A Field Guide to Climate Clowns
re: A short overview of skeptical climate science models
Over the past few years, I have noticed several models of climate change advanced by global warming skeptics commenting on the Climate Etc blog. Why pick on Climate Etc? Stanford professor Vaughan Pratt put it best:
“I love Monty Python skits because I’m a logician who gets his kicks from their abuse of logic. With their departure I’m reduced to blogs like Climate Etc. where I can find bizarre arguments galore. Your contribution is gratefully acknowledged.”
This is a sampling of some 75+ skeptics, each of whom believe that they have the correct answer to why the earth is not warming, or, if it is, why man isn’t causing it.
1. The SkyDragons
This is a treehouse coalition of crackpots who apparently don’t believe in electromagnetic radiation and photon absorption models, and in particular the greenhouse gas theory. Claes Johnson is representative of the science side of Sky Dragons, and they have a wheeler-dealer posing as a lawyer, John O’Sullivan, doing the marketing. Acolytes and disciples such as Ken Coffman spam the blogs with SkyDragon-inspired FUD. The eight (8) SkyDragons actually collaborated on a book and even though the theory is discredited, it still gets a high average (4 star) review on Amazon -- except for one reviewer that says “The book contains numerous misconceptions of physics. To correct or explain all of them would need a document almost as long as the book itself.”
2. Doug Cotton
A persistent Australian who publishes a non-GHG-based theory to explain the Earth’s elevated temperature at a site called Prinicipia Scientific International. No need to read that though if you just watch a few seconds on his insane yet inane talking-head YouTube video. Just like on Climate Etc, he goes on and on and on ….
3. Joe “Joe’s World” LaLonde
This is a crayon-toting skeptic who poses such elementary models and by-hand constructions, that it induces cringe-worthy embarrassment. I always refer Joe to the other skeptics as “one of your own, and you deal with him”. They do the virtual pat-on-the-head and allow him to keep commenting. Below is the evidence of his handcrafted handiwork, with penciled-in annotations of the Earth’s rotational velocity at different latitudes. As if it meant anything.
4. Stefan “TheDenier” Mikitch
A certifiable Australian crackpot who wants to have everyone locked up that disagrees with him. Apparently, a survivor from an iron curtain country, this may have some relevance to his tenacity. I argued with him that methane is lighter than nitrogen and oxygen gas (he believes it is heavier and that is why it stays underground and doesn’t rise) and he created a page dedicated to me on his website called “METHANEGATE”. I don’t think people want to deal with him, because in the back of their mind they think he might just try to track his opponents down.
5. Herman Alexander Pope
A retired scientist from a NASA research lab, HAP is an eerie clone of the Chauncey Gardner figure from the Peter Sellers movie “Being There”. Consider the vague and nebulous quotes he regularly adds to blogs, such as this:
“When the Arctic is liquid, Earth is cooling
When the Arctic is ice, Earth is warming
This is the Thermostat of Earth”
or this bit
“The temperature, during the past ten thousand years, has cycled from warm to cool to warm to cool many times. in more recent times we had the Medieval Warm Period, followed by the Little Ice Age, followed by the Warm Period that we are in now. This will be followed by another cool period. The Oceans are warm, the Arctic is open and the snows have started to rebuild the snow packs and glaciers. The ice will advance and cool earth until the Oceans cool and the Arctic stays frozen year round again.”
Note the similarities to the fictional movie dialogue, with the simpleton Chance the Gardener mistaken for the profound thinker Chauncey Gardner :
President “Bobby”: Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President “Bobby”: In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President “Bobby”: Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President “Bobby”: Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President “Bobby”: Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I’ve heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President “Bobby”: I admire your good, solid sense. That’s precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.
And to keep one guessing this HAP paragraph actually reminds one of Miss Anne Elk
“Comparing two different Curve Fits of temperature data does not have anything to say about my Theory. No one should care if an astronomically based curve fit is better or worse than a general circulation curve fit. Actual Ice Core Data supports my Theory. Every time it gets warm and opens the Arctic, it then gets cool. Every time it gets cool and the Arctic closes, it then gets warm. “
On the Crackpot Index scale, HAP gets 20 points for naming his simple theory after himself, “Pope’s Climate Theory”. He also gets the maximum possible bonus, 50 points for claiming a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions, aside from claiming that the future climate will be the same as the past . Spouting vague and nebulous pablum like Chance the Gardener won’t cut it, and HAP might want to provide some way to make this quantitative before he reaches an all-time record crackpot score. But I have a feeling he won’t, because it is possible that his ramblings are part of an elaborate joke.
6. W.R. (Will) Pratt
A British clown (http://spinonthat.com/CO2.html) who hawks CO2 laboratory experiment videos and claims that it debunks man-made warming. He not only produces these stiff and laughable YouTube videos, but he also sells a “how to quit smoking” book online for a price of 40 pounds. How despicable can a guy be to try to profit out of people’s misfortune. A truly bottom-of-the-barrel skeptic.
Another iron curtain survivor, Vukcevic is mild by the standards of the other crackpots listed, and claims that all climate changes are due to natural variations from solar activities. To his credit he creates very elaborate slides, but the curve fits are in the eye of the beholder.
8. Fred H. Haynie
The name reminds me of the huckster “Mr. Haney” from the TV show Green Acres, but this guy is the real thing, a retired environmental scientist that worked for the EPA. Like the fictional Haney, he is selling a third-rate product to anyone gullible enough to believe him. His theory is that excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not caused by anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuels and he has reams of analyzed data in the form of presentations to back this up. He has said : “One reason I retired early from research at EPA years ago was good science was beginning to be sidetracked for political purposes.”
9. Oliver K. Manuel
Another retired NASA type, a crackpot known for his persistence in pushing his “Iron Sun” thesis. Manual is some sort of adjunct professor with several people pointing out his extensive citing with respect to police blotters and criminal news reports and an official offender registry. This is very creepy stuff (note that the creepy picture to the right is from Manuel’s own site) and I think no one wants to mention it, and often comments get deleted if his record is brought up. It is possible that this is also an elaborate joke, because he blithely proceeds with pushing his theory whenever someone brings up his background. You would think that a normal person would want to run off and hide, or perhaps clarify the situation.
10. Harry Dale Huffman
A crackpot who doesn’t believe in greenhouse gas theory and tries to disprove it by looking at the atmospheric data from the planet Venus. This is odd, since Venus was the poster child for the runaway GHG theory ever since Carl Sagan and others first analyzed the CO2-rich Venutian atmosphere in the 1960’s. Huffman uses a strange argument that involves only a certain Venus altitude which he then compares to an equivalent Earth value. Huffman is largely discredited because of his other theories, one of which involves aliens and why the shape of the Australian continent looks like an upside-down sheepdog (his wacko Erich von Däniken-like theory here, believe it or not).
11. Girma Orssengo
A persistent Australian commenter who relentlessly posts a single graph which purports to show little global warming over the last 150 years. The important point is that Girma knows how to lie with graphics, using all of the visual tricks that presentation experts like Tufte warn laypeople about. Girma’s favorite trick is to cherry pick and massage the data, compressing it enough, that to the naive reader, the temperature trends appear flat. Unfortunately Girma is impervious to suggestions and he persists on pefecting his lying-with-graphics skillset. The sad fact is that Girma is also a research scientist who publishes peer-reviewed articles in another field.
12. Tony (climatereason) Brown
A skeptic who tries to imply that a historical record of subject qualitative anecdotal evidence can overturn the objective quantitative statistical evidence of the paleoclimatologists. The historical painting displayed is by a medieval Flemish artist and was offered as evidence that Europe was cooler at one point. The Swiss Alps or Italian Dolomites in the background is evidence for a metaphorical change in climate associated with the period known as the Little Ice Age. You see, Brown claims the painting was of a lowland area in Belgium, while the shape of the mountains suggest the Dolomites. And thus, voila, allegorical proof for significant natural temperature variation!
Eventually, when someone figures out how to deal with subjective qualititative anecdotal data, using qualitative reasoning perhaps, then historical reconstructions will make some great strides. As it is, everyone is familiar with the “in our day” stories: “When I was a kid, it was fifteen miles to school. Uphill. Both ways. In the snow. And we liked it !!”. That describes the problem -- skeptics can use uncalibrated data to make any point they want, and untrained readers will fall for anecdotal arguments.
13. David Postma
A skeptic who claims that the energy balance models for solar insolation are wrong, mainly because a factor of ½ is missing from the conventional model. This is a Capricorn One kind of crusade that Postma carries, as he likely thinks this mistake has lead to a big coverup which involves every scientist that has ever solved the first order radiative energy balance equations.
14. Arno Arrack
A skeptic who thinks that all global warming is just a shift of warmer ocean circulation into the Arctic region, thus generating a natural climate change. His research papers consist of pages and pages of circumstantial narrative evidence, which is generally typical of theories that can’t be tested. He also wrote a book, called “What Warming?”, for which the basic research was rejected by both Nature and Science journals. He goes on to whine about this awkward turn of events in the foreword to the book and then references Lysenko! Huge points on the Crackpot Index for that remark!
15. Nasif Nahle
A scientist with a similar goal of the Sky Dragons in discrediting the greenhouse gas theory. He claims to use an apparatus similar to some of the original experiments, demonstrating laboratory proof that CO2 evidences no warming as a greenhouse gas. http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
No one can argue with this scientist, as his counter-argument is to mock back, and then ending the discussion with a smiley.
16. Chief Hydrologist
An Australian civil engineer who invokes chaos and complexity theory at every turn. This makes him one of those null climate modelers who suggest that nothing can be done to predict future AGW. He says he chose his screen handle based on a Simpson’s character who transformed from a hydrologist into a criminal mastermind (and is fittingly the brother of Sideshow Bob). He claims omniscient powers:
“I can look at sea level pressure at the poles and predict winter storms, I can look at sea surface temperature in the Indian Ocean and predict seasonal rainfall in Australia and Africa, I can look at sea level pressures in the Pacific and predict seasonal to decadal influences in rainfall over much of the world. What can you do? Absolutely nothing at all because you understand nothing at all – you apply a method to data that you don’t understand. It is about as dumb as a computer. You are a lard arse know nothing loser. ”
Having such confidence in his prognostic powers, the Chief Hydrologist relentlessly predicts that warming will cease for “a decade or three”.
This bold confidence in his prognostic powers is contrasted by Chief’s seeming incompetence when it comes to basic math as evidenced by this thread and his never-ending inability to comprehend basic dimensional analysis :
“The equation that I gave was a simple energy budget:
dS/dt = Ein – Eout”
The chief is a nasty Australian (with alter-ego sock-puppet handles such as Captain Kangaroo and Dionysus and Robert I. Ellison), who if I saw getting on a bus, I would wait for the next one.
17. Beth Cooper
An Australian who eggs on the Chief as his deputy sycophant, adopting an irritatingly fake Aussie ocker accent in her writings. She appears to be a fan of crackpot theories that ascribe excess atmospheric CO2 to the warming of the ocean and not to combustion of hydrocarbons.
18. Joachim Seifert
Another barely intelligible eastern European crank who thinks that it has something to do with solar variations ... actually I don’t know what his theory is because he asks you to purchase his pamphlet in the original German from Amazon. Seifert also provides an ISBN number, 978-3-86805-604-4, so you know it has to be correct!
19. Stephen Wilde
An empty business suit, a British lawyer, that set up a website called Climate Realists. He pushes a theory on how the sun could control the Earth’s climate described here. Somehow a more active sun causes the upper atmosphere ozone levels to change, and then the jet streams to move, and thus modifying the average global temperature. Interesting only in that you can see how a lawyer would believe that a legal-defense-like argument fitted together with circumstantial verbal evidence would make sense. Only in the world of the Chewbacca Defense.
20. Latimer Alder
A former UK chemist turned software dude who doesn’t necessarily have an alternate theory (apart from his insistence that no detectable pH change is seen in the oceans, thus falsifying the AGW theory) but specializes in creating consensus through his various sockpuppets.
As Latimer Alder takes on multiple personalities through the form of sockpuppets, he essentially treats all his fellow skeptics like gullible fools. This is projection and framing amateur-hour-style and is all quite sociopathetic.
21. Nicola Scafetta
A Duke PhD with a theory that asks “Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation”. Something this complicated probably won’t cut it.
22. Philip Haddad
An occasional commenter who pushes the theory that the only warming is due to the burning of fossil fuels itself. He is one of the types, a retired PhD chemist with too much time on his hands, writing futile editorials to small-town newspapers.
An Australian skeptic who makes pronouncements as if he is descended from a 17th century scientist. This would-be Robert Hooke adopts an almost Olde English style, often talking in the third person and using such words as fisics to ridicule climate scientists.
So first Myrrh is saying that the greenhouse gases water/carbon dioxide cool the Earth by taking away the heat from the surface of the Earth through the Water Cycle and it is this cycle which has been expunged from the AGW world to pretend that greenhouse gases warm the Earth.
Cooling the Earth is a two-fold process in our convected weather system, convection is the method of heat transfer in fluids, gases and liquids are fluids. Our atmosphere is a heavy volume of real gas which is a fluid. AGWSF fisics says it is empty space of ideal gases. Real and Ideal are two technical terms used to describe gases. Ideal gas is an imaginary construct, it doesn’t exist, no real gas obeys ideal gas law because ideal gas doesn’t exist.
This wouldn’t be so bad, his using words such as aether and referring to shortwave instead of visible light, but when he tries to convey his own brand of physics, it becomes comical. A few of his fellow skeptics consider Myrrh is a hoax, but surrounded by 40+ other clowns, it becomes hard to tell the difference between an agent provocateur and a delusional thinker..
24. Doc Martyn
A US-based but native Brit biological researcher, Martyn Sharpe, who believes that past global warming was caused by space dust, see this post. That was labelled Part 1, but he never got around to Part 2, which he said spelled out the connection between the dust rich in iron content, and ocean biological activity. He also spends time in comments showing how important his own medical research is, thus establishing his clear credentials at climate science.
25. Spartacusisfree (aka mydogsgotnonose, aka AlecM)
A (likely British) engineer with multiple sockpuppet handles who claims that the radiative properties of CO2 don’t apply to the atmosphere, further asserting that:
There is absolutely no experimental proof of any CO2-AGW [IR band absorption at TOA does not count because it can be explained by a combination of self-absorption of thermal IR and band blocking at the earth's surface by GHGs in self-absorption. If I'm right, the latter means no CO2-AGW is possible.]
I became a ‘denier’ after I concluded there were 5 errors in IPCC physics. I may be mad, bad and deluded, but I want a second option because I’m a scientist who believes no-one.
The option to consider is that Spartacus talks in gibberish word salad.
26. Peter Lang
Not the skilled American acoustic guitarist, but an Australian with a fixation on nuclear energy as a solution to climate science.
“nuclear allows fuel transportation (and the energy used in doing so) to be reduce by around a factor of 20,000 with current technology and up to a factor of 2 million in future technology (that’s 20,000 to 2 million times less coal ships passing through the Great Barrier Reef)”
His fallacious argument is that AGW caused by CO2 is a hoax, but nuclear technology will save humanity independent of that revelation. See List of fallacious arguments -- strawman.
He doesn’t have a theory,but represents the dozens of commenters who think that climate science is in the hands of progressives intent on controlling the world.
Lang’s further use of the fallacious Argument of Authority, is exemplified by his classic assertion
"Anyway, I suspect I have far more experience with it than you have in the 60 years I was involved with energy projects all over the world (since I was 7 years old) including nuclear energy"
Instead of being seen as an authority, Lang is relegated to a comically inept bully,
27. Captain Dallas
The Florida Keys fishing guide/skipper, a retired mechanical engineer with expertise in thermo, is the master of the gibberish scientific-sounding word salad. He simultaneously gives off a folksy pretense that climate science is very easy for him, and all one has to do is follow his puzzles. Kind of like a Cappy Dick.
I only give him credit for hosting a blog -- http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/, where he goes through imaginative gyrations in second-order theorizing, yet it doesn’t really go anywhere. He is a prolific commenter and almost seems to use his word salad as chum to attract gullible passers-by as if they were a school of fish. He can’t seem to catch the big one though, and uses the standard excuses as to why he always comes back skunked. One of my favorites is when he claimed that his PC expired when it was working to hard to do some heavy computations.
Go to his fishing guide blog instead, it is much more informative. It is a judgement call as to include Captain Dallas on this list, as he tries hard, documents his thoughts, but ultimately is misguided in his approach. The best of the worst, a bonefish-headed guy that may have gotten too much sun out on the tarpon flats.
28. Paul Vaughan
A nutty guy who keeps promising scientific revelations regarding seasonal cycles that will put all the mysteries to rest. He specializes in posting images that look like the following -- no explanation, no real units displayed, nothing but a pretty picture:
Since he is so cryptic, I will be too, and just leave it at that.
29. David Springer
Some racist dude with some knowledge on science and technology. I don’t really care what he has to say, since it is so outlandish (such as his theory that the ocean surface creates its own greenhouse effect, capable of generating a 33C temperature increase), but he says it with such authority. Such as this extract, which turns the premise for CO2 climate change on its head:
David Springer October 30, 2012 at 5:51 pm
The vast majority of CO2 emission is natural. It rises naturally with temperature increase which is evident in glacial/interglacial cycles. Solar magnetic activity has a marked effect on temperature which you inadvertantly discovered last week when I pointed out that the scribbled curves you inscribed over the decadal trends in the instrument record from 1950 to 2010 reproduced the 11-year solar cycle curves during that time. Anthropogenic emission is likely a red herring given the physical requirement that the ocean release or sequester more or less CO2 with change in surface temperature. During the last 50 years we’ve experienced what’s now named “The Modern Maximum” for solar magnetic activity and for the last 30 years we’ve been on the warming side of a 60-year sine wave in ocean surface temperature fluctuation. The smart money says we’re in for falling temperatures for a couple of decades and in fact the past few years there has been a precipitous and alarming decline in global average temperature of 0.175C which translates to a decadal trend of -0.6C per decade. One more decade at the past 3-year rate of decline and all the warming since 1880 is completely wiped out. That’s not good. The weather sucked back then.
He is actually wrong so many times so that it becomes scattershot theorizing:
David Springer February 22, 2013 at 8:07 am
How are businesses supposed to take climate change projections seriously with such seriously unsettled science behind it? Many skeptics (including me, I’ve postulated the findings herein many times) have held out the possibility that anthropogenic CO2 emission is not raising ocean temperature but rather ocean temperature is raising atmospheric CO2 equilbrium partial pressure.
Others have pointed out that Springer in the past has been an Intelligent Design advocate, which requires the same bull-rush, in-your-face argumentation tactics. He has even admitted as such, with this typical Springer comment on Climate Etc:
Springer is entertaining like this list is entertaining. An analogy happens to comes to mind: You_kids_get_off_my_lawn!
That is actually much too mild, as this is more of a typical outburst from Springer.
“Climate scientists as a group are corrupted beyond repair and present a clear and present danger to civilization. They should be hunted down and dispatched like coyotes.”
He is very smart as well, as he is want to remind us.
“Richard Feynman, for instance, had a measured IQ of 125 in high school. I will grant college professors are smarter than the average bear but my measured IQ is 153 which makes me a lot smarter than the average college professor.”
But ultimately, it is Springer the bully that rises to the front:
David Springer | December 10, 2013 at 6:35 am
“Amused is all. I’m a barrel chested 5’10″ at 210 pounds with massive upper body strength kept up from logging and could knock your head clean off your shoulders with a single punch. But at my age it’s easier to just wave a snub-nose .38 in your face and call it a night without anyone going to the emergency room – me with a broken wrist or you with a broken face.”
30. Alexander Biggs
“One thing we learn is that CO2 can just as easily lose heat as squeezing a sponge loses water and that is most likely what happened in 1940 which the IPCC ignored.”
31. Tim Curtin
And another Australian with a web site http://timcurtin.com where he claims that increasing temperature is natural, or it is due to N20, but not CO2. An economist by education he talks in pseudo-science gobbledygook:
“Applying Econometrics to the Carbon Dioxide “Control Knob”
My just published paper (in The Scientific World Journal) paper uses econometrics to test various propositions underlying claims that observed global temperature change is mostly attributable to human-caused greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, and that although water vapour is recognized to be a dominant contributor to the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) effect, its effect is merely as a “feedback” from rising temperatures initially resulting only from GHGs and not at all from variations in the pre-existing natural evaporation that produces most atmospheric water vapour and rainfall. The paper shows that global warming is not exclusively attributable to GHG like CO2, both because atmospheric water vapour existed before there were any significant increases in GHGs or global temperature and also because there is no evidence that such increases have produced measurably higher volumes of evaporation. Thus reducing emissions of CO2 is unlikely to be the effective climate “control knob” claimed by NASA’s Hansen, Schmidt, and Lacis (2010).”
“Luckily for us, as we would cook if left to the blocking of radiation by N2 and O2, they eventually combine into N2O, which is present in the LWIR spectrum, even if only at 319 ppb (less than 1,000th of the CO2) and thereby emit their relatively small radiative forcing (W0.16/sq.m.) into space through the relevant wavelengths (mostly at about 8 μm) of the spectrum.”
Again, this is just gibberish word salad which makes no sense.
32. David Archibald
Not the climatologist, David Archer, but a fake skeptic from Australia who misuses Archer’s radiative transmission codes and then parades the similarity in their names to cast aspersions toward CO2 as a greenhouse gas. To top it off, the skeptic Archibald applies the CO2 crank Sherwood Idso’s faulty research to lowball CO2 climate sensitivity. Quite a twisted narrative, but most climate realists won’t get caught napping and miss the blatant cherry-picking.
A political zealot that occasionally lets his guard down and spews some real scientific nonsense. The following is a prize winner, responding to a sincere prediction:
> A modest climate sensitivity that is supported by observations combined with a transition from coal to
> natural gas will provide the world with a waiting time of half a century or so but not very much longer.
He seems to be unaware of the fact that OPEC killed the inventor of the secret process for turning locusts into fuel and when it is rediscovered, Iran will start WWIII.
(Locusts? As in locust bean gum? I have no idea.)
So, science and tech is not his forte. However, the right-wing viciousness is always at the surface. In one thread, the discussion turned to lead additives in gasoline and paint, and the sociological value in eliminating lead.
“Wagathon | June 5, 2013 at 11:48 pm |
What is the minimum daily requirement for old paint chips?”
To joke about that is pure evil.
34. Ferenc Miskolczi
A rare contributor but influential among other skeptics due to his past credentials at NASA and a error-riddled theory of radiative transmission. He attracts fans such as Arno Arrak and Wagathon.
“The real big shots at the JPL, OSU, NASA, AERI, UMD, UWI, know what I am talking about, but they keep the silence. Think about that. I have numbers in the E&E article. What do you have? General statements? And statements like what I computed and showed is “carp” or another “mad” theory? This will not make you a radiative transfer Titan.
There is no merit in wasting more time here. I am out.”
That was an excerpt of one of the Mad Hungarian’s few appearances.
A strange (likely Italian Balkan) character that bases his counter-AGW theories solely on taking the opposing premise that a climate scientist would. This contrarian has a world-view that amounts to up is down and down is up. Atmospheric CO2 are not the result of man’s input but are just a result of ocean warming. And atmospheric CO2 does not warm the earth but actually cools it. If there is one character that feeds the FUD, Edim is the guy.
A pretentious engineer who makes occasional appearances, claiming that he has important research to do, can’t spend much time on climate science, and has made great achievements in his career. He does know something about signal processing and control systems, that’s for certain, yet he has little or no intuition on the natural sciences. If you want to see some trash-talking go to this thread where he tries to prove that rising atmospheric CO2 is all due to temperature shifts caused by ocean upwelling.
“I have not worked out the full details because I have other more important technical research to pursue, but it is fairly clear that the simple derivation I worked out in another forum which follows establishes that an integral relationship between CO2 and temperature, such as the data unequivocally show, is reasonably to be expected. This, or something very much like it, is clearly the dominant process in place. Even you might be able to understand it if you free your mind from dogma.”
“I have also had numerous peer reviewed publications. I have also spent 20+ years doing this stuff and collected at least 100′s of GB of data and analyzed it successfully, to the point the results were used in finished products which worked exactly as expected. I am also right in the particular instance.”
It is all so wrong but his bluster and bull-rush maneuvering is a thing of beauty.
A Climate Etc commenter and blogger with a theory that any warming of the earth is caused by increasing levels of bright sunshine. This is apparently substantiated by lots of data that purports to show that the consensus data has problems. Assertions alone do not make a good theory, while cherry-picking of data sources do not help the cause.
An almost incomprehensible commenter that always responds to other posts with his theory that excess atmospheric CO2 is a cooling agent, and every other theory is BS.
39. Tomas Milanovich
A pretentious pseudo-scientist who claims that since climate cannot reach an ergodic state, we cannot predict any future climate. He has his followers because he only sporadically comments, and dismisses those who disagree with him. His downfall lies in the fact that he has no written or published research and relies entirely on this rhetorical strategy.
40. John Morland
A commenter who believes that we are in our natural climate state because it matches Venus’s for the same atmospheric pressure. These types all fall into the trap of thinking that pressure alone can determine temperature.
41. Max Manacker
A persistent critic of consensus climate science, this Swiss fellow will go through long involved arithmetic arguments to prove some thesis. One of his favorite arguments is that the total endowment of fossil fuels will prevent the amount of atmospheric CO2 to extend much beyond 1000 PPM. He claims that this will place a manageable limit to CO2.
He fits on this list only because he will play fast and loose with the numbers, and other respectable commenters have pointed this out. Here is a case in point:
In the case of a Climate Etc thread on detecting direct or indirect CO2 effects, I discovered Manacker to have manipulated a set of CO2 emission records which he had presented a JPEG image, shown above. The top-level poster Jonathan Huddleston had synthesized the same set of data, as shown in yearly differences below. As I was working on a CO2/temperature analysis at the time, I wasn’t able to find correlations between a temperature anomaly and CO2 changes until this error was removed.
Whether this was intentional or not, it pays to be very careful when following any of Max’s arguments, as he tends to sloppily include fabrications such as this classic case of poisoned data. (Note: Max has subsequently changed his table to correct the errors but no admission of this fact was forthcoming).
As another example, this next chart from a more recent CE thread shows how Max creates extra features in data to create the impression that less correlation is observed than the actual data says. This is the data of CO2 that he volunteered
“1850: 285 ppmv
And, according to his plot, the CO2 decreases until 1960.
Yet, the first CO2 measurement from Mauna Loa in the late 1950′s is clearly above the value in 1950 that he stated. Which means it shouldn’t go through an extra inflection as he falsely shows.
Max is likely Max Anacker, a retired Dow chemical engineer partly responsible for launching a chemical plant in Germany. He has learned well how to serially manipulate data.
A rambling stream-of-conscience commenter who takes a while to get nowhere. The climate will change before he ever makes a point Instead of ignoring him, other skeptics will try to translate and provide a Cliff’s Notes summary of what he has written.
An annoying climate skeptic bot who can explain everything in a short phrase or two.
The explanation for everything is “albedo”.
Another bot troll, as annoying as kim, but with a propensity for hurling childish insults using words like booger, spastic, and dork. Apparently Mike hasn’t progressed in his development to the point of having an alternate theory.
A skeptic with some oil industry experience, who holds unique views concerning oil availability. He makes recurring assertions that crude oil may be abiotic in origin, which is a debunked view held by a few energy cornucopians.
“It’s been 10 years since I worked in the oil industry, so I don’t know if there’s more recent data, but when I left the non-biogenic theory of oil was still looking pretty feasible, and that would completely obliterate pretty much all estimates of total availability.”
One year earlier, he said:
“The march of technology keeps “discovering” new produceable oil. Assuming the non-biogenic theory is wrong (as it probably, but not certainly, is), we will eventually run out. “
It looks like he is regressing toward crankville.
46. Harold Pierce, Jr.
A commenter who believes that CO2 cannot make any difference because a cubic meter contains only 0.00078 kilograms of carbon dioxide. These types come from the school of incredulity. Things that do not make intuitive sense cannot be correct.
47. David L. Hagen
A religious climate skeptic who will invoke biblical passages to indicate that AGW is not in the master plan. Otherwise, largely harmless as scientists have learned to never let religion get in their way. Others may not be so gullible.
48. Mike Haseler
Here is an original Scottish theory : photons are fake !
“Over time I realised that:
1. There is no need for the idea of a “photon”.
2. That none of the raw evidence requires “photons”.
3. That the wave-particle theory of light is anti-scientific in the sense that it is impossible to disprove it “
He applies this keen scientific mind to assert that the evidence against global warming outweighs that for AGW.
49. Bob Tisdale
A data analyst who reads the tea leaves from ocean temperature records. In particular he thinks that “ENSO and sea level pressure can explain the warming of OHC”, where OHC is ocean heat content.
I’m sorry, I don’t see it and don’t get it.
He also uses an integrated SOI curve to match the global temperature signal.
50. Julian Flood
Who thinks that Arctic sea-ice disappearance is due to oil slicks. The slicks prevent evaporation and modify the albedo thus leading to greater melting. A least its a creative nugget, but like everything else, pulled out of thin air with no backing documentation.
An Australian commenter who thinks (1) CO2 thermalization has been misinterpreted since Tyndall, (2) the Stefan-Boltzmann laws have been integrated incorrectly, (3) radiative physics shouldn’t be applied to tyhermodynamics, (4) no empirical verification as the second law of thermodynamics is likely violated, (5) statistical demonstration has been selective, and (6) any warming may be due to thermal pollution. If I didn’t do him justice, please read his comment paragraph in the above link, as it doesn’t go into much more detail. They never do.
Another even more bizarre and mysterious blogger who has really gone off the deep-end.
“When using a language whose alphabet is finite — including maths — no general infinite systems may be fully characterized.”
Based on spelling of “maths”, Mr. Limits is most likely not USA educated.
“The single most pervasive tool of science — mathematics — is currently falsely founded as per infinity.”
So the claim is that due to a foundational error in mathematics, climate science is all wrong. That’s his claim on Climate Etc if you want to look it up. You can pay $10 if you want to read his 29 page pamphlet explaining everything. Perhaps we can chalk it up to weirdness attracting more weirdness.
53. Joseph (JWR) Reyned
A Frenchman who has a theory of two-stream heat flow which purports to explain the concept of infrared back-radiation correctly. First, note the AOL address on his white paper. Second, note that nowhere in this paper is the concept of a photon wavelength, frequency, or wave number even mentioned, with no acknowledgements of how the radiative spectrum fits in to the actual energy balance arguments.
54. Nabil Swedan
A chemical engineer that believes in the basic GHG outcome, but has an alternate theory to explain everything. This is in book form, available from Amazon for $22.50. From the book page:
“Detailed novel theory and work that calculates global warming and climate change using thermodynamics. It identifies global warming causes and calculates sea level and surface temperature rise, reduction in the temperature of upper atmosphere, glaciation and deglaciation cycles and other climate change parameters.”
The basic misconception that Swedan has is that photonic radiation does not equate to the thermodynamic principle that disallows net heat from flowing from colder to warmer bodies. Once that point is established, TL;DR.
55. Brandon Shollenberger
A self-appointed ombdudsman in climate science who apparently relies on his academic credentials from the ITT Technical Institute of Tulsa. He is from the Chewbacca school, where argumentation takes the form of claiming that an “idea makes no sense”, and stopping at that point. You see, a degree from a junior college can only take one so far.
A relentless right-wing extremist who usually dwells on bashing progressives, but on occasion lets loose his own theory on warming due to albedo:
“It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.”
or this laundry list of every crank theory ever proposed. Wingers and crackpots are often one and the same.
57. Greg House
Another Australian commenter with a belief that infared back-radiation due to GHG is a fraud.
"On the issue of warming by “back radiation” there is an experiment by professor Wood from 1909. He took a box covered with glass producing very much back radiation compared to the “greenhouse gases”, and no significant additional warming happened. There must have been something like hundreds/thousands degrees C though, if the “greenhouse gases” hypothesis were correct. So the hypothesis died quickly after that and was dug out 70 years later by modern Frankensteins."
"They know that their “greenhouse effect” does not work. Now you know that they know. I understand how people feel when they realize that they have been shamelessly fooled. You have been fooled, like many others, this is a painful fact, but you need to accept it. And then you should turn against those who fooled you, it would be the right thing to do."
58. Alan Millar
A clown from some Commonwealth nation who can prove that AGW isn’t occurring due to his own interpretation of the “faint-sun paradox”. He has an essay here, and it sounds so very liturgical that it must be right … right?
“We actually have a good record of the effect of an increase in Radiative Forcing on the Earth because of the Suns behavior. The Sun has been increasing its output and therefore the RF on the Earth, by about 1% every 100 million years and will continue to do so for billions of years. You could look at the ‘Faint Sun Paradox for starters which shows that three billion years ago liquid water was present on the Earth meaning that temperatures must have been similar to, or warmer than, today’s. It could not have been much colder. So the Earth has not warmed in the face of a 30% increase in RF for 3000 million years.
I have shown a proof that the Climate Models are wrong, incorrect, disproven, falsified.“
59. Arfur Bryant
Besides possessing an intentionally annoying name, the meme of skeptics such as Arfur is best summed up by Mosh’s description:
“Arfur is of a school of skeptics that seem to think that if you cannot measure it directly that it doesnt exist. This looks reasonable on the surface of things until you realize how little we know by direct observation and measurement. I would imagine that if you told him the moon was x miles away he would demand you produce the tape measure. The idea that you can measure something by using one set of values and physics to derive other values is foriegn to these types.”
(c.f. Jim Cripwell, below).
60. Bad Andrew
A purely argumentative skeptic best illustrated by this thread, where Bad Andrew is unfortunately being "ridiculed for his behavior and mannerisms". Not listening to reason, he "has created a fantasy world in his own head". Too bad Bad Andrew has picked a handle familiar to B-movie film buffs, as he has given away his agenda.
61. Willis Eschenbach
A south Pacific handyman/entrepeneur (South Pacific Oil) who thinks he has a clue to how climate science actually works (and believes that CO2 has very little effect in GW). Mostly dealing with anecdotes, he seems to exercise control at places such at the denier site WUWT(http://wattsupwiththat.com).
This comment seems cover his working theory, for what it is worth:
“My hypothesis, for which I have a variety of evidence, is that the temperature of the planet is kept within a fairly narrow range by an active governing system. The main feature of the system is temperature regulation by clouds and thunderstorms.”
Of course all the citations are to posts he has made to WUWT.
62. Peter Davies
Another Australian weaned AGW denialist with some sort of business background. Translation: He has no clue about physics. Check this statement out:
“I think that energy is all around us and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics will be accepted by mainstream science as being falsified as soon as scientists start replicating Tesla’s early experiments.
AGW supporters have usually alluded to basic physics to support their greenhouse gas theory but significantly, never have they invoked the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
Konrad = Con Rad, a contrarian who thinks that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, but instead functions as a radiative cooling agent. Con Rad = Contrary Radiation theory
“Without radiative gases, strong vertical convection below the tropopause would stagnate and our atmosphere would heat. Radiative gases cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce its radiative cooling ability.”
Of course, other contrarian clowns such as Edim latch on to spread the FUD:
“I agree 100%. The bulk of the atmosphere, N2 and O2 are the real GHGs. The radiatively active gases cool the atmosphere by radiating the atmospheric energy to space, just like roof windows in a greenhouse.”
64. Lauri Heimonen
The most wrong-headed of the climate clowns are the ones that argue that excess atmospheric CO2 is not caused by mankind, but by natural warming. This is how Heimonen explains it:
“ 1)The CO2 content in the atmosphere is controlled together by both all CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and by all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks. Nowadays when the yearly total CO2 emissions are little over 200 GtC (CO2 as carbon) and the yearly human CO2 emissions are about 8 GtC, the influence of the human CO2 emissions on the CO2 content in atmosphere is approaching 4 % at the most. For instance, when the CO2 content in the atmosphere is 390 ppm, the manmade share of it is only about 16 ppm at the most; in the reports of IPCC the human share of recent CO2 content in atmosphere is assessed to be about 100 ppm without any proper evidence.
2)In the recent Mauna Loa measurements the rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 content is changing in accordance with the seasons and ENSO cycles, but the rate of increase in the trend of CO2 content is caused by longer cycles of natural warming.”
A trendologist who claims that any global temperature variations that happen are due to natural, cyclic changes; this is according to his website http://convergetics.org. But if you choose to navigate there, there is no underlying theory for this, apart from an assertion that the variation is due to “a coherent superposition of two climate patterns”. He calls this the Sexagesimal Hypothesis, which is a clownishly embarrassing alliteration to choose.
An Australian with a pretentious streak. No alternative models that I can discern, but RiHo08 can divine whether a climate model is worthwhile:
“I again reminisce how enjoyable it is when we observe or mimic nature in that precise connection of voice and accompaniment, how satisfying and how “right” it all seems. When the vocalist is just a millisecond late, we know something is “off.”
I wonder if our sensing this timing has anything to do with our “BS” detector when we hear or read climate science: models vs observations.
Models, whether for ENSO events or for predicting future weather, cyclones, whatever, just seem to me to be a bit “off”, not quite having the timing right between atmosphere and earth’s surfaces.”
My own BS detector goes off, because I have a feeling that too many of these Australians are simply trying to prank everyone else.
“Standing with one foot in the Southern Ocean, facing a vertical escarpment, observing horizontal layer upon layer, the treble and base clefts with notes of songs we do not yet hear.”
67. David Young
A mechanical engineer who believes that AGW can’t be correct because solving numerical climate models is fraught with difficulties and has the potential for errors. This alternate theory falls under the complexity bafflement category. Because hydrodynamics is a difficult science, Young claims that AGW can't be true, or, at least that it is impossible to quantify.
Young does not seem to understand that the number one consideration is to work the global energy balance using radiative physics. Only secondarily do AGW modelers rely on GCM’s, and that is done mainly to give them confidence in other aspects of climate predictions, and not of the main concern of global temperature increase.
The climate scientist Andrew Lacis explained toYoung that:
“The job of the radiation module is to calculate the solar heating rate profiles and the thermal cooling rate profiles, including the energy deposition at the ground surface, as well as the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere for the specified climate variable distribution at each grid box. The atmospheric heating and cooling rates are then passed back to the atmosphere structure module that calculates how much the surface and atmospheric temperatures would change during the 30-minute times step given the radiative heating and cooling rates. And so an updated atmospheric structure is sent back again to all of the different modules to repeat the cycle all over again.
David Young | October 14, 2011 at 2:51 am | Reply
Andy, This looks like a good summary but it raises more questions for me than it answers.”
Yet Young follows up with his pet misguided emphasis on the modeling of the earth’s hydrodynamics. That is essentially the problem with single-discipline engineers who try to take on climate science; it is actually a problem of multi-disciplinary physics, and engineers like David Young are not able to open up their aperture.
“My theory is that we simply don’t know with any certainty things like climate sensitivity and climate models are rather hopeless. I have a rigorous basis for these views.”
Yet he does not elaborate. Par for the course.
68. John Reid
“This ignores the fact that the lower atmosphere is already opaque to infra-red in the CO2 absorption bands. Heat is transported upward through the atmosphere by convection not by radiation as confimed by the observed adiabatic lapse rate. This heat is then radiated into space above the tropopause at around -18 deg C as predicted by Stephan’s Law. How would increased CO2 affect this process?”
(That makes 13 of these Aussie clowns running around without a leash on a climate science blog emanating from Georgia Tech. Whut’s up wid dat?)
69. Rob Starkey
“Ringo” is an engineer of sorts who sidesteps the issue of AGW by claiming that the net benefits of warming may be positive. This is typical of arguments made by engineers who don’t understand that the science can exist on its own without addressing the outcomes. This is an example of the condescending attitude of this type of contrarian, exhibiting a mix of righteousness and Chewbacca Defense-like assertions:
“Please try to not be emotional in responding.
Warming does not equate to a drought. It can be warmer and rain more correct? What reliable evidence do you have that there will be more droughts in the US because of more CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you believe that if we have less atmospheric CO2 that we will not have droughts?
With all due respect, your answer is very incomplete and does not make sense. You didn’t answer with any specifics as to what you propose to be done or what you believe it will accomplish and why.”
Look for these characters, who often include the word engineer in their titles, such as “random engineer” and “PE” (for professional engineer). They all share an intense hatred for renewable energy schemes, which suggests that their participation in climate science discussions has an ulterior motive, likely related to a right-wing mindset (no matter their protestations).
70. Mike Flynn (aka OzzieOstrich)
Another Aussie of the larrikin-type who belligerently pushes contrarian arguments, claiming that climatologists lack knowledge of basic physics.
Climatologists live in denial of basic physics – they deserve our compassion rather than our condemnation.
A pity that so many resources have been diverted into such a chimera.
Live well and prosper,
Flynn’s belligerence is reekingly transparent and it comes across as a mocking insincerity, as evidenced by the cloying compassion in the above quote, capped by a maudlin tagline.
The fact that he will admit to his mocking and belligerence indicates that he has no interest in the science.
“AGW could exist if Human beings produced enough energy or CO2 to increase the thermal load in the earths atmosphere. Alternative methods could also work e.g. painting/coating the earth’s surface black to absorb heat [or white if one wanted AG Cooling.]. The amount of heat coming in [and leaving the earth each day is on orders of magnitude so vastly different that human heat output is negligible and always will be.”
Yet another Australian, and one that believes that increasing CO2 will be good for the world
“With extra atmospheric CO2, wheat, the world’s largest basic food crop, gives it’s best yields at about 700 ppm of CO2. Which would go a very long way towards the ability to feed that population peak of around 9 billions by 2050.
Here in Horsham at our major broad acre crop Ag research facility in SE Australia we have one of the half dozen FACE experiments in the world”
73. TallBloke (aka Very Tall Guy)
“It’s much simpler than all that. All you have to do is ask if the hypothesis has successfully predicted those effects which would validate the theory.
Tropical tropospheric hotspot: FAIL
Temperatures rising with increased atmospheric co2 at a rate outside the bounds of natural variability: FAIL
Back to the drawing board then…”
Something troubling in all this, more of a promoter of FUD than trying to advance the science. This could be his problem:
“I do have memory and other cognition problems after a serious accident three years ago, so maybe I messed something up”
74. Ian Wilson
An Australian with connections to TallBloke who has an interest in orbital influences on climate. Not a pleasant person to hold a discussion with. One can sense this by the self-pic on his blog.http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/. TallBloke, Wilson, and other “orbital” skeptics are at odds with mainstream skeptics, see the pattern-journal fiasco.
75. Rob Bradley
A strange entry. This is the former corporate director for public policy analysis and speechwriter for CEO for Enron, one of the worst behaving corporations of recent memory. Bradley continues Enron’s bad behavior, making stuff up about climate change.
76. David Stockwell
Another Australian with a crazy theory that solar radiation accumulates and that is what causes the long-term warming. What they forget (or blatantly ignore) is that any set of data that has a positive bias will show an upward trend when integrated.
A retired Canadian engineer who relentlessly claims in his comments that there is no empirical evidence for CO2-caused warming of the atmosphere. Since an experiment hasn’t shown any direct evidence of warming, only indirect in his opinion, that the principle of AGW cannot be proven.
This is in spite of people telling him over and over that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and scientists and engineers have used the knowledge of radiative properties of CO2 to create marvelous inventions from infrared CO2 gas lasers, to iron smelting furnaces which use the properties of CO2 to control the temperature for high quality steel. His typical response is to point out that he studied at the Cavendish Lab in Cambridge under the direction of famous British physicists, so by definition he understands science.
So classify his theory as epistemiological, which brings us to the last …...
78. David Wojick
A PhD epistemologist who was angling for a contract with the Heartland Institute. Leaked documents showed that Wojick was going to be paid $100,000 to develop “educational” climate science modules for The Institute. Scary that he would be involved in teaching anything about climate.
Here are Wojick’s comments from one blog thread: http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/07/carbon-cycle-questions-part-ii/
“Human behavior, including scientific discourse, exists in the world. It is therefore open to scientific analysis. That is what I do.”
“My claim to fame is having discovered the hidden structure of expressed thought (writing and speaking) or, in simple terms, how sentences fit together. This is science, Logic to be precise, not philosophy. “
“I think I understand the climate debate better than anyone, not because I know more about climate but because I know more about the logic of complex issues. “
“The coal burners are my heroes and I am proud of my advocacy work, especially as I am winning and you are losing.”
Presented in his own words. You skeptics figure out what all this means.
These are your guys, climate skeptics, you deal with them.
Postscript — A first-order primer on greenhouse gases and global warming
The following summary is the scientific and logical consequence of the fact that energy passed through an effective vacuum (outer space) can only effectively occur through electromagnetic radiation.
When lower wavelengths are partially impeded (by GHG, for example), then the temperature of the emitting body has to increase to provide more shorter wavelength photons to make up for the shortage of long wavelength photons. This has to happen to satisfy the law of energy conservation. When the radiative properties of the increasing temperature body (the earth) match that of incoming solar energy, then we have reached steady state and all is square.
Someone could ask why the temperature has to increase. Well that has to do with quantum-based statistical mechanics. Say that the earth could try to make up for the blockage of the GHG-impeded low wavelengths by emitting even lower wavelengths (which are outside the spectral notches in the GHG filter). However, these are less numerous in the QM/SM state-space and also less energetic, which is the wrong direction for maximizing entropy while conserving energy.
Thus the only possible mechanism is for the earth to generate more shorter wavelength radiation, which necessarily increases the density of the emitting radiation source. This is the fundamental basis to explain the 33 C increase of the earth above the naive transparent-atmosphere steady-state Stefan-Boltzmann solution. When we add more GHGs to the atmosphere, the temperature has to increase because it has to overcome greater filtering in the GHE band — logarithmic asymptotic-limit saturation notwithstanding.
Physics is like this. It consists of all these interlocking pieces which have to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, otherwise the model premise will fall apart. People may not like this because it does not match their intuition, but I say, tough nougies. You don’t get to pick and choose what works and what doesn’t when it comes to physics.
One can certainly get the same result by invoking MODTRAN or doing the slab spectral radiation calculations by hand, but what I described is a standard way that physicists think when they need to operate from first principles or to guide their own learned intuition, gained from years of study.
Most of the fake or poseur skeptics loaded into the clown car have problems with advanced physics. Whether they are just naive or are aggressively agenda-driven, likely from having flunked out of an engineering or science curriculum, it doesn’t matter. This is the state of scientific modeling and to cure oneself of advanced crackpot-ism and whacko-dom, there is no alternative but to crack the books — it’s shape up or ship out time.
As for alternate mechanisms, someone can suggest that the albedo can gradually change to make up for the increase of GHG concentrations. The general idea is that more of the incoming radiation will get reflected to make up for the heating that would occur without the extra reflection coating.
First of all, the initial albedo estimate is taken into account for the 33C calculation. Beyond that, something has to trigger the change in albedo. It has to either be a heating or a cooling. It can’t be a cooling as there is nothing to provide a cooling forcing function — we have already established that with the GHG physics. If it is a warming, then the GHG will trigger this and the best that an albedo change can do is provide a negative feedback (at best) to the warming trend.
Yet, an albedo change could also go the other way. Melting of ice sheets will cause greater absorptivity of the incoming radiation, and of course higher ocean temperatures will also lead to greater outgassing of H20 and CO2 (not to mention short-term outgassing of methane from both ocean and land). Both of these create a positive feedback situation that will lead to a different steady-state situation (at least) or unpredictable growth ala CAGW (at worst).
Those are my philosophical reflections on climate model projections. The only thing to be resolved is how much the average steady state temperature will rise, and how long it will take to go through the transient phase. Because of the thermal mass properties of the ocean, it will require some patience to observe the warming above statistical noise, but the end result will have to occur. The ocean covers 70% of the surface of the earth and so it will have to adjust temperature to provide the necessary fraction of the emitting source. The other option is for the land mass or atmosphere to increase in temperature, but that also goes against the maximization of entropy. Clouds can do something as well but the entropy of the spatial cloud organization and density has to be modeled to get a handle on that.
The entry for acceptance into the sane scientific world is to get labelled a “warmer”. Then you will deserve your philosopher diploma.
"Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." - George Monbiot
"The sneakiest form of literary subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the plain truth.
The critics will not understand you; the public will not believe you;
your fellow writers will shake their heads." - Edward Abbey