Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[dogtowner]

And I am not asserting that I have something that the rest of you don't understand. As I am sure that you haven't noticed, there are a large number of very high powered scientists who don't buy into the AGW hoax. Among them are literally hundreds of PhDs and quite a few nobel prize winners. My position is based on their published work, not something I have worked out on a dry erase board in my basement.

the definition of obscure I'm afraid as they don't Google well (accident ? they are known to pla games) and you certainly won't see it in most Media.

 

[palerider]

the definition of obscure I'm afraid as they don't Google well (accident ? they are known to pla games) and you certainly won't see it in most Media.

Well, you certainly won't see much of the skeptical work in the main stream media, but it isn't difficult to find. The amount of peer reviewed, published work that is skeptical of the hypothesis of AGW is mountainous.

 

[PLC1]

Well, you certainly won't see much of the skeptical work in the main stream media, but it isn't difficult to find. The amount of peer reviewed, published work that is skeptical of the hypothesis of AGW is mountainous.

No, the only place you see the words of the skeptics is in the blogs dedicated to the idea that what scientists are telling us is wrong.

 

[palerider]

PLC - I took a few minutes this morning and sent an email to kiehl and trenberth. I represented myself as in a discussion regarding the k-t energy budget and asked a question. I doubt that you understand their answers any more than my own explanations, but it was somewhat gratifying to get answers back from both very quickly confirming my assessment of what the P/4 issu represented. I sent the same email to each with no change other than the names. I did assume the role in the discussion of the one who really didn't understand the math involved but described the explanation I gave you accurately. It reads as follows:

Dr. Trenberth,

Hello Dr. Trenberth, my name is XXXX XXXXX. First, let me say that I am not a science guy; which is why I am writing this email. I am in a discussion regarding the K-T energy budget and note that the incoming solar radiation is roughly 1/4 of the solar constant. My opponent in the discussion explains that the difference between the solar constant and the incoming solar radiation shown on the graphic depicting the energy budget is simply the result of spreading the incoming solar radiation at any given time over the entire surface of the earth and not a manipulation of the amount of incoming solar radiation.

I understand that you must be a busy man and may not have time to answer such basic questions of laymen, but my thought was that if anyone could give me a straight forward answer and not corrupt the intent of the budget it would be the man responsible for the budget.

Thank You,
XXXX XXXXX

The response from trenberth was as follows:

Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: xxxxxx@ucar.edu

Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 xxxx
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 xxxx (fax)
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

XXXX,
Yes the incoming solar radiation intercepted by the Earth corresponds to the cross section of the earth. With a radius a, that area is pi*a^2. But the surface area of the earth as a sphere is 4*pi*a^2, and so as the Earth rotates through day and night the average amount coming in is a factor of 4 less than the incoming rate. In actual fact the earth is not exactly a sphere but the difference is so close to a factor of 4 that it makes little difference.
Kevin Trenberth

Response from kiehl:

Jeffrey T. Kiehl

Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division
Section Head, Climate Change Research Section
email: xxxx@ucar.edu
phone: 303-497-xxxx
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/kiehl.html

Dear XXXX,

The 1/4 factor comes from the fact that the sun's light is captured by Earth's projected area is PI*R*R where R is the radius of Earth.
This energy is available to the entire surface area of Earth, which is 4*PI*R*R (i.e. the surface area of a sphere). So the fractional
amount of total energy available to Earth is equal to the projected area divided by the total area or (PI*R*R)/(4*PI*R*R) = 1/4

Regards,
Jeff Kiehl

As I said, I don't expect you to grasp what they said any more than you grasped my explanation but as you can see, they did confirm my statement that they expressed the incoming energy per meter squared simultaneously across the entire surface of the earth. P/4 is a represntation of the surface area of the earth as I have told you repeatedly and as such, effectively skins the earth and lays that skin out flat so that the entire surface can be irradiated at once but at 1/4 of the actual intensity precisely as I stated. In their energy budget, there is no night.

As both clearly pointed out (assuming that you have any math skills at all) had they wanted to represent an earth where 180 degrees of its surface was illuminated by the sun and 180 degrees was in darkness, they would have expressed the incoming solar flux in terms of pi*a^2 , or PI*R*R (each equivalent to P/2 as I pointed out early in the discussion) which would only illuminate half of the sphere at any given time.

If you care to have the email addresses or phone numbers, IM me and I will be happy to provide them.

 

[PLC1]

PLC - I took a few minutes this morning and sent an email to kiehl and trenberth. I represented myself as in a discussion regarding the k-t energy budget and asked a question. I doubt that you understand their answers any more than my own explanations, but it was somewhat gratifying to get answers back from both very quickly confirming my assessment of what the P/4 issu represented. I sent the same email to each with no change other than the names. I did assume the role in the discussion of the one who really didn't understand the math involved but described the explanation I gave you accurately. It reads as follows:



The response from trenberth was as follows:



Response from kiehl:



As I said, I don't expect you to grasp what they said any more than you grasped my explanation but as you can see, they did confirm my statement that they expressed the incoming energy per meter squared simultaneously across the entire surface of the earth. P/4 is a represntation of the surface area of the earth as I have told you repeatedly and as such, effectively skins the earth and lays that skin out flat so that the entire surface can be irradiated at once but at 1/4 of the actual intensity precisely as I stated. In their energy budget, there is no night.

If you care to have the email addresses or phone numbers, IM me and I will be happy to provide them.

Wow! I'm impressed that they answered your email.

Yes, I can grasp that explanation. I just don't remember how to work out complex formulas, it's been way too long since calculus.

Now that we know how the figure in the graphic was arrived at, I suppose we can put this one to bed.

 

[palerider]

Wow! I'm impressed that they answered your email.

Yes, I can grasp that explanation. I just don't remember how to work out complex formulas, it's been way too long since calculus.

Now that we know how the figure in the graphic was arrived at, I suppose we can put this one to bed.

We can put it to bed if you can acknowledge that the energy budget that we, nasa, the ipcc, etc are dealing with is representing the earth as a flat disk being irradiated all the time by a solar flux that is 1/4 of the actual amount of incoming solar radiation.


By the way, you shouldn't be surprised that they answer. I am in regular contact with a quite large number of climate scientists on both sides of the argument and am on quite a few mailing lists in which I receive correspondence they forward to each other in email blast form. It isn't as if they were gods or emperors. They are people trying to have their point of view accepted.

 

[PLC1]

We can put it to bed if you can acknowledge that the energy budget that we, nasa, the ipcc, etc are dealing with is representing the earth as a flat disk being irradiated all the time by a solar flux that is 1/4 of the actual amount of incoming solar radiation.


By the way, you shouldn't be surprised that they answer. I am in regular contact with a quite large number of climate scientists on both sides of the argument and am on quite a few mailing lists in which I receive correspondence they forward to each other in email blast form. It isn't as if they were gods or emperors. They are people trying to have their point of view accepted.

I think you mean that if the Earth were a flat disk it would be irradiated by four times the solar radiation it is getting.

I'm sure that scientists get queries all the time from skeptics. I'm surprised that they have time to answer them. They probably have a staff for that purpose.

 

[palerider]

I think you mean that if the Earth were a flat disk it would be irradiated by four times the solar radiation it is getting.

No, I meant what I said. By using the expression p/4, they effectively skinned the earth and laid its entire surface area out flat and have it being irradiated by energy equal to about 1/4 of the solar constant. I specifically asked if they were irradiating the entire surface of the earth at the same time and both answered in the affirmative and explained the mathematical technique by which it was done. The only way to irradiate a sphere across its entire surface at the same time is to lay its surface out flat like a map.

I'm sure that scientists get queries all the time from skeptics. I'm surprised that they have time to answer them. They probably have a staff for that purpose.

I didn't represent my self as a skeptic. I represented myself as someone with a question. And no, they don't have thier staff answer such questions. Over a period of time you don't see variations in the writing style as you might if more than one person were answering emails. They don't always answer within a couple of hours, but you will nearly always get an answer.

 

[dogtowner]

I think you mean that if the Earth were a flat disk it would be irradiated by four times the solar radiation it is getting.

I'm sure that scientists get queries all the time from skeptics. I'm surprised that they have time to answer them. They probably have a staff for that purpose.

if guys like this had a staff you would not have the situation Phil Jones did where he claimed to be unable to find stuff due to HIS poor organizatioinal skills. all that money does not get spent on their bureaucracy.

 

[dogtowner]

I didn't represent my self as a skeptic. I represented myself as someone with a question.

skepticism is a required trait in science and only a person with something to hide that has issues with questions. if you've missed something you WANT to know a bout it and if you didn't, its a validation. whats odd is that Jones, Mann etal take the stance that they do.

 

[Gipper]

No, the only place you see the words of the skeptics is in the blogs dedicated to the idea that what scientists are telling us is wrong.

Even after all this free education Pale has given you, you still believe in the hoax. Amazing!!! And, you still believe the entire scientific community believes in AGW.

Pale is right. The refutation of AGW is mountainous, but you would not know this since you get all your information from left wing sources...and the funny thing is you don't even know they are left wing sources.

One thing you must learn even at your advanced age is whenever the entire worldwide left elite aligns on an issue, you can be assured the issue is a hoax. It is just as simple as that. But sadly you just can see the forest for the trees.

 

[PLC1]

skepticism is a required trait in science and only a person with something to hide that has issues with questions. if you've missed something you WANT to know a bout it and if you didn't, its a validation. whats odd is that Jones, Mann etal take the stance that they do.

Had to look them up:

Mann et al. also investigated the role of different hypothesized climate forcing mechanisms in influencing hemispheric temperatures through time. They conclude that variations in the sun, volcanic eruptions, and human-induced increases of greenhouses gases (CO2 in particular) all played a role in generating the observed patterns of climate change over the last 600 years. They also conclude that greenhouse gases were the dominant forcing during the 20th century.

Their stance is odd, why?

 

[palerider]

Had to look them up:


Their stance is odd, why?

Odd because they are so secretive with their research. Mann has spent more than a million dollars so far keeping his public funded research from being handed over in a FOIA request. Tax payers paid for that research and it has been used in consideration for legislation. If the research and findings are legitimate, why spend a million dollars to keep its contents secret? He wrote a paper describing his findings in detail but has spent more than a million dollars keeping the data supporting his published paper out of the public view?

Do you not find that unusual.....perhaps even suspicious?

 

[dogtowner]

Had to look them up:


Their stance is odd, why?

Phil Jones (East Anglia) and Michael Mann (Penn State/UVa not the film director). thought they were pretty well known science guys.

as alluded to in my post, their stance of refusing to disclose data needed to peer review their work is odd. when it went from "no" to "I cant find it" odder still.

 

[dogtowner]

Odd because they are so secretive with their research. Mann has spent more than a million dollars so far keeping his public funded research from being handed over in a FOIA request. Tax payers paid for that research and it has been used in consideration for legislation. If the research and findings are legitimate, why spend a million dollars to keep its contents secret? He wrote a paper describing his findings in detail but has spent more than a million dollars keeping the data supporting his published paper out of the public view?

Do you not find that unusual.....perhaps even suspicious?

the state is close to making Mann produce it here in VA via his association with state school UVa where he worked (don't know if he's still there or at Penn State).