Global Warming and Science; Close Air Support

Chaos Manor View, Thursday, September 24, 2015

It’s hot and once again I feel like a stagnating vegetable. So it goes.


The man made global warming movement got more support from the Pope’s speech, but His Holiness does not seem to be listening to the scientist members of his Jesuit order.

Certainly the CO2 level is rising, although other than its influencing global temperatures to rise I know of few effects; nor do I have any reason to believe we know much more than Arrhenius did when he calculated that doubling the C02 proportion of the atmosphere – which we have not done — would result in 2 degrees per century global temperature rise – which hasn’t happened yet. Wikipedia says:

Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

Arrhenius estimated based on the CO2 levels at the time, that reducing levels by 0.62 – 0.55 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and an increase of 2.5 to 3 times of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 8–9 °C in the Arctic.[16][13] In his book Worlds in the Making he described the “hot-house” theory of the atmosphere.

Increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere certainly causes some rise in temperature; the question is, how much? At some point it will have reabsorbed all the radiation from Earth to space that can be absorbed by CO2; some believe that it is likely to have done that now (since water vapor and methane are pretty effective in that absorption in many places, so there isn’t any left for CO2 to grab; more CO2 doesn’t have any to get).

But that’s generally true anywhere. CO2 is most effective at absorbing radiation from Earth to space (more effective in getting heat that would go to space and not be absorbed by something else like methane) in cold, dry areas. This does not seem to be reflected in any of the climate models.

The present models do not seem to take account of any volcanism whether atmospheric or undersea; do not account for the physical restriction of CO2 effectiveness to cold dry areas; cannot predict the present from the physical conditions of the past; cannot account for the present halt—however temporary – of the rise in temperature; cannot account for the Little Ice Age; cannot account for the Viking Warm; cannot account for the Roman Warm; and cannot explain why historically the CO2 levels rise after temperature rises rather than before. (Outside the models that’s easy to explain.)

The response of the Global Warming Warriors has been largely political. The science response tends to the ridiculous such as Mann’s attempt simply to erase the Viking and Roman Warm periods in favor of his “hockey stick”, which requires considerable data adjustment and ignoring historical records in favor of interpretations of tree rings and other proxies of temperature. The emerging Viking farms in Greenland and the records of increases in growing seasons in England and on the Continent are not considered valid proxies of temperatures. The models do not explain the Ice Ages, which are assumed to be brought about by orbital factors operating over so long a time period as can safely be ignored: this despite considerable evidence that Ice Ages went from temperate conditions to meters if ice year round in England and the Northern part of the European continent in under a century. The Ice came fast.

In the OR (operations research) business, we had a saying: you can prove anything if you have sufficient adjustment to your data.


Defense of the Global Warming hypothesis became extreme, with criminal prosecution being threatened for unbelievers, most of whom had already lost their grants. It can be lucrative defending Global Warming. Whittaker Chambers thought he was leaving the winning side for the losing when he left the Communist Party. Given the trends in Academia at the time, his observation, though wrong, was not ridiculous.

more reputable sources…
Stephanie Osborn

“The Interstellar Woman of Mystery”



Hal Lewis

You do, of course, realize that Dr. Lewis’s resignation from APS occurred 5 years ago, and that he died in early 2011. His comments have been rebutted numerous times.

No, I didn’t realize it, but I do note that although it is said that he has been rebutted, the rebuttals don’t seem so obvious. No one has stated that the Global Warming Scam is recent or new (and for the record I have never said it was a scam except on the part of specific individuals). The facts as he stated them have not changed much: the grants go to those who embrace the man made global warming theories; theirs also the publications. This may be because they are correct, but somehow the major problems have not, in my opinion, been addressed other than to say “but that was rebutted.” Discovering the actual rebuttal (as opposed to its proclamation) has proven impossible of discovery.


volcanoes effects on albedo, typo

Dr. Pournelle,
Agree that volcanoes seem to be left out of the equations, even though this is vehemently denied by people with variable familiarity with the mathematics involved. I’d also put in a plug for subsurface volcanic affects on ocean temperatures, they’re not part of either the models nor is there accurate sensing, nor adjustments made to ocean temperature readings.
Just to register an opposing viewpoint: I only bring typos to your attention when I feel that they change your intended meaning. I’ve been wrong several times, but you’ve clarified the points in question. Casual publication and personal correspondence are full of these minor errors, they don’t impede my enjoyment of your column/blog, and as with most things, copy editing should be done in moderation. Please don’t let self-checking get in the way of recording your thoughts — I’d rather have new blog posts from you than nothing.
With hopes for you continued recovery and returning good cheer,

I do the best I can.


This might be interesting

    1960s Boeing Stealth Concept


Stealth aircraft. I heard rumors of something going on in Wichita, but no details.



The U.S. Air Force Has Loathed Close Air Support Since the Beginning.

Gimme a break. It is not just the US Air Force that hates CAS. All air forces hate CAS. Why? ‘Cause it’ll get you killed.

Arthur Lee Gould flew for the RFC in 1917 and, from his letters to his wife and his diary, compiled ‘No Parachute’ as a contemporary account of his experiences. When he joined 46 Squadron, the squadron had just made the switch to Sopwith Pups. The Pups were a match for German fighters only above 18,000 feet, so 46 Squadron flew top cover (air to air). The mission was cold and dangerous but the dangers could be mitigated.

In September 1917 the squadron switched to Sopwith Camels. The Camels flew low cover (10,000 – 12,000 feet) and ground attack sorties. Gould was shot down 3 times, all on ground attack missions. He was shot down twice in the space of 3 days. He had nightmares of ground attack and, like Roy Brown, lived on toast, tea, milk, and brandy. He went from being the new guy in the squadron to being the squadron’s senior pilot in 6 months. In January of 1918 the wing sent him to the Home Establishment.

USAF distaste for CAS in Korea was not new. The pilots of the RFC hated CAS in 1917. I recall a memoir ‘A Fighter Pilot’s Story’ about a USAAF pilot flying P47s over France and Germany from D-Day to VE-Day. Over 11 months his squadron suffered 300% casualties. Three hundred percent.

I do not say the mission should not be done. CAS must be done. But it is prejudiced, ignorant, stupid, and damned silly to expect pilots to like it.

Live long and prosper

h lynn keith

Escorting heavy bombers will get you killed. Air superiority missions will get you killed. Being an infantryman will get you killed. Artillerymen get killed. Wars get you killed.

The problem with close air support is that there is no career path for those successful at it; the great careers are for other pilots in other missions. There are exceptions. And of course in WWII after air supremacy in Europe was established, cruising along thirty miles from the line of engagement in a P-47 looking for anything that might supply the Wehrmacht on their front lines with food or ammunition was an extremely effective use of air power, and pretty damned safe compared to being in the advance party of an armored column. Close support in that situation shortened the war by a lot; the Army concluded that if they’d had that earlier, the war wouldn’t have lasted as long. What makes you think I want anyone to love the CAS mission? As you say, it must be done, which I think is all I have ever said. I certainly do not expect gunners involved in an artillery duel to love their work.

: General Blasts A-10 vs. F-35 Debate as ‘Ludicrous’ | DoD Buzz

Some of the reader comments on this article are right on. Some are just priceless.

John Harlow

In a session with reporters, Carlisle called the A-10 “a fantastic airplane doing fantastic work down range” in Iraq.

“One of the questions I get is if you’re going to retire the A-10s why are you still using them in the fight? Well, that’s an easy answer. I don’t have enough capacity. I’ve got to use every single thing I’ve got. I don’t have enough capacity” to handle the missions in Iraq and Syria without the A-10s, the general said.

However, Carlisle said, “It’s about how we do CAS, not what platform is replacing what platform.” In addition, the A-10 was not suited for operating against more sophisticated air defenses being developed by Russia, China and other potential adversaries, he said.

“The A-10, it’s more difficult for that airplane to operate in a contested environment,” Carlisle said. “We would lose, which none of us want to accept, we would lose a good portion of those airplanes potentially in a contested environment.”

Which of course is correct; ground support before establishing air supremacy – and nowadays that means suppression of ground based intercept – is costly, dangerous, and expensive. No one I know believes the air supremacy mission is unimportant; but the airplane most useful for that mission is not likely to be the best airplane for the close support mission. Educating the Congress, and the McNamara’s, to accept that truth is never easy. I really ought to find time to update Strategy of Technology, but alas, Dr. Possony has been gone for decades, and Col. Kane died last year.


The ‘software robots’ changing outsourcing: ‘Up to 60 percent of the tasks can be automated’ (ZD)

Romanian startup UiPath is targeting the BPO industry by helping robots take over the jobs that human workers hate.

By Andrada Fiscutean for Central European Processing | September 24, 2015 — 10:45 GMT (03:45 PDT) |

UiPath’s strategy is straightforward. Its CEO Daniel Dines refuses to make PowerPoint presentations for potential clients. “Instead, we show them the software and teach them what it can do.”

Dines and his team are in the ‘software robots’ business, part of a market expected to stretch to $5bn by 2020, up from less than $200m in 2013, according to Transparency Market Research. A challenger to Blue Prism and Automation Anywhere, the Romanian startup estimates it will quadruple its annual turnover this year, to $2m.

The team started working together some ten years ago. Initially, their products addressed the consumer market. Then, they wrote libraries for UI automation and screen scraping for other developers to use, a step that helped them test their ideas and gather feedback.

A few years ago, they started working on their own robotic process automation platform. “We came late to the table, so we’re using the latest technologies,” Badita said.

A UiPAth software robot mimics a user. It sees the computer screen the way a human does. It clicks buttons, copy-pastes data from a picture to a spreadsheet, looks for specific numbers in a PDF file, or pops-up information about a client you’re talking to on the phone.

How long before 70% of jobs they will pay someone to do can be done by a robot?





Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.




Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.