Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
American Thinker ^ | February 14, 2010 | Marc Sheppard

Posted on 02/13/2010 10:56:43 PM PST by neverdem

By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it.  In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented.  As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.

Of course, much will be made of Jones’s claim that the refusal to share raw temperature data was partially based on the fact that it “was not well enough organized.” And rightly so, as the very idea that the major datasets CRU released for use in vital anomaly and temperature reconstructions were based on data not “organized” enough to be made public reeks of fraudulent behavior.

Then there are the statements Jones made regarding relatively recent temperature trends which truly boggle the mind. 

Imagine a man who has spent the better part of the past 25 years toiling to convince the world of CO2-forced 20th-century warming now admitting that the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant. Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.

Yet as incredible as those concessions truly are, they pale in comparison to this response to a question about the significance of the Medieval Warm Period:
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Stop the tape.

Much debate?  So Jones now openly admits that the debate as to whether the MWP (900-1300 AD) was worldwide and warmer than any period since is not over.  He even went on to explain the implication of his admission:
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
Precisely, and yet, as director of CRU since 1998, rather than remedy the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution SH paleo-temperature records in order to establish the incredibly vital truth, Jones instead worked closely with those conspiring to remove the MWP from the climate history records altogether.

Why the subterfuge?  Perhaps a brief recap is in order.

As previously discussed here, prior to 2001, the similarly embattled U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's position on the prior millennium was that global temperatures had fluctuated drastically with not one but three radical shifts occurring over the period. The MWP – which was several degrees warmer than today -- was followed in circa 1300 by the abrupt cooling of The Little Ice Age (LIA), which lasted until approximately 1850. And then began the modern warming period, which was by no means unique and apparently ended with the millennium itself. 

As I wrote in December’s Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline:
But this image of a fluid climate system subject to abrupt and natural up-and-downturns made unprecedented 20th-century warming about as marketable as Florida swampland.  And opportunists who depended on the aberrance of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA but most certainly the MWP simply had to go.
And in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), that’s exactly what happened.  Both the Working Group 1 (WG1) report and the highly-politicized Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which invariably commands the bulk of media and political attention, prominently featured the now infamous “Hockey Stick” graph.


IPCC 2001 SPM Fig 1b

As you undoubtedly know, the graph, aka MBH98, has become the poster-child of the AGW propaganda machine.  Serving as the centerpiece for Al Gore’s sermon on the mounting dangers of human achievement in his 2006 sci-fi film, it has come to represent the mainstream accepted depiction of last millennium’s temperatures.  That is, trending downward prior to an abrupt upturn around 1900, coinciding with the atmospheric build-up of CO2 emissions brought about by the industrial revolution.  In AR4’s SPM, policymakers absorbing the striking visual were also treated to this declarative caption:
“[T]he rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries.  Similarly, it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.”
Despite repeated debunking, the embattled chart continues to languish in U.N. climate reports, its portrayal of unprecedented 20th-century warming a major sales tool to those wishing to influence everything from domestic energy policy to international “climate-debt” reparations. All based on the ostensibly “settled science” that the waste-products of mankind’s economic expansion are dangerously increasing temperatures and ultimately threatening the planet.

And yet, now Jones – who was a contributing author of the same TAR WG1 report which featured the fraudulent chart -- admits that the science behind it isn’t settled at all.  In fact, he even admitted that the MWP was “clearly expressed” in the Northern Hemisphere, which it certainly was.

Indeed, we know that, during the MWP, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to settle a then comfortably warm Greenland, where colonies flourished for many centuries.  Modern archaeologists digging through the island nation’s permafrost have uncovered bones and artifacts attesting to the villages established there early last millennium, as well as the grains that were grown and the livestock that were raised on the farms settlers tended.  We also know that it was the sudden drop in temperatures beginning around the mid-fourteenth century and the ensuing deep-freeze of the LIA that would mark Greenland’s climate reversal and paradise’s end for the intrepid Norse settlers.

But take another look at Figure 1b above, supposedly based on Northern Hemisphere temperatures.  Am I alone in noticing no “clear expression” of warming between 1000 and 1300AD?

How about here?  This was a chart of Jones’s own creation.  In fact, this is the same 2000 World Meteorological Organization report [PDF] cover chart Jones admitted to using a “trick” on in the now-famous “Hide the Decline” email.   It, too, represents the Northern Hemisphere.  Any sign of the MWP?   Hardly surprising considering that propping up their failing proxy reconstructions which eliminate the MWP was the primary reason Jones needed to “hide the decline” in the first place. 




Those still unfamiliar with the details of “Mike’s Nature Trick” can read my full analysis here.  In a nutshell, the Climategate conspirators found it necessary to terminate certain proxy-generated (from tree ring density measurements) series at the 1960 mark and splice on “actual” temperature readings (which we now know were themselves manipulated) to hide the fact that their proxies showed a decline in temperatures at that point.

It’s interesting that Jones told the BBC on Friday that he was “justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time.”  For however he spins it, the divergence between proxy and instrumental temperature readings after 1960 revealed serious design flaws in the proxy reconstructions. 

In December, I observed that such flaws challenge the entire regression analysis dating back to 1000 AD.  Given Jones’s admitted acceptance of at least a NH MWP, is there any doubt that neither of these two Hockey-Stick shaped NH graphs represents the reality of the previous millennium?  Or that Jones and company were fully aware of the fraud baked into them, as were the assorted U.S. and U.N. agencies that widely published and referenced them?

Both Kyoto II and the domestic cap-and-tax scams appear to be dead for the moment.  But, while any such move would likely be tied up in the courts for years, EPA head Lisa Jackson’s threats to proceed with carbon regulation remain very much alive. 

All of these schemes to control energy consumption while redistributing wealth rely on the same “scientific experts” to justify their price-tags -- likely measured in trillions.  And since the Climategate scandal broke in November, we’ve confirmed that very many of them – at NASA, NOAA, and even the IPCC itself -- have breached the standards of both science and ethics in order to advance their global warming political agenda.

But be that as it may -- the level of deception perpetrated by Jones and his co-conspirators at the Climatic Research Unit will likely remain the yardstick by which climate fraud is measured for years to come….

…And always remembered as the beginning of the end of the international AGW hoax.

Marc Sheppard is environment editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Environment Thinker.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: academia; agw; amazongate; carbontrade; climatechange; climatechangedata; climategate; fraud; glaciergate; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; globalwarmingscandal; globqalwarminghoax; ipcc; pachauri; pachaurigate; philjones
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 02/13/2010 10:56:43 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A bumpersticker sighted in the San Francisco Bay Area:

“Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but he sure did make up Global Warming.”


2 posted on 02/13/2010 10:59:58 PM PST by bethtopaz (www.rapturealert.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

self ping


3 posted on 02/13/2010 11:05:56 PM PST by Outlaw Woman (If you remove the first Amendment, we'll be forced to move on to the next one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bethtopaz

LOL!


4 posted on 02/13/2010 11:09:16 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction

Yeah, 'cause he's TOTALLY been front page news on every newspaper in America the last few weeks.
5 posted on 02/13/2010 11:11:22 PM PST by Question Liberal Authority ("My...health care plan is a Bolshevik plot... which will destroy America." - Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Where are the indictments for Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and the rest of the climate fraud conspirators?


6 posted on 02/13/2010 11:15:26 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If there is no greenhous effect there also can’t be a greenhouse gas.


7 posted on 02/13/2010 11:19:47 PM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

But be that as it may — the level of deception perpetrated by Jones and his co-conspirators at the Climatic Research Unit and in governments world wide, will likely remain the yardstick by which climate fraud is measured for years to come….

Knowing the level of fraud and deception, and the lengths to which its proponents were willing to go, should net the death penalty for all of the willing co-conspirators, and long prison terms for the enablers in the media.


8 posted on 02/13/2010 11:25:38 PM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bookmark.


9 posted on 02/13/2010 11:26:56 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Question Liberal Authority
Yeah, 'cause he's TOTALLY been front page news on every newspaper in America the last few weeks.

The spin is settled.

10 posted on 02/13/2010 11:29:55 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Of course, much will be made of Jones’s claim that the refusal to share raw temperature data was partially based on the fact that it “was not well enough organized.”

Hey, Barry. Here's a new one for you to use to explain why nobody's gotten any real biographical information on you.
11 posted on 02/13/2010 11:35:55 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

From CO2 Science:
Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week

Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 804 individual scientists from 476 separate research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from the Boniface River Area, Northern Québec, Canada. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.
Phil Jones is either willfully ignorant of or deliberately deceptive about the extent of research demonstrating the existence of the Medieval Warm Period.
12 posted on 02/13/2010 11:45:19 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

Both the Roman Warming (around 2 thousand years before the present) and the Holocene Warming Period (between 8 and 4 thousand years before the present of the current interglacial) as well as the previous 4 interglacial periods were all much warmer than this last bit of the current interglacial.
13 posted on 02/13/2010 11:55:12 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bttt


14 posted on 02/14/2010 12:08:53 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Sowell's book, Intellectuals and Society, eviscerates the fantasies that uphold leftist thought)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
BTTT!!!
15 posted on 02/14/2010 12:13:59 AM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Should have talked to your lawyer Phil. The AGW Elites will need a fall guy.


16 posted on 02/14/2010 12:18:08 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; SunkenCiv

Ping for perusal.


17 posted on 02/14/2010 12:56:30 AM PST by ApplegateRanch (I think not, therefore I don't exist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump


18 posted on 02/14/2010 1:15:54 AM PST by VOA (f)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

book it


19 posted on 02/14/2010 1:23:01 AM PST by pt17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch; Carlucci; grey_whiskers; meyer; WL-law; Para-Ord.45; Desdemona; Little Bill; ...
Thanx !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

20 posted on 02/14/2010 3:31:19 AM PST by steelyourfaith (FReepers were opposed to Obama even before it was cool to be against Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

21 posted on 02/14/2010 3:53:42 AM PST by cbkaty (I may not always post...but I am always here......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

What a freaking moron. The time span he is talking about is barely the blink of an eye in the long history of the planet. To call anything that has happened in such a small time frame "unprecedented" is to live in a fantasy land.

22 posted on 02/14/2010 4:04:47 AM PST by lawnguy (The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cbkaty

Everyone knows that those who have proven that global warming exists are brilliant, intellectual, all-knowing,
objective scientists who love the earth and all mankind.

It’s all of you right-wing, knuckle-dragging, ignorant, bible-thumping, gun-toting, nazi, right-wingers who are conspiring to present information which is dishonest, deceitful, untrue and dismissive of the greatest threat to mankind that has ever existed.

Shame on you all!

/S/

IMHO


23 posted on 02/14/2010 4:11:41 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Both the Roman Warming (around 2 thousand years before the present) and the Holocene Warming Period (between 8 and 4 thousand years before the present of the current interglacial) as well as the previous 4 interglacial periods were all much warmer than this last bit of the current interglacial.

While I believe this is true, the issue at hand is that it is near-impossible to PROVE as true because temperature measurements were not widely kept, the instruments were crude (a few degrees here or there) and not worldwide. Also, our abiity to to uncover actual temperatures by reading ice cores, tree rings, etc is not precise enough for determining a 0.2 degree change.

The true fact here is that no warming is noted since records were kept and that there is no current way to tell what temperatures were in the past.

24 posted on 02/14/2010 4:15:39 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ripley

It’s all part of the new Global religion based on Pantheism. Forget the facts and data. It’s all a matter of “faith”, right or wrong.


25 posted on 02/14/2010 4:18:09 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP ( Give me Liberty, or give me an M-24A2!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’m really enjoying the unraveling of this hoax. There’s a certain smug satisfaction in seeing one’s analysis of this fraud vindicated after so many years of pointing out the obvious fallacies. After being thrown in a category described as “deniers, flat-earthers, kooks, big oil/corporate whores” etc., etc., it’s a thing of beauty to watch this “science is settled” theory go down in flames.

That being said, what I find truly beyond belief, is the number of “true believers” who refuse to even listen to what Dr. Phil Jones is admitting. Who refuse to acknowledge the stories of manipulated data, fraudulent studies, intimidation of opposing views.

The believers are having a classic case of cognitive dissonance. I’ve no doubt that 100 years from now this will be studied in psychology books. It easily could go into an updated version of “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”

The cult members are seeing their religious views questioned and refuse to see that the Emperor has no clothes. The closest I’ve seen a true believer come to an admission that perhaps he’s been hoodwinked, was after a discussion when a guy listened to what I had to say without any response or interruption, until finally, with a pained look on his face he said “Why are you so against clean, renewable, efficient energy?”


26 posted on 02/14/2010 4:46:24 AM PST by jsh3180
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsh3180

Apparently the BBC pension plans have been heavily invested in funds that are planning to own/administer “carbon credits.”

I wonder how many pension plans - union, government, private - have done the same thing?

They all have a vested interest in keeping the hoax alive. They have bet real money on the success of this criminal hoax.


27 posted on 02/14/2010 5:04:55 AM PST by maica (Freedom consists not in doing what we like,but in having the right to do what we ought. John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Hoax may be over but the power grab is not.


28 posted on 02/14/2010 5:09:59 AM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Forget those pawns! Which politicians who spent billions of tax dollars on this crap are going to prision.


29 posted on 02/14/2010 5:16:52 AM PST by Eddie01 (All we every really knew was it was crazy to be doin' it any other way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Global warming is a cult.


30 posted on 02/14/2010 5:33:50 AM PST by comps4spice (Obama = Going a long way in making Jimmy Carter look competent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
While I believe this is true, the issue at hand is that it is near-impossible to PROVE as true because temperature measurements were not widely kept, the instruments were crude (a few degrees here or there) and not worldwide. Also, our abiity to to uncover actual temperatures by reading ice cores, tree rings, etc is not precise enough for determining a 0.2 degree change.

The true fact here is that no warming is noted since records were kept and that there is no current way to tell what temperatures were in the past.


It's quite easy to demonstrate using various proxies. Besides, even noting the rise and fall of mercury in a thermometer is a proxy measurement of temperature. Here is a temperature record up to the end of the last glacial period



By the way, as far as ice cores go, ice transmits heat very poorly. The length of an ice core contains a history of the temperatures under which the ice was deposited. In the recent past this replicates, albeit at a lower temperature, the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.
31 posted on 02/14/2010 6:17:09 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
not worldwide

That's not really true. We don't really need the temperature to a tenth of a degree to decide if something was warmer back then or not. In Europe, we have evidence of human habitation showing up as glaciers recede - positive evidence of a warmer past. In Japan, we have a hundreds of years of court records of when the cherry trees blossomed, a much better temperature proxy than the bristlecone pine tree.

There are proxy variables for temperature that are provable sensitive to temperature (like the cherry trees, and unlike the bristlecone pines), and not subject to the cherry-picking selection fraud like the tree cores from Yamal. See: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

32 posted on 02/14/2010 6:22:40 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
An more comprehensive study of the Medieval Warm Period: Medieval Warm Period Project
33 posted on 02/14/2010 6:29:09 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
there is no current way to tell what temperatures were in the past.

That's going way overboard. The IPCC's problem with proxies is not they don't work, but that they were poorly selected and misused. For a discussion of proxy measures, which btw do reflect the worldwide scope of Medieval Warming, eg, Carbon 14 and oxygen isotopes, seabed sediment samples etc, see Unstoppable (Every 1500 Years) Global Warming by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.

34 posted on 02/14/2010 7:56:53 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jsh3180
There is a classic study, "When Prophecy Fails" that analyses the thinking of a doomsday cult. They sold all their belongings and gathered on a hilltop to await the end of the world, which obviously did not come. The study of how they reacted psychologically to this event is quite interesting. Many true believers found ways to "keep the faith" and just reset the clock.

Warmists will soon be saying, "Well even if the data isn't there it makes sense to save the planet anyway(Never exlaining why)," and ignoring the loss of the primary rationale for their mis-spent careers.

35 posted on 02/14/2010 8:06:42 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn; neverdem
"If there is no greenhous effect there also can’t be a greenhouse gas."

That's an unwarranted conclusion. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, which affects temperature in ways both positive and negative, in the lower atmosphere as well as the upper atmosphere.

The real question is not whether carbon dioxide is increasing, as it clearly must, but whether its greenhouse gas function is totally or predominantly masked by the overwhelming presence of water vapor.

36 posted on 02/14/2010 8:08:36 AM PST by NicknamedBob (If we did not believe we could not die, we would never do the things that make us immortal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob

37 posted on 02/14/2010 8:37:48 AM PST by listenhillary (the only reason government wants to be our provider is so it may become our master)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
bttt

It is going to get harder to sell here.- Kerry,Graham,Obama

38 posted on 02/14/2010 8:50:29 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
That's an unwarranted conclusion. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor,
Yeah, in a greenhouse. Otherwise where's the global greenhouse affect?

Or is normal weather no longer weather but renamed greenhouse instead?

39 posted on 02/14/2010 9:23:00 AM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Thanks for the links.


40 posted on 02/14/2010 10:04:23 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bethtopaz
“Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but he sure did make up Global Warming.”

its a great t-shirt also:


41 posted on 02/14/2010 10:07:18 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
"Yeah, in a greenhouse. Otherwise where's the global greenhouse affect?

Or is normal weather no longer weather but renamed greenhouse instead?"

The calculation of what Earth's temperature would be without an atmosphere is not a difficult one. This is called the black body temperature calculation. One calculates how much energy is absorbed versus what is retransmitted as heat.

The moon undergoes this unpleasant up and down of temperature, as it shares Earth's orbit, though not its rotational speed. Accordingly, the surface of the moon grows uncomfortably hot when in sunshine, and bitterly cold in darkness. I have not seen what the temperature range would be if the moon rotated in a twenty-four hour period, (but here's a discussion of that).

It is Earth's atmosphere that helps to moderate and to boost the overall temperature. The atmosphere operates as the "glass" of our greenhouse. Different components of the atmosphere affect the temperature to different degrees. Argon, for instance, has approximately four times the effect of carbon dioxide, but it remains a constant, as it is chemically inert.

As the chart above shows, carbon dioxide has an effect that seems ridiculously small for the amount of discussion that the matter has received. What the chart does not show is that the amount of carbon dioxide has been slowly increasing as carbon that had been sequestered in fossil fuels gets released. It really needs a third or fourth column to show the effects of increasing carbon dioxide.

But primarily what we do not know is the dependability of Earth's "thermostat"; the way that cloud cover moderates temperature.

It is known that an increased global temperature will pump more heat into the tropical systems that produce atmospheric moisture. What is not known is how this varies after it begins mixing with the atmosphere. All of the water in all of the rivers of Earth began as atmospheric moisture. Along the way it formed clouds and snow that reflect sunlight, as well as damp earth that absorbs it.

The calculation of these matters is still beyond our capability.

42 posted on 02/14/2010 11:31:21 AM PST by NicknamedBob (If we did not believe we could not die, we would never do the things that make us immortal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
The calculation of what Earth's temperature would be without an atmosphere is not a difficult one.

But we have an atmosphere open to space, held by gravity and that atmosphere expands and contracts. Do you have any idea of how they deal with that? Is it valid to treat the atmosphere like a bomb calorimeter?

IIRC, the cause of this headache is that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun, but that infrared radiation corresponds to rotational and vibrational frequencies of the carbon - oxygen bonds within CO2 molecules. But isn't increased temperature supposed to be proportional to the increased, random velocities of the molecules in the atmosphere? How is increased rotational and vibrational energy translated into a molecule's velocity? It's been a while since I took physics. Any help you can provide will be appreciated.

43 posted on 02/14/2010 12:47:06 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
Oh gee we have an atmosphere? Who Knew?

Don't lecture me with essays of nonsense and drivel. Take your dream trip to Mars.

But primarily what we do not know is the dependability of Earth's "thermostat"; the way that cloud cover moderates temperature.
Oh, brother! That's called weather...always has been and always will be. You global warming numbskulls will never prove that it's caused by man...Not even with the pattern of undeniable fraud.

The term greenhouse gas was never used untill pinheads like Al Gore came along (and you?).

44 posted on 02/14/2010 12:53:29 PM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
scandal update

World may not be warming, say scientists

Microsoft co-founder Gates tackling climate change

Research challenges models of sea level change during ice-age cycles

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones BBC

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

45 posted on 02/14/2010 1:04:52 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"But we have an atmosphere open to space, held by gravity and that atmosphere expands and contracts. Do you have any idea of how they deal with that?"

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Heat is heat. It's only when molecules reach the top of the atmosphere that molecular velocity makes any sense. Otherwise, it's just various molecules bumping into each other with total randomness. We call it temperature.

The expansion of the atmosphere that occurs on a daily basis tends to follow the motion of the sun, (as we perceive it). That's what produces prevailing westerlies.

In general, it expands and contracts in the lateral plane, rather than moving up and down which introduces pressure differentials.

As the moving atmosphere is forced to change altitude and therefor pressure, as when it climbs over a mountain chain, it tends to change temperature, inducing condensation and the resultant precipitation. But generally, the expansion follows a planar flow, like a liquid spreading over a surface.

As far as CO2 in particular is concerned, what is of interest is the area of absorption that fails to overlap or be dwarfed by the absorption bands of water vapor. These non-overlaps are not great, and it makes the contribution of carbon dioxide to generalized warming both difficult to determine and prone to be trivialized by that of water vapor when present.

This is no doubt the reason that CO2 accumulation in polar regions is said to have a more substantial effect. Polar regions are effective deserts, and water vapor has less importance there. But also, the sun's rays are diminished as well. Complication upon complication.

46 posted on 02/14/2010 1:33:29 PM PST by NicknamedBob (If we did not believe we could not die, we would never do the things that make us immortal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
"The term greenhouse gas was never used untill pinheads like Al Gore came along (and you?)."

Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and a few other gases are greenhouse gases. They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of heat. The major components of the atmosphere, Nitrogen and Oxygen, are two-atom molecules too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric scientists first used the term 'greenhouse effect' in the early 1800s. At that time, it was used to describe the naturally occurring functions of trace gases in the atmosphere and did not have any negative connotations. It was not until the mid-1950s that the term greenhouse effect was coupled with concern over climate change.

-- Greenhouse Effect
If you wish to engage in a civil discussion, you should practice more civility. If you prefer to wallow in ignorance, I will not stand in your way.
47 posted on 02/14/2010 1:47:58 PM PST by NicknamedBob (If we did not believe we could not die, we would never do the things that make us immortal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Looks like Phil Jones is finally fessing up a bit. I have zero sympathy for these frauds who would impoverish honest citizens and taxpayers with cap n trade and other scams


48 posted on 02/14/2010 2:01:05 PM PST by dennisw (It all comes 'round again --Fairport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Not that the MSM would ever report it that way


49 posted on 02/14/2010 2:47:22 PM PST by GeronL (Dignity is earned from yourself. Respect is earned from others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Marine_Uncle; Fred Nerks; steelyourfaith; NormsRevenge; onyx; BOBTHENAILER; ...

fyi


50 posted on 02/14/2010 2:49:33 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson