We realize it can be intimidating for you in the general public to chime in when the scientists are hammering at each other. Therefore, we started this special post just for you.
Here is where you can say what you wish about Climate Clash without concern about being attacked by anyone involved in the debate. We welcome your comments.
All who have argued in Climate Clash in a scientific or technical manner are forbidden from commenting on this post. So Mr. and Ms. General Public, this post is all yours.
If there is global warming, then why not blame the automobile . Before 1970 the average own one vehicle, that vehicle was used by the husband to go to work, it park out side the factory he worked at for 8 to 10 hours per day, and at the end of the day ,it drove him home to his family. This all changed starting 1972, mothers started to stay in the workforce. Now in the country 80 percent of all adults own a vehicle,and this does include teenagers.
If Mr. Hammel or anyone else has any doubts that the global warming that has been occurring since the end of the Little Ice Age is a natural phenomenon cause primarily due to changes in solar activity, the following graph should dispel any such thoughts:
http://www.tncd.com/ebs/graph.3.jpg
ADMIN NOTE: The two comments by Dr. Eric have been deleted. Apparently he did not read the instructions at the top of this post which clearly say:
I would like to add the perspective from the point of view of a non-scientist. To me, comon sense and an understanding of the current state of the world is sufficient to make a decision about the issue of AGW.
As a computer operating system designer and developer, I very well remenber the hysteria over S2K. According to a group of “experts” I was a member of the “idiots” that overlook the disaster that was about to occur as a result of the transition to a new millenium. The end of the world was coming! As an aside, these “experts” could not ever agree when the millenium was to start. Some believed it was 2000 some others believed it was 2001. To anyone that had a reasonable knowledge of systems the whole issue was total nonsense.
Companies went along with the nonsense because significant incentives and tax breaks were provided to address and avoid catastrophy. IS departments were funded for that purpose. The funding was used to modernize archaic systems. Nothing to do with S2K. In our company, the money was used to upgrade all the workstations. The reason was that you could not “trust” hardware and software that were designed before this earth shattering discovery was made. We got nice PCs, particularly the more advanced screens. The old ones probably could not handle the millenium transition (I did not make the decision, so do not laugh at me).
When a few reporters were sent in my direccion, as soon as I mention that it was all nonsense, they stop being interested in what I have to say.
AGW has the smell of S2K but for much more neferious purposes. The consecuences of accepting the AGW claims have enormous implications for our lives and economic systems.
Here is when you would ask: why do you claim that not advance science knowled is needed to make a judgement? Here is my explanation why I think is another S2K:
You have to inhabit another planet not to have noticed that nothing is published in the MSM that the corporate world does not want to be published. If you think that this statement is not justified, particularly because I do not include any links, you should stop reading. Yes we are living in two different planets.
Having said that, then how come that we are bombarded by articles and headlines supporting AGW? If you want to read any dissenting opinion you have to resort to, as President Bush used to say, the Internets. Moreover, when ever references appear in the MSM about a different opinion by Mr. X, it is prontly debunked by demonstrating that Mr X claims are tainted by the source of his/hers research grants and past association with the big, bad Wolf (oil companies, electricity generating companies, automobil manufacturing, ….)
Are we to belive that the big, bad Wolf is that “stupid”. Money is not in short supply to the Wolf, so it would not be difficult for it to “buy” a few scientist with no known connections to his world.
Not only is the AGW mantra to repited ad nauseam but the malevolence of these corporations is also paraded regularly. Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus!
If I had no ethics ( and these days it is not difficult to find talented people with no moral compas) and I were given the mission to sell the London Bridge.. Sorry! I meant to say AGW I will try to orchestrate some very similar to what is corrently happening.
Again, what we see is a sincere, but misguided group of enviromentalist, being manipulated by forming an unholy alliance with the dark forces. Billions, if not trillions are at stake here!
My “scientific” judgement is that it is boloney!
By the way, while I do not fully understand some of scientific and technical issues under discussion, following this “trial” is fascinating and a truly educational experience.
My thanks to all the participants.
@3 Ed, the Administrator,
Your are indeed correct. I should have noted that I am forbidden from answering any questions on this “public” post and, as you insist, will from now on ignore this post.
Now that I have noted and agree to these rules, perhaps you could expand a bit on the purpose of this post. From what you have stated so far, it appear that this post is a place where anyone who does not know much about the science of AGW can say anything they wish without “fear” of receiving a response or an answer to their statement or question from a scientist who might actually know something about the topic.
Also, in order to participate in this post, how does one prove that they are sufficiently ignorant as to qualify for eligibility. Also, so these folks have to know quite a lot or nothing at all about your favorite topic, the Scientific Method. If they need some enlightenment on the SI, will you be allowed to provide that enlightenment or can only someone with a proper amount of ignorance concerning it be allowed to answer any questions?
Again, Ed, you have most sincere apologies for responding to Mr. Swenson. Rest assured that I will not again have a look at the questions posed in this post.
ADMIN NOTE: @5, To further clarify:
The whole purpose of this PCA post is to let those not involved in the debate to say whatever they wish without concern of a response from any debating scientist.
The general public may comment on all posts. It is easy to identify those who are not scientists who may have already made comments during this debate. For example, Mr. Swemson did not profess to be a scientist so he is welcome to comment here.
Also, it is easy to identify the debating scientists and they are the ones forbidden to comment here.
In the gray area, we encourage all scientists to add their comments on one of the science posts. However, non-debating scientists may make general comments here so long as their comments are not of the type to provoke a scientific debate.
All debating scientists should read the comments on this post. We may learn much from our observers.
People who make comments here are not looking for “enlightenment.” They are expressing their opinion. We welcome their opinion no matter what it is and we will accept their opinion without comment or debate. If they wish “enlightenment” they can comment on a science post.
Dr. Ed: I hope you let others read this as it is a philisophical comment based on my observations.
This is a philosophical commentary and is beyond the scope of the “scientific commentary” in other posts.
Names changed to protect the ignorant.
Original comment:Dear Hokey:
After analyzing all the electronic mails you send me and others, I came to the conclusion that you live in a world of fantasy and fiction. While this is fine for you, I live in a world of facts. Thus I’m sure that you are disturbed when I send electronic mails with facts; “as you do not want to be confused with these facts, because your mind is already made up.”
Response:
Well Pokey
My mother taught me that a person may have a bright, educated mind but look
out if they do not possess much ”Sachul”. That translation is something you
should know about being the same faith as I am. In case you don’t know it, it
means Common Sense in Yiddish! You CROSSED the line with me by insulting me. I
have never gone after you in a demeaning way except to disagree with you on some
social and political issues in the dozen years I’ve known you. I can imagine
what you say to others who see things differently than you do. Waltz and I are
really disappointed in you!
Hokey
Reply: Hello Hokey and Waltz. Happy Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, L’Shanah Tovah Tikatevu!!
After reading your response to my response, I could not sleep because you just illustrated how true my original comments are. Thank you for teaching me a new Yiddish word “Sachul.” It is a word I’ll seldom use because it conveys another myth.
Common Sense according to my mother is very uncommon if it exists at all. Let’s define how it is usually used. It is the opinion of an individual based on their own education and experiences. Now the person standing next to you with a totally different education and experience will think that “common sense” is something totally different. The person next to him will have a third definition of “common sense.” Which one has the “real common sense?” Usually none, especially if they are talking about something that they are uneducated in.
Hokey you were in a business (advertizing-40 years) that depended on taking 1% to 5 % truth, and 95% to 99% fiction or fantasy to sell a product. The creation of attractive appearances was more important than the accuracy of the content. Waltz you also experienced that in the sales in your store – the way something was displayed made more difference that what it was. Advertisers have known this for centuries. Being in the front row with your product and having attractive colors is the most important thing in selling, just like our School Brochures(good job Hokey). You need a knowledge of how easily people will “buy into fiction or fantasy.”
The whole movie industry is based on the gullibility of the human race. The director of Avatar, James Cameron clams to be a proponent of “green things”even though he has no knowledge of science(Great imagination). He has proved that he is an idiot when he challenged a very knowledgeable Editor of Climate Depot, and other global warming skeptics to a debate. After the opponents had landed in the host city for the “debate”, Cameron -canceled the debate.
The whole hoax of “Mann-made global warming” is another example of how gullible people are – they live in a world of fiction and fantasy.” They believe in a politician, such as Al Gore who lost the 2000 election, has no science credentials, but has been accused of sexual harassment of women. Worse off, he has written a book that is supposed to be about science but it has been shown to be 90% lies. A great role model (yeah right)!
It has just been proven that the UN-IPCC reports about “Mann-Made Global Warming” are pure JUNK: not even Junk Science. Check out the website http://www.climatedepot.com and “climategate.com” for the most up-to-date information on the world’s greatest scam! Trillions of dollars,EU,Pesos have been thrown down a rat hole to correct a problem that does not exist. “Mann- made global warming” is a fairy-tale, a hoax ,a scam.!
This next set of comments are something that you will find very insulting. It’s about two areas of politics, freedom and honesty. I’m not sure of your opinions about homosexuality, but from our common background in Judaism, God said that people of the same sex should not sleep together, and at the same time we are seeing people of similar religious background supporting the “legalization of what I believe is a moral sin,” and that is homosexual marriage. One judge in California throw out a State Constitutional Amendment that was approved by about 8 million voters. The New York Times has indicated that judge is gay. Are we not living in a world of fiction and fantasy? Where has our democracy gone?
In the 1970′s Red Book a popular women s magazine published articles promoting “adultery” as a way to improve your marriage- the concept seams to exist today,Are we not living in a world of fiction and fantasy?
We have a “gray president” that took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Yet the second he took that oath he choose to violate a key part of it. It is required that a U.S. President be a native born citizen. Unfortunately, he has refused to produce the long form of his birth certificate. He has spent between $1 million to $2 million dollars on lawyer fees to avoid having to produce a document that costs about $50.00 or less (if it even exists). I’d say that people think that not presenting a LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE are Honest. Are THESE people living in a world of fiction and fantasy?
Is this a U.S. President we need when he takes an oath to enforce the existing federal laws, and then tells the State of Arizona that they cannot enforce these same Federal laws? To make matters worse, he then sues Arizona and reports to the U.N. of potential human rights violations, contained in SB 1070, (a copy of existing Federal laws passed by Congress and signed by many previous presidents)even though it is clearly evident that Arizona is being invaded by armed drug dealers! A border patrol officer was recently killed in a gun fight with a gang of these drug smugglers. Are we living in a world of “fiction and fantasy”?
When the best selling books on the internet or hard copy are books of Fiction, it tells us that you are not the only person that is Living in a world of fiction and fantasy. I admire your ability to produce the Photo – fantasies that you do. I am a person of facts and don’t even dream of the Fantasies you create even if I were drunk.
If you were insulted by my statements maybe you question yourself.
If I am dealing with idiots that believe in “Mann-made global warming” they would get 10 times the abuse that I’m giving you. This includes such wackos as, Senator Sherrod Brown, his aid State Director John Ryan, USW (United Steel Workers) District One Director Dave McCall, and many others who are crooks, and are trying to steal money from us all by supporting Cap and Steal legislation.
There is a political party that believes that despite the fact that we’re in the middle of a recession, we still should put a “tax on energy.” This is in order to destroy every manufacturing business in the U.S., and thus we improve the environment because no one is working. They ignore the fact that higher cost energy raises the cost of “EVERYTHING FROM SOUP TO NUTS.” Are we not living in a world of fiction and fantasy?
famous quote by P.T Barnum: “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool some of the people some of the time and it is just enough to make a good living”.
Or more simply put, there’s a sucker born every minute.
There is an area that I’m only going to touch on. That is the war with the Muslim fascist ideology and Shariah Law. This is a war that has been going on for approximately 1,400 years between Christians and Jews and other believers in Liberty and Freedom. We are losing the war because of our own belief in religious freedom, even if it kills us. Remember journalist Daniel Pearl and others As the queen in Alice in Wonderland said -”Off with your head”!
Are we not living in a world of fiction and fantasy?
I am not a scientist but have read many science articles.
I think I have finally caught up with all the comments on the various threads at Climate Clash.
A small ode that was partly inspired by something said very early on…
COAT CLASH, CLIMATE CASH
There are many fatal flaws in all the fairy stories
Compounded every time one uses a coat allegory
What these scientists always fail to note
In their quest to demonstrate with coats
As is with all things, coats work both ways
Trapping warmth yes, but also reflecting hot rays
Just like clouds do on the cold dark days
Why is it, this point is never seemingly raised?
“In the atmosphere, this extra CO2 increases the amount of radiation (heat) that is absorbed as the Earth attempts to cool itself via its emission of infrared radiation. Therefore, just as you get warmer when you put on a heavier coat, the Earth also gets warmer as extra atmospheric CO2 is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.”
We have been told that there is a consensus that our planet would be about 33C cooler without the atmospheric greenhouse effect, we are told that the planet has an average temperature of about 15C, with the assistance of the GHG warming.
If we take those figures, we can see that without the GHG effect, the planet would be at an average temperature of about -18C, just about the temperature a household freezer should be set at.
If I remove some ice-cream from the freezer AND it (the environment) is warmer than -18C outside, the freezer it will start to melt.
If I wish to prevent it from melting (I.E. prevent warming), I would put it into an insulated container, (chilly bin) or a coat.
This would slow the rate of heat transfer from the warm environment to the cold ice cream.
If I had a hot meal that I wished to keep warm from a cooler environment, I would also slip it into a coat or insulated container.
This would slow the rate of heat transfer from the hot meal to the cooler environment.
Both of these things happen in reality, the pizza delivery person relies on the slowed heat transfer to keep the pizza warm.
Many of us will have used chilly bins to keep our beers cold.
A firefighter dons a very heavy coat before entering a burning building; do they do this to make themselves warmer? Or rather protect them from the raging inferno they are about to enter?
The sun can be considered a raging inferno; I can feel the heat of it from here.
If some of that heat is blocked, reflected, absorbed or whatever from reaching me or the surface by anything, including CO2 or Ozone or H20, it will have to be considered a sun blocker.
Say you are transported naked to somewhere cold (pick a pole, either hemisphere will do, the warming has even arranged a white Christmas for parts of Australia!) You find a wet discarded coat frozen to the ground, so you pry it off the floor and put it on, how cozy is that coat?
What if the coat was not frozen but just soaking wet, would it warm you up?
That of course depends on the temperature of the coat, if it was freshly pulled out of a container of boiling water, then yes of course it would warm (burn) you.
So why would I get warmer putting a heavier coat on?
I would of course need all the other garments that would help insulate me from the cold; I have heard that a good hat and boots are essential. (To prevent convection from your head and conduction through your feet)
I would also need to expend energy (calories) to maintain body heat.
It seems that the surface of our planet does not receive much “body heat” from the molten rocks beneath the crust.
The vast majority of energy comes from the sun, what happens to the energy after it reaches the surface seems to be the AGW side of the equation, if we include what happens before it gets to the surface, we will have to get an equal and opposite effect from any IR absorber/re-emitter or reflector. If it blocks the warmth of the planet from leaving, it will also block the warmth of the sun from getting here.
If I have made any errors or unfounded assumptions, I can but apologize for my ignorance and hope that some one can explain the errors in my thought process.
One final question, what would the temperature of a blackbody need to be to produce a wavelength of 667-1cm? (Or is it 66.6cm that is the wavelength associated with CO2?)
NoIdea
PS ADMIN if you feel that this post should be on a different thread, please feel free to place it where you think it would be most appropriate.
Hello,
I am not sure if this is the correct place to post this or not, but on the “last Major ice Age” thread you posted a number for the albedo during that period of ~0.6 as opposed to ~0.3 today. I am hoping to get some more information about changes in albedo during ice ages and I was hoping I could get your source for that number.
My apologies if this is the wrong thread to address this, but the original thread appears as though it has run its course.
Cheers,
@9, Shawn,
Sure. the information you are looking for is provided and discussed in the Hansen et al paper, along with the Supplementary Materials, that I referred to frequently in my Post #6 called the Ice Ages.
(Ed, I don’t think you will mind that I have responded to a reader here)
@10, Dr. Eric, I agree it is proper to reply to a question such as @9 by giving a reference to where the answer or continuing debate can be found. The line we cannot cross is entering material that will provoke a scientific debate in the PCA. In @10 you did fine.
Thanks, guys!
Maybe I’m being a bit dense here, but I haven’t been able to find a statement about the albedo being 0.6 during the last major ice age in the material referenced by Dr. Eric (in either the paper or the supplementary materials). Can someone give me a bit more direction here?
Thanks a lot!
Shawn,
Sorry, the Hansen article does have a lot about the albedo changes but possibly expresses it only in term of force changes in units of watts per sq meter rather than fractional reflection. I’ll look into this point and get back to you ASAP.
The albedo of SEA ICE is about 0.6, but the albedo of Earth during ice ages is not known. I think that comment on the sea ice value is where Dr Eric saw a value and misunderstood what was being quoted.
Shawn,
Concerning my comment in Post 6, “The present albedo of Earth is about 0.30. During a glacial period, it is about twice that, or about 0.6.”. I have not yet been able to find where I saw this number. However, it does seem too large. I also want to know a better number and will keep trying to find one. Thanks for pointing out.
Thank you for your help, Dr. Eric! I also thought that the 0.6 number was pretty high. I suppose someone could work backward from Hansen’s forcing numbers to get the hypothesized albedo during the period.
If you come up with a reference for ice age albedo, let us know about it.
Happy New Year!
@17 Shawn,
I think I have finally come to my senses concerning the albedo during the ice ages. By simple calcuation one can see that if A = 0. 30 now during the Holocene, then A was about 0.32 during the last ice age.
I get to this starting from Hansen’s paper:
A 2% decrease in solar intensity would provide a forcing of about – 4 watts / m2.
Hansen calculates an albedo forcing of about the same, – 3.5 watts /m2 for a change from interglacial to glacial conditions.
In order to get a 2% change in solar input to Earth, the solar energy reaching Earth (Stotal (1-A)), would be decreased by 2% by a relatively small albedo change, from 0.30 to 0.32.
Hope I have it right this time. Sorry for the confusion caused by my carelessly chosen number in The Ice Ages. I still don’t know why I had that silly number embedded in my head.
So Ed, in my statement
“The present albedo of Earth is about 0.30. During a glacial period, it is about twice that, or about 0.6.”,
would you please change the 0.6 to 0.32?
Thanks, Eric
[ADMIN: Edit request in Post 6 accomplished on 1/4/11]
Why are some people talking about ‘*Carbon Tax’? … Carbon is present in all known lifeforms. Actually it is the chemical basis of all known life! Surely they must mean CO2 tax. Anyway, a tax on CO2 isn’t practical. Apart from human emissions only being a percentage of a minor atmospheric gas, it hasn’t been proved that it has any effect on the climate’s chaotic system (indeed there hasn’t been any significant warming from 1999 till now, in spite of steadily rising CO2 levels). Also, it is far from being a toxic gas. All animals (incl. humans) exhale CO2, and all plants use CO2 as part of photosynthesis. If it had very low levels, or didn’t exist, all life on Earth would quickly disappear. CO2 is like a fertilizer for plants. They love it! (Especially in closed systems like glasshouses.) Increasing levels in the atmosphere is good news for plants at a time when humans need good harvests … and don’t need a lot of land set aside for biofuels.
Ed,
I know that I have been forbidden from posting comments on this section will do so anyway – thereby giving you an excuse to erase it if wish. But in your section 10A -which will be your response to my several posts concerning AGW, you mentioned at the end of your draft that
“the defense will follow with posts showing (b) there is nothing unnatural about the levels of our CO2 and (c) that human emissions are not the primary cause of rising CO2 levels”.
I have been most eager to hear your reasons behind those statements and am wondering if we might see a preview of your evidence for them. Perhaps you could provide that portion of your rebuttal while leaving the rest for later? Just a thought – considering the central importance of those two points.
Thank you for this informative site.
I have two suggestions which may improve climate debate blogs and make it more interesting.
1 Dont keep presenting “peer reviewed” papers. They are not layman friendly. The article format is better (recent Pierrehumbert article for example). The articles could be in two parts. A layman explanation( say 1st year uni level) followed the detailed physics (say phd+ level).
2. Most threads seem to go on and on. It would be good if the moderator stepped in summarised the argument and declared a winner(or draw)
Dr. Eric
Can you elaborate on your claims 2, 5, & 6.
I assume kicked in means the initial effects of the increase in CO2 + the associated feedbacks.
Based on doubling CO2 being 100%, what % has fully kicked in?
DR. Ed and other participants that are scientists in the fields under discussion:
It was clear that the level of personal attacks was going to cause some significant problems, so this outcome is not surprising.
I do not know how many nonscientists were following (the best we could) this debate, but for us the debate was a truly learning experience for which I am very thankful. A presentation of the other side of the coin would be truly appreciated. I understand that the effort to do that may not be balanced by the value of educating a small group of concerned individuals.
So, if that is no an effective use of your time, I will appreciate if some pointers to blogs, articles, or books that you consider balanced and reliable is produced before the conclusion of this very interesting episode.
Whatever happens, thank you for you time and effort.
@24 Jose,
Thank you. I am looking forward to adding extensive scientific material that shows why the AGW hypothesis is invalid. You can read about my plans in my comment @69 in post H4.
It is unfortunate that I have been involved in two very high priority tasks for the past two months that have kept me from participating in Climate Clash, except to put out fires. One project uses my expertise in software development and the other as a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. I may be done with these projects in about 2 weeks, after which I will make more progress here.
Also, I will add extensive references and links to other material on both sides of AGW to help those like you who are seeking more information. There are many people interested in participating in Climate Clash who have stayed away because of the distractions of personal attacks. I expect they will return after I get back.
@22, Wayne,
I have noted your comment and I agree with you. I will make future articles and discussions more friendly to the non-atmospheric scientist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&NR=1
This guy says that the Earth can be modelled as black body so there are no feedforwards or feedbacks- isn’t that eloquent. All due to correct analysis of solar radiation- we get less reflection due to less cloud formation when there the sun is at its peak.
No IPCC fudge factors are needed for modelling and the Earth is no especially forcing factor sensitive- volcanic eruptions only cause small changes in temperatures unlike the IPCC models- His model is twice as accurate.
I’ve seen several instances of the term “common sense” used here. Perhaps we should examine some other common sense examples. The Earth is not the only example we have of atmospheric CO2. Take Mars and Venus for example. Mars has an extremely thin atmosphere almost entirely composed of CO2. It is warmer than it should be given it’s relative insolation. How about Venus? It’s surface is hot enough to melt lead. It has an atmosphere largely composed of CO2 at very high density and pressure. A confounding element in Venus is that it has sulfuric acid clouds which reflect much of the incoming solar radiation (confounding in that it also keeps it in as well). Does anyone dispute that “a” greenhouse effect exists, whether or not CO2 is the primary culprit? If you do, please cover the inside of your car in black material then park it outside on a sunny day. This is also “common sense”. Does CO2 absorb infrared energy. Yes it does, this is indisputable. It does not do so evenly, it has picket fence like gaps. Does water vapor also absorb CO2? Yes, but it too has it’s own picket fence. Are there gaps in the water vapor “fence” that are filled with a “pickets” from the CO2 fence? Yes. At lower levels of CO2 is there leakage of infrared into space (effectively making a cooler Earth)? Again yes. Would raising CO2 block some of this energy from escaping the Earth (making the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere higher). Maybe.
This is common sense. It is not definitely Yes or No, but Maybe. If you are an anti-AGW believer, you must address this fundamental question. Why does raising CO2 NOT block more infrared energy from leaving the system? I’ve noticed that much has been made of the 3.5/10000 proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. How much does the paint on your car weigh? On a hot sunny day would you put your hand on a) a white car, or b) a black car? Granted we are really talking about two shades of grey, not black and white, but the point is when it comes to absorping energy a THIN layer of anything absorpative versus transparent or reflective make a big difference. Again this is common sense a 6 year old can grasp. Of course, the atmosphere is not like a painted surface, it is composed of individual molecules of gases. The thing about 3.5/10000 is that the active contribution of a single CO2 molecule can be disproportionate. Think about it this way, O2 and N2 do not significantly contribute to infrared absorption, but a warm CO2 molecule is about 3000 times more likely to bump into an O2 or N2 molecule and share it’s energy, leaving it ready to absorb more infrared. It is exactly analogous to adding a drop of black ink to a bottle of water then leaving it in the sun. It will be much warmer after a period of time than a bottle with only transparent water.
Another question I’d like to pose is, if CO2 is so important to all plant life on Earth, why is there so little of it? Seriously, wouldn’t nature “like” more CO2? Shouldn’t “natural” levels of CO2 be much higher than they were before Man started his industrial activities? Before humans the two biggest contributors to CO2 were biological respiration and decay, and volcanism. There are essentially two carbon cycles. A short term biological cycle, and a long term geological cycle. The two are linked by fossil fuels and calcium carbonate deposits from sea creatures. Fossil fuels up to this point have largely been “one way” unless a volcano cut through a coal deposit (which has happened in the geologic past in a big way). However, we are taking fossil fuels and re-introducing the carbon back into the biological cycle. We are circumventing the geological carbon cycle. We are bigger than volcanoes. MUCH bigger. Why is it that you think that changing something as fundamental as the way carbon is being recycled by really BIG natural systems has NO effect? I’m not sure this actually passes the common sense test. Granted, AGW MIGHT be some vast conspiricy of scientists. However, is that actually likely? Scientists really don’t have some strange cabal that they periodically huddle in to agree to lie about basic science. It is actually a rather odd presumption that there could be such a vast conspiricy where scientist from many parts of the world could collude on anything. If you are going to attack the science, then attack it using science and prove or disprove each individual element. Science is extremely durable in that it is self-correcting. Bad science inevitably is found out.
@28 pmarshal,
Thank you very much for your excellent comment. I cannot respond to your significant points at this moment but I will return. For now, I want you to know your comment has been read.
Meanwhile, I invite our participating scientists to respond to your comment.
Ed
pmarshal: All your questions are answered in the G-3 posting stored in the December 2010 archieves but I also direct you to the part in section 10- the Demonstration . I’d combine this with the work of NASA -40 years ago that showed that the “greenhouse gas effect ” does not exist.
To the general question by “common Sense” it does not exist.
Another reference that has been forgotten is the web-site http://www.stratus-sphere.com It showed what Dr. Roy Spence has documented with NASA data only it has been available for 3 or 4 years for those that wanted to read it.
Here is the NASA reference just to make it easier to find.
Climate Realists Article
http://climaterealists.com/5783
ALAN SIDDONS HEADLINE STORY JOHN O’SULLIVAN NASA
NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?
As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:
“During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick….in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation…”
Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations’ were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.
But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is ‘settled’ based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.
NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget
But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.
Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas “backradiation.” Why would this be?
In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth’s radiation budget.
As Siddons sagely advised me, “This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting.”
Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence
Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.
As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.
But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.
How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.
##############################################################
Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan
It is very hard for people that have been fooled by the Fairy-tale of “greenhouse gas effect”to admit that they have been fooled. There is one question they should ask themselves-” Where is the creditable experimental data that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exists? We now have the experimental work of Robert W. Wood 1909; reproved by Dr. Nahle 2011, and my experimental work that is being reviewed by Dr. Nahle and Dr. Austin of Princeton.
If I get comments from either it will be posted here.
Sorry Dr. Ed: I should not have jumped in on this section of the posts. I’ll be more carefull next time.
@31 Berthold, that is OK. I don’t know any other way to respond to pmarshal’s comment other than to address it here.
@28 pmarshal, getting back to your comment:
The occurrence of warming in the presence of CO2 does not prove the warming is highly dependent upon CO2. As Berthold @30 points out, there is evidence the heat stored on the surface of a planet will act in a similar manner to that of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. The example of the Moon with no atmosphere certainly begs an explanation.
Whether for Venus or any other planet, we are all still searching for a valid model of how the heating occurs. We know a reasonable amount about the pieces of the problem, but no scientist is saying this is a simple problem. When it is impossible to solve a complete problem, we look for problems we can solve that appear to bound the problem.
We know any atmosphere will absorb ground heat by conduction and by radiation if the air contains IR absorbing molecules. Then the air will convect upwards taking heat with it. As the air rises, it will cool by expansion but retain its head because the convection is adiabatic. Then we get into the discussions of how the air gets rid of its heat, which is the subject of many posts and comments in Climate Clash.
This is the subject covered by the post by Nihle. Read his experiment and see what you think of it. Assuming he has made no critical errors in his experiment, he shows the glass covered box heats slightly LESS than an polyethylene covered box. Here we assume the glass is analogous to the CO2 and other IR absorbing gases in the atmosphere. We need to explore the physics of what is happening in comments on his post. I think his experiment shows that IR absorbers in the atmosphere cause about the same amount of cooling by absorbing the incoming IR as they do in warming by absorbing the outgoing IR. But that is my assumption that should be discussed.
Until we can explain the simple box experiment, we cannot explain the more complex atmosphere.
You are correct, this is not a fundamental argument.
That is more of a philosophical question. It assumes there is some intelligence imbedded in the Earth that adjusts everything so we can live. In fact, we know that plant life does better when CO2 is around 1000 ppm and that animal life suffers if CO2 gets to several 1000 ppm.
You omitted the ocean effect on CO2 concentration. The ocean and biological and some minerals have a short-term cycle that many experiments show is about 5 to 10 years. Counting ocean circulation and we have a 1000 year or so cycle in the oceans as well.
But the long-term geological carbon cycle you mention may not be a cycle in the sense of being recurring. It is possible the short-term cycles fully compensate for the long-term changes of any concern to our lives.
There is no physical basis for concern about us circumventing the geological carbon cycle. Any such concern is not based upon physics but upon the ecological religion that nature is good and humans are bad. This is philosophical rather than scientific.
That may be a difficult statement to prove.
If we are really causing such an effect, then we would be able to measure it. We cannot measure it, so it imaginary.
That is a 2-way street. Who is doing the conspiracy? The key point in science is that the side proposing the hypothesis, like AGW, has the burden of proof to show irrefutable evidence to support the hypothesis. Whereas the side opposing the hypothesis has to only show one failure of the hypothesis.
When there are 1000s of good scientists, who are not a conspiracy, who give good reasons that the AGW hypothesis has failed, then it has failed. It is up to the AGW supporters to present evidence to convince the other scientists that AGW is valid.
They have not done this. Therefore, the AGW supporters have no basis to claim politically that they are correct.
Dr. Ed, It has been awhile since I visited here. Climate Clash was one of the more helpful sites for me to get educated on the science (as opposed to politics) of climate change. What happened? The site seems a bit “cluttered” now.
More to the point, I was looking for comments on the January 2011 Physics Today article by Pierrehumbert. I couldn’t find the first 51 which contained some excellent rebuttals to his paper, if I recall correctly.
@33 Dear James,
Thanks for your comment. Indeed, the comments were not displaying correctly. I would not have caught this error if you had not mentioned it.
I solved this problem by changing back to the standard WordPress theme, which shows the link to move to previous and newer comments.
Sincerely,
Ed
Praise the Lord. I think I like this format better, but the content is what makes this site special. Thanks.