Page 3 of 3

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 1st, 2020, 8:09 pm
by Graeme M
Well, Australia more generally isn't burning, though around 5 million hectares has been burned so far this fire season (though technically, fire season is pretty much all of the year). We typically do have a lot of bushfires at this time of year, more so during droughts. This summer we have had several megafires and the speed and intensity of fires has been notable. How much out of the norm is hard to say because there isn't really a norm. So much depends on a variety of factors - weather conditions, forest conditions, management practices, sources of ignition, etc. The main link to climate change that is claimed is the dry conditions - the recent drought has been extensive. Winter rains have failed in the south-east for the past three years, which is unusual. Personally I don't know how we can quantify how much this is due to "climate change", after all, a changing climate is only something we can see over time. Extreme events on their own aren't necessarily indicative of anything.

Trends here seem to be drying of SE Australia, warmer average temperatures, and more frequent extensive droughts. I don't know how these trends stack up taken over say the past 1000 years, though I do know that research using various proxies suggest that long wet spells are often followed by long dry spells with some previous records of drought showing equally extensive and brutal dry conditions. It would be very interesting to see a summary of research that tackles the past 1000 years to get a better sense of things.

The period from 1950 to about 1990 or so was fairly wet on the east coast, but since then it has been very dry (except for a really wet year or two around 2010). Dunno what that tells us about things more generally. Is Australia's climate changing? Beats me.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 2nd, 2020, 4:09 am
by doogles
Graeme M, I liked your attempt to put a balance into Serpent's comment. Nevertheless I thank him for that comment.

When he said "Australia is burning. Or so I've heard. I can't prove it. ", I have to assume that he is making a case that the current massive bushfires throughout Australia are evidence of a warming planet -- in the same manner that Dr Karl did in the popular science article I commented upon. He did not expand on that statement, but I'm sure he wasn't just letting the world know that we are again experiencing extensive bushfires currently in Australia.

We'd be struggling to get evidence going back millennia, because the original inhabitants did not have a written language

I'm always hoping for more balanced comments such as yours Graeme M in all areas of discussion.

We do have records going back to the 1850s. A Wikipedia researcher has so far cited 87 references (still ongoing) that demonstrates quite clearly that bushfires in Australia have been a major problem long before the 1980s, on this site -- It's worth a look. There is a Table listing the major recorded outbreaks.

You will see that 12,000,000 acres were burnt out in Victoria alone in 1851 with a loss of 1,000,000 sheep and thousands of cattle. In 1939, approximately 5,000,000 acres were burnt out with damage to 3700 properties. Almost 10,000,000 acres were burnt in 1951/2. In 1974/75, over 18,000,000 acres were burnt in NSW.

For the current season 2019/20, the author has listed a total of 15,000,000 acres for the combined States of Victoria, NSW, QLD, SA, WA and Tasmania so far.

The 1850s by the way was when we had partial 'global cooling'. It was the time when the last mini-ice-age began to thaw. A couple of our politicians are blaming the current fires on 'Climate Change' for political gain, but our history of bushfires so far in Australia indicates that we had plenty before the 1980s.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 2nd, 2020, 6:08 am
by Graeme M
I think it is very hard to draw a clear connection between climate change and these bushfires, but given that events match so closely the catastrophic warming narrative you would have no hope of dissuading anyone of the link. There are quite a few factors as I mentioned, but the one clear trend seems to be the speed and size of fires in recent times. Is that due to climate change? I dunno. We'd need to see the records of rainfall and temperatures for the last decade and compare that to the same kinds of data records for other decades, say 1930-1940 and 1900-1910. But clearly the very dry conditions are contributors. I was reading some research from a few years ago - these guys had been looking at proxies from the past 500 years to ascertain Australian drought risk and more or less found that we have quite wet periods followed by quite dry periods. Generally speaking, it seems that we have had very brutal droughts bfore now - 179-1792 being an example. They also pointed out that we had been experiencing generally cooler and wetter conditions until recently, ie from 1950 until about 1990 and a lot of modern management approaches have grown up on top of relatively benign conditions. They suggested that if things did get very dry due to a positive phase of the IPO we would be struggling to cope. All of that said, I am still worrying at the possible contribution of land use changes with more rapid transition to land surfaces more likely to generate greater thermal radiation. A recent paper has actually examined exactly that and did confirm something along these lines though I didn't quite grasp their point and the paper is behind a paywall. ... 2/joc.4694

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 2nd, 2020, 10:11 am
by davidm

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 2nd, 2020, 11:15 am
by TheVat
Oz has increased a bit over one degree Celsius over the past century. This has had the effects covered in the SciAm link that David posted.

CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology made this report on the climate:

Seas in the S. hemisphere have especially increased in temps, as well.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 2nd, 2020, 11:58 am
by Serpent
Let's not jump to any hasty conclusions.
Wait-and-see has has always been sound enough policy. After all, just think what might have happened if somebody took the first climate change warnings seriously!

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 2nd, 2020, 4:43 pm
by Graeme M
I'm not arguing against the warming of temperatures. However, climate change is exactly that, a change in the climate. Weather and its effects are somewhat chaotic and we know that extremes don't necessarily always stay within a particular range - in other words, records are always broken. The SciAm article draws a whole bunch of conclusions that may not be accurate. Other than temperatures, we'd need to know more about broader climatic behaviors over the past 500-1000 years before we can make such certain claims. Take for instance the author's suggestion that most years in his life saw average temperatures over the 1961-1990 average. But if that period was a cooler and wetter time due to the negative phase of the IPO, as I understand it was, that is hardly remarkable. Taking an average and ignoring where that average fits in some larger time scale tells us nothing about why temperatures later fall above or below that average.

The same applies to claims that rainfall has decreased since the 1970s. The 1950s were a very wet decade, the 1960s dry, the 1970s wet. Record breaking rains and floods fell in the 50s and 70s with two of the largest floods in Queensland's post white settlement period. It would be more interesting to tell us how different rainfall patterns are in 1990-2020 from 1920-1950.

Both the SciAm article and the BOM report only tell us about short term changes. I'd like to know more about long term changes before I'd be willing to grant some significant shift in climate. Especially when I have read research that points to extreme dry periods in the relatively recent past.

The problem as I see it is that it is very hard to compare modern weather data with that of the past. The past record of temperatures has been considerably adjusted. There are probably good reasons to doubt the accuracy of old data, but the adjusted record is NOT a true record of what happened. It's a good guess. Comparing that to digitally obtained and analysed data is a bit iffy, I reckon.

Examining the rest of the claims in the SciAm piece obtain the same result - a lot of supposition, based on some facts. Is Australia's climate changing, when compared to the cycles of the past 1000 years? I have no idea, but I don't see a convincing case. Is it changing compared to how it might have been in the past 50-100 years? Very probably, but at different rates, scales and in different places.

The fact that we had a confluence of natural cycles (eg SAM, IOD, IPO etc) that led to a particular weather regime isn't proof of climate change, it IS evidence for the cause of an excursion in average conditions.

None of this invalidates the fact that right now, trends in weather conditions suggest that we should prepare for drier and more extreme fire conditions and authorities would be foolish to ignore this. But to what extent genuine climate change is driving this seems less clear. To me, at least.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 3rd, 2020, 5:21 am
by doogles
Thank you Graeme M. Re the changes in surface albedo between bushy areas and open areas, TheVat posted some evidence on that matter in this thread earlier. And is it possible that after rain, there is more cloud, therfore less insolation and therefore less albedo?

Just having a think about your statement "but the one clear trend seems to be the speed and size of fires in recent times. Is that due to climate change? I dunno." One of the problems here is that we have no clear records of the speed of fires. We certainly have sensational media coverage of the extent and severity of fires currently; we only had local newspapers 150 years ago. I did present a link to a Table showing the extent in terms of acreages burnt out. Did anyone look at those figures?

By the way, there is a collection of first hand reports on the severity and extent of the 1851 Victorian fires on this site Graeme M. It's frightening and is well prior to 'Climate Change' -- ... ursday.htm

I can give you some anecdotal evidence relating to the 1983 southwestern Victorian fires. I was living in Brisbane at the time but still in touch with all of the locals. Most farmers were active members of local fire brigades. Many farmers left their farms to fight the fires some miles north. On a day when the temperature topped 40 degrees C and the wind was blowing 100 kph, one farmer timed the speed of the fire between 2 roads one mile apart at one minute. The consensus of that group of farmers was that their presence was futile and they all went back to their own properties as fast as possible simply to open all their farm gates to let their stock have some chance of escape. Some of my friends died in attempts to save stock.

Another factor we have to consider is that more property and stock will be destroyed with each succeeding bushfire (and other natural catastrophes as well) simply because of increasing population density. So far we have only 170 years of records. As you said in your last post Graeme M, it would be interesting to see records over 1000 years.

As far as the causes of the fires is concerned, there was a Royal Commission into the 1939 fires and this was one finding ( ... riday-1939) "Land owners, graziers, miners, forest workers and campers either deliberately or carelessly contributed to the 1939 fires by lighting fires before 13 January. The causes included burning off for land clearing and grass growth, lighting campfires, inappropriate sawmill operations and domestic fires. Many of these fires still smouldered when the hot, dry, windy conditions occurred on 13 January, 1939. Judge Stretton wrote in his report: 'it will appear that no one cause may properly be said to have been the sole cause', however the fires were 'lit by the hand of man'." It's the only official 'cause' of a fire I've seen and a more balanced view would take much research. But if more research did produce a similar finding, then one would expect that bushfires will increase with population increases.

I did find another reference on causes of bushfires on this site -- ... w/11701132. It's a soft reference on a website called Science and written by a Nick Kilvert. He shows a Pie Graph in which only 6% are regarded as 'natural' eg lightning. This Pie Graph is attributed to The Australian Institute of Criminology. Like the Judge in the 1939 Royal Commission, the Institute incriminates human error and mischief. If that is really the case, is it possible that we then we can expect an increasing number of bushfires with increases in population.

Dry conditions certainly result in plenty of fuel for bushfires and there is evidence of reduced cloud over various areas of the planet during the last 20 years. I have posted a fair number off references about that in this thread. The IPCC itself acknowledges that. Less cloud is associated with cleaner air. Water vapour needs cloud condensation or hygroscopic nuclei to form into cloud droplets.

davidm, that soft reference you posted is only Nerilie Abram's opinion in a popular science magazine. Did you look at the Table I cited that was based on 87 references. The comparison of figures in that Table are far more convincing to me than Nerilie Abram's version. Please have a look and also note that 12,000,000 acres (4.8 million hectares) were burnt out in Victoria alone in 1851 with a loss of 1,000,000 sheep and thousands of cattle -- and that was when the partial mini-ice-age had not begun to thaw out. If you read the account of that fire above, you may extrapolate that the loss of human life was also high. And by the way, nothing is scientifically indisputable (unless it's a basic definition that we all accept eg 2 plus 2 = 4). The best we can conclude scientifically about most things is that "The evidence suggests such and such." It is my opinion that the Wikipedia reference is much better researched and the data in the Table is much more objective than Nerilie Abram's. I note that the Wikipedia author makes a mention without comment on Nerilie Abram's article which suggests that he/she has been very thorough. I have one criticism of the Wikipedia article but I'll leave that for now.

Thanks TheVat for that reference, but I do check on that report from time to time. I must admit that I have lost some faith in the integrity of our Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) since they changed some of their primary data. in 2012 I cut and pasted some extensive Excel data on Insolation readings to compare with Maximum Temperature readings from about 20 Weather Stations distributed over Australia. The correlations were quite significant. In early 2019, when I was talking about Clouds and 'Climate Change' on this forum, I thought I would mention my findings, only to find on checking that the BOM figures for Insolation over the last 4 years had been adjusted downwards and this made my findings non-significant statistically. My attempts to find out why they had fiddled with the data only resulted in the statement that they had amended many figures in 2014. There is one researcher whose name eludes me at the moment and who has published two articles to my knowledge suggesting manipulation of data by BOM on recorded near-surface temperatures and on sea level measurements. He may be wrong, but then again, my own personal experience suggests a possibility that he could be right. It's a personal thing.

Yes Serpent, you are correct. Time will tell. But in fact I do see that one of our main problems appears to be that people DID take the first warnings seriously. James Hansen is the father of 'Global Warming'. He coined the term and he suggested that the United Nations set up an Intergovernmental panel on 'climate change'. And he suggested that increasing carbon dioxide emissions was the main cause on theoretical grounds alone (without duplicating Tyndall's experiment quantitatively). After 23 years, nobody appears to have EVALUATED the success or failure of our ATTEMPTS to reduce temperatures by reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The Cape Grim and Mauna Loa graphs of carbon dioxide show no signs of even a blip since the Kyoto Protocol or the Marakesh Accord. (Yes, I know about China and India). But all we seem to be calling for, world-wide, is more of the same.

The IPCC acknowledges cloud as an area of possible approach, but so far, there appears to be no coordinated field of attack and our financial resources are being invested in an approach that so far, after 23 years, has yielded no positive results.

If the IPCC were paid on results, I believe they would go broke.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 13th, 2020, 1:36 pm
by TheVat ... 9283-7.pdf

Current study in atmospheric science journal on oceanic warming.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 13th, 2020, 4:32 pm
by Graeme M
"The ocean heating is irrefutable, and a key measure of the Earth’s energy imbalance: the excess GHGs in the air trap
more heat inside the climate system and drives global warming. More than 90% of the heat accumulates in the ocean because of its large heat capacity, and the remaining heating manifests as atmospheric warming, a drying and warming landmass, and melting of land and sea ice. There are no reasonable alternatives aside from anthropogenic emissions of heat-trapping gases".

I have seen endless discussion about this but it still makes me wonder. The only way that rising GHGs can warm the oceans if on average air temps above the oceans are warmer than sea surface temps. Is this really likely? Or would global brightening be more likely to be associated with this? Direct radiative warming from solar insolation always seems more likely as the source of oceanic heating.

I see Joe Bastardi commenting about an anomalous MJO at present which apparently has led to an unusually cloudless sky over the Idina Ocean north-west of Australia. I wonder how many such events have occurred in the past 20-30 years?

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 14th, 2020, 5:46 am
by doogles
Thanks for that reference TheVat. Just outside of the meat of the article itself, it was interesting to see its publication date as Feb 2020. I've never seen an article before with an advance publication date.

I also see that Michael E Mann of the 'Hockey Stick' graph fame is a co-author.

I have no personal doubts that the oceanic and the average global near-surface temperatures will continue to steadily rise and that we will see plenty of evidence of that in the scientific journals.

I'm having a problem with carbon dioxide being cited as THE cause as I have elaborated in earlier posts. I notice that this article even begins with the statement "Human-emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) have resulted in a long-term and unequivocal warming of the planet (IPCC, 2019)."

Yet I've seen no replication of Tyndall's experiment; I've seen no serious criticism of Idso's 8 experiments in which he produced evidence that a doubling of carbon dioxide will result in maybe only a 0.4 degreees C rise in average global near-surface temperatures, and I've seen absolutely no evidence of any kind that that the current world expenditure on reduction of carbon dioxide emissions has resulted in any slow-down of either the world GHG emissions or the slowly increasing temperatures.

Graeme M's suggestion about insolation being a main cause of ocean warming makes sense to me.

I've seen increasing amounts of literature suggesting that cloud cover has decreased in various parts of the world, and that a decrease in cloud cover results in far more radiative forcing than carbon dioxide, yet I don't see much literature on attempts to mitigate that situation. And I see no global plans for population slow-down either.

I would imagine that warming of the oceans would produce more water vapour, but unfortunately water vapour requires cloud condensation nuclei and hygroscopic nuclei to form into cloud. And the 'cleaner' we keep our atmosphere, the less we will have of these nuclei.

Graeme M, your reference to a Joe Bastardi was lost on me. Could you elaborate on that?

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 14th, 2020, 6:00 am
by Graeme M
Doogles, Joe Bastardi is some weather forecasting guy from the States. I have seen his name mentioned a fair bit but don't know anything about him. This video of his a week or two back mentions a very interesting current state of the Madden-Julian oscillation.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 14th, 2020, 1:55 pm
by TheVat

I wish I had more free time to chase down post-Tyndall experiments. A while back, somewhere in this forum, I did post links that showed that Tyndall's experiment was rarely repeated (except in science classes, which I also linked) because better methods had been developed to demonstrate how heat is absorbed/emitted by GHGs. I regret I must leave this basic researching to the interested reader. Also, remember that most of the degree rise is due to feedback mechanisms rather than just radiative forcing. Again, this has been discussed, and linked, many many times. I will keep posting links, when I find time, but my role here is going to shift largely to monitoring and making sure that guidelines on posting, peer review, and referencing, are adhered to.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 6:59 am
by doogles
I note that John D said in the thread 'Seek and ye shall Find', "Fact of the matter is we all need to discuss every aspect of what is and what needs to be done and see about setting up steps for action to be realised." I like the sentiment, but I do not see it being applied by the IPCC to Climate Change.

I personally attempt to be objective and realistic about all of life's situations using evidence-based arguments of all aspects of problems where appropriate.

I've pointed out many times that the thrust of the IPCC for the last 23 years since the Kyoto Protocol has been to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in an attempt to slow down or reverse the slowly but steadily-rising average near-surface global temeratures (ANSGT). But in spite of all the efforts, there is no significant change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide graphs from Cape Grim or Mauna Loa.

One of the main theories driving these, so far fruitless, attempts to reduce emissions is based on a calculation that a doubling of the carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm will cause an increase of average near-surface global temperatures of maybe 2.5 to 3 degrees C.

I've been having another look at Idso's 1998 paper ( in which he uses officially-recorded data to establish a factor which he called the surface air temperature sensitivity factor (SATSF) which can be used to convert surface radiative estimations into degrees C. In this paper he calculated that a doubling of carbon dioxide from 300 to 600 ppm would result in an increase in ANSGT of no more than 0.4 degrees C.

Idso is a very experienced Climate Scientist. According to Wikipedia (, "Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines. He is an ISI highly cited researcher.[5][6]"

I was intrigued to find that none of his work appears in any of the reference lists of either the 2001 IPCC Report nor in the 2019 modification of the 2016 Report.

Yet in the 1998 paper, he summarised 8 experiments using officially collected data, as distinct from theoretical models to produce his SATSF which ranged from 0.071 degrees C per Watt/m2 to 0.196 degrees C per W/m2, depending whether the measurements were made near the ocean or land masses. He received criticism for his first 3 experiments conducted at Phoenix, Alabama (first 2) and for one using data from 81 weather stations throughout the USA, on the basis that the results he found may have been applicable only to the USA, and he acknowledged that those criticisms were scientifically valid.

Subsequently, he obtained similar 'ball park' figures using data for his 4th experiment using whole world data. The mean global warming effect of the whole atmosphere is 33.6 degrees C, which when divided by the mean flux of thermal radiation that originates with the atmosphere and which would be non-existent without it is 348 Wm-2. The world SATSF figure came out at 0.097 degrees C per Wm-2. The 5th one used officially gathered Pole to Pole data and came up with two distinct sets of results -- a SATSF of 0.196 from 90 NS to 63 NS and of 0.09 from 63 NS to the equator. The 6th involved officially agreed data on the CO2 atmospheres of Mars and Venus. He concluded that present day Earth would yield a mean warming of 0.4 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm. I could not follow the rationale of the 7th experiment but it involved use of estimates of the luminosity of the sun from 3.5 billion years ago and estimates of the amount of carbon dioxide necessary to support life from that time. His 8th experiment was very simple and straightforward. He used the data from other researchers "who used airborne radiometric measurements and sea surface temperature data to evaluate its magnitude over the equatorial Pacific. Their direct measurements reveal that a 14.0 W m–2 increase in downward-directed thermal radiation at the surface of the sea increases surface water temperatures by 1.0°C; and dividing the latter of these 2 numbers by the former yields a surface water temperature sensitivity factor of 0.071°C/(W m–2)."

Nobody appears to have questioned the last 5 experiments.

If he is correct, this means that carbon dioxide is only about one third to one tenth of the threat in being a cause of uncontrollable increases in ANSGTs, and that the IPCC may have been a bit remiss in not considering all of the evidence from qualified people.

I'm not a Climate Scientist, but I favour Idso over the IPCC because Idso's main thrust is in the manipulation of experimental data, while the IPCC appears to have been pre-occupied with theoretical models.

I would appreciate any evidence-based or logical input to show that Idso is incorrect. If he is correct then we have to look for other reasons for the slight increases in ANSGTs. Idso himself has suggested some reasons if anybody is interested in making the effort to read his 1998 article. He expressed the opinion that the warming of the planet over the last 100 years may be highly unrelated to the concurrent rise in carbon dioxide. He mentions possible roles of the sun, of natural recovery from the little ice age, and of cloud.

You may remember earlier in this thread that I discussed a 1989 article by Ramanathan et al in which they had found an increase of 4 Wm-2 in surface radiative forcing associated with a 3% reduction in cloud cover. Idso has given us a factor (SATSF) of maybe 0.15 degrees C per Wm-2 which would credit cloud-reduction with 0.6 degrees of the 1.0 degrees C warming over the last 100 years. So far, land-based cloud reduction has been studied only in some localised areas and not widely enough yet to make global predictions. But it's a start on which we can " ... discuss every aspect of what is and what needs to be done and see about setting up steps for action ... ".

I just do not understand why his opinions have not been considered by the IPCC, whose efforts over a generation to date have achieved zilch in a either a reduction of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide or of a steady temperature rise.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 11:43 am
by TheVat
C02 reduction is failing due to rapid industrialization in large Asian countries and production keeping pace with the more than a billion people added to Earth in the 23 year period you mention. Also, feedback effects - see my new post yesterday on the permafrost melts - continue to play out. And any successful mitigation will not quickly remove CO2 that's already been added. And, as you surely know, methane and NOx are also key players. Mankind can only hope to slow the effects of all those GHGs and allow time for more comprehensive solutions.

The "thrust" of the IPCC is not just on CO2, but on all the GHGs, and also diesel soot and nanoparticles,
so it's not fair to say they are solely focused on carbon emissions.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 11:54 am
by TheVat
I'm not a Climate Scientist, but I favour Idso over the IPCC because Idso's main thrust is in the manipulation of experimental data, while the IPCC appears to have been pre-occupied with theoretical models.

Duly noted. However, the IPCC is composed of climatologists and atmospheric chemists and so on who have plenty of input that is experimental data. So, again, I would warn against giving too much credence to sources that falsely characterize the IPCCs work - sometimes that is a source with an agenda serving the fossil fuel industry and looking for a strawman argument to undercut the findings of dedicated and scrupulous scientists. The IPCC, a consortium of thousands of climate scientists, is very much data driven.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 11:59 am
by TheVat
I would appreciate any evidence-based or logical input to show that Idso is incorrect. If he is correct then we have to look for other reasons for the slight increases in ANSGTs.

If you know the rules of this forum, and of science generally, you know that the burden of evidence is upon Idso to demonstrate that he is correct. And his work should be reproducible, around the world, from many other researchers. Sagan's Law is pertinent here.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 12:45 pm
by Serpent
We might also factor in all those extra cattle to feed all those newly-beef-eating Asians, plus the yearly bigger and bigger forest fires, destroying millions of acres of carbon-filter while sending up more billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. The feedback is growing; the mitigation is shrinking.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 1:10 pm
by TheVat
Idso is a very experienced Climate Scientist.

Doogles, Idso is not respected in the scientific community. If you carefully read the wikipedia entry that you posted on him, you will discover one of the reasons for this. From the section of the article titled "Funding" --

According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.

The center was also funded by Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company.

Due to the conflict between the business models of such fossil fuel companies and the scientific evidence regarding the climatic effects of fossil fuel consumption, there is an obvious and strong prima facie case for a clear separation between such companies and those who do research in climatology. With the best intentions in the world, there is a long and sad history of pressure on scientists to obtain results that are pleasing to industry sponsors of their research. Examples of compromised research, selection bias, cherry-picking, etc. are so prevalent in these areas that reputable scientists steer clear of such funding, no matter how tempting it may be. In the state I grew up in, there were some serious scandals that arose when research on agricultural products such as meat and milk were funded by the meat and dairy industry. These sorts of conflicts of interest are well known in the scientific community, and one of the reasons that non-corporate bodies are called upon to provide more neutral funding for research in the public interest.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 1:13 pm
by TheVat
This expose, from an independent (donation supported, some donations from science guys like me) muckraking journalism organization, may also be helpful to you, Doogles, in your evaluation of the Idso family..... ... so-family/

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 1:25 pm
by TheVat
From the above article (bolding mine):

The Idso clan is the von Trapp family of climate change denial. In 1980, paterfamilias Sherwood Idso, a self-described “bio-climatologist,” published a paper in Science concluding that doubling the world’s carbon dioxide concentration wouldn’t change the planet’s temperature all that much. In years that followed, Idso and his colleagues at Arizona State University’s Office of Climatology received more than $1 million in research funding from oil, coal, and utility interests. In 1990, he coauthored a paper funded by a coal mining company, titled “Greenhouse Cooling.”

In 1998, Idso’s son Craig founded the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and began publishing CO2 Science, an online digest of climate change skepticism. He subsequently earned his PhD in geography from ASU under the tutelage of climate skeptic Robert Balling, then the director of its climatology program. In the early 2000s, Idso was director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately owned coal company. After Peabody laid him off, he began aggressively fundraising for the center, whose budget increased from just north of $30,000 in 2004 to more than $1 million last year.

I mean no offense to anyone examining heterodox positions, but at this point I think an LOL would not be out of line.

In any case, I think this illuminates the reason why climate scientists (or really, any scientists or anyone who values objective and unbiased methods of research) do not respect the work of the Idso clan.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 1:26 pm
by davidm
Climate Misinformation by Craig Idso

Click on the linked texts of “Climate Myths by Idso” and “What the Science Says” for detailed discussion debunking this charlatan.

Idso said:

What really brought me into the issue was when Al Gore went after my father when [Gore] was in the Senate and he rigged a Senate sub-committee meeting to go after my father and discredit his work.

Golly, THERE’S a real scientist and an unbiased source! :-D

Who, btw, is paid by, among other propaganda outfits, The Heartland Institute.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 1:38 pm
by davidm
Here is one of Heartland's "enlightened" (and enlightening!) campaigns:

Heartland has long questioned the links between tobacco smoking, secondhand smoke, and lung cancer and the social costs imposed by smokers.[32] One of Heartland's first campaigns was against tobacco regulation.[8] According to the Los Angeles Times, Heartland's advocacy for the tobacco industry is one of the two things Heartland is most widely known for.

But that's small potatoes compared with shilling for more C02 in the atmosphere, using enablers like Idso, who admits he got started on the whole subject because of a personal grudge! Smoking kills a lot of people, granted. Climate change potentially could kill billions, and even lead to human extinction. Heartland's greatest achievement!

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 2:41 pm
by davidm
Hey, here is a cool thing that Heartland, financier of Idso, did, per Wiki! This is right good science, this is! And so honest!

On Thursday May 3, 2012, Heartland launched an advertising campaign in the Chicago area, and put up digital billboards along the Eisenhower Expressway in Maywood, Illinois, featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others, asking the question, "I still believe in global warming, do you?" They withdrew the billboards a day later.[70][71] The Institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. The Institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Just catch that last quote. These people are the most egregious, contemptible liars imaginable! They make Goebbels look like Abe Lincoln!

Ido’s pay from Heartland: $11,600 per month (!)

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 6:42 pm
by doogles
Wow! That's a sizeable response which will take me a day or two to respond to. I feel like a heretic at a religious convention. I do hope that you all had more than a glance at the article I cited by Idso. It may take a day or two to respond to all of your comments, but I will do so.

In the meantime, could I ask you to have a look at two of Idso's results, based on simple maths. His experiment 4 used two pieces of data widely accepted by climate scientists -- The mean global warming effect of the whole atmosphere -- 33.6 degrees C, and the mean flux of thermal radiation that originates with the atmosphere and which would be non-existent without it (348 Wm-2). The air temperature sensitivity factor = 0.097 degrees C per Wm-2 by simple division.

In his Experiment 8, he cites 3 references, including Valero et al (1997; to an experiment over the Pacific Ocean. Their direct measurements of downwards-directed thermal radiation at the surface of the sea is 14.0 Wm-2 and this resulted in an increase of surface temperature of 1 degree C. Divide the 1 degree C by 14 Wm-2 to get a surface air temperature sensitivity factor of 0.071 degrees C per Wm-2.

At face value, the figures seem sound enough to me. I was hoping that at least one of you could find a flaw in the logic of any of the 8 experiments.

The value given by climate scientists for the radiative forcing if carbon dioxide doubled from 300 to 600 ppm is 4 Wm-2. To convert this to a change in surface temperature, you simply multiply by the sensitivity factor -- say a global average of about 0.1. The result is a warming of no more than 0.4 degrees C.

Please try to find a flaw in his arguments, while I frame responses to all of your comments.

Re: Climate change

PostPosted: January 28th, 2020, 9:17 pm
by TheVat
Been here before, Doogles. Idso's inability to grasp Forcing v Feedback has been pointed out in several older threads here. Radiative forcing triggers vapor feedback loops. The 98% of climate scientists whose education wasn't bankrolled by oil and coal companies seem able to comprehend this.