In a presentation (see below) Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon came out blasting with both barrels at the corruption in climate science.
He started by saying that any respectable scientist would say that the American National Academy of Science (NAS) is “100 percent corrupt” and the climate scientists who put up the content at the NAS are “really dangerous”, likening their solution for global warming to amputating a patient’s arms and legs in order to cure his headache.
Refuse to debate, like a religion
Soon says that there’s too much political activism in science and blasts global warming scientists’ refusal to debate the subject in public and compared global warming science to a religion, dubbing it “Scientism”. The public he says, is being confused by “political interference” in the science.
“In serious trouble”
The distinguished Harvard professor criticizes the hostile language used by global warming activists, which he feels played a role in the offices of 2 distinguished climate science skeptic professors being fired at with live munition. He presents a series of slides dibbed: “Science is in serious trouble.”
Soon believes that alarmist climate scientist Michael Mann is delusional as he seems to fancy himself to be someone who is rescuing the planet. Overall Soon paints a picture of scientists who have gone completely amok and are totally disconnected from reality, citing an IPCC request that the world pay 535 TRILLION DOLLARS for the carbon sin and NASA’s Gavin Schmidt claim that man is now driving the climate more than 100%.
The list of things that are alleged to be caused by global warming and CO2 is reaching absurd dimensions, Soon shows, e.g. more muddy pet paws, birds singing differently.
Collusion, bullying and censorship
One problem that Soon elaborates is that of scientific “censorship and bullying”, and that it is rampant. Inside climate alarmists constantly collude to shut out other opinions and to smear the reputations of scientists who do not agree. Soon openly says that they are “really dirty people, doing bad stuff”.
Paranoia, contemplations of suicide
At the 33-minute mark, Soon presents a chart showing how global warming scientists, having been frustrated by the skeptic scientists, discussed revamping the peer-review process in order to keep skeptic papers from being published. He mentions how Prof. Phil Jones became so desperate with the fear of being exposed that he “contemplated suicide”.
Soon shows how the American Geophysical Union Conference blocked out scientists who had different viewpoints. The censorship was so blatant that Soon dropped his membership. The Harvard astrophysicist is so feared and hated by the global warming alarmism community that he is forced to seek out private funding. One journal, he says, even employed the “yellow star” to designate Soon as a scientist to be wary of, a tactic Soon says is “really Nazi territory”.
On his nemesis Michael Mann, the author of the now debunked and disgraced hockey stick chart paper, Soon calls him a “sad guy”, who even equates himself to a Holocaust survivor, and a scientist who avoids the science and focusses more on personal attacks.
Soon summarizes: with 2 conclusions:
91 responses to “Harvard Physicist: “Climate Science In Serious Trouble”…”Really Dirty People Doing Bad Stuff””
Professor Soon is a brave, honest and dedicated scientist.
Glad to see he’s taking the fight to them.
Yes, Pierre. But is anyone in a position to do anything about it listening?
Both climate scientists and politicians have sold their souls to the environmental activist movement who don’t really care about global warming or even science. Their objective is the impoverishment of mankind and the politicians are too naive to understand that while the scientists (so called) have found a trough, bottomless as long as that political naivety continues.
That’s about the weirdest skeptics position out there … one bordering on conspiracy theorist territory.
What’s problematic is petroleum industry funded “scientists” who run smear campaigns against climate science despite them probably knowing better (just a theory, no evidence for that, they might be completely ignorant towards the facts too).
Sebastian, show us your proof of this? I won’t hold my breath waiting. You really need a tinfoil hat
What is required to enrich people and to bring them out of poverty is abundant cheap and reliable energy. This is what has brought the wealth to developed nations these past 200 or so years, and freed the people from a life of servitude.
It is the unavailability of abundant cheap and reliable energy in developong countries that has kept them impoverished.
As China and India make the transition from impoverished developing nations to wealthy developed nations they are rolling out and increasing the abundance of cheap and reliable energy. Their development, and the wealth creation that it will provide to their citizens, is driven on the back of increasing fossil fuel energy consumption. It is why China will at least double its CO2 emissions by 2030 and India will triple its CO2 emissions in this time frame.
Unfortunately, neither solar nor wind are cheap and reliable. They are expensive and intermittent providing non despatchable energy, and often not providing any significant energy at times of most need, eg., cold Northern Hemisphere winter evenings under a blocking high.
It is not a question of whether this is deliberate or whether there is some conspiracy, it is simply the result of the policy with that result being plain to see from the very outset. It is not some unforeseeen unintended consequence.
It is no coincidence that Denmark and Germany have about the highest energy prices. It is no coincidence that the US, powered by fracking and energy production, quickly came out of recession whereas Europe has stagnated and cannot cast of the shackles of the recession caused by the economic crash of 2008/9 and is likely to stay in the doldrums for decades to come.
Please, provide us with an estimate of how expensive you think solar or wind maybe. Especially in countries like China and India.
Sure … and the world government is forcing all poor nations to build solar and wind only. That’s why almost no coal power plant is being built right now, right?
It’s not … we financed the expensive start of the s-curve. Rich countries can afford that.
As I said, rich countries … are the fracking operations in the US yet in the break even region or are they still operating under massive losses?
Are you still talking about Denmark and Germany?
Sure, chatbot, here are some recent numbers for wind. They appear to be MUCH worse than before, with Australia in the lead at
big oil myth again? Gubmint grants FAR outweigh any private money now. Publishing line-toeing b s is quite lucrative.
Sebastian, please provide a list of petroleum industry funded scientists that run “smear campaigns” against climate scientists.
At least one alarmist has intimated that the alarmists may have considered one small step toward moving Science forward.
“Prof. Phil Jones became so desperate with the fear of being exposed that he “contemplated suicide”.
I gave up on this years ago when a pastor meekly said, “We have to think of what an electric light means to a family in the third world…homework, books, saved eyesight…” and was shouted down by the panel around him.
There you have it. We’ve come a long way since Eddie Albert got us Earth Day to encourage better stewardship of nature.
The dumbest thing (and Gavin highlights it well) is the fixation on ‘Global Temperature’. It is a meaningless number, as useful as calculating the average phone number. What a waste of time — the kilo-man-years of effort that has gone into trying to decern this utterly useless metric.
What really matters is what the climate is doing regionally or zonally. All else is just art for art sake and meaningless waffle.
The “global mean surface temperature” is not meaningless in and of itself (“per se”). It is the measurement of that highly meaningful–in fact, fundamental–number that is corrupted–even fraudulent, as everyone should be aware of by now–and worthless for the scientific purpose of accurately gauging its variation (which, I would aver from my own studies, to be nil, over the period of modern temperature measurements).
You are putting the emphasis on the wrong idea. What is wrong with climate science is that all those scientists are incompetent in their field, and have thrown away the well-known global constraint upon the global mean temperature, provided by the hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere, which is the conceptual basis of the century-old Standard Atmosphere model, which in turn is precisely confirmed in my 2010 comparison of the temperature vs. pressure in the Earth and Venus atmospheres. Climate scientists, following Sagan and his early protege James Hansen, threw away the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere 50 years ago, to follow the false physics of the “greenhouse effect”–a Chimera that has misled and mis-educated two generations and more, and now, in the hands of what I have called The Insane Left for the last 8 years, threatens the fundamental freedom of people throughout America and the Western world.
the century-old Standard Atmosphere model, which in turn is precisely confirmed in my 2010 comparison of the temperature vs. pressure in the Earth and Venus atmospheres. Climate scientists, following Sagan and his early protege James Hansen, threw away the utterly stable Standard Atmosphere 50 years ago, to follow the false physics of the “greenhouse effect”
Can you provide a link to a summary of this analysis of the “temperature vs. pressure in the Earth and Venus atmospheres”?
I am also interested in that one.
Found it. Interestingly, the atmospheric temperature of Venus at the altitude where atmospheric pressure is the same of that of Earth (1K millibars) is exactly the same temperature (66 C) as what would be expected given the relative distance of Venus to the Sun vs. Earth. In other words, no greenhouse effect is required to explain the temperature of Venus relative to Earth. Temperature is determined by atmospheric pressure and TSI.
From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K.
Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.
This has already been pointed out recently by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2010), who have written succinctly, “…since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypothesis is not obeyed.”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2010
In our falsification paper [4, 3] we have shown that the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects  as taken-for-granted concepts in global climatology do not fit into the scientific framework of theoretical and applied physics. By showing that
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects have been refuted within the frame of physics [4, 3].
In other words, the greenhouse models are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, disregarding the other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, latent heat exchange et cetera. Some of these simplistic descriptions define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind” and are therefore inadmissable as a physical concept.
The numerology is strong in this one 😉
Mind you, this author also writes (in one of his books):
“The Earth, indeed the entire solar system, was re-formed wholesale, in the millennia prior to the beginning of known human history; c. 15,000 BC marked the decisive event, when the Earth first began to orbit the Sun as it does today.”
I bet you didn’t know that. Pseudo-science can be very entertaining, but it doesn’t make it real. Especially when it is not based on physics and even claims that the laws of thermodynamics are violated by the current understanding how things work 😉
You may choose to believe him without doubt (aren’t you a skeptic? Not skeptical at all towards this wild theory?). But if you want to be taken seriously you better don’t.
The author mentions albedo and claims it makes no difference, but nevertheless he is discussing it to “drop part way down to the level of his expert critics”. It makes all the difference though. The author seems to assume that the fraction of solar irradiance at the altitude on Venus where a pressure of 1 bar can be found is the same as on Earth’s surface. That might very well be the case, but that doesn’t mean that amount of solar energy is absorbed at that height. Having an albedo of 0.7 means that 70% of the Sun’s energy is not absorbed at all and therefore has no effect on warming anything vs. 0.3 for Earth. Failing to realize that is not a sign of greatness (he claims he discovered this and others are supressing this great “discovery”).
The other paper you cite/quote is just as ridiculous, but we discussed that one already (I really should implement that Kenneth FAQ idea, would save lots of time).
Sebastian, I am also awaiting your answer to a previous question where one questioner asked you to supply the supporting data for your assertion that any denier scientist has to be under the pay of the big oil companies.
Which companies are doing that and how much are they paying. It’s strangely hypocritical of you to insist on data from some blog input while supplying none of your own.
Go back to your fantasies and let the big people alone here.
If not for absorption and re-radiation by CO2 in its atmosphere, Venus would have “exactly the same temperature (66 C) as what would be expected given the relative distance” occurring at the surface, rather than 50 km up. In fact, if it had no atmosphere at all, then “the temperature expected” (taking albedo into account) would occur at the surface, no 1 bar of pressure required.
Moreover, since the Earth does not have a comparable sulfuric acid cloud layer to that over Venus (which is above the 1 bar altitude), Earth is missing a strong cooling factor that Venus has. So if you are going to compare Earth’s and Venus’s 1 bar temperatures based on relative distance, you have to explain why Venus is so much warmer at that altitude than it “should” be.
@Harry Dale Huffman,
No Harry you are wrong! Almost to the point I call BS!
We may just as well have a Global Air Pressure figure, or a Global Relative Humidity figure as the religious icon for the sad climate worriers. Any one of them is meaningless.
None of them individually tells us about the climate and how it is changing. How the climate is changing is the important part, not some semi-religious number.
I maintain Global Temperature IS an utterly useless metric, completely pointless.
It might as well be a stock market number.
Is that like the statistician who drowned in a river whose average depth was 6 inches?
Well kind of, my statistician drowns but all everyone talks about is the depth of the water, while missing out that he was nailed to a plank of wood weighed down with concrete, gagged and face down in the water.
In other words without linking all the parameters pertaining to the atmosphere (global or regional) then climate variations can not be properly assessed.
Obsessing about one climate parameter (temperature) is as worthy as rating a vehicle’s performance by just continuously measuring its tire pressures.
a global average temperature is not meaningless. The increase of the average makes clear that heat is building up. An increased greenhouse effect causes more heat to be retained and that heat/energy gets distributed by wind and sea currents causing local warming or cooling.
A better variable to watch would be the global heat content of the surface layers, but the average surface temperature is the next best thing. Of course, it doesn’t say anything about regional changes of the climate … but that is not the point of that figure.
“a global average temperature is not meaningless.”
You are wrong it is completely meaningless. It is just a magic number for you religious zealots to hold on to. And that IS ALL IT IS!
And as usual you babble on about greenhouses and their unproven effects.
Read what Professor Wood did over a hundred years ago to demolish any vestige of relevance such a HYPOTHESIS holds. Perform Professor Wood’s experiment then come back and argue about it. Until YOU have done it YOU have nothing seb — just another empty but noisy troll.
Oh, the Wood experiment. Haven’t seen that brought up as an argument by skeptics for a long time. Care to explain what exactly that experiment is proving? 😉
Woods experiment, you have an internet connection — educate yourself for a change.
Yes, Sebastian, if your head is full of fantasies anything reasonable is useless.
WRT to Professor Woods experiment I will quote yourself from https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/15/wuwt-one-of-the-most-radical-climate-denier-blogs-their-purpose-permanently-produce-fake-news/#comment-1226711
Funny how the “insane left’ loves black clothing, the worst polluter of water near fabric mills. And why not get rid of concrete, steel, and glass buildings that create heat islands of modern cities? If they really believed, they’d get real.
They use a YELLOW STAR to stigmatize someone??? Really!!!
Now, where have I seen THAT before?????
Failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is a distressing mistake but is dwarfed by the potential disasters of ignoring what is happening that actually does. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com .
The still-rising water vapor (WV) is rising more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback). The rising WV coincides with rising irrigation, especially spray irrigation on fields and lawns. The warming (WV is a ghg) is welcome (countering the average global cooling which would otherwise be occurring as a result of declining net effect of ocean surface temperature cycles and a declining proxy which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies) but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation related flooding. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?
Climate science is being driven by such huge money from governments, especially, that truth is a certain casualty, if exaggeration keeps the dollars rolling.
The fact that temperatures have levelled off for the last 2 decades tells many of us that the heating problem is not too significant. The media and most government agencies in the US and elsewhere are desperate to keep the fear at a fever pitch. And most people don’t question any of it.
Soon questioning might net you a jail term. It is that sick and crazy. Where did the truth train jump off the tracks?
When you throw money at “Scientists” you get almost 100% junk.
No, it’s not. It is mostly caused by the increase of the temperature. It’s not human water vapor “emissions” … you have no idea how much water we would have to spray into the atmosphere to change the humidity of the atmosphere 😉
At most human caused reduction or increase of plant life (rainforest, etc) can be a minor cause for some of the change.
“No, it’s not. It is mostly caused by the increase of the temperature. It’s not human water vapor “emissions” … you have no idea how much water we would have to spray into the atmosphere to change the humidity of the atmosphere… “
As usual Seb a comment with no reference to reality, and given you past with a fixation of just making stuff up (for the convenience of your religion dogma), obviously this is all you are doing here.
Move along nothing to see here!
Seb – I initially had a similar opinion but then I did some research. Atmospheric water vapor has been measured by satellite by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. They report it numerically and continue to update it monthly at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201706.time_series.txt which I graph at Fig 3 in my analysis/blog (click my name). The NASA/RSS data is thru June, 2017. The 06 in the link address is the month so that should soon be 07. The trend increase in atmospheric WV is 1.5% per decade and has increased about 8% since the increased rate began in about 1960.
The % increase in WV due to water temperature increase is assumed to be the same as the % increase in vapor pressure due to water temperature increase. Comparing measured with that calculated from temperature increase produces the finding that WV is increasing more than twice as fast as expected from water temperature increase.
I can’t find the reference for irrigation I used but recall that enough WV would remain in the air if 98% rained out. Perhaps the info can be gleaned from here: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use_agr/index.stm
Dan, what did you think of the Lightfoot and Mamer (2017) paper?
Water Vapour Climate Forcing ‘Up To 200 Times’ Greater, ‘Overrides Any Effect By CO2’
Ken – Thanks for the link. I will need to spend some time with it. Interesting that Lightfoot and I are both retired mechanical engineers who are life members of ASME.
I obviously agree with his final conclusion that CO2 influence on climate is not significant but our methods are quite dissimilar. As an aside, he considers the humidity increase to be from non-human source while IMO it results from increase in irrigation, particularly spray irrigation.
I just completed a more through examination of the Lightfoot, et al paper. They misapplied Boyle’s &/or Charles’ laws. They applied them to just CO2. In fact, they apply equally to the rest of the noncondensing atmosphere as well so the ppmv CO2 is essentially unchanged. (Note the 1/4 sign in their equation should be an equals sign). Disturbing that none of the commentators mentioned these errors.
With no change in CO2, the ration becomes infinite which means that all of the change in back radiation results from change to the amount of water vapor. That is exactly what I determined from an understanding of thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy.
I wonder what impact man had on the events described here:
SOUTH AMERICA DURING THE LAST 150,000 YEARS – Jonathan Adams, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
“In general, it would seem that 150-130,000 y.a. the continent showed the general glacial-age pattern of colder and more arid conditions. After about 130,000 y.a., climate warmed and moistened and the forests reached a similar area to the present. After 115,000 y.a., cold and aridity began to influence the vegetation, to an arid, cool maximum around 70,000 y.a., followed by erratic but generally fairly cool and drier-than-present conditions throughout the continent. A second cold, arid maximum began around 22,000 years ago and lasted until about 14,000 14C y.a., after which rainfall and temperatures increased and the forests returned over several thousand years.”
Professor Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of BioGeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, wrote this in 2003:
“At the end of the last ice age, only some 12-18000 years ago, the tropics were covered by seasonal savannah grasslands, cooler and much drier than now. There were no rain forests in the Malay Peninsula and much of Amazonia, and, despite the increasing human development of forested space, there are still more rain forests persisting than existed then.
As in Europe and North America, the forests came and went as climate changed; there is no Clementsian “long period of control” under one climate. Beneath many rain forests, there are sheets of ash, a testimony in the soil to past fires and non-forested landscapes.”
Water vapor can not be evaporated without energy to evaporate it. Merely spraying water into the air can only use energy from local sources which cause local cooling but cannot add energy to the total system. It is a local artifical conversion of energy but cannot change earth total average vaporization of water. Have someone look up the first Law? Energy cannot be created, since you apparently missed it in physics 101.
CO2 does have an effect. But, the concern may be overblown. Studies of ancient CO2 levels, such as found in studies of rock units during the Ordovician period indicate CO2 levels 10x now. Question is, what comes with high CO2? Ordovician studies show very high water temperatures and glacial events that intervene. The climate seems to flip back and forth between Icehouse and what is normal…a “Greenhouse” climate. The only time things really get out of hand seems during a “Hothouse” event. We are currently in an Icehouse era. My understanding of climate theory indicates you do not go directly to a Hothouse era unless there are serious magmatic events called Large Igneous Provinces. Such igneous events are present in the geologic record and seem to be related to major climatic events. Whether they are from Internal or External processes we cannot yet tell but it does appear that massive superplumes of magma cannot be discounted as triggers to “hothouse” conditions. The default earth condition is “Greenhouse”…thought to be typical of some 75% of history. Hothouse…4%. Icehouse…maybe 20%.
Dan Pangburn, WV is a greenhouse gas that increases air temperatures, but it also contains a great amount of latent heat that was removed from the surface and cooled it when it evaporated. Water evaporating from a surface probably cools it far more than the GHG effect warms the air later. Warm WV also tends to rise due to convection currents and removes itself from the surface level air. When it finally condenses and releases that latent heat, it is usually thousands of feet up in the atmosphere.
The urban heat island effect is almost entirely due to the loss of surface evaporation, since asphalt and concrete don’t hold surface moisture like soil and foliage do.
So, irrigating fields and lawns should result in lower temps, not higher ones.
If this video is correct, and it looks thoroughly enough done that it probably is, then water vapor exhibits negative feedback.
Yon – A couple of comments after looking at the video: I didn’t see any mention of clouds. Not accounting for differences in cloud cover would mislead interpretation of the data.
Also, he stated that positive feedback results in runaway. A small amount of positive feedback results in stable response but at a higher level than no feedback.
@Dan Pangburn21. August 2017 at 7:14 PM
(Sorry if this is a repeat, but something screwy happened when I tried to post.)
He does mention clouds, but if you blink you miss it. Sure, they could be problematic, and they will be present a lot more in humid areas than dry. But you can still lump them into the overall effect, which in every e.g., he uses suggests a negative feedback.
I don’t know if this is why, but moist air requires more heat to get to the same temperature as dry air. The temp will also drop more slowly as the same quantity of heat is lost. If there were a strong radiation component, I would expect to see a clear and not at all weak positive feedback in humid air. If you know of experiments that show that, I’d like to see them.
A given Kg of water evaporates once but as WV it is a ghg for several days.
Also, WV has made the planet warm enough for life as we know it. Adding more WV to make it cooler makes no sense.
When confronted with theory and contradictory data, I’ll take the data every time.
If you watch the video I linked to, you can see that WV slows both warming and cooling. That is, as he says, the definition of a “negative feedback.” The planet cooling slower, and so staying warmer longer, is completely consistent, and makes perfect sense.
That tells me that the warmists are full of you know what.
The video is a well documented display of results which are egregiously misinterpreted. What he actually displayed is what happens at sundown and at sunrise. It shows only that dry soil changes temperature more with a change in forcing than wet soil. The change in forcing is sunrise and sundown. It does not at all say anything about feedback. Feedback from water is determined from vapor pressure vs water temperature.
I live in humid Florida, where temps are generally moderated by the humidity all day long, not just at sunrise or sunset, when they would be marked by discontinuities that don’t appear in the data.
I saw nothing wrong with his interpretation, at all. It was clearly reasoned with examples, and well supported by data. Your argument, by contrast, is a series of assertions connected by assumed relationships, and is ambiguous and convincing.
Sorry, Dan. You’re not making the sale.
NOTE – I’m not saying humid air doesn’t store more heat. It does. And that may be why temps don’t rise or fall as fast or to the same extent as dry air, which btw is how negative feedback manifests itself.
correction – “…ambiguous and convincing” should read, “..ambiguous and unconvincing.”
Yon – My comments are based on engineering science which includes an understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer.
In reviewing the video yet again, I discovered that the speaker does not even know the meaning of feedback. The temperature increase that causes feedback is not of the air, as he stated, but of the liquid water.
I am not trying to ‘sell’ anything. I am in relentless search for the truth and am sharing my findings.
This video appears to be an example of someone making a poor experiment to discover something and then misinterpreting the data. This is not unexpected of someone lacking engineering science skill.
Also of note about the USA is that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that in the year 2000 water withdrawals for irrigation were 137 billion gallons per day. Irrigation withdrawals were 40 percent of total freshwater withdrawals of 342.5 billion gallons per day. Of that 342.5 billion gallons, 134.5 billion gallons were for thermo-electric power plants. Of the non-power plant usage of 208 billion gallons per day, 65 percent, was for irrigation. Note that irrigation and power plants use a nearly equal amount of water.
From USGS figures fifty eight percent of the irrigation water was from surface water sources. The other 42 percent came from ground water.
About half of the 61.9 million acres irrigated in the year 2000, 29.4 million acres, were irrigated by flooding the fields. Sprinkler systems were used to irrigate 28.3 million acres and a variety of micro-watering systems were used to water 4.2 million acres. The average application of water to the irrigated land was 26.6 inches of water.
I would note that although the USGS does not provide an estimate of how much of this water, through evaporation and transpiration from plants, goes into the atmosphere but clearly it would be a significant fraction, especially in arid areas where irrigation is necessary. If a probable estimate is made at one half (an underestimate) as the proportion of irrigation water going into the atmosphere means 68.5 billion gallons per day vaporizes.
I’m sure there are more up to date figures but this is just a snapshot, just the USA at one point in time.
It is always shocking how money and the quest for power corrupts people. Willie Soon is courageous and deserves our respect, along with his colleagues who are not looking for more government funding and in the process disposing of their integrity.
Always follow the money!. Neither Schmidt nor Mann nor
most of their AGW comrades are “independent” from their claims. Their credibility is therefore compromised. Rule
#1 in “real world” analytics.
Follow the money 😉 … do that for Soon please. You are in for a surprise 😉
You attempt to carry on the smears against Willie Soon. Christopher Monckton did a full analysis on the implied claims I suspect you are referring to. Soon comes out clean.
Sebastian, I suspect you would be surprised. You really should stop reading and believing activist propaganda
Thank you Willie Soon! What a shame that Sallie Baliunas has been knee capped by the Climate Mafia.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/20/harvard-physicist-climate-science-in-serious-trouble/ […]
A few questions:
1) “NASA’s Gavin Schmidt claim that man is now driving the climate more than 100%.” – Are you ridiculing this claim because of the greater than 100% value because you think that nothing can be driving temperature increase by more than 100%? Kenneth makes the same mistake and doesn’t understand why something can be responsible by more than 100%. Do you need this to be explained?
2) “global warming scientists, having been frustrated by the skeptic scientists, discussed revamping the peer-review process in order to keep skeptic papers from being published” – Kenneth recently linked to a paper where a peer review tab was visible and one could see how they reviewed the paper. It amounted to nothing more than correcting some grammar and complaining about too many equations/variables in one sentence. As a scientist friend noticed some time ago, there are many bullshit papers out there (not only in climate sciences). Peer review is no guarantee for the correctness of the claim someone is making anymore.
It is similar to the patent system. Patents only get thoroughly looked at when they are already approved and someone is using them to get money from someone else allegedly violating them.
I am all for a change that reduces the amount of crap papers/patents. Aren’t you?
3) “The Harvard astrophysicist is so feared and hated by the global warming alarmism community that he is forced to seek out private funding.” – yes … from the petroleum industry. One wonders why they fund a “part-time researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics”. One should also wonder why the institute is not backing his “science” …
4) “Michael Mann, the author of the now debunked and disgraced hockey stick chart paper” – only in imaginary skeptics circles. It’s sad that you need to convince yourself.
Sebastian. Why do you persist in propagating lies? I suspect it’s because you haven’t got the intelligence to do otherwise
What lies? Be specific!
There has never been a time in which I have stated or expressed a misunderstanding of how Gavin was able to arrive at the conclusion that humans are 110% responsible for climate change since the 1950s. But since you have decided to dishonestly hurl this false accusation at me personally, and insist that I have made a “mistake” here, you are now required to back up your claim that I have written that I don’t understand how Gavin got to 110%. Cite the comment in which I expressed this misunderstanding or confusion. Since you can’t (because I never wrote any such thing), will you acknowledge that you made this up, or will you continue engaging in this dishonesty?
Of course. That’s why when your side publishes papers that say sea levels will rise by 10 feet by 2065 due to Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet collapse, that a million species will go extinct by 2050 because of “global warming”, or that the Himalayan glaciers will completely melt by 2035 (er, wait, that wasn’t peer-reviewed, but made it into the IPCC report anyway), we tend to wonder why it is that your side extols the peer-review process as it does.
As an example of a peer-reviewed paper that is replete with errors and statistical misunderstandings that even a high school age student should be embarrassed to have made, the eminent Michael Mann published a paper (peer-reviewed, of course) in Nature called “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth“. Within days of its publication online, Ph.D. statistician William Briggs eviscerated it and wondered how such a feeble, error-ridden paper could have possibly passed peer-review. The answer is obvious, of course. These kind of “junk” papers get published by your side routinely. And yet because they are “peer-reviewed”, and because it is Michael Mann, even the editors of Nature can’t say no to such psuedoscience.
The Four Errors in Mann et al’s “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”
Michael E. Mann and four others published the peer-reviewed paper “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth” in Nature: Scientific Reports (DOI: 10.1038/srep19831). I shall call this authors of this paper “Mann” for ease. Mann concludes (emphasis original):
This is confused and, in part, in error, as I show below. I am anxious people understand that Mann’s errors are in no way unique or rare; indeed, they are banal and ubiquitous. I therefore hope this article serves as a primer in how not to analyze time series.
Given your history, though, SebastianH, the suspicion here is that you will ignore the exposure of Mann’s egregious errors, smear Dr. Briggs instead, and declare Mann’s paper to be of sound quality that deserves attention. Let’s see if I’m right.
Mann’s “errors” have been exposed for so long,…
…that no informed person is unaware of them at this point in time. SebH has NO excuse for not being aware of that.
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.
The “hockey stick” shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) has been widely applied. However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigen value. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the “dominant pattern of variance”.Through Monte Carlo analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics, we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance.
MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series.The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al. denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of robustness and statistical skill.
Climate scientists were aware that the ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction was wrong and that criticism of it by Steve McIntyre and others was valid
2490.txt: Keith Briffa expresses doubts about paleoclimatology back in 1998: “Many in the palaeo-community understand these issues , but perhaps there has been some reluctance to air them in sufficient depth … This carries the danger of a backlash as they undertake simple assessments of the palaeo-series and conclude that they are all of very little use. ” Briffa’s warnings went unheeded and his concerns about a backlash were prophetic.
3272.txt: Another warning from Briffa, in 1999 as the IPCC 2001 TAR was being prepared, that was ignored: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. ”
0207.txt: Ray Bradley expresses his doubts about his own paper with Mann: ” But there are real questions to be asked of the paleo reconstruction…things fall apart in recent decades… This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”). Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. Whether we have the 1000 year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!). ”
3373.txt: Ray Bradley: ” Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range. Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not. Also–& I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
Yes. Very transparently flawed, indeed. NO excuse to not know at least the basics, although when you dig into all the dirt, as you do, it’s downright embarrassing!
Have you seen this?
Greenhouse goes on holiday
Dr. Soon referenced it in a video I watched earlier today, and so I was able to easily find it online.
Nowhere near as robust an effect as they want us to believe, as we suspected.
Yes, wrote up an entire article on it when it was published online last September. Despite skyrocketing CO2 emissions between 1992 and 2014, the greenhouse effect has been on hiatus. In other words, there has been an imperceptible human or CO2 influence on the greenhouse effect – or climate – since 1992.
LOL – Thanks.
And I can’t say I didn’t see it, since I posted some comments on it.
In this thread:
You didn’t understand the analogy with apples or the A,B,C,D variables and even made fun of everything being responsible 100% and how insightful that would be.
I don’t know about the possible errors in that specific paper. But Briggs has written enough junk to be highly skeptical about believing anything he says. Of course, because it fits your opinion (not agnostic at all) you happily believe “rebuttals” like that to be correct. I don’t have to smear Briggs, there is enough “smearing” to be found on the internet to last a lifetime.
Anyway, pointing out errors in other publications doesn’t make the problem of “junk” getting through peer review disappear.
It’s a bit hard to believe that you guys seriously use this paper as an argument against AGW. Your conclusion from this is that the GHE caused by CO2 increase did not increase? I guess you need to re-read that paper then …
Nope, nary a word was written about not understanding how/why Gavin got to 110% for the human attribution for climate change since the 1950s either in that thread or anywhere else. In other words, you have, once again, been caught fabricating.
Well then maybe you should actually read the commentary from Dr. Briggs, who details the errors in a way that can be easily understood. He even uses a lot of analogies to illustrate – a medium you prefer.
And if you still “don’t know about possible errors” in that Mann paper after reading it, it will just go to illustrate that you are willing to defend just about anything as long as it aligns with your beliefs.
Soon has an important story to tell and he has every right to be angry for the way he has been treated by the morons on the hysterical side. The problem with this video is that he is talking like a hurricane and he quite often diverts from the original argumentation he starts with when he tells about an incident. It could be somewhat hard to follow the story.
I already knew beforehand some of the background of what he is telling, but I guess that if you don’t have that prior knowledge you could easily loose tracks.
I wish he or someone else could write a book or to present his full story in a more orderly and calm way. I bet Soon also would make a few bucks on such a project.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
These liars are destroying Science.
Good Humans need a champion – urgently!
Please see my comment on my Facebook page.
Another Soon video,with some info I haven’t seen until I watched it.
Please see our paper “CO2 Is Innocent” at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com and do the demo-experiment to see the proof we offer. Have the equations and stoichiometry authenticated if you are not qualified.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.
The egregious lack of understanding of fundamental physics by many of these alarmists makes me fear for ‘Science’ not only as demonstrated by their cockamamy climate theories but for their future attempts in its application to science in general once this climate hoax falls by the wayside.
That’s funny! It’s the skeptics that base their arguments on the lack of understanding finding imaginary contradictions. All in the name of wanting to disprove AGW by grasping those straws 😉
Being skeptic about the climate sensitivity of CO2 is one thing, but claiming that humans aren’t responsible for the increase in CO2 concentration and that the greenhouse effect somehow doesn’t work in case of CO2 … that’s anti-science.
You just can’t resist accusing people of saying what they didn’t, can you!
He didn’t write (at least not here) that humans weren’t responsible for the CO2. Or were you just trying to start a new sub-thread to create yet another distraction, as per your usual?
Correct, yonason. I have written several times that it would appear that humans are responsible for at least some portion of the CO2 increase. Even Dr. Salby has us contributing up to 30% of the total CO2 ppm change. It’s SebastianH who believes the CO2 ppm change is 100% human caused…despite no year-to-year correlation between our emissions and the CO2 ppm change.
All was revealed with those leaked emails.
That put paid for many in believing what these ‘scientists’ were saying.
Need a quote or ten from them seb?
[…] brevemente i principali punti del suo intervento – qui la […]
Seems science is no more reliable than religion fro guiding the sheep.
[…] Read more at notrickszone.com […]
Dr. Soon must be honored for his work. It takes guts to go against the fascists who practice political science in the name of real science.
This fits well with Willie’s previous video called ‘Beethoven’s Ice Cream, Tolstoy’s Fire, Happer’s Picosecond Pedestal—and Climate Willie Soon, PhD’ at https://youtu.be/NziuVoJPQNk
I’m going to leave my congratulations at the bottom of this HUGE list of comments. So refreshing to read the truth based on science for a change. What is happening to the world? I don’t recognise it any longer.
[…] Read more at notrickszone.com […]
http://www.carbon-sense.com does not make your blog roll?