Scroll To Top

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

OMG! Embarrassing even for WUWT - "Why does the IPCC community use Stefan Boltzmann for gases" - and more gems!

Sou | 12:31 AM Go to the first of 50 comments. Add a comment

You won't believe the article that Anthony Watts has on his blog. It's worse than hilarious. Here are some gems from some ardent denier called Jean-Pierre Bardinet, who can't keep his story straight (archived here)

The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. 
Not just a greenhouse effect denier, he's a physics-denying sky dragon slayer ha ha. But he doesn't know if he's coming or going:
The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. 


He can't do arithmetic: 403-280=123/403 x 100 = 30.5% but he thinks it's:
 The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air 

And he hasn't looked at a surface temperature chart in nearly twenty years:
The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997 


He reads charts upside down:
The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. 




He thinks Planet Earth is pure gas!!
The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ?


It's a conspiracy!
Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. 

 Oh, there's plenty more where those came from. Those were in the top 10 cm of an article about  a metre long!  I didn't read the rest. That was more than enough. If you want to select more bits of pure idiocy, feel free to add them to the comments. (If you must read the article, please, please, please put on your handy head vice first. I don't want feel responsible for brains spattered all over.)


From the WUWT comments

I only read one, it was all that was worth reading, I'm sure. I expect David Riser was wearing head gear because he survived the experience long enough to write this comment.
May 12, 2015 at 3:22 am
Wow, that’s all I am going to say!

Which about covers it :)

50 comments :

  1. It's a treasure trove. In the comments Jean-Pierre Bardinet states that he's sent the whole thing off to Judith Curry. I wonder if she'll find it 'interesting'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curry offered a guest post to "Al Lakos" (Sokal backwards) who posted a comment of mathematical gibberish generated by the Mathgen bot with some Hansen, Mann & model bashing added as crank bait.

      She found that "intriguing" so Bardinet who is apparently a real person would surely consider himself a good chance.

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/stocks-and-flows/#comment-55635

      Delete
    2. Wow! You couldn't make it up. Well, technically, you can make it up.
      Thanks.

      Delete
  2. A comment by dbstealey reveals how credulous he is:
    "I don’t think the article is 'Sky Dragon stuff'...This is an excellent article, IMHO. I personally don’t disagree with much if any of it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Far be it for Stealey to offer up something he does disagree with. He really may be as illogically uncritical as his Internet persona, but I believe that lack of ethics is his biggest failing. In addition to snipping inconvenient torpedoes from the likes of Nick Stokes, his role is quite apparently to undermine pushback from contrarians like Mike B who occasionally show properly sceptical critical thought.

      Delete
    2. "I personally don’t disagree with much if any of it."

      Now is priceless. He doesn't know whether he agrees with it all or not? I suspect he is leaving himself with a way out in case denier royalty like Doc Spencer turns up and goes "sigh" as has happened before.

      Delete
    3. Physics prof. Robert G Brown at Duke more frequently fills that role, memorably calling the Skydragon Slayer argument, "pure and unadulterated bullshit". And then explained exactly, and correctly, why. One of the other nutters said, "I mostly agree with your post" even though he was almost completely at odds with it, and indeed, was one of the targets of Doc. Brown's outburst.

      Another hat-tip to Mike B, who continues to not take Stealey's excuses for moderating Nick Stokes' comment at face value. I can only hope he's not the only contrarian who sees through DB's patent intellectual dishonesty and legion of double-standards when it comes to policing information -- not behaviour -- being presented in WUWT comment threads.

      Delete
    4. Stealey doesn't 'personally' disagree 'with much if any of it'.

      Considering he doesn't know shit from clay, this is not a surprise.



      Delete
  3. That level of stupidity is a crime against humanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a crime against buckets of wet sand.

      Delete
  4. Nick Stokes was an early commenter stating that Bardinet fell over in the first paragraph of his list (re global temps).
    Stealey snipped him within minutes replacing the entirety of Nick's comments with his own - to the effect that Nick had ignored new temp data.

    Realising (or having been warned) that he could not sustain such a mod or comment particularly against an expert temp guy like Stokes, Stealey has since removed all evidence of Nick's comment and his silly moderation comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then further down we find this

      John Eggert
      May 12, 2015 at 6:10 am

      Mike B: I have to agree that this is Sky Dragon stuff. I stopped reading when I saw the “gases aren’t grey bodies”. I’m also saddened that Nick Stokes was modded. Much as I disagree with him, he is generally not trollish, so I don’t see any benefit other than giving the impression that contrary opinions are not welcome.

      (Reply: The moderator who removed Nick Stokes’ comment was not following Anthony’s Rules For Moderators. We all make an occasional error. -mod.)

      Stealey making a spectacle of himself in saying that Stokes (of all people) is ignoring T data admits he was wrong but has not reinstated the comment. BTW when he snipped Nick he signed the mod comment dbstealey

      Delete
    2. I saw this too. I didn't notice that stealey signed the mod comment with his own name but it seemed obvious that it was him.

      Delete
    3. Yet somehow Eli Rabett got through moderation for once. No rhyme or reason need apply when lunatics run the asylum.

      Delete
    4. For the record, my comment was:

      "The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997"
      Falls at the start. The trend of Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly since Jan 1997 was:
      HADCRUT 4: 0.725 °C/century
      GISS : 0.915 °C/Century
      NOAA: 0.678 °C/Century

      Delete
    5. I see Stealey allowed your re-post through. Not after (likely) writing as mod: he chose only the datasets that represented the viewpoint he wanted -mod

      Which I was pleased to see you quote in your response. If cherry-picking is a site policy violation, the man would have long since been banned for life.

      Delete
  5. What do greenhouse effect deniers propose happens to the infrared photons emitted by the atmosphere towards the surface? Do they just pass through the earth?

    Cabc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bert from ElthamMay 13, 2015 at 9:05 AM

      They do not even understand that IR absorbed by CO2 molecules are elastically scattered in all directions by emission into the full 4pi steradians. To calculate the elastic backscatter the atmospheric greenhouse gases could be approximated by a set of concentric shells all showing this behaviour.
      Without going into complex calculus it is obvious that each arbitrary layer scatters 50% of the absorbed IR down. This means the next upper layer has less IR to interact with but still scatters 50% down and so on.
      There will be a level of concentration of greenhouse gases where all the absorbed IR is reflected down. We are not there yet even at 400 ppm. So all talk of less effect due to increased concentration of CO2 is absolute rubbish. It is non linear. It is inverse logarithmic.
      Note elastically scattered means there is no energy loss or gain in the interaction.
      Bert

      Delete
    2. Bert from ElthamMay 13, 2015 at 9:48 AM

      By the way the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is purely elastic scattering of IR photons by vibrating molecules. These molecules just happen to be asymmetric and have modes of vibration in the IR due to their quantum mechanical properties.
      Bert

      Delete
  6. The Very Reverend Jebediah HypotenuseMay 13, 2015 at 2:22 AM

    I feel like Bill Murray in 'Groundhog Day'...

    That article is a very fine first approximation of the last 20 years of the pseudo-skeptical "climate debate". All the mistakes, tropes, fallacies, and zombie-'arguments' that we've come to expect from the usual suspects - all in one place.

    If the nonsense could be packed together just a bit more densely, it would surely go critical.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm betting that she who cannot be embarrassed will cite this muck at CE

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jean-Pierre Bardinet is a well known French denier who is regularly trolling every article in Libération or Le Monde (and lot of others less renowned) referring to climate change.

    This time he crossed the Atlantic with his crap in his suitcase.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Usually he operates on the infamous site pensée unique . fr (yup, didn't want to boost this site's popularity through Google robots), host of the "iron sun" theory : they are so desperate to disprove greenhouse effect that they say all astrophysical theories are dead wrong. Oops, forgot to warn you to put your head vise on.
      And they like the Salby's ideal gas relation nonsense.

      I knew that the french site liked WUWT a lot (for obvious reasons), now we have some indications that WUWT and PU do have several connexions. I wonder how far it goes.

      Delete
    2. ... just saw that Bardinet is jipebe29

      ROFLCOPTER IN DROVES

      (yup, I've seen his nonsense on several comments, spouting so much crap that some people now hunt him down on sight ...)

      Delete
  9. It's an astounding mess of an article.

    Ignores natural variation and is based upon the idea that CO2 is the _only_ forcing (1, 2, 3), conflates molecular residence time with concentration adjustment time (3, 4), mysterious cycles (5), claims 'CO2 is saturated' while not understanding the effects are driven from the tropopause (6), ignorant of the 'faint sun' progression in main sequence stellar output over time (7), utter and incurrect BS about sea levels (8), 'hot spot' claims without understanding uncertainty ranges, current observations, or indeed this predictions relationship to GHGs (9), more incorrect BS on water vapor (10), incorrect stats on Antarctic and Arctic sea ice, not to mention no understanding of their implications (11,12), ignoring deep and abyssal ocean heat content (13), howlers regarding thermodynamics (14, 15, 16) including claiming that the S-B relationship of thermal radiation somehow _doesn't_ hold, notes that CO2 follows temperature as a feedback while ignoring that burning stuff also increases atmospheric CO2 (17), cosmic rays (18), model complaints and 'hiatus nonsense (19, 20), quoting out of context IPCC reports from 1990 (21), and conspiracy theories (22).

    See this list for details of why each of these myths are wrong.

    I think the only reason they didn't include more silly denial myths was running out of space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Truth #2: 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997 [...]"

      There is an accelerated rise of CO2 concentration in Bardinet's lies:

      Jean-Pierre Bardinet (jipebe29) le 17 février 2015 à 15 h 22 min

      Depuis 1997, [...] nous avons émis plus de 40% de toutes nos émissions depuis le début de l’ère industrielle.

      Jean-Pierre Bardinet 31/03/2015 - 20h41

      [...]la TMAG (température moyenne annuelle globale) est stable depuis 18 ans, alors que, sur cette période, nous avons émis près de 50% de toutes nos émissions de CO2 depuis le début de l’ère industrielle, [...]

      And now 57%! In just four months, wow.

      Delete
  10. "8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges"

    Bardinet seems to think the global mean sea level is unequivocally measured at Brest. It's one of his favorite on the french speaking comment sections (see this google search for some samples.

    Of course, even when being shown repeatedly that even at Brest, sea level rise is accelerating (like here), he doesn't change his line, just keeps quiet for some hours, then post the same drivel again and again.

    And that's just an example of his disingenuity.

    Yes, we may have less dumb deniers than in the US or Australia, but there are some.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not this Joe (don't confuse us!):

    Joe Bastardi May 12, 2015 at 4:12 am
    This is a must read

    ReplyDelete
  12. The comments are really heating up now. Several people are pointing out some of the glaring holes in this TLDR manifesto, and those who jumped on with the praise early (probably without understanding most of the arguments, or even having read them) are left trying to defend the absurd. How do you argue that reducing heat transfer violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Wouldn't that mean blankets wouldn't keep you warm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Blankets wouldn't keep you warm ? " says Schitzree Yep , you warmists sure like your blankets. So where is this "blanket" and what is made of? Schitzree? The atmosphere doesn't act like a blanket. In fact it works exactly the opposite to a blanket. Atmospheric gases do not "trap" ,"add" ,"generate", "pile," energy, but disperse it. All gases dissipate heat. That's how a hair-dryer works.
      What you need to demonstrate this Schitzree, is to get this through to your head ,by covering it closely with a REAL blanket and running the hair-dryer at it.

      Delete
    2. I guess even planets can be warmist conspirators in Mack's bizarre universe.

      "The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

      http://www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html

      Delete
    3. Mack, why don't you toddle off and knit the Moon an atmosphere..sorry, a blanket.

      Delete
    4. But Mack, the blanket cannot “heat your body“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. [Sarcasm]

      Delete
    5. Mack you can't parlay your crippling anger into scientific literacy and being humiliated whilst angry is unhealthy.
      Time to leave your computer and read a book or walk your dog.

      Delete
    6. @ Millicent...."The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury......is because of its thick, dense cloud layer" Dense clouds keeping the Venus surface temp. hotter? I don't think so. Dense clouds would shield the surface from the sun. The size of Venus is greater than Mercury. The size of the planet determines the amount of exposure to the sun, and larger objects lose heat more slowly. The longer Venutian day with the planet very slowly spinning backwards means that it has had plenty of time for the whole planet to get hellishly hot.
      Simple physics,.. nothing to do with any "back radiation" from the atmosphere or any "greenhouse" effect.

      Delete
    7. According to Mack, it doesn't get cold at night time when the sun doesn't shine. Or not on Venus at any rate. Or maybe Venus has very long days but very short nights :(

      Delete
    8. @ Nick,
      The moon doesn't need a "blanket". It's quite happy the way it is. It's surface on the sunny side gets scorching hot and on the night side freezing cold. Averaging out these two extremes gives a balanced temp. for the moon, which like the Earth, is directly determined by the amount of solar radiation striking the surface. The only difference is that the temperature on the moon fluctuates more quickly between night and day, than the Earth. No "greenhouse" thing here on Earth, no "backradiation"....just an enormously bigger thermal inertia.

      Delete
    9. Unlike most greenhouse effect deniers and "it's the sun"-ers, Mack not only doesn't "believe" we're heading for an ice age, he doesn't even "believe" the earth was ever cold enough to have an ice age.

      Delete
    10. Obviously the greenhouse effect exists (we can measure it with instruments). But the blanket analogy is a poor one.

      Delete
    11. 'Mack' is, as ever, a disingenuous crank who gets off on the attention. Best ignored.

      Delete
    12. That wasn't 'simple' physics, that was 'simpleton' physics. Wrong, just wrong. Every time Mack appears I get reminded of a scene from Deliverance.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

      Delete
    13. Bert from ElthamMay 15, 2015 at 10:03 AM

      Millicent up in deliverance country they now say 'squeal like a canoeist'. It will not be long before it is 'squeal like a denialist'!
      Matter of fact they are squealing now.
      Bert

      Delete
    14. For the record I obviously wasn't saying the greenhouse effect works 'like a blanket'. That was a strawman argument put up by Mack. I was pointing out that the 16th argument for WHY the greenhouse effect couldn't work was clearly wrong because if it was true that cooler thing couldn't reduce the flow of heat from a warmer thing then a whole slew of common object from blankets to oven mitts wouldn't work. As for blankets, have you ever seen one of those shine silver emergency blankets? Those were invented by applying the theory of heat transfer and reflection. Unlike your average quilt which reduces heat transfer by putting layers of material with low thermal conductivity between you and the outside world, it literally reflects the thermal energy back at you, and is much more efficient. Not as snuggely though. ^¿^

      Delete
    15. Schitzree - I've had one of those shiny thingy's in the boot of my car for years and years, as part of a first aid kit. The only time I've touched it has been to move it from the boot of one car to the next one - or when cleaning the boot (which doesn't happen often) I've never tried it out - maybe I will :D

      Delete
    16. Bert from elthamMay 18, 2015 at 8:52 AM

      These 'space blankets' are just thin Mylar with a reflective vacuum deposited metal usually aluminium. You may have seen the Apollo landing modules wrapped in these. The gold colour is due to the protective oxide layer on the aluminium layer. This colour can be easily obtained by dyes in the oxide layer . Remember those nested multi coloured aluminium cups for picnics These 'space blankets' are used in satellites where heat loss or gain is mainly by radiation.
      In an emergency when someone is suffering from exposure or shock the last thing you want to do is wrap them in a cold blanket with a high thermal mass that will initially make them colder! Bert

      Delete
    17. Bert from ElthamMay 18, 2015 at 9:05 AM

      If you do not have a 'space blanket' in an emergency especially with exposure wrap the sufferer with the outer warm clothes off your own body and any one else's present.
      This is also a tactic when enticing a woman in a strapless gown outside 'for some air'. Offer her your dinner jacket to keep her shoulders warm. Bert

      Delete
  13. The gravitational pull of such a dense concentration of wrong has begun to haul in others, too; Tamino, for example - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/catch-22-no-1/

    From time to time the boys at WUWT and elsewhere, rather than dole nonsense in bite-size morsels, are so kind as to serve up a compendium, a cornucopia if you will. I know they truly want to persuade people that man-made global warming is no problemo, but I wonder whether they’re quite aware of what they’re doing; this kind of bounty doesn’t do their image much good.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now even Willis Eschenbach is debunking point 4 of Bardinet's idiocies and says he will not go past it!

    Is somebody here able to tell if Willis' comments are sensible?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm honestly not sure how this thing even got published on WUWT. Anthony has said repeatedly before that he doesn't believe in sky dragon crap. Why would he put this on his page without at least one of Curry's 'I find this interesting but don't agree with' yada yada yada? And several of his own mods are defending this dross?

    ReplyDelete
  16. See "Circle of Skpetics (French).
    Bardinet is included on set of links at right.

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.