Posted by: graemebird | June 29, 2007

The Man They Call Stoat: A Post Too Far.

To my very great surprise, one of the alarmists allowed me a pretty good run on one of his threads. To be sure he tried to make me look bad. And his anonymous bully-boys were doing what they always do in-the-house of-the-Church of the energy-deprivation-crusade.

But nonetheless he gave me a surprisingly good run.

This was such an unusual turn of events that I instantly alerted the media. You see an alarmist site just doesn’t allow this. Its like standing up in church and arguing for atheism in a loud voice while the others are trying to sing hymns and listen to sermons.

So I went over to another a few sites to alert people to this very strange turn-of-events.

“And now for some good news in terms of the suppression of views.

I’m arguing at Stoats place and he hasn’t even suppressed me yet. Plus I’ve even learnt one or two things. What can you say but “Bravo”.

But the energy-deprivation-crusade is a serious religion. So my access and my ability to get questions answered can’t last …….”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It couldn’t last of course. It could last until that post wherein I had won decisively. Stoat removed that last past so he could make it look like he got a narrow on-points victory (one supposes).

The last post was a post-too-far. Because I’m supposing he just had no answer for it. With that post I’ve won decisively. Without it, my arguments are vastly better. But it doesn’t look like I’ve won.

Here is the post that Stoat COULD NOT let you see. Such is the power of the religion that has claimed him:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A POST TOO FAR. BY GRAEME BIRD. DISSALLOWED FROM THE BLOG OF WILLIAM CONNELLY SINCE HE HAD NO ANSWER TO IT.

The important thing is we get rid of this false paradigm as quickly as possible. Since we want to be getting about setting up nuclear plants and liquified-coal-conversion plants. Side by side where possible.

Now its pretty clear what happened last century. We were recovering from the little-ice-age and then we were fortunate enough to have a burst of solar activity the likes of which had not been seen in at least 1150 years and perhaps 8,000 years.

The argument is sometimes made that solar activity variations are not strong enough to account for the increase. But a paradigm cannot be justified by reference to itself. And the solar variability is plenty strong enough if your paradigm is not the one that I say has failed.

An alternate paradigm, but one that I personally don’t think is radical enough…. is that solar variability has two multipliers. There is the production of water vapour which is a function largely of the heat content of the upper oceans.

(Its the accumulated heat content of the oceans we ought to be following closely since only the oceans (and perhaps internally the planet itself) can hold enough energy for cumulative warming. By comparison the energy held in the atmosphere has to be considered ephemeral.)

Under this paradigm…when the solar activity increases this CHANGE will get multiplied by the effect of extra water vapour if the oceans are able to accumulate a lot more energy.

In this, pretty conservative, paradigm a second multiplier (to the effect of solar variability) comes with the suns effects on cloud cover due indirectly to the suns effect on cosmic rays hitting the troposphere. But I won’t get into that too much here.

So what we do is match the two paradigms against eachother. Two paradigms is not enough. It would be better to have six or so that you were ranking and re-ranking according to what the data pointed to.

But for now lets just go with the two paradigms. And so we ought to see extra warmth wherever we can find more water vapour in the air. We ought to be checking out areas that have changed in terms of their temperature…… at various heights above sea level…. and see if we can figure out if there has been an increase in water vapour.

So far it seems that there are some indications that mid-troposphere temperatures have increased more then temperatures on the ground. I’m taking this assumption directly from this thread.

This data is in favour of the second paradigm and not in favour of the alarmist paradigm. Because when you think about it, it is the mid-troposphere that you would expect to be carrying more water vapour if the upper-oceans had increased in their imbedded heat content and had therefore been PRODUCING more water vapour.

So we would expect then that the 0.6% increase in average temperatures were the result of a massive accumulation in the oceanic heat content…. indirectly leading to more water vapour in the air and particularly in the region of the mid-troposphere.

Not everywhere by any means. But the regional patterns of warming/cooling ought to correlate with which regions have increased/reduced the amount of water vapour in the air above them.

Now since (as Stoat has explained) the increase in CO2 is dispersed pretty evenly, both vertically and I presume regionally as well… this is not really what we ought to have seen if the 0.6 degrees increase were due to CO2.

Rather one would expect a slight reduction in the average environmental lapse-rate.

I’d particularly expect that when you got to a height in the troposphere where the water vapour attenuates severely…. It is at this sort of height where I’d expect that the change in average temperature ought to be the greatest. Because thats where there would be no increase in water vapour but a very strong increase in CO2.

At this level we would expect the temperature increase to be greater then on the ground. Greater then at mid-troposphere.

Thats if we are contending that the .6 degree increase in average temperature is due to CO2.

At this point the alarmist paradigm isn’t looking that great. But then again. We expect the leftists to come back with a counter-argument. And it will be good if they do and I hopefully might learn something from their counter-argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Postscript: Stoat wiped the comment many times. But now he’s left it in for the time being and tried to negate it with his own insertions. But they were essentially baseless and meaningless. And so short that they didn’t expose his own position to analysis.

Here I’ll make the post again including these insertions for the permanent record. I’ll also include my reply to his insertions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

GMB seems desperate to post this, so I’ll put it back up with some answers…

Now its pretty clear what happened last century. We were recovering from the little-ice-age and then we were fortunate enough to have a burst of solar activity the likes of which had not been seen in at least 1150 years and perhaps 8,000 years.

[Its not really clear that "recovering" from the LIA means very much. And you faith in solar proxies is touching -W]

The argument is sometimes made that solar activity variations are not strong enough to account for the increase. But a paradigm cannot be justified by reference to itself. And the solar variability is plenty strong enough if your paradigm is not the one that I say has failed.

[You're fond of the word paradigm but you're not making any sense. Everyone (even the solar folk) acknowledge that solar forcing isn't strong enough by themselves. Not to mention that solar has, if anything, been downwards over the last 30 years, and that on;y careful analysis shows up the 11-y solar cycle, which is far stronger than any trend -W].

An alternate paradigm, but one that I personally don’t think is radical enough…. is that solar variability has two multipliers. There is the production of water vapour which is a function largely of the heat content of the upper oceans.

[Weird idea - only the skin temperature matters from the POV of WV -W]

(Its the accumulated heat content of the oceans we ought to be following closely since only the oceans (and perhaps internally the planet itself) can hold enough energy for cumulative warming. By comparison the energy held in the atmosphere has to be considered ephemeral.)

[Yes, but its only the atmos warming up that can warm the ocean -W]

Under this paradigm…when the solar activity increases this CHANGE will get multiplied by the effect of extra water vapour if the oceans are able to accumulate a lot more energy.

[Doesn't help you, since this is in there anyway. Solar is still too weak -W]

In this, pretty conservative, paradigm a second multiplier (to the effect of solar variability) comes with the suns effects on cloud cover due indirectly to the suns effect on cosmic rays hitting the troposphere. But I won’t get into that too much here.

[Since its all hand-waving, thats probably a good idea -W]

So what we do is match the two paradigms against eachother. Two paradigms is not enough. It would be better to have six or so that you were ranking and re-ranking according to what the data pointed to.

[OK, done that - read the attribution literature. Solar forcing should warm the whole atmos, GHG should warm the trop and cool the strat. Which do we observe? I'm sure you know -W]

But for now lets just go with the two paradigms. And so we ought to see extra warmth wherever we can find more water vapour in the air. We ought to be checking out areas that have changed in terms of their temperature…… at various heights above sea level…. and see if we can figure out if there has been an increase in water vapour.

So far it seems that there are some indications that mid-troposphere temperatures have increased more then temperatures on the ground. I’m taking this assumption directly from this thread.

This data is in favour of the second paradigm and not in favour of the alarmist paradigm. Because when you think about it, it is the mid-troposphere that you would expect to be carrying more water vapour if the upper-oceans had increased in their imbedded heat content and had therefore been PRODUCING more water vapour.

[You'd get the same result from either -W]

So we would expect then that the 0.6% increase in average temperatures were the result of a massive accumulation in the oceanic heat content…. indirectly leading to more water vapour in the air and particularly in the region of the mid-troposphere.

[Other way round, really -W]

Not everywhere by any means. But the regional patterns of warming/cooling ought to correlate with which regions have increased/reduced the amount of water vapour in the air above them.

[Look at the IPCC SPM. The regional warming correlates with what the models forced by GHG etc say should happen. But not with models forced by solar -W]

Now since (as Stoat has explained) the increase in CO2 is dispersed pretty evenly, both vertically and I presume regionally as well… this is not really what we ought to have seen if the 0.6 degrees increase were due to CO2.

[Oh? Why? -W]

Rather one would expect a slight reduction in the average environmental lapse-rate.

[Sigh. You've done that just above -W]

I’d particularly expect that when you got to a height in the troposphere where the water vapour attenuates severely…. It is at this sort of height where I’d expect that the change in average temperature ought to be the greatest. Because thats where there would be no increase in water vapour but a very strong increase in CO2.

[Well, you're invited to make this more quantative with proper radiative physics and so on -W]

At this level we would expect the temperature increase to be greater then on the ground. Greater then at mid-troposphere.

Thats if we are contending that the .6 degree increase in average temperature is due to CO2.

At this point the alarmist paradigm isn’t looking that great. But then again. We expect the leftists to come back with a counter-argument. And it will be good if they do and I hopefully might learn something from their counter-argument.

[Dunno about the leftists. I'd read IPCC if I were you -W]

Posted by: William Connolley | June 30, 2007 07:09 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“[Its not really clear that "recovering" from the LIA means very much. And you faith in solar proxies is touching -W]“

It aint faith in solar proxies. Its faith in specialists. And the alarmists for a long time were ignoring the solar guys. Who have immense data to work with since they have many other stars in the galaxay to compare our sun too.

Proxies are all we have and they are fine if you have CONVERGENT proxies. We can rightly put our faith in convergence. If they have three or more proxies they can get a range that we can rely on.

The solar reconstructions, when tracked against the temperature reconstructions refute the alarmist paradigm outright.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“[You'd get the same result from either -W]“

Not true. But go ahead and make the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“[Other way round, really -W]“

Not true. But go ahead and make the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Well, you're invited to make this more quantative with proper radiative physics and so on -W]

This is not necessary. The implication is quite obvious even before you start playing around with the computers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Dunno about the leftists. I'd read IPCC if I were you -W]

I have done so. Its a waste of time. An evidence-free-zone. You haven’t noticed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In summary your short one-liners are meaningless. And you ought to write a detailed explanation. To prove that you are not too frightened to do so.

Posted by: GMB | June 30, 2007 08:41 PM

About these ads

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: