Thursday, March 04, 2010

I Got A Link

The New York Times linked to my article Climate "Science" Is Ruining Everything. My article was about how the government gets the science it pays for.

I discussed drug war "science" and how it relates to climate "science". The NYTs thinks that the problem with climate science is not dodgy science but a failure to communicate on the part of climate scientists. I'd have to agree.

And so I responded to the NYTs piece thusly:

There is no doubt (in the science community - sceptics and warmists alike) that a doubling of CO2 (absent any other effects) will produce a 1 deg C rise in the Earth's temperature. Not very exciting.

Where it gets tricky is the water vapor amplification factor. Warmists claim it will increase the warming from CO2 by 1.5X to 3 or 4X. i.e. from 1 C from CO2 to 1.5 to 4 C for CO2 plus water vapor. The sceptics say the amplification is around .5 i.e. the 1 C from CO2 is reduced to .5C.

Now the warmist community (as well as the sceptics) admit that the effects of water vapor are the least understood part of climate science. So we are fed alarms based on what is currently incomplete science. And you know what? None of the scientists in the warmist camp explain this to the public.

There is your communication failure.
We are getting partial truth gussied up as certainty. I'm sure that is not the communication failure they were hinting at.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


tomcpp said...

Actually since the earth is not, in fact, in thermal equilibrium, there is no such certainty.

Think of it this way. Suppose you have a bit of tomato soup. And you add some "warmth" represented by some milk.

So what happens ? Well this is eminently dependant on the thermal equilibrium status of the soup.

You can bring the soup in thermal equilibrium by mixing it. Just mix it in a difficult pattern. The milk will spread, and will result in a uniform recoloring of the soup.

But that's not how the earth works. The earth's response to more heat can be better emulated by not bringing the soup in thermal equilibrium : stir it, but only far away from the milk and stir in a regular pattern. Nothing will happen to the milk. It will stay in one location and it will not budge unless significantly disturbed.

This is the unstated problem with calculating the effects of a heat increase. It should not have ANY result whatsoever, even if it happens, because it won't spread. Head does NOT spread through the athmosphere at any appreciable speed (otherwise there would be no regional temperature differences at all).

So what will the amount of energy that COULD heat the surface of the earth by 20 degrees do if it arrives on God's green earth ?




Nothing at all.

RavingDave said...

There went your credibility. Obviously if the New York Times is using your material, you must be wrong and/or nuts.


M. Simon said...

I think they liked the title and didn't bother reading the article.

The Muslim Brotherhood did the same thing with one of my articles a few years back.