• Home
  • Current News
  • Controlled Opposition: the strategy to stymie real climate debate

Controlled Opposition: the strategy to stymie real climate debate

Written by John O'Sullivan

Why is it that groups like the Heartland Institute and CFACT are very good at spending money holding seminars and presentations to their echo chamber of supporters but don’t change things for the better in the real world?

Have you noticed how ‘lukewarmers’ like Spencer, Happer, Curry, etc will say CO2 does something but none will quantify and qualify their statements with real metrics?

Perhaps you’ve heard of the famous quote by Soviet tyrant, Vladimir Lenin [pictured below] who said:

”The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”?

Lenin | It's Not Easy Being Red

We need to delve into this question and seek to explain something of the origins of the controlled opposition strategy.

The concept of a ‘controlled opposition’ certainly pre-dates Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. We know that during the French Revolution Count Mirabeau was controlled opposition, fooling the rebels who thought he was supporting the revolution. But in reality he was a personal friend of the king and a secret government agent.

It is when an individual, organization, or movement is covertly controlled or influenced by a hidden third party. The secrecy is paramount because the controlled entity’s true purpose must never be made public, or the plot will be undone.

The point of the subterfuge is to achieve mass deception, surveillance or political/social manipulation. Our ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ is dressed up to be loyal opposition battling the ‘hated enemy’ – the controlling party. The ‘sheep’s clothing’ is ‘lukewarmer’ world of skepticism where everyone parrots from the hymn sheet that carbon dioxide must cause ‘some warming.’ (don’t confuse ‘lukewarmers with real skeptics – we ‘Slayers’  (Principia Scientific International) who are vilified as the most extreme ‘deniers’).

To get the ‘ball’ rolling who better to ask than Dr Tim Ball who wryly flips the ’97 percent’ hoary old chestnut:

“I reply on radio to questions about the 97% by after explaining how it was created and is wrong, that it is most likely that 97% of scientists have never looked at the IPCC Reports, Summary and especially the original Science Report of WG1. Here is a good quote that I put on my book.

Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” [Dr Tim Ball, by email: October 01, 2019]

But the hidden agenda goes back to at least the 1970’s as shown by valued PSI member, Tom Tamarkin who notes:

“I believe that my friend Marge Hecht and I were the first to flag Margret Mead and her side kick back then of Paul Ehrlich, as coming up with the CO2 AGW scheme before “The Club of Rome” at:   “Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born: 1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference” https://greatclimatedebate.com/where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/

Now, we did address this perplexing matter once before in our 2018 article, ‘Controlled Opposition’ Keeps Greenhouse Gas Theory On Life Support.’

Back then we examined how the radiative greenhouse gas theory, despite being discredited as a reliable explanation of earth’s climate system, was being staunchly defended by many prominent skeptics of man-made global warming. At the time this author wrote:

“Any such controlled opposition would work to ensure that the CO2-driven radiative greenhouse gas theory was maintained and unquestioned as the ‘settled science’; without that lynchpin no one could persuasively argue that human emissions were dangerously altering earth’s climate.”

We drew a parallel with what began in America in the 1950’s with Operation Mockingbird and a secret campaign by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence the mass media.

Of course, many who inadvertently serve as ‘controlled opposition’ wouldn’t even regard themselves as such. For example, a scientist employed by a university and protective of their position, is subliminally motivated to toe the official line. These may be among the jobbing supplicants who peddle the ubiquitous fake ‘lab experiment’ claimed to prove CO2 ‘trapped heat’?

“Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised.”

Time and again, we challenged government researchers, exposed fake data and corrupt scientists (e.g. Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph.)  Of course, Tim Ball was even prosecuted in court for his troubles but was finally victorious in August 2019.

We are faced with people who will  ‘accidentally on purpose’ rig their science to fit the groupthink narrative. These groups fight for money and their high-level staffs are well paid.  They don’t want to quickly solve the problem because their reason to exist ceases and any organism’s instinct is for survival.

Dr Pierre Latour, a renowned international expert in thermodynamics has repeatedly called out the insane ‘trick’ of government researchers who ‘simplify’ complex calculations of the innumerable variables in climate by mixing scalar numbers with vectors (a huge ‘no, no’ to real science). Latour took great issue with Dr Roy Spencer’s bizarre article, ‘Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still’ (July 23, 2010).

Spencer’s is regarded by believers in the greenhouse gas theory (GHE) as one of the most authoritative defenses. It claims that CO2 is causing the climate to be “33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be” absent this gas. The crux of the argument which Latour powerfully disputes is Spencer’s bold admission:

“Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.”

Yes, Spencer actually makes this unphysical claim and alarmists and ‘lukewarmers’ alike buy into it. Latour’s authoritative rebuttal of the GHE is his ‘No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still‘ (January 2012).

Another good example of such ‘bad measuring’ by a government ‘expert’ who even got called out in the courts for his shenanigans, is alarmist Oxford Professor Myles Allen [pictured below] who was taken to task by a US Federal judge in California. See here.  [1]

Professor Myles Allen wins 'Lifetime Award' from ...

Professor Allen’s science was grossly exaggerating the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the judge spotted the ruse:

“It’s 400 parts per million but you make it look like it’s 10,000 part per million,” he said.

Professor Allen was forced to admit his slide was misleading. “Your honor is quite right,” he agreed.

Astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma is also no stranger to seeing scheming resistance to climate skepticism in academia. Postma has long taken issue with the fudging of data and over-reliance on averaging techniques, which can be a convenient means to falsify and distort mathematically what occurs in reality.

Postma, in his new book, ‘The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History,’ deftly exposes how the standard model of the greenhouse gas theory depicts the earth as a flat surface:

“Just because you can think of an average or a way of computing an average, it does not mean that that average has anything to do with reality. And so although you can think of spreading sunshine over the entire Earth’s surface at once as an average and you can compute that with mathematics, it actually has nothing to do with reality because in reality sunlight does not fall on the Earth in such a fashion.”

Postma then goes on to elaborate how government climate modelers took the step to remove the need for a time variable (night/day) and actual incoming sunlight across one hemisphere in their equations. They wanted to use a simple averaging technique  (spreading strong sunlight from one hemisphere thinly over both earth’s hemispheres simultaneously as a tepid twilight). This thus created the false condition in the models that sunlight, itself, is not strong enough to melt ice. As a result, the academics then opted to fudge an additional 33 degrees into their numbers so that the model can replicate the true strength of sunlight which they had unphysically botched into tepid twilight in the first place!

But surely, don’t the best and brightest NASA climate scientists diligently apply super computers to fix this problem? Well, no, not if you speak to an actual NASA climate scientist who worked alongside Dr James Hansen and Dr Gavin Schmidt.

Let me introduce you to Dr Duane Thresher. In his revealing article ‘Follow The Money II’ (September 21, 2017) Thresher exposed the utter incompetence among his fellow government workers:

“The unqualified physicists and mathematicians carpetbagged it into climate science. (Just because everything has some physics/math in it doesn’t mean physicists/mathematicians know everything. While I (Dr. Duane Thresher) was at NASA GISS, we used to make fun of the physicists/mathematicians at the National Bomb Labs for getting into climate modeling.)

Everybody had to have their own supercomputer to model climate. I talked about NASA GISS’s experience with this: no proper place to put it, no tech support, no qualified climate modeling programmers. This was true at most climate research institutions.”

The closer we look, the more we see that despite having the best hardware for contemporary computer climate models, government employees still rely on those over-simplified algorithms devised a century ago that were only intended to serve as mere estimates.  Back then, before insane climate alarm and trillion-dollar climate ‘fixing’ policies became the rage, no faculty of climate science even existed.

There is thus a distinct and disconcerting chasm between what has been believed in (government-funded) academia for three decades versus what is daily proven objectively in the highly-competitive, real world (results-focused industry) by applied scientists and engineers.

Now factor in the truism that the best and brightest brains seek lucrative careers in the cut-throat private sector, while mediocre, unambitious minds tend to opt for the safer job security of government work.

It appears to be more than coincidence that the ‘lukewarmers’ are invariably from academia; while the ‘slayers’ mostly are comprised of applied scientists and engineers (plus a smattering of retired academics).

To help unclutter the confusion, PSI provided ‘The New Three-Sided Climate Debate: A User Guide.’ [2] Our guide exposed Three Paradoxes in the Consensus Climate Theory as follows:

Paradox One: (the blatant fraud) Despite thousands of years of proxy data (e.g. from ice cores) proving all past rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW not cause increases in global temperatures, alarmist scientists have falsely reported the opposite;

Paradox Two: (an irrational love affair with models) Despite hard empirical evidence that solar energy first heats earth’s surface before rising up to warm the air, alarmists have turned this fact full circle to program their models to suggest it is the cooler air that somehow heats earth’s warmer surface even more;

Paradox Three: (the mathematical errors inc. L R Richardson’s etc.) The direct heat of the sun, which can only impact half of our three-dimensional planet at any time, has been crudely modeled as constant; a ‘flat earth’ heat source with one-quarter of the intensity averaged out over the entire planet (the ‘P4 number’)

Now, the general make-up of the membership of PSI (AKA the ‘slayers’) comes mostly from the applied sciences and engineering. A good few hold PhD’s in thermodynamics – the perfect discipline to help understand earth’s climate system. What really bothers such ‘hands on’ experts in empirical science is the glaring anomaly among climate academics – who dodge the question: why does carbon dioxide become a super heater in their theory when free roaming the atmosphere, yet it’s only commercial and laboratory use is for super-cooling?

After well over a decade engaged full-time in the fractious man-made global warming debate, it strikes many a seasoned ‘slayer’ skeptic that some of our fellow ‘lukewarm’ skeptics are not of the same flock. Perhaps, more than one or two really are the ‘wolves’ who serve as controlled opposition to stymie real progress?

Some, in all sincerity, simply don’t want to countenance that their life’s work was premised on a false assumption – that CO2 ‘must cause some warming’ of the atmosphere might be bogus. That would be a bitter pill to swallow if your last name was Spencer or Lindzen.

We don’t especially want to be mean about Dr Judith Curry, who has now retired from the academic hullaballoo. As we wrote in 2018,

“Perhaps Dr Curry is less the willing operative and more the unwitting groupthinker.”

Yes, groupthink may be the bigger villain here. As it is for the alarmist camp where so many scientists from various disciplines, not wanting to tread on the toes of a scientist in another discipline, will merely acquiesce along consensus lines. But as we all know, ‘consensus is not science!’

So, just consider that the purposes of controlled opposition include:

  • Coopting or preempting a resistance movement to neutralize the threat that a grassroots movement would pose to an established power structure
  • Preempt or neutralize true but negative information by having it be championed in a skewed or stigmatized fashion by a person or group. The truth can be peppered with misinformation or the truth of the message can be neutralized by association due to the extreme, radical, or unpalatable positions held by the controlled entity (person or group) who is disclosing the information or “championing” a position. The stigmatize truth or adulterated truth in turn steers people away from truthful information which would normally cause criticism or a serious backlash against the controlling party
  • Hijack the goals and actions of an organization or movement for purposes other than those that were the original intentions of the grassroots movement
  • Give the public the false illusion of choice by presenting a political party or organization that superficially speaks to the desires or frustrations of the people but whose actions do not further the stated goals of the organization
  • Disinformation or deception of the masses. Steering the masses in the wrong direction or misdirect their energies, beliefs and actions
  • Unmask and monitor the true opposition
  • Create a chaotic and divisive environment in which the opposition cannot band together and there is general mistrust thereby ensuring that an organized opposition with clear goals and priorities never manifests
  • Act in such a way that superficially appears to benefit the opposition, but in truth furthers the ends of the controlling party

Do you not get a sense that these factors are in play in the fractious climate debate?

The strategy of controlled opposition works best under circumstances in which the masses are gullible, credulous, lack critical thinking and are unable to connect the dots and see how the actions/inaction or manipulation of information from the controlled entity benefit the controlling entity. Isn’t that a fair description of every-day, average non-scientist voters?

For further edification we recommend watching this insightful video featuring Tim Ball: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE&feature=share


[1] Full report by Phelim McAleer, Producer/Director FrackNation here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/fracknation/a-bloody-nose-for-global-warming-alarmists/1737130993018427/

[2]  The New Three-Sided Climate Debate: A User Guide https://principia-scientific.org/the-new-three-sided-climate-debate-a-user-guide/ (Published on September 15, 2017)


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (27)

  • Avatar

    Matt

    |

    Well considered and insightful article thank you John.
    I had never considered some lukewarmists could be surreptitiously steering the ship or at least gently tweaking the helm.
    I have watched the one hour Dr. Ball video at least 5 times and the 2 hour video at least five times looking for a sign of deception or untruths. From memory I noticed a reference to 2 watts a square kilometer when it is possible per square meter was intended.
    What will forever impress me about Dr Ball is his nuanced observations on human behaviour and his courage to be an ally of integrity.
    I was monitoring Tony Heller’s video on YouTube yesterday and during one hour the reported viewings dropped from 241,080 to 239,775.
    “Noble cause corruption” is very common with people saving the world, police planting evidence because they just know he was guilty, or even 1790 Salem, Massachusetts corruption of due process.
    Solutions can be vague illusions but cumulative effect gives weight with time.
    Best wishes.
    Matt

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Thanks, Matt. As you say, ‘noble cause corruption plays a role. We face an often inscrutable foe. Thanks to brave souls like Tim Ball we are steadily defeating them.

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      There goes my second to last ounce of credibility. The witch trials were in the 1690s not the 1790s. Dang!

  • Avatar

    Joseph Olson

    |

    “Non Science Nonsense” > Curry/Mann fake debate > CanadaFreePress(.)com > Apr 2010

    “Rocket Scientist Need Not Apply” > Spencer myths > CanadaFreePress(.)com > July 2010

    “Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami” > FauxScienceSlayer(.)com > July 2014

    “Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas” > FauxScienceSlayer(.)com > Sept 2014

    I’ve been lectured in person by dozens of these Lukewarmist climaclownologists

  • Avatar

    Julian Fell

    |

    As someone who did his dissertation in a marine subject I am well aware of the massive amount of heat that is stored in the oceans. The amount of heat contained in the lower part of the atmosphere between sea level and the thermal balance height is about the same as the amount of heat contained in the upper 1 metre of the oceans. By thermal balance or equilibrium level I mean the level where the temperature is 30 to 35 degrees cooler than the surface temperature, which is the temperature the planet would have if it were a bare rock. Typically this is about 5 Km above sea level but drops to surface pole-side of the polar circle when the respective pole is in winter. The atmosphere above the equilibrium layer is colder than the bare rock temperature and cannot participate in any warming of the planet. Thus the climate of the planet surface is pretty much contained in this lower 5 km of the atmosphere, which also contains about 40% of the entire atmosphere by mass. Current thinking seems to be that this “climate layer” in the gas atmosphere is responsible for the 30-33 degree difference between mean surface temperature and bare rock temperature. Further the CO2 cult believers are being led to believe that it is the CO2 in this layer that is mostly responsible for this temperature difference.
    Each 24 hours the atmosphere (as a whole) looses back to space the same amount of heat it has received from the sun. In dry low humidity spaces over land the fluctuation between maximum and minimum temperatures spans 20 degrees. It should be apparent from this that the atmosphere has little heat storage/retention capacity. Yet most climate discussions dwell on the atmosphere as the agent of warming over bare rock temperature.

    If one looks at the daily temperatures of isolated small islands away from land masses one notes that the daily range is very small, typically 2 degrees or less and the annual seasonal fluctuation is only 4-6 degrees or less. Which is to say that the bottom of atmosphere temperature over the oceans is fixed by the temperature of the surface of the ocean. In fact typically it is one to two degrees cooler than the surface temperature of the sea. Between the polar circles, which is where realistically all planet heating occurs, the oceans account for 80% of the planet surface. I think it can be safely said that the climate of the planet is determined by the temperature of the oceans surface and what takes place on land is only a side-show to where the climate is determined. The real climate determinant is how much sunlight heats the ocean. Infra-red radiation is absorbed right at surface, it does not penetrate. Visible light penetrates and blue light goes down as far as 50 m. Over land most visible light is reflected. Over the ocean it is absorbed. It is quite possible that visible light puts more energy into the ocean than the other frequencies. The Argos buoy studies have shown that seasonal summer heating effects only go down to 50 m. The oceans show no seasonal fluctuation below this. The ocean is a surface radiator only. It absorbs energy in depth but can only loose it by surface radiation. The Argos studies seem to show that annually the ocean absorbs seasonally the amount of heat it would receive from the equivalent of 40 totally clear sunny days and takes nine times longer to loose this same amount of heat. The oceans have infinite heat storage capacity and so can accumulate heat during periods (years/decades) of sunnier weather, and equally slowly loose heat over periods of greater cloud cover.
    The point I am trying to make is that it is the oceans that determine the base climate of the planet and the oceans that are responsible for the 30-33 degree warmer difference over bare rock temperature. It is the oceans that make the climate and the atmosphere only causes the weather, which is just a heat re-distribution system. Cloud cover is the mechanism that controls heat acquisition by the oceans. Svensmark has already proved this mechanism. CO2 has no role in the heating of the oceans.
    Bottom line. Stop obsessing about the atmosphere in climate considerations; -look at the role of the oceans. The oceans contain about 1500 times more heat than does the climate atmosphere. This is about 12 times more heat than is contained in the Venusian atmosphere so I think it can be legitimately argued that Earth is actually warmer than Venus.

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      Hi Julian,
      I have often wondered if the ocean would absorb more energy from the sun when you have 15 knots of wind fracturing the surface compared to still glassy surface conditions reflecting energy and burning my face when wearing my sombrero.

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Matt,

        “compared to still glassy surface conditions reflecting energy and burning my face when wearing my sombrero.”

        Glad you brought up this which is “what any fool can observe and understand by merely standing out in the elements.”

        Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          Matt

          |

          Hi Jerry.
          Remembering to look out the window can be good grounding for some.
          I hope all is well with you.
          Kind Regards
          Matt

      • Avatar

        julian

        |

        Hi Matt, I cannot answer that. The whole process of energy penetration must be as chaotic as every other climate facet. The processes are net, or averaged. I presume it is UV that burns and UV penetrates the ocean to about the same degree as visible light. You find papers by researchers obsessing about heat going into the ocean and trying to measure or estimate transfer by wind. I dont think it would be much as the temperature differentials are minimal and radiative heat loss is always present to remove any surface transfer.

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Thanks, Julian. Good points and they fit well with the emergent plate climatology theory whereby increased tectonic activity, either locally or globally, equates to more heat and chemically charged heated fluid release from active geological features into oceans, sub-glacial polar areas, and atmosphere. See here: https://principia-scientific.org/plate-climatology-theory-receives-boost/

      • Avatar

        julian

        |

        Hi John, Geothermal sourced heat would enter the oceans at the sea floor and might be estimated by the temperature of the abyssal zone compared to its source. The bottom half of the oceans is basically what we call Antarctic bottom water. It is created in seasonal pulses when the pack ice forms around Antarctica each austral winter. The freezing process removes freshwater ice and leaves a more saline and cold (-1.86C) residue which through density effects sinks and flows into the abyss. A volumetric ratio would point to this process taking 100,000+ years to fill the abyssal pool. This pool has a temperature of about +2C . I would assume that this small rise over source would be due to geothermic heat additions over 100 to 200 thousand years. When the annual (surface) seasonal flux amounts are calculated there would appear that in quantity the geothermal addition is very small, somewhere between on 5000th and 15 thousandth. I must emphasize that these are very crude estimates based on unproven assumptions and should only be considered as order of magnitude comparisons. The surface heated waters would not mix in any way with the abyssal layer. They are separate processes. I think that climate effects, even ice ages would have very little impact on the abyssal heat amounts unless they were very prolonged in duration

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Julian,

      “By thermal balance or equilibrium level I mean the level where the temperature is 30 to 35 degrees cooler than the surface temperature, which is the temperature the planet would have if it were a bare rock.”

      The moon’s average temperature is 197°K; but it should be 270°K according to blackbody-albedo’ed assumption.

      • Avatar

        julian

        |

        Rotation time affects mean surface temperatures of planets lacking buffering atmospheres. Other posters have mentioned this. It’s old Stefan-Boltzmann at work. As radiative heat loss increases at the forth power of T (kelvin). An irradiated surface will rise to an equilibrium temperature and plateau there no matter how long exposed but on the dark side it cools without stopping so the longer the night the colder the mean average will be. This is why Mercury, which has a very slow rotation, has the lowest temperatures seen on the five inner rocky planets.
        I think the accumulated geothermal heat in the ocean has to be huge in quantity but only 2-3 degrees in magnitude and would not affect climate as it remains in the abyss. In the atmosphere I have no idea but I expect it would be radiated away very quickly. It is estimated that 90% of volcanoes are underwater as well as 65,000 kilometers of mid-ocean fissues (rifts).

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Julian,
      You also forgot about the enormous geothermal contribution.

      I’m just trying to figure out if it’s greater over land or ocean. Very difficult so far.

      • Avatar

        Matt

        |

        Hi Zoe Phin
        “I’m just trying to figure out if it’s greater over land or ocean. Very difficult so far.”

        Please excuse me butting in without invitation. The geothermal contribution is definitely greater in dah ocean.
        The average depth of the ocean is allegedly 3.7 kilometers closer to the earth’s molten core than land at sea level.
        To compound this we have tides flexing and stressing (weighting and unweighting) on average roughly the equivalent of 6.25 percentage weight of a second atmosphere although some discrete tidal areas have tides that change water mass well in excess of the weight of a second atmosphere.
        That is stressful for tectonic plates and stimulates movement, release and creation of volcanic vents and create a pump effect to volcanic vents.
        This of course ignores the fact the oceans cover more surface area than terrestrial area.
        Best wishes with your research and some readers would be interested in an update.
        If my observations are proved false I will eat my hat. I am currently looking for a baker who will make a hat of sponge cake with fresh cream center and strawberry cream topping.
        That means for me it’s a win-win.
        Kind Regards
        Matt

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Thos are all good points, Matt. But the temperature @ 3.7km depth is like 3°C. The total geothermal contribution to air temperature is like 340 W/m^2 (or 5°C). So land would have to be greater.

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      Thanks Julian..
      So logical and straightforward.
      But the AGW crowd does not care as they are determined to push global governance regardless of any science.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Spencer states” “Well, I’m Going To Go Ahead And Say It: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.”

    Spencer has admitted he does not understand the relevant physics, but he contiinues to try to twist things to fit his beliefs. I tried to help him years ago, but got censored. I notice this morning that he has now censored others that were trying to help.

    Not only is he not a physicist, he is not a scientist.

    The truth will always out.

  • Avatar

    Jerry

    |

    Excellent article and in my opinion you can’t promote Dr. Ball and his work more.
    It is time the media took Dr. Ball’s message (The climate is too complex to model/predict and the inherent complexity ensures it will always be changing and nothing man does impacts that.) and ran with it.

    If you can show Dr. Ball’s simple system diagram, with his permission of course, to as many viewers as possible to illustrate how incredibly complex the climate is may sway some people.

    Thx again for the article.

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi Julian,

    It seems I disagree with those who have complimented your comment.

    A major problem is your statement: “Over land most visible light is reflected. Over the ocean it is absorbed.” I have never been blinded by visible light being reflected from a plowed field. I have often had my visibility greatly reduced by visible being reflected from a water surface. Of course, with the sun at my back I see no reflection. And of course even before 9am and after 3pm it can be hard to separate the direct visible from the sun and that reflected from a water surface.

    Then you wrote: “The point I am trying to make is that it is the oceans that determine the base climate of the planet and the oceans that are responsible for the 30-33 degree warmer difference over bare rock temperature. It is the oceans that make the climate and the atmosphere only causes the weather, which is just a heat re-distribution system. Cloud cover is the mechanism that controls heat acquisition by the oceans.”

    I had never read about a bare rock temperature difference of 30-33 degree warmer but I certainly have read about the 30-33 degree warmer difference between Arrhenius’s calculated average Global Air Temperature and his calculated effective radiation balance calculation (1896), in which used the averaged albedo of the earth’s surface and atmosphere (including the influence of cloud, over land as well as over water to reduce the solar radiation being absorbed by the earth’s surfaces and did not consider that cloud might also reduce the transmittance of the longer wave IR radiation being emitted from the earth’s surfaces.

    I have read Arrhenius’s 1896 essay written in the English language. Have you?

    Have a good day, Jerry

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Jerry, your anecdotal staring at the ocean and a plowed field is NOT science. Do you have any data?

    And your fascination with Arrhenius just indicates you do not understand the fallacies he promoted. Have you studied any physics?

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Geran,

      The only theory involved in the idea of global warming and climate change, as far as I have read, is the greenhouse effect (GHE)of certain gases other than nitrogen and oxygen. Neither global warming or climate change is a theory, these ideas are result of the acceptance of the validity of the GHE theory.

      I have reviewed two of his fallacies over and over. No, three. The first of the average global temperature, average global albedo in 1896. The second: the substitution of the measured air temperatures, then average global temperatures for the surface temperature (ground) which was part of his essay’s title. The third: the use of the average earth’s albedo which we all know included the influence of cloud which we know scatters a significant portion of the incoming solar back to space while he assumed that there was nothing in the atmosphere to the transmission of the IR radiation, being emitted by the earth’s surfaces, toward space.

      And I have read that Newton, the physicist and a natural philosopher,, had written four rules of reasoning in philosophy at the beginning of Book III of The Principia.

      Rule II was: “Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes”. For which he gave examples. “As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.” Scattering of radiation by tiny particles was not yet known because the physicists had not yet discovered that matter is composed of the very tiny particles now commonly termed atoms. And, it might surprize you that it took those curious idiots known as alchemists to do the experiments which results forced nearly everyone to conclude that matter was not continuously divisible. The popular idea about matter at the time of Newton. My quotes are the result of Motte’s translation of Newton’s Latin.

      So I ask you: Have you really studied the history of physical science? And I am curious: Did you continue your formal education beyond the USA grade 12 and if so what was, or were, your majors and your earned degrees. And what was your occupation.

      And when you wrote: “And your fascination with Arrhenius just indicates you do not understand … ” That you wrote this proves that you do not understand.

      Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      It is one role of science to replicably explain through one or more scientific disciplines what any fool can observe and understand by merely standing out in the elements.

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Matt,

        After pondering your comment I would replace three words with two and move “is”.

        “The only” role of science “is” to replicably explain through one or more scientific disciplines what any fool can observe and understand by merely standing out in the elements.

        Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed