In the meantime JWL has been discussing backradiation on the previous thread. It is an old argument which doesn’t have a lot of entertainment value for some of us. He has put together a pdf which alleges to prove that backradiation (radiation from cold to hot) is impossible in the climate system and has made the claim that nobody has critiqued his math.  I’m going to help him out.

What he does here though is completely circular reasoning.  We have two surfaces and a flow between them.  f is a variable representing absorption of the medium in between the two surfaces.  Surface one emits energy at a power Θ1 which is equal to σT1^4.  T is the plate temp and σ is a constant.  Now classic physics agrees that emission power is proportional to T^4 so there is no problem with that.   Lets look at the assumptions he makes though:

The heat transfer q from i->j is equal to the emission at i minus the emission of j in watts per meter squared.   The negative term in equation 1 is the exact magnitude we would expect of back radiation.  However, the author is already writing text that the back-radiation is non-physical.  How do we know?

We then proceed to the equations at the top of this extensive PDF. Figure 1a includes the emission now from a surface.  Joseph has apparently re-written the laws of physics for this as now the emission of the first surface to the second is equal to f(θ1 – θ2) where theta is the flux.  I asked how this equation came about and was pointed to equation 1.  Equation 1 though doesn’t say anything about the source of the flux, it only says that the sum of the flux is σ(Ti^4-Tj^4).  Of course that is not the assumption stated but the math doesn’t know anything about what assumption you state.  My question was and still is, how does the surface know to emit less energy when the second surface exists in a different timeframe? If the second surface vanishes instantly, does the first return to emitting a proper amount of radiation?

Very confusing.

So then we proceed to the next section of the treatise.

So for system 1 we have in steady state – input = output or f(θ1 – θ2) = f θ2 which with some easy algebra is  fθ1 = 2fθ2.  In system 2 we have the same thing fθ1 = 2fθ2.  They are exactly the same.  Now for system 2 Joseph states that plate 2 of model B, having two hand drawn arrows, is emitting twice as much as the first.  But wasn’t the original assumption that plate 1 changed its emission based on some spooky knowledge of plate 2?  This assumption was based on nothing I can see but it included the plate 1 emission correction which happened to be exactly equal to the emission of plate 2 back to plate 1. He then concludes that B is non-physical based on absolutely NO evidence other than his original (and obviously false) assumption.

The logic is totally circular and the math for both cases is identical.

Joseph hasn’t made the claim that the second plate won’t absorb the photons from the first, he is making the claim that the photons don’t even exit the first surface.  As this example of heat is identical to two incandescent lamps, this is physically identical to stating that if you shine a bright light on a dim light the second will dim further.

Many real world examples prove Joseph wrong.  Lets assume though that most of us already know this and look at it from a spacetime standpoint – because it is also fun.

Each surface, from its own point of reference, sees the other surface as behind itself in time.  The amount each sees the other as behind (X) is equal to the time light takes to travel across the distance between the objects.  Imagine that one plate suddenly vanished.  The other plate wouldn’t realize it for X seconds and in Josephs world, would stubbornly continue to emit at a reduced level until it became aware of the vanished counterpart.  These reduced output photons would pass through the space where the first plate had been for a full 2X the number of seconds.  This is because the first plate would become aware that the second had vanished after (X seconds) and then began emitting a greater amount across the same distance (another X seconds)!  A sensor behind the second plate would see a reduced output for 2x seconds after the plate disappeared, followed by a sudden jump in brightness of the first plate.

Now imagine the plates were a light-day apart and you had enough time to stick a sensor between the surfaces.

That is unphysical in my book.

So many examples prove radiation does flow from cold to warm.  My favorite, presented here before, is one of an uncooled infrared camera looking at an image of ice. Now we know the camera’s sensor is room temp so if radiation does not emit from cold to warm, everything cooler than the camera sensor, should appear midnight black. As this video progresses the color scale shifts so the table – room temp – is significantly warmer than many other objects in the image.  Especially the edges of the ice.  The manufacturer seems to also believe the camera can measure to minus 20 C.   Much to the chagrin of AGW advocates (and Joseph), that would be well below room temp in my room.

Remember, light and IR radiation are the same thing.  Your flashlight does not change intensity when you shine it at the sun.  Nor does the sun, however the energy from the flashlight will interact with the plasma of the solar surface 8 minutes after you shine it.

After this, I am done with this topic.  I won’t mind trying to explain where people go wrong in their thermodynamics, but really this is very much elementary and life is short.  I have spent a good deal of time trying to straighten out this form of “skepticism” which unfortunately is flatly not reasonable.  However, some are honestly confused and when they read a bunch of math letters piled together with words, they can’t always understand what the author is saying.

EFFECT OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS AND CO₂ ON GROUND TEMPERATURE

Leonard Weinstein, ScD

January 17, 2012

The issue has been raised about the effect of the mass of an atmosphere on surface temperature.  It can be shown that if no optically absorbing gases, aerosols, or clouds are present in the atmosphere, that the average surface temperature will be determined by albedo, absorbed surface solar radiation (ignoring small radioactive heating effects), and outgoing thermal radiation at the ground level, and I will not discuss that issue here. The present discussion only considers an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and for simplicity only looks at the effect of CO₂ as a greenhouse gas. Only long time average global average values of temperature are considered, and only at long term constant CO₂ levels (i.e., transient responses are ignored).

Some simplifications are made here, as the complete analysis is complex, and requires accurate experimentally measured data values and assumptions that are not well settled. The main simplification I make is the ground temperature sensitivity of the Earth atmosphere to increases in atmospheric CO₂ levels. Values from less than 0.5 C/doubling to over 4 C/doubling have been suggested as the result of CO₂ increase plus all feedback effects, However I am only describing the CO₂ effect independently here, and this has been shown in most studies to give a surface increase of about 1.2 C/doubling of CO₂, ignoring all other effects.

I use here is a mean virtual temperature, T_v~250 K that is based on an average temperature between sea level and approximate average location of outgoing radiation to space. This is an approximation, but its exact value has little effect on the comparison shown later. In addition, I use the wet lapse rate (as found in our lower to mid Troposphere) of -6.5 C per km height, even though I ignored the feedback effect of water vapor and clouds in the atmosphere to simplify the analysis.

In an atmosphere, the height from ground to a particular pressure level can be found from the following equation:

 The value of H, which differs somewhat for different lapse rates, is called the scale height, and is the height where the pressure decreases by a factor of 1/e. I am using here the value of H ~29.3T_v for Earth’s atmosphere (based on the actual measured average atmospheric gas properties and Earth’s gravity), so combining this with the value of T_v   selectedgives H~7.33 km. Changes in this value would be small enough for different assumptions that it would not change the basic result shown here.

I now examine two simplified cases:

1.  The case of a surface pressure of 1 bar (Earth’s actual value), with present amounts of CO₂ (390 ppm), and with the effect of other greenhouse gases, aerosols, or clouds having a constant effect that is independent of atmospheric mass or changes in CO₂, and assuming the same albedo as at present.
2. The case of 2 bars surface pressure, with the same total amount of CO₂ as case 1, but with an added equal amount of a mix of N₂ and or O₂, so that the average specific heat and molecular weight of the atmospheric gases are the same for 1 and 2. The greenhouse heating effect of other greenhouse gases, clouds, and aerosols are considered to be exactly the same as case 1 to separately show the effect of CO₂ alone, and the albedo is still the same as in case 1.

The total effect of the present amount of CO₂ alone on an increase in temperature above the no-greenhouse gas for case 1 is not accurately established, with estimates for CO₂ alone from 5 C to 15 C as compared to the 33 C estimated total greenhouse effect with all gases, clouds, and aerosols. Since some of the CO₂ absorption and radiation wavelengths overlap some of the water vapor wavelengths, the effect of CO₂ in the presence of water vapor is even less addition than if considered alone. I am examining the effect of only CO₂ here. I use an estimated value of the total CO₂ effect of 10 C for the present amount as being reasonable (the exact amount is not important as long as is significantly larger than the effect of one doubling). If case 1 has the same mass atmosphere as the present atmosphere, except the concentration of CO₂ was 0.5 times that of the present (195 ppm), this would have resulted in a reduction of surface temperature of 1.2 C for the lower concentration, ignoring feedback. Case two does has half the concentration of case 1, but also has twice the atmospheric mass, so the total mass of CO₂ is the same for both case 1 and 2, and the only difference is atmospheric mass (and corresponding thickness) of the total atmosphere.  The question is: what does this do to surface temperature?

The atmosphere is considerably thicker for case 2 than case 1 due to having twice the mass of gases, and this raises the altitude of some of the (assumed well mixed) CO₂ a considerable amount. A simple analogy to see the effect is that if a thin unmixed layer of CO₂ containing all the present CO₂ mass in the present atmosphere were forced to lie close over the surface, and most of the atmosphere above it had none, the greenhouse gas effect would only raise the location of outgoing radiation a short distance above the surface. Multiplying the average outgoing altitude by the lapse rate would result in surface temperature increasing only a fraction of the 10 C presently possible for mixed atmospheric CO₂. While the gases would mix eventually up into the atmosphere, this point shows the effect of altitude of the greenhouse gas as also being a factor.

The equation for the relation between pressure and height for p₁/p₂=2 gives a value of (Z₂-Z₁)=5.08 km. Thus the pressure at 5.08 km for case 2 matches the surface pressure for case 1. The fact that a 0.5 change in CO₂ would only change surface temperature 1.2 C implies that it only changes the average location of outgoing radiation by 1.2/6.5= 0.18 km if that were the only factor considered. However, the total change of 10 C possible for all of the CO₂ alone implies the average altitude of outgoing radiation to space for all the CO₂ alone was about 10/6.5=1.54 km. This is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the change due to a 0.5 change of CO₂ (i.e., it is the result of the exponential response).

We thus have case 2 with only 0.5 the CO₂as case 1 in the lower 5.08 km of atmosphere, but where it has the same total mass of the entire case 1 atmosphere. However, we have on top of that, additional atmosphere with the same total mass of atmosphere as all of case 1, and also with 0.5 the CO₂ as all of case 1. This upper layer would be as thick as the entire present case 1 atmosphere. If the upper layer absorbed and radiate all portions of wavelengths absorbed and radiated in the lower 5.08 km, this upper portion alone would have a location (for CO₂ alone) 1.36 km above the 5.08 km level where outgoing radiation occurred. The actual solution of the resulting average altitude would require a full radiation analysis, and is not as high as that oversimplified version. However, it is clear that a thicker atmosphere, even without increasing total greenhouse gases over the thinner case, would have increased surface temperature due to the increased average altitude of outgoing radiation. It is also true that it is not the mass or pressure of the atmosphere alone that causes the increase, it is the combination of average altitude of outgoing radiation and lapse rate, and the increase in mass of atmosphere would raise the average location of outgoing radiation by virtue of thickening the total atmosphere. The final increase in surface temperature is the product of average outgoing altitude (including from the ground, greenhouse gases, clouds and aerosols), and lapse rate.

Let this be a lesson to new bloggers, it is a trap!

Tom’s blog (3000quads.com) is here and linked on the right.

In response to recent discussions, I’ve taken the time to download the 2.8 gb of data required to plot sea ice.  I found a far better software for video creation called virtual dub.  And I rescaled the graphs so that the Arctic and Antarctic are plotted on equal grid scales.   The pixel resolution is 25km and the satellite ice data comes from the NSIDC Sea Ice Concentrations as collected from the Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I Passive Microwave systems.   This version represents just a few years of the total dataset and is similar to my previous publicaitons.   You may note the higher resolution and frame rate than my previous work.   Currently, I’m compiling the complete video for publication tomorrow.      The purpose of the project is to first visually see if 2009 – 2011 which is not shown here, has similar weather patterns to 2007.  Also, I hope to add sea surface temperature and flow directions to the video – both of which will probably add to our understanding of the sea ice situation.   If I’m lucky, there may be some stats to follow as well.

High speed September 2004 to present:

It is a call to action to limit black carbon emissions, a far more sensible thing to attack than CO2, but the article is so insane that I simply refuse to accept that anyone in the world believes it has any attachment to reality.

The Abstract:

Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC) contribute to both degraded air quality and global warming. We considered ~400 emission control measures to reduce these pollutants by using current technology and experience. We identified 14 measures targeting methane and BC emissions that reduce projected global mean warming ~0.5°C by 2050. This strategy avoids 0.7 to 4.7 million annual premature deaths from outdoor air pollution and increases annual crop yields by 30 to 135 million metric tons due to ozone reductions in 2030 and beyond. Benefits of methane emissions reductions are valued at $700 to $5000 per metric ton, which is well above typical marginal abatement costs (less than $250). The selected controls target different sources and influence climate on shorter time scales than those of carbon dioxide–reduction measures. Implementing both substantially reduces the risks of crossing the 2°C threshold.

You have got to be completely insane to imagine that a 0.5C warming or the associated pollution will kill a minimum of 700,000 people per year. This is what passes for peer review?!

Jesus…

There is simply no shame in these people’s makeup.  Have you ever witnessed such incredibly blatant and false scare tactics? This actually went into a journal.Perhaps if this is the standard for the AAAS science magazine, it should rename itself Charmin.

The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.

We wouldn’t want anyone pointing out that flawed Steig work was being used as a poster boy for global warming until after it was too late right?   After all, Soon and Baliunas needed to go because its method was flawed, not because it was an anti-AGW result.  I’m sure that the Berkeley temperature study will also be treated similarly.

Sea ice is above average.   Despite my belief in CO2 global warming’s effect, I really don’t believe it has had any scientifically discernible impact on sea ice.  Nutin!!  Now we still believe ice does melt from warmth, at least I don’t think  Climate Science™ has changed that yet (apparently thermometers still have branches), but you need a lot more than a few degrees to melt an Earth pole. The same Sun hating environment that makes Star Wars planet Hoth look like a friendly beach resort.

I’m thinking that after I turn in the useless tax-payer sucking 501C we’ve been discusssing, to no useful effect, I’m going to write a letter to god and turn in the planetary poles for not listening to the government.  God put us on Earth for a reason, and if Earth doesn’t realize it we ought to do something about it.

Yup, still in a funk….

I’ve been so frustrated with the constant untruths in media and climate science that it is hard to post anything.  Last night I spent a few hours quietly looking back at Ljungqvist 2010 proxies and will likely have a post in the next day or two on that.  It seems somewhat removed from the out-of-control political idiocy disguised as science.  Numbers are calming.

Anyway, check this out.  It is worth a read.

The Wonderful World of Wikipedia

Posted on January 10, 2012 by James Padgett

Guest post by James Padgett

As many readers are aware, the culture surrounding the climate change topic area of Wikipedia has been a microcosm of climate science for nearly a full decade.

This is not a compliment.

When you read the Climategate emails and see discussions of finding people to investigate and discredit your ideological opponents –  that is Wikipedia. When you read about the IPCC’s usage of the WWF and students in composing their Climate Bible (KJV) – that is Wikipedia. When you read about “climate scientists” conspiring to get other scientists fired for challenging the orthodoxy – that is Wikipedia.

In short, Wikipedia does not care about truth, and certainly not doubts, it cares about message.

Read the rest at WUWT.

First, here is an article by President Peter Gleick on PIS letterhead specifically critiquing policies of conservative presidential candidates. climate_bs_award_2011[1]

Gleick is an extremist political activist by any form of the definition you care to propose.  He’s written numerous left wing propaganda pieces on the ‘green’ blog which are so full of pro-leftist disinformation that communist countries probably look to him for his expertise.  Now there is nothing inherently wrong with an organization promoting untruths for a political goal, the 501c’s are a leftist heaven for such things.  There are also conservative versions, but far, far fewer of them.  Conservatives don’t believe in taking government money for these things.  The result though has been a huge imbalance in funding for truth in science rather than the pro-government, pro-AGW, type messages.  Thus, it seems reasonable that we should shine a little light on them here.

Unfortunately for Gleick, he’s taken the process a step further in this years climate BS awards. Instead of complaining about those amazingly stupid conservatives, he’s actually taken the time to name and critique Republican presidential candidates for their positions on global warming.  This was in the last post but is worth reproducing here:

Climate B.S.* from all of the Republican candidates for President of the United States
Is it really necessary to be anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, in order to be nominated to lead the Republican Party in the United States? Apparently, yes, at least in the minds of the Republican presidential candidates or their advisors. These candidates can be split into three groups: those ignorant or uninterested in science and its role in informing policy; those who intentionally distort science because it conflicts with deeply held political or religious ideology; and those who blow with the wind, giving their allegiance to whatever ideology seems most expedient at any given moment. There is some overlap, of course: some candidates, such as Rick Perry, have been in all three groups at various times. The third group includes candidates who have at one time or another held positions more or less consistent with scientific understanding, but who in 2011 adopted anti-scientific positions during their primary campaigns. For example, Gingrich, Romney, and Huntsman, at some point in the past all expressed at least a partial understanding about the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change. Yet all three have now retreated from the scientific evidence to faulty but ideological safe positions demanded by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In October, Romney caved in to conservative pressure and changed his stance on the issue. Just days ago, after pressure from anti-climate-science activists, Gingrich cut a chapter on climate science from a book of environmental essays he had agreed to produce. Ironically, that chapter was to have been written by an atmospheric scientist (Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University) who happens to be an evangelical and speaks regularly to conservative groups. She was also targeted by these activists for personal abuse – a tactic often pursued by climate deniers and contrarians. (For a few of the craziest things the top GOP candidates have said on climate change, see Joe Romm’s recent essay at Think Progress.)

In short, the choice among the Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, distain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the Republican candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? They win hands down.

The worst part of the above for my heart, is listing Activist Joe Romm as an honest broker of science.  The guy doesn’t have a scientific cell left in his body. They have all atrophied to raisins under his need to be green no matter the evidence.   Seriously though, 501C’s are specifically prohibited from participation for or against any politician.   This violation of their tax free status cannot be tolerated but we have to report it and then it is up to the IRS to determine whether they should be properly prosecuted.   Steve McIntyre took the time to see how the PIS group filed last year and noted the boxes indicating that the group had not campaigned for any candidate in 2010. The above quote is from an article dated1/5/2012 so is the tax exempt group ok until 2013 when they will undoubtedly declare they are tax exempt for 2012?

Here is a list of rules from the US government regarding 501C (3) corporations:

  What puts a 501(c)(3) status in jeopardy?
When a 501(c)(3) does not file paperwork with the IRS and/or state or misstates its records intentionally, its tax-exempt status can be jeopardized. Additionally, 501(c)(3) organizations cannot engage in the following activities:
• Conducting extensive lobbying;
• Donating a substantial private benefit to individuals or other organizations for uses not aligned with the organization’s 501(c)(3) purpose;
• Providing outsiders or insiders with personal benefits;
• Engaging in any political activity; and
• Having excessive unrelated business income (UBI).

Joe Romm may want to read up on these.

Cornell University actually lists the code.  You can read it in full here.  In the meatime, it looks like many 501c’s are way over the line for what they are allowed regarding their tax exempt status.  Since some formatting came with the text, I’ll put my bold in color below

(a) Exemption from taxation

An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401 (a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.

(b) Tax on unrelated business income and certain other activities

An organization exempt from taxation under subsection (a) shall be subject to tax to the extent provided in parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter, but (notwithstanding parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter) shall be considered an organization exempt from income taxes for the purpose of any law which refers to organizations exempt from income taxes.

[snip]

(c) List of exempt organizations

The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):

(1) Any corporation organized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of the United States but only if such corporation—

(A) is exempt from Federal income taxes—

(i) under such Act as amended and supplemented before July 18, 1984, or

(ii) under this title without regard to any provision of law which is not contained in this title and which is not contained in a revenue Act, or

(B) is described in subsection (l).

(2) Corporations organized for the exclusive purpose of holding title to property, collecting income therefrom, and turning over the entire amount thereof, less expenses, to an organization which itself is exempt under this section. Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (25) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property around the world. The scientific evidence for the accelerating human influence on climate further strengthened, as it has for decades now.

The only time that I know of where climate didn’t change was when Michael Mann invented it. Of course that lack of change is the point of the hockey shtick handle but we will beat that slow-witted monkey on the head some other time. What makes this stink to high heaven is that this PAC is not a political action committee.  It is rather, one of thousands of left wing 501c money funnels which operate tax free while simultaneously pushing a pro-government control high taxation agenda.

After the last US presidential election,  thinking people should not be surprised to see yet another violation of the law ignored by the liberal activists. What stinks is the lack of astonishment in the media.

This is the rule according to the IRS for a non-profit tax free entitiy:

My bold.

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

I have read thousands of examples of violations of this rule but this is by far one of the worst in my experience:

The 2011 Winner: Climate B.S.* from all of the Republican candidates for President of the United States

Is it really necessary to be anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, in order to be nominated to lead the Republican Party in the United States? Apparently, yes, at least in the minds of the Republican presidential candidates or their advisors. These candidates can be split into three groups: those ignorant or uninterested in science and its role in informing policy; those who intentionally distort science because it conflicts with deeply held political or religious ideology; and those who blow with the wind, giving their allegiance to whatever ideology seems most expedient at any given moment. There is some overlap, of course: some candidates, such as Rick Perry, have been in all three groups at various times. The third group includes candidates who have at one time or another held positions more or less consistent with scientific understanding, but who in 2011 adopted anti-scientific positions during their primary campaigns. For example, Gingrich, Romney, and Huntsman, at some point in the past all expressed at least a partial understanding about the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change. Yet all three have now retreated from the scientific evidence to faulty but ideological safe positions demanded by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In October, Romney caved in to conservative pressure and changed his stance on the issue. Just days ago, after pressure from anti-climate-science activists, Gingrich cut a chapter on climate science from a book of environmental essays he had agreed to produce. Ironically, that chapter was to have been written by an atmospheric scientist (Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University) who happens to be an evangelical and speaks regularly to conservative groups. She was also targeted by these activists for personal abuse – a tactic often pursued by climate deniers and contrarians. (For a few of the craziest things the top GOP candidates have said on climate change, see Joe Romm’s recent essay at Think Progress.)

Just in case you think there is some wiggle room for the political agnosticism of this activist group, the next paragraph in their “unbiased” and politically neutral article should clear it up for you:

In short, the choice among the Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, distain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the Republican candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? They win hands down.

Why is it acceptable for an obviously political organization to take literally millions in funding from government donors for the purpose of promoting extremist, left-wing, anti-capitalist propaganda?

The PAC group had $581,000 USD in donations in 2010 ALONE!-after tax.  What percentage came from taxpayers?

Agency for International Development $13512

Bureau of Reclamation $14,670

California Public Utilities Commission $25,808

Community Water Center $8,453

Department of Water Resources $73,716

Institute for Social and Environmental Transition $30,487

United Nation Global Compact Foundation $98,145

United Nation Water Mandate $11,198

United Nation Environment Program $32,782

University of Berkeley $ 19,137

State of California Environmental Protection Agency $18,107

Water Reuse $$38,811

It is absolutely sickening to understand that 66% (  $384,466 USD. )  of the revenues of this blatantly political organization are taken at literal gunpoint from American taxpayers.  The money is being DIRECTLY spent for political propaganda in a campaign year!  The ‘bosses’ work for this group part time of course, lining their pockets with a couple hundred K of candy while simultaneously working other committees.  After all, the board of directors must be paid.

How stupid are we!

Jesus………

Pound on more Mannian style math or random proxies, sure -can do, but why? Beat up on a little more Berkeley surface temperature studies, sure, can do. The data dicing is fantastic low hanging fodder. Again, why? Even Judith Curry has not responded to me on the simpler topic of CI. Not even a sentence. What is the point of wasting my limited time on these adventures if the geniuses won’t listen to reason. Beat up on the IPCC for reposting extremist crap? Sure, again easy fodder. How about “renewable” energy – the big anti-entropy lie. Fun stuff, but again why?

Tough times for a technical climate blogger. Lots of the same crap, trees ain’t thermometers, ice ain’t melting, sea level ain’t rising from CO2, no more hurricanes, Antarctic and Arctic ice will still be there, on and on and on. Why not shut down industry!?

There we go.

For example the executive summary of Chapter 5 discusses sea level rise:

Sea-level rise of more than one metre by the end of this century poses the single major threat to the coastal areas. More than 200 million people are already vulnerable to flooding by extreme sea levels worldwide and this population could be increased by a factor of 4 due to rising population and coastward migration, especially in Asia. New information is available on the likelihood of increased rates of ocean acidification. Although acidification is being addressed through international mitigation efforts, coastal policies need to address ocean acidification at the local and regional levels. More detailed and useful information would be required for the implementation of such policies.

Here is a plot of sea level not rising at 1m/century.

Perhaps Wikipedia’s conservative bias is preventing the proper sea level graphs from being posted.

Abstract

We present results from a new critical review of the atmospheric Greenhouse (GH) concept. Three main problems are identified with the current GH theory. It is demonstrated that thermodynamic principles based on the Gas Law need be invoked to fully explain the Natural Greenhouse Effect. We show via a novel analysis of planetary climates in the solar system that the physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a new Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.

Photobucket

It looks so perfect from a warm couch!

Happy Capitalist Extravagance Day!