William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 5:29:26 PM UTC-5, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:54:04 AM UTC-5, D B Davis
>> > wrote:
>> >> Scott Lurndal <***@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> >> > Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>> >> >>On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:35:07 PM UTC-7, D B
>> >> >>Davis wrote:
>> >> >>> Mass media first
>> >> >>> promoted a global warming apocalypse at least 143 years
>> >> >>> ago.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>That would have been in 1874.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, 1896 anyway
>> >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>
>> >> >
>> >> "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" -
>> >> Richard Feynman
>> >> Almost 40 years ago, Bryson
>> > First, show a little respect. This is Reid Bryson, professor
>> > of meteorology and old-school climatologist at U of
>> > Wisconsin.
>> > Seriously, it's not Bill Bryson.
>> > stood before the American Association
>> >> for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper
>> >> saying human activity could alter climate.
>> >> "I was laughed off the platform for saying that," he
>> >> told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
>> > This would be about 1968. As Manabe had already (1965)
>> > published the first modern estimates of global warming due to
>> > a doubling of CO2 I don't think he was laughed at for that.
>> > As Manabe recalled it:
>> > "In the early 1960's, we developed a radiative-convective
>> > model of the atmosphere, and explored the role of greenhouse
>> > gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone in
>> > maintaining and changing the thermal structure of the
>> > atmosphere. This was the beginning of the long-term research
>> > on global warming..."
>> > Bryson, with many achievements to his credit, did have a
>> > tendency to spout "facts" which were a bit dubious, as seen
>> > below. A few of those before the wrong audience, and yes, he
>> > might be laughed at.
>> >> In the 1960s, Bryson's idea was widely considered a
>> >> radical proposition.
>> > The facts show otherwise.
>> > But nowadays things have turned almost in the
>> >> opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some
>> >> authority figure claiming that whatever the climate
>> >> happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the
>> >> explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the
>> >> conventional wisdom. ...
>> >> Q: Could you rank the things that have the most
>> >> significant impact
>> >> and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
>> >> A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30
>> >> feet of
>> >> the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation
>> >> from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to
>> >> affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is
>> >> absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80
>> >> percent, okay?
>> >> Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the
>> >> surface is
>> >> absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...
>> > And here we have the first "fact". A highly prized quote,
>> > it's all over the internet. It' also quite irrelevant. (I
>> > also suspect it's just plain wrong, but as nobody ever gives
>> > a source for it it's hard to check).
>> > As I've explained before, saturation simply does not matter.
>> > The mean free path of the photon does. Shorten that, and the
>> > insulating effect increases.
>> > And as Gilbert Plass showed in the 1950s (without being
>> > laughed off any podium) the upper atmosphere, whence our IR
>> > escapes to space, is very far from saturated, and increasing
>> > CO2 there can warm the planet, even without the water-vapor
>> > feedback effect.
>> > (For the technically able: how big a problem is IR absorption
>> > for infrared cameras? If 80% of the signal was absorbed -
>> > and re-emitted - within 30 feet I'd expect problems, but I've
>> > no idea how far these things can see in the lower
>> > atmosphere.)
>> >> A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight
>> >> hundredths
>> >> of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as
>> >> water vapor.
>> > Our second "fact". Again, not true or relevant, again
>> > because the atmosphere is not well characterized by its
>> > bottom 30 feet.
>> >> You can go outside and spit and have the same effect
>> >> as doubling carbon dioxide.
>> > Third "fact", also untrue. And shows a strange, for a
>> > meteorologist, ignorance of the different physical properties
>> > of CO2 and H2O. The latter undergoes a number of phase
>> > transitions in the atmosphere, and excess is removed quickly,
>> > while CO2 is removed by a far slower process, with much of it
>> > hanging around for centuries. CO2 accumulates in the
>> > atmosphere, H2O does not.
>> >> This begs questions
>> > First, that's not what question-begging means. The previously
>> > high standards of the Wisconsin Cooperative Energy News seem
>> > to be slipping.
>> > about the widely publicized mathematical
>> >> models researchers run through supercomputers
>> > Well, first we create them. And what we put into them is
>> > also well known, available for criticism by the community.
>> > The passage of IR through the atmosphere is calculated via
>> > equations that have been known for over a century. The same
>> > equations used everywhere in our wireless world. Maybe
>> > that's why you get those dropped calls? The Global Warming
>> > Conspiracy has the telephone companies using it's Fake
>> > Equations!
>> > to generate climate
>> >> scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the
>> >> data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon
>> >> dioxide
>> > Let's be kind and say that it was the reporter's incompetence
>> > here, not Bryson's.
>> > and accounts
>> >> poorly for the effects of clouds - water vapor. Asked to
>> >> evaluate the models' long-range predictive ability, he
>> >> answers with another question: "Do you believe a
>> >> five-day forecast?"
>> > Actually, seven day forecasts around here are now pretty
>> > good.
>> > But Bryson, weirdly, fails to note the difference between
>> > climate and weather. The latter is chaotic, the former not.
>> > The accuracy or otherwise of longer range weather forecasting
>> > has nothing to do with the accuracy of climate models.
>> > I attended one of Bryson's seminars long ago. It was quite
>> > reasonable (though I doubt one of the facts he used,
>> > especially now). This exploitative interview with a very old
>> > Bryson did him no favours.
>> I am curious as to your thoughts on the retreating glaciers
>> uncovering remains of old ruins going back hundreds, if not
>> thousands, of years, suggesting that glaciers have retreated
>> before, possibly more than once, long before the industrial
> There is no doubt, of course, that the climate does fluctuate
> without human interference, the little ice age being the most
> recent example. And as copper mining in Europe goes back, IIRC
> to at least 6600 BP there have been several such glacial
> advances in this time.
> Many reconstructions of this advance/retreat history will be
> found via google. Mostly on skeptical sites, which feel this
> aids their case, but the source is often reliable and usually
> Plant matter uncovered by retreating glaciers is routinely
> dated. Some years ago a date of 5500 BP was found by Lonnie
> Thompson for Quelccaya in the Andes. He's found six thousand
> year old ice melting in Tibet. There are reports 4000 year old
> wood being found in the Swiss alps, recently uncovered by
> glacial melting, which seems reasonable to me.
> The world cooled - but not uniformly in time or space - from
> the Holocene Maximum about six thousand years ago. We'd expect
> glaciers to have expanded, covering high altitude valleys which
> were previously ice free - or even inhabited.
> There was a lesser warm period in Roman times, even warmer than
> in the Medieval Climate Optimum (probably, anyway). As the
> Romans were usually desperate for precious metals, I've no doubt
> their alpine mines went as close to the glaciers as possible, so
> that when the world cooled, they'd have rapidly been covered
> with ice and remained so to the present day. Or uncovered and
> re-glaciated in Medieval/LIA times.
> One of the controversies surrounding the establishment of an ice
> age chronology involved advances and retreats in the Swiss Alps.
> The evidence of the great glacial advances going back millions
> of years is mixed up with smaller, more recent advances and
> retreats. Evidence of a recent advance was confused with the ice
> age cycle proper, until further work discovered Roman tools in
> the "ice age" sediments.
> Whereupon the Great Global Warming Conspiracy hushed the whole
> thing up. I'm letting you in on it now because my November
> cheque did not arrive.
> All of this is fascinating, but I like real sources, and I'm
> afraid that an interview with Professor Bryson isn't one.
Sadly, *nothing* in the press - on any side of the issue - is any
And the people who should be act like cult leaders, pretty much all
Vacation photos from Iceland:
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.