Sunday, February 23, 2014

Denis Rancourt on climate science and on climate politics


Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He practices various areas of science (environmental geochemistry, soil science, spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, materials science) which have been funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, (Research Gate profile), and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

For a very brief statement see Dr. Rancourt's "My position on climate change", including the relevance to climate activism.

If you are new to Dr. Rancourt's ideas on this topic, START HERE:
>> 2007 Dominion Magazine interview "Questioning Climate Politics"

Next, Dr. Rancourt's articles and views about climate science include the following (and the 2007 essay by David F. Noble):
  • A rigorous physics calculation of radiation balance on Earth, showing that several factors are much more important than CO2 in determining mean global surface temperature: LINK, PDF
  •  
  •  
  • 2007 essay "Global warming: Truth or dare?": LINK.
  • 2007 David F. Noble's important essay "The Corporate Climate Coup": LINK.
  • 2007 Dominion Magazine interview "Questioning Climate Politics": MAIN-LINK (Alternate links LINK1, LINK2)
  • 2010 essay "Some big lies of science": LINK.
  • 2010 essay "CO2 emission from fossil fuel burning is not more than from breathing": LINK
  • 2010 essay "Is the burning of fossil fuel a significant planetary activity?": LINK.
  • 2011 essay "On the gargantuan lie of climate change science": LINK
  • 2013 essay "Wrongheadedness of scientific consensus fetishism in climate politics": LINK.
  • 2014 essay "Climate science is a 'Zombie science'": LINK
  • 2015 lecture "The science and geopolitics of climate change": VIDEO-Part-1, VIDEO-Part-2
  • 2015 YouTube clip from lecture: "Peer-Review Failure in Climate Prof Denis Rancourt": video.
  • 2015 article: "Climate stupidity and human survival": LINK.
  • 2016 article: "Carbon Reality Check": LINK
  • 2016 article: "Climate Hustle: Oh Mann..." (critical movie review): LINK.
  • 2016: Two brief appearances in the documentary film Climate Hustle, at 51m44s and 1h05m30s, released on May 2, 2016. 
  • 2016 interview: "Power Hour: Dr. Denis Rancourt on The True Physics of CO2", with Alex Epstein, Center for Industrial Progress, May 10, 2016: LINK
  • 2016 article: "Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2": DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087
  • 2016 article: "The Climate Religion": LINK.  
  • 2016 book review: "Review of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels": LINK
  • 2016 article: "Proof that alternatives burn more fossil fuel per generated energy quantum" LINK. (also HERE)
  • 2016 commentary: "Why do BP and Shell serve the strategic policy and propaganda initiatives of global finance?": LINK
  • 2016 article: "The CO2 God Controls Environmental Disasters, Not": LINK
  • 2016 article: "Beware Anti-“Pseudo-Science” Agitation": LINK.
2012 European cable TV interview/debate: 



Two-part 2015 lecture at the University of Ottawa:
Part-1:


Part-2:


2010 YouTube cfact interview:



Radio interviews of Denis Rancourt with climate experts:
  • 2011 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert: LINK
  • 2011 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Professor Richard Lindzen: LINK.
  • 2012 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Dr. Bob Carter: LINK.
  • 2012 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Dr. Tim Ball: LINK.

4 comments:

Ron C. said...

Denis, I recently came upon your website and publications and have read with interest. I share your skepticism about AGW and commend you for your activism against CO2 hysteria.

I have some concerns and comments regarding your paper on Radiation Physics Constraints on Global Warming. I liked your approach, but have some difficulties with the logic and some equations. My comments are intended to be constructive and come from a lay scientist who wants a more solid foundation regarding climate science.

My issue starts with this statement in your paper:

"In this case, the longwave emission of the atmosphere (eq.1) up and out is equal to its longwave emission down and in (which is fully absorbed by the planet surface, ~ 1). In addition, since the atmosphere layer emits both up and down, it has a thermal emission surface of 2A in area for every surface of area A of the planet surface."

You then write an equation where you double the amount of radiation emitted, based upon the double surface area of the atmospheric "shell". This then results in calculations where the full amount of earth radiation is returned to the earth, i.e. Half of a doubled amount. Later on, with a multilayered atmosphere, there are multiple doublings and a hugely enhanced "greenhouse effect."

This is not credible. You cannot have double the radiation from a doubled surface area; rather each of the 2 atmospheric surfaces will radiate with half the intensity. I do not accept your enhancement of the "greenhouse effect."

FWIW, here is the analysis I would like to see, building upon and modifying the good work you have already done.

I want to see a physical analysis of the effect of earth's atmosphere upon the surface temperature of the earth. I would call this the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE), and totally avoid the term "greenhouse" and all the confusions it brings.

The elements of the analysis should be as follows:

A) The average temperature of the the earth surface

  As you say, we know from averaging thermometer readings that the earth's surface temperature is about +14C on average.

B) The temperature on the surface if everything stayed the same, except there were no atmosphere (As you say, Hypothetical, since many things such as vegetation, animals, ice coverage, etc. depend upon air)
  You calculate the predicted surface temperature of an Earth with no atmosphere but otherwise unchanged is –4C.


C) The temperature on the surface if the atmosphere is present but without any IR active gases
  I don't see this in your paper. I want to see the effect from the 99% of the mass of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) from conduction and convection and the thermal gradient from gravity and pressure.

D) The temperature of the surface if the atmosphere is present with H2O but without non-condensing IR active gases
  I don't see this in your paper. Here I want to know the effect of H2O with evapotranspiration (latent heat and also clouds) and radiative activity, interacting with the bulk of the atmosphere.

E) The effect of non-condensing IR active gases, principally CO2, is the remainder, and can now be calculated by subtracting D from A..

F) The effect of human use of fossil fuels can then be calcuated as a portion of E.

I would find such an analysis compelling, though I lack the skill to produce it myself.

Ron C.

Denis Rancourt said...

@Ron C:

Ron states:

"You then write an equation where you double the amount of radiation emitted, based upon the double surface area of the atmospheric "shell". This then results in calculations where the full amount of earth radiation is returned to the earth, i.e. Half of a doubled amount. Later on, with a multilayered atmosphere, there are multiple doublings and a hugely enhanced "greenhouse effect."

This is not credible. You cannot have double the radiation from a doubled surface area; rather each of the 2 atmospheric surfaces will radiate with half the intensity. I do not accept your enhancement of the "greenhouse effect.""

My response:

No, you misunderstand the equations and the physics that leads to these equations.

Your statement "the full amount of earth radiation is returned to the earth" is incorrect. Rather, half of the longwave radiation emitted by the atmospheric shell goes to the earth, while the other half goes to space. And, the thus returning radiation is NOT equal (in intensity) to the longwave radiation from the earth's surface. Each body (earth's surface, or atmosphere shell) has it's own emission intensity dependent solely on its own temperature. The atmosphere shell, like any opaque emitter, must radiate from all its free surfaces, here, the inner surface of the shell, and the outer surface.

You need to think about it more. That is how black body emission works. Hope that helps.

Ron C. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Denis Rancourt said...

Ooops, the last comment was deleted by accident! It was, from Ron C:

"Denis, Thanks for your response. I see that I mistook the 2ß in equation 6 as doubling, when in fact the sign is negative. So I take your point about the radiative flux.

If I understand your comment correctly, it must also be true that ß– a in equation 5 will be negative, LWR from earth surface being greater than LWR from the atmosphere. (unless eat makes a difference).

Do you have any comment about the ATE analysis I suggested above?"