Part 3 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Alrightie then, time to get back to my debate with Will H the ClimateDepot acolyte.  I'll give him credit he held up a spirited debate in the comments of my first post, even if he did constantly repeat himself while steadfastly ignoring all the information I tried offering.  His next to last couple comments I held in moderation since I didn't have the time and I believed they deserved their own posts as I wrap up this particular debate. I'm splitting this comment into two because I'm using this opportunity to share the extensive outline of Professor Archer's excellent online lecture series explaining the fundamentals of global warming - "Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast" / University of Chicago.

Will H.  at 5:00 PM, Oct 26, 2015

Will wrote: "Concerning: "But you do realize both processes are at work? Right?" You already yourself posted an excerpt form a Wikipedia article which agrees with me. The warming of a real greenhouse is all explained by a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiative greenhouse effect. Experiments were performed near the beginning of the 20th century that showed that whether the glass passed or did not pass LWIR radiation did not effect the temperature in a greenhouse. There is no radiant greenhouse effect. "

______________________

Will won't grasp the fact that it is understanding our atmosphere's gases and their interactions with the sun's incoming radiation and outgoing infrared radiation - along with their impact on Earth's climate conditions - that's the critical issue.

He'd rather play gotcha with silly analogies that ignore real world interactions.  As for claiming "there is no radiant greenhouse effect", how in the world does Will think the sun's heat get's into the greenhouse to begin with?  

___________________________________________________

Will continued:  "I watched the videos concerning climate history. It is true that warmer climates coincide with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It is well known that warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 so there is a reason for it." 

______________________

A fanciful combination of facts, but Will's implication underscores his disconnect from the real physics of the world out there.  Yes warmer water holds slightly less CO2, but our increasing atmospheric concentrations far outweighs the ocean's slight reduction in holding capacity.  It seems Will expects us to ignore that society is injecting over 2 gigatons month after month after month.  
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov
(Will is also lost when it comes to appreciating the difference between deep geologic time and the human societal time frames current AGW is occurring within.)    

#2 - Matt Ridley let's debate your "cheerleaders for alarm"

Matt Ridley this is the second installment of my review of your blogpost What the climate wars did to science where I describe the various failures in your arguments.  Last week I contacted you about the first installment and to offer a formal invitation to debate.  But, you've remained silent.  
(Admittedly Matt, I can appreciate that hiding from my intellectual challenge, like Jim Steele does, makes more sense than joining the debate in a fair and square manner and revealing how bankrupt your arguments are - still the invitation remains.)

Now on to considering your "cheerleading for alarm" section.

______________________________

Policy-based evidence making is all too frequent in climate science

By Matt Ridley |  The "Rational Optimist.com" |  Published on Sunday, July 05, 2015
Part Two ±450-935 (out of 5950 words)

Matt Ridley:  Cheerleaders for alarm. This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. 

__________________________

What precisely?  You define nothing!

"Cheerleaders for alarm" ? - Who, What, Where, When?

"climate debate" -  It's tough to get any more inclusive than that.

Then you pull the dirty trick of jumping from the nebulous "climate debate" to the "whole reputation of science."  Matt, where do you get off pinning what pundits have said onto scientists?  That's pure dishonestly!

By playing this game you allow yourself to smear any scientist with whatever nonsense you like.  Even though that nonsense never came from any real scientist to begin with.  

That's called fraud and has nothing to do with learning about the why and how of the scientific understanding that underpins the current global warming "consensus."

_____________________________________________

Matt Ridley:  The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses. 

______________________________

Matt, I suggest your "bad idea" is to tailor your sentences toward belittling scientists and rejecting their evidence without ever even considering that evidence.

Here you deliberately ignore the severe impacts that past climate changes had on the biological systems that had developed under their previous climate regime. 

Matt Ridley let's debate your "What the climate wars did to science"

{edited for typos and some minor additions 19:30 MDT }
_____________________________________

Matt Ridley I've been reading your "What the climate wars did to science" and I'll give it to you, it's one piece of work.  From the bizarre comparison of "Lysenkoism" with two centuries worth of climate science; to your championing that artful misinformer JimSteele (a person who regularly attacks scientists based on misrepresenting the facts, while hiding from debating the merits of his storyline.); then you pile on the malicious Dr. Parmesan slander campaign (while lying about what her paper actually says); etc.; finishing with that lofty plea to 'keep the debate alive'.  It really is too much, still I'm thinking you want a debate, Okay, let's have a debate!  

I believe I can explain why your words are such deceptive theater while outlining the difference between your brand of 'playing games for short term political gain' and scientists commitment to learning in order to understand reality as it is, rather than how we wish it could be.

I challenge you, Matt Ridley, to participate in this public "debate" by rationally explaining why you might disagree with my assessment.  I will post your comments unaltered - I'll even consider a "guest post" from you, if it contains a substantive rational response.

We'll see how it goes.  Since your blog post was six thousand words long and I have very limited free time these days, and people have limited patience, I'll be doing this is smaller segments.  Here I review your first 450 words.

Sincerely,

Citizenschallenge

________________________________________________

What the climate wars did to science
Published on Sunday, July 05, 2015, updated Sunday, July 05, 2015 
by Matt Ridley - at the so-called RationalOptimist.com  -  5950 words

Policy-based evidence making is all too frequent in climate science

complexity and confusion, and the public's Need To Know

As part of my 'process' I find good YouTube lectures to listen to and make short notes, listed by time signature, both for learning and as a nice relief from trying to communicate with contrarians -  also hopefully as a study aid for the curious.  Usually I post them over at citizenschallenge.blogspot.

In any event, I've been going through Professor Alden Griffith recent talk at Wessesley College and he said something that tied right into this dialogue with Ridley and his basic implication that the scientific community of experts should not be trusted and that somehow there needs to be some civilian scrutinizing of scientific claims and details. {yea, Ridley you never said it in those exact words, but buddy, that's what I'm hearing you say.} 

29:50 - complexity and confusion. . . "public should not have to know everything about climate science, just as we shouldn't have to know everything about medicine. We have doctors, we have people that we trust to do this, …"

Prof. Alden Griffith on Climate Change as a Perfect Storm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj0kWcurtOI

WellesleyCollege

Published on Jan 14, 2013

Alden Griffith, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Wellesley College

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

We have a global scientific community of people who got into science because they wanted to understand how things really worked in the world around them.  They have dedicated their lives to learning about our planet and it's biosphere and the geophysical processes that operate our biosphere and drive our climate system. 

Throughout the scientific community we have smart, skeptical, ambitious people who's work get's looked at by a whole community of other smart, skeptical, ambitious people… experts in their respective fields.

Precision and accuracy and clarity of description is prized and failures get discovered and outed.

A conversation with "Real" Science's "stevengoddard"

My previous Lindzen post was inspired by a video a commenter shared over at a blog that fancies itself "Real Science" - it's put together by someone who goes by "stevengoddard" but who really isn't Steven Goddard.  {But, it sure sounds great if you're going to try and impress people.}

In any event, this exchange does such a good job of underscoring the point I'm making, namely that the "Global Warming Science Denial Community" is dependent on rhetoric over science ~ as opposed to a constructive rational dialogue with learning as the main objective ~ 
that I've decided to share it.

More examinations of the DailyMail's, David Rose's disingenuous stories

A collection of articles examining the claims by "news reporter" David Rose.

We'll start this collection with a post by the official Met Office blog,  followed by a few more interesting articles examining the logic of David Rose

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”. 

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. 

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997. 

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data. 

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections. 

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record  for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun. 

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).  In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

This week’s top six rebuttals to David Rose’s “warming has stopped” claim

Examining David Rose's "no warming" Daily Mail Stories

Spending time sparing with climate science skeptics, I've had to listen to folks who have uncritically accepted David Rose's claims and are repeating them as if they were holy writ, rather than the sensation seeking creations of a biased reporter's imagination.  A reporter who's more intent on selling himself and News copy then objectivity looking at the evidence.  

The saddest part is how these science distrusting believers are guilty of every intellectual dishonestly they keep accusing professional scientists of.

I will not to presume to present Rose's claims and theory so I've linked to two examples.  Read his articles with some objective skepticism and then consider his claims in light of what serious scientists have to say.  

To help with that I've reposted an article from the folks over at SkepticalScience.com where they do a point by point examination that describes the many flaws in David Rose's reasoning and disingenuous conclusions.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 20:12 EST, 12 January 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html
~ ~ ~
The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along   
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 16 March 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 17 April 2013 by Rob Painting Key Points Global warming has accelerated, however most of this warming (over 93%) has gone into the ocean - the Earth's largest heat reservoir. An important development has been the uprecedented warming of the deep ocean in recent years. Most of the remaining…

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Dear Skeptic: What issues should be debated?

Dear Society Driven Global Warming Skeptic: Can you outline the issues that need to be debated?

Of late, skeptics such as Dr. Spencer, Anthony Watts, Mr. McIntyre, etc... et al.

Have been displaying great indignation that genuine practicing scientists and other climate experts refuse to "debate" with them.

~ ~ ~

In traveling around the blogosphere I read comments from many sincere folks who mirror Mr. Watts' vocal and melodramatic indignation over at WattsUpWithThat.com.