Saturday, December 13, 2014

Deniers Win This One - Thanks Greenpeace

You would think a group as devoted to protecting the environment as Green Peace is would know better than to pull off the stunt they did this week in Peru. While the international climate conference was in progress in Lima, Green Peace activists decided to make a splash protest demonstration. But their choice of how to go about doing this was both poorly advised and very curiously against their own philosophy. They chose to trespass on a world heritage site and damaged the amazing Nazca lines by putting a protest message out there.

The Nazca lines are made by removing a very thin layer of what is called 'desert varnish,' a thin crust over a lighter-colored substrate. For some unknown reason, the people living in the area 1500 years ago very carefully removed this varnish to make various drawings. This varnish is so thin that walking on it will damage it. And, that is just what Green Peace did. They trespassed on the site and walked out there to place signs on the surface that were visible from the air. I wonder if future pictures of the site will point out the tracks left behind by these people.

While I laud the thought of making a statement, I condemn the way they did it. For the record, Green Peace itself has been extremely apologetic about this action taken by some of its members and apparently had no foreknowledge of it. Still, the damage is done and not to just the Nazca lines. Now, any time we talk about how climate change is damaging the environment we will have to defend climate science against this criminal act.


  1. It was incredibly foolish.

  2. Well, what those individuals did was wrong and stained Greenpeace's reputation, but Greenpeace isn't really responsible. Contrast this with the American torture regime. Greenpeace leadership didn't know this was happening, during the torture administration, American leadership directed it.

    This is no win for science deniers. Just thoughtless nonsense arising from passion.

  3. I just engaged Zhou Shaoxiang on the internet forum Topix. He pasted a portion of his paper there and is now defending it. Care to join us?

  4. Thanks for the heads-up. I posted a comment there. It's embarrassing there are actually people that will consider his logic to be valid.

  5. So, you're position is that you deny science, use lies and deceit to make your point and then get upset when someone holds you accountable. Seems to me you would be embarrassed about that.

  6. Coming from the Peru officials who built a damn HIGHWAY and allowed industry around that site JUST A YEAR AGO their bitching about those lines is utterly hypocritical.
    If it raised awareness of AGW then i think those damn lines can go to hell.

  7. 1. They don't deny climate yes, but they deny climate change/global warming. Nuff said.

    2. Yea, they don't deny climate changes; in fact, some use it as evidence that AGW is not real. See what I did there? They deny that AGW is not real.

    3. No. Read through some of the submissions here.

    4. Correct, they don't deny climate science exists, they deny what it says and many think that it supports their position of no AGW despite that it shows the exact opposite.

    5. No. Look at some submissions that dispute CO2 causes warming.

    6. What figures do you refer to? Proof that the figures are inaccurate? And you don't need to be skeptical of the effects. It's happening. NOW.

    "Justifiably skeptical of models"? So you say you believe in AGW while saying you are skeptical of the models that show this point? Sounds fishy to me...

  8. Thanks for not mentioning lies and deceit.

  9. Hey, for a nice laugh, let's hire a bunch of people to go to their blogs and pester them with the same questions over and over regardless of what they say!

    Only thing is, we're right and they're wrong!

  10. Dear Prof. Christopher Keating:

    I am Prof. ZHOU. Now, I am arriveling in Taiwan. So, I can read your responses.

    Your reponses are not scientific value. I donot think that you are not a serious scholars.

    The density of water is 1000kg/m3. the latent heat of water vapour is 2500kJ/kg. These are the basic knowledge.

  11. There is no question about the physical quantities you mentioned. It is your math that I have a question about. You did not include any units in your math, just a bunch of numbers, so it is not really possible to tell what you are talking about. I have worked with many Chinese professors over the years and this is not the quality of work I have ever experienced from them. I do not get the sense you are a serious scholar.

  12. If you are going to go around calling yourself a professor, please at least TRY to get some semblance of science in your comments. The conservation of energy requires the energy that is taken away by evaporation to end up somewhere. Since you have not provided any method to remove energy from the atmosphere your statement is completely invalid. Really, do you, as a 'professor,' want to tell people that evaporation removes heat from the surface and that heat simply vanishes? No one is saying there is not evaporative cooling. But, you are the only person I have met that says evaporative cooling results in the destruction of energy. By the laws of thermodynamics, any heat that is removed from the surface through evaporation MUST go somewhere.

  13. about "it is
    a simple scientific truth...".

    My responds:

    my whole expressions cited from my paper are:

    "It is known that the water evaporation is one
    kind of refrigeration effect, which is just like the cooling effect of alcohol
    cotton ball on a person’s skin. Since about 70% of the Earth’s surface is
    covered by seawater, it is a simple scientific truth that the air temperature
    on the Earth’s surface should mainly depend on the sea water evaporation. In
    other word, the detected air temperature on Earth's land surface is not global.
    And the ocean can therefore be taken as a buffer of the temperature change
    (MARSHALL and PLUMB, 2007). For example, La Niña is associated with cooler than
    normal water temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific Ocean, and El Niño is
    associated with warmer than normal water. These are also consistent with the following
    statement (SOLOMON et al., 2008) in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports:“Cloud
    changes are dominated by ENSO. Widespread (but not ubiquitous) decreases in
    continental DTR have coincided with increases in cloud amounts.” But why does
    the diurnal temperature range (DTR) decrease with the increasing of cloud
    amount? This question should be just one of uncertainties of cloud


    This is a kind of the thermodynamic view point.


    What can be on behalf of the global climate

  14. Evaporative cooler

    Physical principles[edit]

    Evaporative coolers lower the temperature of air using the principle of evaporative cooling, unlike typical air conditioning systems which use vapor-compression refrigeration or absorption refrigerator. Evaporative cooling is the addition of water vapor into air, which causes a lowering of the temperature of the air. The energy needed to evaporate the water is taken from the air in the form of sensible heat, which affects the temperature of the air, and converted into latent heat, the energy present in the water vapor component of the air, whilst the air remains at a constant enthalpy value. This conversion of sensible heat to latent heat is known as an adiabatic process because it occurs at a constant enthalpy value. Evaporative cooling therefore causes a drop in the temperature of air proportional to the sensible heat drop and an increase in humidity proportional to the latent heat gain. Evaporative cooling can be visualized using apsychrometric chart by finding the initial air condition and moving along a line of constant enthalpy toward a state of higher humidity.[8]


    cited from:

  15. Please go back to your original submission and my response. The issue with your calculations was that you threw out a bunch of number with no units. There was no way to tell just what it was you were trying to say. That complaint is still valid.

  16. This is like saying an air conditioner lowers the temperature in a house. What about the bigger picture? Evaporative cooling will lower the temperature of a isolated location (where the evaporation occurs) but energy is still conserved. When the evaporated water condenses it MUST release the heat back into its surroundings. It cannot condense without doing so. So, evaporation merely moves energy about the atmosphere - making some places cooler and other places warmer. The net change in energy is zero, as it must be under the laws of thermodynamics.

  17. This gives 1.254 x 10^18 kJ of latent heat released per year. This is a difference of one thousand. So, the latent heat is NOT enough to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 237 degrees, but enough to raise it by .237 degrees C.

    In according with the IPCC Third Assessment Reports (Houghton et al, 2002; Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997): “The amount of precipitation also constitutes a measure of the latent heat release within the atmosphere. The long-term global mean precipitation of 984 mm/yr implies a vertically integrated mean heating rate of 78 Wm−2.”

    The area of the earth is 4x3.14x6370000^2= 5.09646 x10^14[m2]

    The time of a year is 365 x24 x3600= 31536000[s]

    If you would be correct, the vertically integrated mean heating rate be equal to 1.254 x10^18[kJ]/ 5.09646 x10^14[m2]/ 31536000[s] *1000=0.078Wm−2. You implied
    that the TAR would be incorrect.

  18. I am not even bothering with your calculations because you continue to ignore the question of conservation of energy. If water absorbs latent heat when it vaporizes, what happens to that heat when the water then condenses? You want to have energy go into latent heat, but never come back out and that is not scientifically possible. Ironically, the only way you could increase the amount of energy stored as latent heat would be to increase the amount of moisture in the air and that would require a warmer planet. Until you can demonstrate how your claims are valid under the laws of thermodynamics they have no credibility at all.

  19. As a professor, you are really very very funny.

  20. I'm not the one trying to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Just what are you a professor of? I seriously don't believe you are a professor at all. Your mistakes are grade school level mistakes. Anyone with any kind of education in science would immediately see the failure of your claim.

  21. There have never been the question of conservation of energy! I only said that the latent heat is emitted away (Potter and Hoffman, 1968).