woodwork with logical arguments and peer reviewed studies, says something about all of the times that they can't.

No, I mean I'll go with what the scientists tell me the science is. I'm not so daft that I trust anything Murdoch's rags tell me.

But fine, whatever, just keep driving your SUV and saying "f*** you Jack, I'm alright" to the rest of the world. You might be OK in Vermont (I've no idea how high you are above sea level) but here in London I'm pretty screwed if sea level rises a metre or so. So thanks.

Funny that there don't seem to be many global warming deniers outside the USA isn't it? Funny that the rest of the world hates you too.

I can't be bothered with this "discussion" any more. You've already made up your mind that you're right and the climatologists are wrong, and I know I'm not going to persuade you otherwise. Just keep parroting out those denialist talking-points. Enjoy.

Tim: I don’t think those are the contentious parts of the hockey stick. If I was listening to an argument that if we remove some of the data the results change I would not be very convinced.

In regards to the signatures, I would say that on climatological timescales the predicted and measured are very close. If you have a reference for your order of magnitude I would appreciate you linking to it.

One of the most significant signatures is that of the stratospheric cooling as Gary pointed out above.

Regards,
John

Hi Ed: It has been a while since we talked last and I hope you are well.

I do not think your RE versus R2 argument would be a convincing one since Dr. Mann has claimed that the RE is the more appropriate statistic to use (whether it is not isn’t it another argument and not one settled with highschool math or physics). You can argue that both should have been reported and I would agree, but it does not change his results.

I was looking at the principle components since when the scientists get involved that is what they tend to look at. The GRL paper that M&M published looked at the PC statistics. Von Storch supports their criticism of the PC analysis. Even Wegman who is a strong supported of McIntyre’s focuses on the PC analysis. So to me that would indicate that is where the issue lies.

Now, there are legitimate criticisms of Mann’s work that I would support – i.e. sharing of data.

Regards,
John

Brian: Nice try, but you are quoting me out of context. I can agree with most of your statements above, however you left off some of what I said that changes the contexct. My full statement was “ in regards to IR the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 and thus no additional warming will take place.

As you yourself noted above, even if it was all saturated then there would still be warming.

Regards,
John

"No, I mean I'll go with what the scientists tell me the science is. "

Funny that you never quoted one or even referred to one.

'I can't be bothered with this 'discussion'"

What discussion? You stated your opinion without any supporting evidence, then slunk away. Quelle surprise.

"I don’t think those are the contentious parts of the hockey stick. If I was listening to an argument that if we remove some of the data the results change I would not be very convinced. "

Then you don't have a very good understanding of statistics. If I were to do a poll of 900 people and it said that 90% were going to vote for BHO, and I did five more polls each with a different sets of 900 respondents, and each of them showed more like 46%, would you not be very convinced if I told you that the first poll was a fluke and could not be trusted? Or would you stick with what you want to believe?

"Funny that the rest of the world hates you too"

Wow that hurts so much, I had no idea. Speaking of being hated, why is it that the US doesn't have home grown terrorism like you do in the UK? I wonder what it is about living there that makes Pakistanis hate you guys so much that they are willing to die killing you, yet here, Pakistanis and other Arabs seem to be able to get along just fine? Hmmm.

Tim: OK, lets say you took a poll of 900 people and a certain number said they were going to vote for BHO. You then exclude the 100 people from New England who participated in your poll. Would you expect your results to change?

Regards
John

John, sadly you steadfastly fail to address the issue. The fact that RE is in inappropriate statistic to use on its own, especially with non iid data is well established and not something one can ignore. Papers from as far back as 1928 have shown, for example, that RE professes to give a wonderful fit for rainfall versus inflation, this is very simple statistics, albeit maybe a little past high school.

Mann may claim RE is appropriate, but he has utterly failed to support that claim. Why don't you do just a little research and see if you can find support for RE alone. And to claim that it doesn't change his results is simply dishonest on your part, John. The R2 results show that his 15th century reconstruction lacks any statistical significance, therefore the statements in the paper are not supported by his data. Which part of making claims unsupported by your data don't you understand. And lets be clear John, Wahl & Amman 2007 which professes to emulate MBH accurately agrees that the 15th century results fail an R2 significance test.

But more importantly, once you carry out a test on your data (the R2 test) and it fails a test, you should report that test, especially if you use that exact same test on other parts of your data and publish it to support your conclusions. This is precisely what Mann did in MBH98. Not to do so is scientific fraud, deliberate falsification of your results. Further in that vein, MBH also tested their results by excluding some data, the Bristlecones in fact, and the results showed NO hockey stick as evidenced by their own results saved in the (now deleted) "Censored" and as replicated to a high degree of accuracy by others. Therefore the claim in the paper that their results were independent of the data selection were false and known by the authors to be false. These are once again simple, provable facts about the paper, and yet the AGW believers such as yourself simply cannot bring themselves to disavow the paper. Thus you tar yourselves as believers and supporters of fraudulent results and all your opinions are discountable.

Now, you want to tar skeptics with the inappropriate analogy used in the article addressed by the head post, but that is a strawman attack. Most skeptics have quite definitively repudiated the idea as it is interpreted in the excerpt. It is possible as a poster tries to point out above that the analogy has been twisted from its intention, maybe, maybe not, but as it stands, I don't think this piece is a valid criticism. Now lets see the AGW crowd disavow MBH and its like series of cherry picked studies in the same way, then we'd be making progress to a reasonable view of the evidence as we have now.

John,
You are grasping at straws. I am sure you know that. You have taken an example of selectively removing some of the data knowing in advance that the data you are removing is special in some way, and related.

A better example of the proper way to take the sample would be that each of the sample sets are randomly distributed accross the US, a uniform sample. This would be a more appropriate analogy to the tree ring series, since the bristlecone pines are not the only North American tree ring data available.

If they were, then of course, even if the methodology was foolproof, I would expect the results to change if I removed all North American data. The problem with your question is that it just doesn't apply.

The other problem is that you are investing the bristlecone pines with special powers as thermometers. If it were true, that would be fine too, but it is not. In fact, the trees were resampled not too long ago for a doctoral thesis, and the correlation with temperature has broken down since the original Mann sample, as would be expected if the tight correlation was a coincidence to begin with.

Ed: If you think that the issue of the RE versus R2 is critical take it up with Wegman. Wegman (who is certainly one of the biggest critics of Mann) does not even mention it in the executive summary of the report AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION. However he does comment extensively on the issue of the principle components.

In fact the only comment that Wegman makes in regards to it is in finding #9 where he says there is confusion over what the meaning of R2 is.

And as a final note you yourself admit that the issue is beyond highschool which is good enough to establish my main point.

Tim: to illustrate your point, you make up a poll that 900 people vote 90% a certain way and then make up 5 others that show 46% and then you claim I am grasping at straws?

My only point is that if you take data away your results will change. How much depends on the data and the analysis.

In regards to the BCP, please show where I have invested them with anything.

Regards,
John

John, you are engaging in "reason nullification." You seem to think that getting in the last word is the same thing as winning the argument. Fine, go ahead and have the last word. I can't really waste any more time trying to explain issues that you are clearly heavily invested in not understanding. I didn't mean to question your religion, and clearly this is a matter of faith with you.

Tim: You seem to be taking this all far too seriously. Lighten up, it's only the Internet.

Your posts on this thread lead me to suspect that you know very well what the consensus of climatologists has to say about anthropogenic global warming, but you just don't want to hear it. You'll manage to nit-pick and weasel round anything I post, so why bother?

Oh and as for this: "I wonder what it is about living there that makes Pakistanis hate you guys so much that they are willing to die killing you, yet here, Pakistanis and other Arabs seem to be able to get along just fine? Hmmm." I guess you're talking about 7/7? One problem that some Islamists might have seen was Tony Blair's unflinching support for your Commander-in-Chief's War On (some) Terror.

But I have no illusions about the UK's popularity abroad (the UK came second-last in the Eurovision Song Contest, and only missing last altogether because the Maltese ex-pats voted for the UK's entry), and I don't harbour any delusions that 9/11 (or 7/7) was because "they hate our freedoms".

And as for home-grown terrorists -- ever hear of Tim McVeigh?

Tim: I am always interested in understanding points of view different from my own. However such points of view must be able to withstand critical scrutiny (just like science).

Regards,
John

John and Mark,

Science is not a democracy, just because you have 2500 IPCC on your side (BTW, a lot of them don't support the conclusions of the IPCC, some want stronger AGW statements and some want nothing to do with it) doesn't make your viewpoint the winner.

There is also a petition, which I am sure you know about, that has 31,000 scientists/engineers who think AGW is a crock - AND THEY ALL SUPPORT THAT Statement (as they signed it).

Does that disprove AGW - of course not. But it does make any attempt on your part to claim some scientific high-ground a crock.

After all, it is you (and AGW supporters) who are advancing the theory, thus you must prove that it is watertight. All AGW skeptics need do is poke one hole in it and it falls down!!

Most, if not all, AGW skeptics are not even advancing a theory, just poking holes in yours - and there are a lot of them.

If you really want to convince skeptics, then AGW proponents must honestly address all the issues.

Don't forget, there are a lot of big AGW supporters out there who STILL CLAIM SCIENTIFIC consensus. My god, man, if they can't even get something so simple right, how the hell do they expect any credibility on the actual science????

Frenchie: Please review all of my statements above and show where I made any claims about the IPCC or a consensus position.

Having said that I believe that a consensus exists but it is a scientific consensus that arises by a thousand individual scientists, each pursuing their own line of research, but each seeing how their little bit fits in with the whole. That is what is meant by scientific consensus.

And you are absolutely correct that all you have to do is poke one hole in the science and that part falls down (but it is just as important to admit that if you poke a hole in one part, only that part is affected, the rest stands).

However if you wish a target, there are always my three points.

1) We are responsible for all the current rise in CO2.

2) CO2 will absorb and re-emit IR.

3) Enhancing the IR to the earth's surface will cause warming or reduce cooling.

Regards,
John