Eli Rabbett has encountered Essex and McKitrick's briefing about their book Taken by Storm (which I criticised here) and is not impressed:
with so many dubious claims that one hardly knows where to begin.
More like this
Last week I wrote about Paul Georgia's review of Essex and McKitrick's Taken by Storm. Based on their book, Georgia made multiple incorrect statements about the physics of temperature. Of course, it might have just been that Georgia misunderstood their book. Fortunately Essex and McKitrick have…
I wrote earlier correcting Ross McKitrick's false claim that there is no such thing as Global Temperature. Unfortunately McKitrick's claim has been adopted and spread by people ignorant of basic physics. For example, consider this review of Essex and McKitrick's book Taken by Storm at (where…
The graph above, which Iain Murray claimed showed that "The fact that the ten hottest years happened since 1991 may well be an artifact of the collapse in the number of weather monitoring stations contributing to the global temperature calculations following the fall of…
Chris Mooney notes that McKitrick defended Inhofe's claim that "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated"
I'm not the only one who has found problems with McKitrick's writings on climate. Robert Grumbine has some comments on another McKitrick paper:
He was…
In Mr. Rabett's explanation of the Greenhouse Effect, he states, "The sun pumps energy into the car at a constant rate."
Oh? Over what period? Certainly not in the day time, where energy varies continuously with time of day plus cloud/particulate/other cover; nor annually where irradiance varies seasonally; nor over every 11, 22, 88, 200, 2300 and more years, as the sun cycles in intensity ... nor over earth periods of orbital, precessional etc changes, nor over other cycles in solar irradiance that have been documented to vary and cycle as well.
So the answer to when the sun pumps energy into the car at a constant rate must be, AT NIGHT? Maybe in Mr. Rabett's simplified world, we should only examine the greenhouse effect on the dark side of the atmosphere -- one could simulate closure of the system, by measuring the energy transfer over the light to dark boundaries?
I offer you my take here.
I continue to be heartened at the argumentation the denialists use these days. How is it that such an argument leads the discussion? This is the level of dialogue to flood the zone?
D
It was worth starting a blog if only for the entertainment value of John McCall's post. Many thanks for the grins.
re:4
Oh, I get it -- you can single out and selectively attack ideas or phrases from somebody whose views you disagree, but when somebody does the same to your own lightweight absurdities, it's entertainment! Like many with such views, your hypocrisy is exposed for all to see. Consult your role model, Professor Schneider.
Re:3
You would be better served by not exposing your lack of insight on things like this (Physics, and especially Thermodynamics). As the old saying goes (updated for blog discourse), when you open your keyboard(?) on such things, you remove all doubt.