Articles Tagged "Martin Hertzberg"

People send me stuff (comments from Anthony Watts). Alan Siddons writes in an email:

Researching for a paper that Martin Hertzberg, Hans Schreuder and I are writing, I chanced upon a chart that might intrigue or amuse you.



After temperature sensors were planted on the moon, you see, they reported an upward trend year after year. Too much CO2 up there?

Source: http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/docs/2650.pdf

Hi All:

Attached for your interest is an announcement and abstract of my lecture to be presented next Tuesday at the "Café Scientifique" of Summit County, Colorado.

Dr. Martin Hertzberg

Hockey Sticks and “Climategate”: a Death of Scientific Integrity

Dr. Martin Hertzberg of Copper Mountain, a retired research scientist and consultant in the causes and prevention of accidental fires and explosions, will present the above titled talk at this month’s meeting of the Café Scientifique. The meeting will be held at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, April 27th at the Summit County Senior and Community Center, 151 Peak One Blvd, Frisco, Colorado. Dr. Hertzberg also served as a forecasting and research meteorologist while on active duty with the U. S. Navy. He has been studying the “global warming/climate change” issue for over twenty years and has published papers and articles on the subject.

To all:

I just couldn't let this article in the latest New Yorker article Up in the Air by Elizabeth Kolbert go by without comment.

Marty

Dear Editor:

Kindly forward this e-mail to Elizabeth Kolbert. Obviously, the attachments to this e-mail are to voluminous for a letter to the Editor, but I sincerely hope that she will read and learn from them.

Here is my letter:

Elizabeth Kolbert, in her "Up In the Air" comment of April 12, 2010, has made an heroic effort to revive the dying theory that human emission of CO2 is causing global warming/climate change. But those of us who know it well and its "living will" to decline heroic measures, feel that the wisest course of action is to let it pass peacefully in the hospice of dying theories.

There is a simple way to tell the difference between scientists and propagandists. If scientists have a theory they carefully search for data that might actually contradict their theory so they can test it further or refine it. The propagandists, on the other hand, select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it. How else to explain Ms. Kolbert's argument that "despite what it might have felt like in the Northeast these past few months, globally it was one of the warmest winters on record"? Actually, the global data summarized in www.climate4you.com show significant world-wide cooling for the past decade. The data also show nothing beyond the normal range of variability in either the polar ice area coverage or in the rate of rise of sea level for the last 20 years.

Re. “When a scientist becomes an activist,” Opinion, Auden Schendler, March 10:

The “climategate” e-mail scandal revealed an appalling lack of scientific integrity, possible criminal conduct in violating Freedom of Information Acts in both the US and the UK, and the fraudulent treatment of data, on the part of some scientists involved in pushing the Gore-IPCC-Hansen theory that human emission of CO2 has been causing global warming/climate change. The e-mails also reveal a conspiracy to suppress opposing viewpoints, and even the gloating over the death of a distinguished Australian climatologist who disagreed with them. Ever since then, a host of environmental activists, pretending to be scientists, have come to their defense. The latest is the recent article by Auden Schendler hailing Jim Hansen as a “once in a millennium . .comet of a person … like Jonas Salk ... a great man.”

There is a simple way to tell the difference between a scientist and a propagandist. If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might actually contradict his theory so that he can modify or refine it. If a propagandist has a theory, he carefully selects only the data that might agree with his theory and dutifully ignores the data that disagrees with it. In the case of James Hansen, he doesn't even bother with the data: all he has to support his theory are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality, and have already been proven to be wrong. By any reasonable definition, Hansen's scenarios and those he helped Gore and the IPCC to concoct, are the work of fear-mongering propagandists.

Dear Mr. Baum:

Your editorial on "Climategate" concludes: "What more is there to say?". The simple answer is "lots more", and here it is.

The last time C & E News made as big a fool of itself as it has recently with your editorials supporting the theory of human-caused global warming, was when it took seriously the claims that cold fusion had been achieved in an electrochemical cell. Every knowledgeable physicist knew that those claims were absurd, and in a short period of time, scientists all over the world showed that the electrochemists who made those claims had gotten their energy balances wrong. Out of ignorance and chauvinism, C & E News managed to morph an honest error of judgment by the electrochemists into a political turf battle between chemists and physicists. You are making the same mistake now in your totally misinformed and ignorant position supporting the theory that human emission of CO2 is causing global warming in the face of the overwhelming amount of data that proves that the theory is false. Attached are copies of my articles that summarize the available data. One of the articles also analyzes the motivations of the several groups that support the theory.

Senate hearings on climate change were broadcast on C-span last recently. While watching, I realized that government officials were absolutely right to complain about our science education deficiencies. As they pontificated about the impending climate crisis caused by human CO2 emission even though they knew nothing about climatology, I kept shouting at the TV:

“Heal thyselves, you bunch of scientific illiterates!”

It never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people have been completely duped by the Gore-IPCC-Hansen clique of propagandists.

They say that “greenhouse gases” absorb infrared (IR) energy emitted by the earth and cause warming. Yet, in comparison to water in all its forms (polar ice, snow cover, oceans, clouds, humidity), human CO2 emission is as significant for weather as a few farts in a hurricane. The earth's IR energy absorbed by greenhouse gases is reradiated to free space as soon as it is absorbed. The notion that the colder air above can radiate energy back to heat the warmer air below violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Heat flows spontaneously from a higher to a lower temperature, never the reverse. But the Senate can solve that problem and justify its proposed legislation by simply repealing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

Martin Hertzberg 2009, “Earth’s radiative equilibrium in the solar irradiance”, Energy & Environment v.20 no.1&2, pp.85-96 (Special double-issue: Natural drivers of weather and climate, 278p.)

Martin Hertzberg 2009, “Earth’s radiative equilibrium in the solar irradiance”, Energy & Environment v.20 no.1&2, pp.85-96 (Special double-issue: Natural drivers of weather and climate, 278p.)

“Many interacting regions, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, are involved in the complex radiative balance. Unverified models do not realistically represent that balance, and it would be absurd to base public policy decisions on them.

“… the controlling factor in determining the average temperature of the Earth is its absorptivity to emissivity ratio.

Even for those portions of Earth that are not covered with clouds, the assumption that the ocean surface, land surfaces, or ice and snow cover would all have blackbody emissivities of unity, is unreasonable.

'Your coverage of the climate issues is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy'

Guest Essay By Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry. Hertzberg is featured on page 174 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Global Warming.

Dr. Hertzberg's August 19, 2009 Letter To The New York Times is Reprinted Below:

Distortions and misrepresentations of your coverage of global warming/climate change

I am a scientist who has studies the theory of human caused global warming for over 20 years, and it is both saddening and offensive to me as a scientist to see the Times continuously regurgitating the fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap it is being fed by know-nothing environmentalists and global warming propagandists in the Gore-IPCC-Hansen camp. As an example, consider the latest article in today's Times by Cornelia Dean and her regurgitation from NOAA's Climate Change Center:

Many thanks to the TomNelson BlogSpot for this link to the GoreLied site

Video: Sen. James Inhofe declares consensus in freefall

Dr. Hertzberg has given full permission to reprint letter to USA Today.

Meteorologist rejects 'fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming'
By Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry

Dear Editor:

As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming (the Levi, Borgerson article of 9/24/08) to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the Gore-IPCC theory that human activity is causing global warming is false. For details see my article, "The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide", in the "guest authors" section of www.carbon-sense.com .