the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Big Journalism on Climategate

Posted by Jeff Id on January 8, 2010

An article describing some of the happenings from climategate. Patrick Courrielche was one of the journalists who was thorough enough to ask questions from everyone as to what happened and how things got started. He’s got a 3 part series running on the issue with answers from several of us ‘skeptic’ bloggers. It’s funny using the term skeptic when to my knowledge all the skeptic bloggers believe CO2 captures heat retards heat flow. He did a good job, maybe tAV got a little too much credit, but no problem there right😉. Check it out.

Peer-to-Peer Review: How ‘Climategate’ Marks the Maturing of a New Science Movement, Part I

Posted by Patrick Courrielche Jan 8th 2010 at 7:06 am.


33 Responses to “Big Journalism on Climategate”

  1. Mark T said

    What’s even funnier is that we are called “skeptics” in the first place. Aren’t all scientific endeavors rooted in skepticism first? Granted, you and I are engineers by education, but what drives us is still science. By definition, a scientist is a skeptic.

    Mark

  2. Jeff C. said

    Pretty good article, easy to understand for the layman yet sticks to the facts. It is amazing how quickly Brietbart has shaken up the establishment.

    Was the breach of anonymity your choice or were you outed? I hope it’s the former, but either way be prepared for the personal attacks. My neighbor runs a conservative blog and outed himself a few years ago. He’s a deputy district attorney and not a week passes where someone threatens to get him fired over his opinions. He’s protected by the First Amendment of course, but it’s a constant annoyance.

  3. Jeff Id said

    #2 The team already knows my name but it’s going to be pretty public anyway when we publish so I didn’t care.

  4. Viv Evans said

    Off to an excellent start, isn’t he!

    It is really interesting to read such an expose addressing people who have not been lurking or even commenting on the blogs named in this first part.

    I’m really looking forward to the next instalments.

  5. KuhnKat said

    Jeff Id,

    nit pick:

    “It’s funny using the term skeptic when to my knowledge all the skeptic bloggers believe CO2 captures heat.”

    Sure you want to say “CO2 captures heat?”

  6. Jeff Id said

    #5, How should it be worded?

  7. dearieme said

    I wish to register a complaint. He should really have shown the photo of Mann the other way up.

  8. Motorhead said

    Just wanted to alert you all that there is another raging climategate battle at

    http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14135617

    where this time it’s the director of the Consortium for Capacity Building at the University of Colorado stating that before we can point the finger at climategate, that we ought to see ten years of all the skeptics’ emails too. Quite simply put, for a scientist to use the ‘everyone does it’ defense… well, have a look if you wish.
    BTW, I’ve been in a number of battles with climate change alarmists and I frequently refer them to this site, Bishop Hill, Watts, CA, etc. The response I get almost every time is ‘they’re biased so not worth reading’.

  9. Jeff Id said

    #8, If CA is biased or tAV is biased, how can it happen with code and data provided? Nearly every hard core alarmist I’ve ever met has been dishonest when confronted with facts to the contrary. This is the only reason there aren’t links to their blogs on the right. RC isn’t honest, tamino isn’t honest, Joe Romm, Deep Climate, they all stink of the same agenda first methods.

  10. steven mosher said

    ya jeff.

    It was funny when MM05 came out Mann screamed fraud. How’s that Mike? all the data is there and the code.

    Anyways, beware the british police.

  11. Harold Vance said

    Michael Glantz (re: #8) doesn’t seem to understand that the skeptics have their conversations in public — typically in the comments sections in blogs. Anyone can read what they are saying to each other. Messages, data, methods, codes, etc. are generally shared freely. (It makes for fascinating reading, imho.) Full disclosure is built into the system so to speak. For Glantz to crow that private citizens should be required to disclose their already public work product is pretty ludicrous.

    I think that the old order (traditional peer review) is crumbling and that there are going to be lots of expressions of cognitive dissonance along the way.

  12. steven mosher said

    oh jeff dont delete the mails I sent you.

  13. Jeff Id said

    Ha, the big skeptic conspiracy right! We conspire to post the code and data. Just try and get McIntyre to post something not correct on purpose.

    I challenged him to do that jokingly on a thread once, just to see how long it would take to get caught. Every mistake I ever made here that I’m aware of get’s caught, and usually within an hour.

  14. […] in welcoming news the media is starting to turn, big journalism (aka MSM) is making some interesting statements. More scientists also are beginning to speak out about climategate, see WUWT discussing ,  I guess […]

  15. John F. Pittman said

    Jeff, don’t delete the emails I sent you.

    Another point is that many of the “skeptics” use their real names. One of the ironic juxtapositions has been the claim by alarmists that they were threatened with job loss, whereas skeptics get threatened with jail for crimes against humanity.

    Though I guess you do need to delete the posts where I disagreed with you and opined, based on the emails, that Dr. Briffa was trying to be upfront, and reasonable about the proxies. I don’t want you to send Mosher’s “torture and terrorism group for me.

    Wait, that’s the other side. lol.

  16. AMac said

    Re: #11, at Michael Glantz’s blog post, this just went into the moderation queue for position #5 in the comments.

    As far as the “show us your emails” challenge, this comment at the skeptical blog “the Air Vent” by Harold Vance might be of interest.

    “Michael Glantz doesn’t seem to understand that the skeptics have their conversations in public — typically in the comments sections in blogs. Anyone can read what they are saying to each other. Messages, data, methods, codes, etc. are generally shared freely… Full disclosure is built into the system so to speak. For Glantz to crow that private citizens should be required to disclose their already public work product is pretty ludicrous.”

    Link.

  17. Jeff Id said

    #15, Noconsensus even here 😉

    You, Carrick, Nic, Kenneth, the names are endless, all disagree with me at times, the difference is we don’t hide it.

    I suppose I’ll drag my butt over to Michael Glantz blog and check it out.

  18. kuhnkat said

    Jeff ID,

    CO2, and other GHG’s, absorb and emit infrared radiation.

  19. Tom Forrester-Paton said

    Nice – I shall in future try to remember to preface everything I write on climate with “please do not delete this email”, as a sort of electronic bumper-sticker. I urge all AGW sceptics to do likewise.

  20. DeWitt Payne said

    Kuhnkat,

    You also need to add that GHG’s are in local thermal equilibrium so that both the Boltzmann distribution and Kirchhoff’s Law (absorptivity equals emissivity) apply. Combine that with atmospheric temperature declining with altitude and you have the fundamentals of the ‘greenhouse’ effect.

  21. Jeff Id said

    #20, #18 so knowing all that, let’s work it into a coherent sentence without having to explain the fundamental principles. Captures heat, retards heat flow, maybe just increases temp it all works for me but maybe there is a better way.

  22. DeWitt Payne said

    Jeff,

    For a one liner, ‘retards heat flow’ works for me. It’s a lot better than ‘captures heat’.

  23. Jeff Id said

    I like it.

  24. Maurice J said

    The irony is that AGW “sceptics” have never had anything to prove, and it would not matter if they “lied” every time they said anything. The burden of proof has always been with the AGW “supporters” to provide “real empirical evidence” to support their “null hypothesis”, and they have never found any despite spending mountains of tax payer money looking for it. Falsifying the “empirical temperature record” to fit their “null hypothesis” is however another matter and should result in legal action against the perpetrators.

  25. Tom Forrester-Paton said

    Correct, Maurice J – The mistake made by so many warmistas is that it is the job of sceptics to present counter-theories to their own. It is not. What matters is whether AGW survives proper scrutiny, not whether those scrutinising it can do any better. It is up to the proponents of AGW to present their theories in the form of falsifiable argument. The Climategate emails and code reveal the excruciating efforts of the high priesthood of AGW to do just that, their continuing failure, and the lengths to which they went or were prepared to go to conceal their work, with all its inadequacies, from proper peer review. In other words, they knew they had a pup on their hands, and chose deceit over honesty.

  26. hro001 said

    Tom Forrester-Paton #25 said:

    “The mistake made by so many warmistas is that it is the job of sceptics to present counter-theories to their own. It is not. What matters is whether AGW survives proper scrutiny, not whether those scrutinising it can do any better.”

    BINGO! And that is only their first mistake! I’m a relative newbie to the “climate wars” but, from what I’ve seen, the alarmists/warmistas invariably compound this fundamental error of commission by the invariable error of omission indicated by their handwaving “holier than thou” dismissive “arguments” against those who have the temerity to question them!

  27. Pa Annoyed said

    I think the most correct way to phrase it would be “contributes positively to surface temperatures.”

    I’ve had this argument before, and I don’t expect to persuade anyone any better this time round. But CO2 cannot ‘trap’ heat, because convection carries it away if it builds up. It doesn’t ‘retard’ heat flow, because the long-term average net flow of heat is the same at every level: the same as the power input from the sun. A sustained one Watt imbalance anywhere would be one Joule per second or 31.536 Megajoules per year. The energy balance within the atmosphere is exquisitely precise.

    The Greenhouse Effect consists of the combination of the convection-driven adiabatic lapse rate setting a gradient, and the average altitude of emission to space setting the intercept of a linear relationship between temperature and altitude. All the “trapping” mechanisms would result in an exponential relationship. The exact same Greenhouse Effect cools the upper troposphere to -54 C too, far below the ‘grey-body equilibrium’ temperature, and that cannot be explained by any sort of ‘retardation’ or ‘capture’ effect.

    But at this point in the debate I’m inclined to say “Whatever.” Phrase it as you please. We all knew perfectly well what you meant.

  28. Jeff Id said

    #27, In my way of thinking, it’s accurate to say CO2 retards heat flow. The heat builds in the lower atmosphere until the equilibrium is reached again and entropy balances. Individual joules of energy therefore, necessarily spend more time in the lower atmosphere. The emission altitude is modified by this for sure and convection plays a mitigating role by physically transporting heat which would in a non convective atmosphere only be able to exit through radiation back through the entire atmospheric thickness.

  29. Pa Annoyed said

    Jeff,

    OK, the temperature in the atmosphere as a function of altitude is a straight line, so it’s reasonable to suppose that the temperature is controlled by the same mechanism throughout. Yes? So how does the retardation of heat flow explain the -54 C temperature of the upper troposphere? Surely it should be -24 C up there, or whatever you calculate the radiative equilibrium temperature to be? That the average temperature of outer space.

    Incidentally, what do you mean by “individual Joules”? The temperature rises and falls every day, as sure as day follows night. Air rises and falls turbulently and continuously. Are they all the same Joules?

  30. Jeff Id said

    #29, The emission altitude must be lower than the stratosphere as the mean travel length of re-emitted energy from the atmospheric gasses is non-zero. Therefore the -54 is entirely a non-issue.

    The second point is there is a joule per second rate from ground to space. This is separate from the total number of joules contained within the temperature of the atmosphere. If you have slightly retarded emission, the heat builds in the lower atmosphere until the warming rebalances the flow with the cooler outer atmosphere. This build up of heat means that a unit of energy spends incrementally more time in the atmosphere before re-emission. Thus the heat flow is retarded, there is no continual build up or anything crazy like that, just a bit of warming.

    I think of it as an increased probability of interception with a CO2 molecule which is of course re-emitted a variety of ways. The net result is that it slows the eventual progress of the energy to space.

  31. Jeff Id said

    #29, for some reason your posts keep going into the cialis bucket, I don’t know why.

  32. Pa Annoyed said

    31. Me neither. I didn’t mind.

    30. I don’t understand your first point. The entire +14 C to -54 C range occurs entirely within the troposphere, all along the same straight line, where the emission takes place. I don’t see what the stratosphere has to do with anything. And since the travel length of radiation cannot be negative, of course its mean is non-zero. How does that restrict where it is emitted from, or address the relevance of colder temperatures than can be explained by trapping arguments?

    My point was simply that being on the same straight line, the mechanism controlling the +14 C surface temperature was obviously related to the mechanism causing the -54 C upper troposphere temperature, but that the latter is unexplainable by any sort of ‘blocking the outward flow of heat’ model. It’s a different bit of physics.

    But I’m clearly not making any progress, and I don’t have the energy right now to pursue the argument any further. I’ll not waste any more of your time. But thanks for listening.

  33. Jeff Id said

    #32, On the first point, you say -54 in the lower troposphere instead of lower stratosphere, it doesn’t make any difference. As far as I know, the effect is perfectly consistent with heat retardation and CO2 warming.

    If you have a more refined point, I’d like to hear a better explanation when you get time. We try to learn here as much as anything.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: