My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Indians tell Key to start circling the wagons | Main | Obama official, Gore aide caught in climate funding scandal »

Comments

(not so) Silent

Looks like Ken needs a Hystericalectomy.

Ken

Singularain - The web page you linked to by Johnson had no maths. It was a very biased, naive attempt to discredit a well established scientific phenomena about the behaviour of gases like CO2 and CH4 (so-calle3d "greenhouse gases").

It didn't even mention the mechanism involved - instead talking about convection in horticultural greenhouses.

That is not only naive - but coming from somebody with his qualifications it is also dishonest.

If this is the sort of source you use for your information you will not understand the issues.

Peter

Wow we have an "artist" who produces generic formula "art" questioning a professor who are a highly regarded scientist?

Why is it that these dishonest warmists are so arrogant?

This same "artist" ex "scientists" who happens to call any-one who does not follow his religion of AGW "deniers" then says he himself is a skeptic?

All I can say is go back to your visual muzak Ken. It is about your measure.
(PS I have made a living for the past 35 years in fine art so I guess I actually have a track record.)

Ken

Well, Peter - what about you justifying that web page?

Truth

The Oxburgh whitewash gets even worse.
Lord Oxburgh is chairman of Falck Renewables, a manufacturer of windfarms and the UK subsidiary of The Falck Group, a Milan-based manufacturer.
A sister company of Oxburgh’s Falck Renewables, Actelios, is publicly traded and had suffered serious falls in its stock price during the period of Climategate, etc.
Lord Oxburgh’s company, its parent and more than one of its sister companies have had organised crime activities surrounding their acquisition of property and installation of green energy systems.
The green energy industry, organised crime investors, Falck Renewables and its parent and sister companies stood to benefit from an investigation the results of which did not overturn the science findings of CRU.
The parent group of Oxburgh’s Falck Renewables is the Falck Group of Milan. As with so many Italian businesses, it’s a complicated maze of crossholdings and interlocked ownership that makes it almost impossible to decipher. However Falck’s sister company Actelios was the target of an anti-Mafia investigation, as reported last week.
Italian and EU subsidies for the building of wind farms and the world’s highest guaranteed rates, €180 ($240, £160) per kwh, for the electricity they produce have turned southern Italy into a highly attractive market exploited by organised crime.

singularian

Ken if you couldn't find any maths on the site you must have had your eyes closed.

For instance here where Prof Johnson discusses (with linked posts) radiative forcing equations used by the IPCC and the reasons they are the wrong math to be using. Could you please explain where he is wrong? Even better you could comment on his site to point out his failings and maybe set him on the true path?

I have to say again I am surprised that someone like you, who professes to want just the Science, is so quick to write him off. There is quite an archive of work there, a lot of it seems to make sense.

Ken

Singularian - of course you provide a different link to a diffrent page.

But still only a few math terms - no mathematical development,

Now, as a chemist I know that the first page was just wrong. I can't see any value in the second.

Can you justify/expain either page or are you just impressed by his degree?

singularian

Ah....Ken the original link was to the home page of the site.

You in you infinite wisdom then decided that it was all crap. So I point you to a post where he links to the multiple posts he has written developing the IPCC maths and showing where it is wrong.

Now you as 'a chemist' are telling me that's still wrong. The equations are wrong?? how he's used them is wrong?? What?

Please go and explain to Professor Johnson where he is wrong and put him on the right track.

It appears to me he is using known laws of physics to show the IPCC modeling equations are wrong. Please explain which laws of physics he has wrong.

You're always asking for science Ken - so here's some - you dismiss it - I'm happy to listen where you think he's wrong but calling him names just sounds like more denialist clap trap to me.

Hopefully you'll prove me wrong on that one.

cheers.

Ken

So Singularan- you didn't understand those two pages. It is the degree that impresses you - not his little descriptions of "greenhouse effects."

So here's an idea, have a read of the IPCC reports. The science is a hell of a lot better and the scientists themselves more impressive.

And I am sure there are enough PhDs to impress as well.

Peter

So Ken you cannot actually say what is wrong or how this man is wrong. Just that the IPCC whom have been shown to be
1) Wrong
2) Not all of those credited to be part of the science team of the IPCC are in fact part , nor do they want to be credited to be part of the team.
3) Magazine editors and writers were quoted as fact as part of the science.

Instead you make snide remarks at this man's qualifications. The sad thing is that you are attacking straw men that you put up. Not facts. Show me where and what you scientifically disagree with. But more than this you do it behind his back. I call you a failed scientists and a formula painter. An artist you are not. I do it to your face.
I am purposely attacking you, because you seem to find it a legitimate mechanism in debate. (I disagree and find it a little unsavoury, but hey, if are to wrestle pigs you need to get into the mud)

Your credibility on both subjects shot. Redeem a little and actually answer Singularan. Show exactly where the equations are wrong and how they are wrong.

PS a bit of art advice. Buy a roller, use big flat canvasses (walls and roofs make great surfaces) , and work in single colours or when you really feel creative you can add a second colour on trim.

Ken

Peter - you have been asked to explain for yourself what this guy said on his page describing the greenhouse effect. You refuse (perhaps you don't understand what he said).

I pointed out he spent all his time talking about horticultural greenhouses and ignored the effect of IR absorption and re-irradiation by atmospheric CO2 etc.

I have made my critique. You have ignored it.

You obviously don't understand the issue., You have discredited yourself.

You must be a fool if your think you can declare the IPCC "wrong" - you (???) against 97% of the world's climate scientists!

There is a clinical word for that!

Ian Wishart

Ken...can you point me to an empirical study (ie, not model-based) on the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the atmosphere?

I noticed in one of your responses at Parachute you claimed CO2 was the majority driver in the atmosphere, so it seems you haven't caught up with the latest studies. What are you specifically basing this on?

Perrott's Enema

"What are you specifically basing this on?"

His mediocre artwork perhaps?

Ken

Ian, it's best to raise that in a comment on the specific post you are referring to (it's not immediately clear to me which post you mean, what the context is or why you raise the issue now).

However, there are plenty of reviews you could refer to for specific references. One which would be handy is the NRC review of Michael Mann's "hockey stick" work. It's very authoritative and extensive. Plenty of references.

And you ignored it in your book for some reason. Oh, that's right. It would not fit in with your conspiracy theory.

Ian Wishart

I'm sorry Ken, you don't seem to be comprehending my question. The NRC report on Mann's flawed hockey stick is not an empirical study on the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions warming the atmosphere.

Can you please provide a link to such a study?

Ken

It's a source of references, Ian. Many of them.

By the way - what is the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO2 when it comes to the greenhouse effect? How can you tell them apart? Why do you want to separate them?

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect (your book actually was very unclear on the understanding of this effect)?

Ian Wishart

Ken, do you ever stop making thngs up?

From chapter two:

"In this chapter I want to show you why Earth needs a greenhouse effect in order for life to exist...

"...In all of this, then, we can see how greenhouse gases are crucial for life on earth to exist because of their ability to dissipate and transfer heat, as well as their insulative effects at night..."

As for CO2, there's no difference in the radiative properties, but the human contribution is only around 3.4% of the total planetary emissions according to the IPCC. The argument is that the planet would balance but for the human contribution, so ipso facto a study would need to prove that the human contribution is causing the warming.

So yes, can you point me to any empiricial study that proves the human CO2 component is definitely causing atmospheric warming in the wild? The IPCC hasn't been able to cite one but you seem confident.

AcidComments

"As for CO2, there's no difference in the radiative properties, but the human contribution is only around 3.4% of the total planetary emissions according to the IPCC. The argument is that the planet would balance but for the human contribution, so ipso facto a study would need to prove that the human contribution is causing the warming."

Of interest:

Greenhouse gases explain only 5-10 per cent from global warming

The following article is from a leading Finnish Newspaper and was sent to me via the contact area. I had to use the Google Translate process as my Finnish is not that good.


Greenhouse gases account for only 5-10 per cent of global warming
Turkus sue Panel on Climate Change predictions
Turun Sanomat 14.4 2010 01:30:40

A University of Turku Department of Physics study shows that carbon dioxide has a significantly smaller impact on global warming than previously thought. Its results are based on spectrum analyses. According to research led by Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide accounts for only 5-10 per cent of the observed warming on Earth . "The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases," says Kauppinen.

According to him, projections made the UN climate panel, the International Panel on Climate Change, constitute a class-size error. The IPPC's calculated value is more than ten times larger than our calculated results, Kauppinen says. He intends to publish his results in the June issue of the magazine Nature.

The UN Climate Panel claims that global warming is almost entirely the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. [Unintelligible: Kauppinen, climate kestääkin much higher emissions than the IPCC reports have been made to understand.]

"I think it is such a blatant falsification," Kauppinen says.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5540

Ken

My memory, Ian, is that you referred to the "greenhouse effect" but your explanation was rather confused. I don't recall any explanation involving IR absorption by CO2 or the influence of CO2 levels on the effective height and temperature of planetary radiation.

You seemed to spend more time on claiming that greenhouse gases actually have a cooling effect and I don't recall you quoting the actual temperature difference attributed to the greenhouse effect which makes life possible.
I could be wrong. I'll check, but the bit you quote doesn't cover it

I think you are being cute about this demand for references. You refuse to answer my questions about differentiating human sourced and natural CO2, whether the CO2 behaves differently depending on the source, etc.

And of course you know (or should know) that the evidence for human caused CO2 effects on global temperature is spread over many individual papers. The IPCC will provide an obvious summary of these.

Perhaps you can provide the IPCC page number for your claim "the human contribution is only around 3.4% of the total planetary emissions according to the IPCC. "

My information suggests that burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric CO2 by 2ppm/yr while natural sources provide 10^-4 ppm/yr. That is human climate forcing is 10,000 times more powerful than natural.

So I would like to check this out - Page number please.


singularian

Acid comments - funny, that's just the conclusion Professor Johnson comes to.

IPCC say that warming due to C02 with no forcings is 1.5C per doubling.

Professor Johnson get 0.15C using the, he says, correct maths.

Ken - I'm sorry but I'll have to just give up on you, you appear not to be interested in the Science, just gaining cheap points at anothers expense. Sad.

You need to take a long hard look at yourself mate.


The comments to this entry are closed.