the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The center of the internet got it right again.

Posted by Jeff Id on September 30, 2011

Alan Carlin covered here got a few points back.

From WUWT…….

Congratulations to Alan Carlin on vindication

While the GAO issues a report today saying that the US Historical Climatological Monitoring Network has real tangible problems (as I have been saying for years) the Inspector General just released a report this week saying that EPA rushed their CO2 endangerment finding, skipping annoying steps like doing proper review. The lone man holding up his hand at the EPA saying “wait a minute” was Alan Carlin, who was excoriated for doing so.

13 Responses to “The center of the internet got it right again.”

  1. Hi Jeff,

    WikiLeaks information suggests that the UN’s “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM) is but a fig leaf for wealth transfers from industrialized nations to poor developing nations, and much to my surprise, the story was published in Nature yesterday:“basically-a-farce”.php

    This seems to be a complete reversal of policy at Nature magazine, which banned me from posting comments on reports published there after I publicly called for the resignation of the editor, Dr. Philip Campbell, for publishing misinformation about the influence of Earth’s heat source – the Sun – on Earth’s changing climate.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. M. Simon said

    Were you there when A. Watts and the gang was going over that at CA? That was probably 3 to 5 years back.

    And how about sea buckets? That was fun.

  3. Jeff Id said

    Oliver, I did see that. Crazy that they took so long to find out.

    M. Simon, I wasn’t there when Anthony was at CA. It was CA though that got me started in climate. I’m very disappointed not to have time to mess with data this year. Next year is looking even worse.

  4. kim said

    The amazing combination of two absurdities, can’t use existing tools, and won’t succeed in the market otherwise, practically guarantees a flawed and fraudulent result. You could take creatures without an ounce of greed in them and get similar results. It’s institutionalized mishigas.

  5. stan said

    Climate science — all politics all the time. Fairly unbalanced with a severe tilt to the left.

    ‘Science’ is merely the convenient tool. It’s always been about the politics and the policy. Always will be. When and if the public gets truly convinced that the supposed ‘science’ is BS, the lefties will drop it cold and move on to the new lie of the day. And all the jilted ‘scientists’ who lose their funding will wonder why they weren’t respected in the morning.

  6. page488 said

    I remember the Alan Carlin issue.

    It seems to me that, thanks to internet blogs like this one, the ugly truth about EPA will be solidly revealed in short order (hopefully – I don’t have a lot of faith but would like to!).

    With a lot of perseverance and maybe a little luck, the “people” will unmask the ugly hydra of climate (people) control perpetrated by a very corrupt UN and its promoters (BIG Al Gore come to mind.)

    Thanks again for providing this site, Jeff.

  7. OFF TOPIC, but of interest, (especially if sound, needless to say).

    A Canadian with a physical engineering degree claims to found a hole in the climate models: non-dynamic parameterization. Specifically, after consulting some 20 textbooks on modeling, David Brooks says this:

    “My thesis could if necessary be reduced down to three sentences.
    1. General circulation models are strictly hydrostatic, in that they forbid vertical motion of air (apart from non-prognostic parameterizations).
    2. Warming by CO2 necessarily involves permanent reshaping of the vertical air column, which cannot be reflected in a strictly hydrostatic model.
    3. This leads to errors that are large in comparison with the forecast warming.
    That’s it. It’s almost like a compact syllogism. Models are hydrostatic, warming is not, therefore models of warming generate errors.”

    DOWNLOAD here:

    FROM Down Under, Warwick Hughes plugs the effort here

    The criticism he’s received thus far focus on denying the first premise.

  8. Brian H said

    JC visited and talked at MIT. Money quote:

    [faculty member] Ron Prinn related a very interesting story. Ron was a lead author on AR4 Chapter 2. He is a big fan of the Morgan et al. (2006) expert elicitation study on aerosol radiative forcing (mentioned on slide 30 of my talk), and in fact recommended to Morgan that he conduct this study. Prinn tried to get the Ch 2 group to include this paper in their chapter but they refused to. The argument was that they decided on their consensus approach, and didn’t want to confuse things with a different methodology (that happened to include a result whereby aerosol indirect effects in the 20th century might be -2.1 W m-2 or more, which is a value that is larger than the direct CO2 forcing in the 20th century (1.7 Wm-2).
    He was unable to get this study even included in the references, although he was a lead author.

    My bolding.

  9. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Orson Olson (Oct 2 12:05),

    The criticism he’s received thus far focus on denying the first premise.

    That’s because the first premise is highly misleading. On large scales, the atmosphere is hydrostatic. This is a fundamental premise of Physical Meteorology. That doesn’t mean that the atmosphere in models won’t expand as it warms. Also, if all vertical motion were forbidden, then you wouldn’t get Hadley cell and jet stream formation. But, of course, those features do appear in the models.

    The first principle of skepticism should be that if someone tells you he’s discovered something that thousands of scientists have somehow missed for decades, you should take it with about a ton of salt.

  10. Jeff Id said

    #9 I was asked to run the article several days ago by email. I read it and gave him some suggestions but in the end told him that I would be happy to put it up, just expect some critique.

  11. Sorry to arrive so late to the discussion. It’s great that my paper is getting attention, but of course these things go much better if they’re about the content of the paper and not about a brief summary of it — even my own brief summary of it.

    In the post quoted above, I was trying for the most succinct imaginable version of the argument, to inject a little humor into the discussion. Here’s a less succinct version that makes the problem a little clearer, and maybe will motivate people to read the full paper.

    The models do allow for circulatory motion to go between layers, and they do allow for individual layers to expand and become thinner. But when we study warming using a simple one-dimensional static density curve, we see a strikingly different result from what we see in the dynamic GCM.

    In the one-dimensional model, air is displaced by warming from near sea level and forced upward in the air column. Because of conservation of mass, the density values in the air column cannot go down everywhere. They fall lower down in the troposphere, but they rise higher up. There is a “density surge” that then has the effect of lowering temperatures higher up.

    In the dynamic GCM, the only possible method of transferring mass between layers is the circulatory motion. Convection is “virtual,” and does not involve actual mass transfers. The circulatory motion does not transfer sufficient mass from lower layers to higher ones to reproduce the effect we see in the static one-dimensional analysis. There is no “density surge,” as mass tends to stay in whatever layer it starts in. As a result, density falls throughout the troposphere, exaggerating the amount of warming in a physically unreal way.

    There are a host of additional consequences that then flow from this failure to move mass from layer to layer. One is that while water vapor feedback is positive in a dynamic GCM, it is plainly negative in a one-dimensional model.

  12. Jeff Id said

    As I understand it, Dean is continuing work on the topic so don’t be surprised to see an updated and improved version of the work down the road.

  13. Version 2.0 is up on my blog now. Among other things, it addresses Jeff’s helpful suggestion that I should include an estimate of the density surge using radiosonde data.

    Jeff, as it turns out, only very recent radiosonde data includes height data (based on GPS tracking). Older radiosonde data only includes pressure, temperature, and humidity. (A few radiosondes were tracked by radar, but in general they were not.) The usual practice was to use pressure and temperature to compute a height estimate against a static model of the atmosphere. Obviously if you want to track the density surge, and your premise is that the atmosphere is only quasi-static, that kind of circular calculation won’t do.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: