Big Picture Science: climate change denial on Fox News

By Phil Plait | August 15, 2011 12:41 pm

Every month or so I do a skeptical segment with astronomer Seth Shostak called "Brains on Vacation" for the SETI radio show/podcast "Big Picture Science" (what used to be called "Are We Alone?"). This month’s episode, Plotting Along, is about conspiracy theories and is now online. You can listen to it there, or download the file directly.

This time, I talked about the climate change denier Joe Bastardi’s bizarre take on global warming that recently aired on Fox News — you can read all about what he said on sites like Scientific American and Media Matters. Basically, Bastardi denies humans have anything to do with climate change, and has a history of saying things that, um, turn out not to be entirely accurate when it comes to basic science.

In this case, Bastardi tried to invoke the First Law of Thermodynamics to show humans don’t cause global warming, a truly weird thing to do since the First Law actually supports the idea that pumping CO2 into the air makes it heat up. Without carbon dioxide, the energy from the Sun would hit the Earth, with some being absorbed and some radiating away. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, just balanced. However, carbon dioxide traps some of that heat, warming us up*. It’s not that new energy is being created someplace, it’s just that more of the Sun’s heat stays trapped here on Earth instead of being radiated away. That energy cannot just go away or be destroyed, so we warm up.

The First Law is safe. Phew!

Not content with just physics, Bastardi then moved on to chemistry: this time, Le Chatelier’s Principle. That one (which is not actually a law but more like a rule of thumb) says that a system out of equilibrium tries to get back to equilibrium. For a totally random example, say you have a planet with CO2 in its air, trapping some heat and letting some leak away. If you add more CO2, more heat will be trapped and the planet will warm up, eventually re-establishing equilibrium (different than the previous balance, but still balanced).

Bastardi’s claim about this is truly weird; he claims Le Chatelier’s Principle is why Earth’s temperature has leveled off recently. That’s wrong because of the reason I just stated above, but also because of the small fact that our temperature hasn’t leveled off. This is a relatively new denier claim that’s been making the rounds, and it’s flatly (haha) wrong. The Earth’s temperature has been increasing steadily for quite some time, including the past few decades (2010 tied the year 2005 as the hottest year on record so far; note that both years are in the period where Bastardi claims the temperatures have leveled off).

And don’t even get me started on Bastardi’s claim that global warming is due to sunspots. That’s so wrong it’s hard to know where to start! For starters, there is no correlation between the rise in temperatures and the solar cycle, sunspots can only barely affect our temperature, and our temperature has been rising despite the Sun’s recent unusually long period with no sunspots (sunspots actually increase the Sun’s energy output by a fraction of a percent). Basically, and simply put, we know global warming is not due to the Sun.

It doesn’t really matter what flavor of science you invoke: the Earth is warming, CO2 is behind it, and we’re the ones pumping it into the air at the rate of 30 billion tons per year, faster than our environment can absorb it.

I’m not terribly surprised to see these sorts of claims on Fox News, of course. It strikes me as forehead-slappingly silly that someone can claim that a scientific consensus held by thousands of highly-trained professional researchers is wrong because they’re misinterpreting basic high school science, but there you go. It’s also ironic: after all, someone is misinterpreting basic high school science here. And I’m guessing it’s not the climatologists.


* A minor bit of pedantry: In the interview I did for Big Picture Science, I misspoke, saying the carbon dioxide "reflects back" the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface; it would’ve been more accurate to say it absorbs that radiation and re-radiates it, warming us up. The end result is the same: the Earth’s surface gets warmer, and the concept I was trying to convey was still clear. Note that this is very different than what Bastardi is doing, which is consistently and repeatedly getting fundamental concepts wrong.


Related posts:

- As arctic ice shrinks, so does a denier claim
- Is global warming solar induced?
- NASA talks global warming
- Here comes the Sun again

Comments (145)

  1. Brian

    Bastardi brings shame to my Alma Mater.

  2. Twirrim

    @brian couldn’t your alma mater withdraw his qualifications, or is the system that flawed?

  3. rob

    nolite te Bastardi carborundorum

  4. Glenn A

    Well, here is one patently absurd claim: “Basically, and simply put, we know global warming is not due to the Sun”
    Who said that? Oh PHIL. You must think we get our heat from the moon.
    Out of context? Yep. Cuts both ways.

  5. Coincidentally, I tackled the same issue — with much more profanity — on The JAYFK site this morning.

  6. James

    Is this a rebuttal to Bastardi, or a leftist political statement?
    Just curious, you know.

  7. Daniel J. Andrews

    That’s wrong because of the reason I just stated above, but also because of the small fact that our temperature hasn’t leveled off. This is a relatively new denier claim that’s been making the rounds, and it’s flatly (haha) wrong.

    From one perspective, it isn’t really a new denier claim. They’ve been making it for years, but using different years as starting points and different lengths of time. E.g. hasn’t warmed (or has cooled down) since 1996, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005. In another few years it’ll be 2007, 2009, and maybe 2011 if this year is an exceptionally warm year (despite what should have been the cooling from a fading La Nina). All of the claims though are demonstrably false and have been rebutted numerous times.*

    For those wanting more rebuttal of Joe’s really bad misinformation, see

    tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/learning-from-bastardis-mistakes/

    skepticalscience.com/one-confusedi-bastardi.html

    *before anyone embarrasses themselves and tries to say “Jones said it hasn’t been warming since 1998″, go and look up what he actually said in that BBC interview, and what it did and did not mean (read the whole interview instead of cherry-picking one sentence and misinterpreting it).

  8. Brian

    rob@#3: One really shouldn’t make fun of people based on their names. That said, you made me laugh.

  9. Duane

    Bastardi used to blog for accuweather.com, my favorite weather website. Haven’t seen him around for a while. Anyone know if he’s still there?

  10. Dave

    Phil, letting a 12 year old hijack your twitter stream to drop Fox-isms is classy. Keep up the good work…

  11. A Former Climate BLAME Believer Speaks:
    The UN’s IPCC’s Climate conclusions state that the effects of Human CO2 will be negligible to unstoppable warming, or life or death. And of course we all know they are choosing predictions of a real crisis of melting ice caps, drought, floods, rising seas and acidified oceans leaving them lifeless. Read your own dogma, please. A climate “crisis” is a comet hit of an emergency and nothing could possibly be more important an issue as climate change, correct? Spare us the personal definitions of climate crisis and answer these two questions:
    1-Are you willing to believe in this coming misery enough to kneel down to your own children, hold them close to you, look them clear in the eyes and tell them climate change is real?
    2-Just what “does” have to happen now to prove that we former climate change believers were correct?
    When we remove the CO2 mistake out of the entire environmental equation, NOTHING changes, except fear and clear direction. Continued support of the CO2 mistake is hurting legitimate environmental efforts and social program advancements.
    Meanwhile, the UN, the media, academia and progressivism and the entire SCIENCE world had allowed carbon trading stock markets run by corporations and politicians to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate CONTROL instead of the obviously needed POPULATION control. Climate Change wasn’t Ozone, or pollution, or energy, or little frightened kids planting trees to SAVE THE PLANET. It was a 25 year old CO2 death threat of climate crisis to billions of children and thankfully to us REAL planet lovers, a tragic exaggeration exploited by the same saintly “scientists” and lab coat consultants that poisoned the planet with their pesticides and cancer causing chemicals in the first place.

  12. serenity

    @James (#6): the only thing that remotely has to do with politics in this post is that Fox News is *mentioned* (and is not the key point)!
    Is debunking nonsense that’s been broadcast on Fox News really in any way a political agenda? If it is, then that surely means that FN is biased towards the right… ;)

  13. Jens

    The US has always fascinated me. Much of its population is steeped in stone-age religious mire, and yet its very best people are often above the rest (of the world) in their scientific and technological achievements.

    At least, that is how it used to be.

  14. simon

    What I don’t understand is how that the amount of CO2 humans release can make any difference when the percentage is around .5.

  15. tapi

    @james rebuttals are for debates and court cases, i think he’s trying to clear up some misconceptions about how physics work, something that last time i checked was unrelated to american politics.

  16. MartinM

    What I don’t understand is how that the amount of CO2 humans release can make any difference when the percentage is around .5.

    It isn’t. We’ve increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 40% over the past 150 years or so.

  17. @simon #14: I have no idea whether the number you’re quoting is accurate. But it is certainly amazing how tiny little changes can add up to something larger, isn’t it? I increase the temperature of a pot of water by just a degree and nothing happens. I do it again, nothing happens. And then, suddenly another degree and it boils.

    What increase, and what percentage of CO2 do you believe humans would have to be responsible for in order to make the globe warm enough to do the various things that have been generally attributed to global warming by the general scientific community? If you don’t have a solid answer to this question, how can you believe or doubt based purely on your understanding?

    roymeo

  18. spiridonia

    It’s like saying, let’s continue to use coal because it’s more reliable, and this way I won’t have to fire some employees because of an unreliable energy source. (Of course, a specious argument.)
    It won’t matter if you keep them on or fire them because in a few years they’ll be DEAD anyway. With us along with them.

  19. Jens is so right. So very, very right.

    As for Joe Bastardi, he has the disease that is common among (some, but too many) meteorologists. I think a lot of it can be sourced to the inherent difficulty in medium range synoptic forecasting. They have great difficulty in seeing the difference between climate and weather.

    What is strange is that education level is not a predictor of how they will feel about it. The only factor that shows up is political view. A good paper about denial in general is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X

    Joe Witte at GMU (formerly a TV guy like me) wrote a good post about it here- http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/2011/06/why-is-america-s-confidence-in-tv-weather-reporters-dropping–11479.html

    Phil: Apologies if you do not allow links but I thought they were informative on the issue.

  20. JohnK

    Living on the Gulf Coast I watch the weather quite closely. I lived at ground zone for hurrican Ike. Joe Bastardi is the least accurate of any of the forecasters when it comes to tropical systems. I never listen to him and I don’t know anyone who does.

  21. JohnK

    Simon,

    If you go to this pdf,

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710021465_1971021465.pdf

    and go to 184 (194 of the pdf) you will see a chart that shows how adding just a little CO2 can change this dramatically. BTW, the chart was published about 1970.

  22. Dude...

    Linking a science story to Media Matters is just as stupid as linking a politics story to Bad Astronomy – both are WAY out of their league. Media Matters has a stated purpose of destroying Fox News. Their reputation is as repugnant as Fox’s when it comes to fair reporting. Even if Fox had stated 32 absolute facts in their report, Media Matters would ignore all that and eviscerate slam them for 1 “fact” they got wrong. Stay far away from both. I’m not trying to defend Fox, just pointing out the utter idiocy of linking a Fox story to Media Matters.

  23. chris j.

    simon @14:
    by that logic, alexander litvinenko could not have been poisoned, since polonium constituted only 1.25×10-8% of his body weight.

  24. rob

    @8. Brian : i know, but it seemed to fit so well: don’t let the AGW deniers wear you down.

  25. Rich

    As a graduate of the same university and with the same degree that he has, I know that Joe Bastardi knows better. He used to work for Accuweather, but is now co-owner of a meteorology consulting service. Clearly Joe needed to strike up business, so he sold his soul to Fox, where they see him as a credible source on climate theory even though Joe was about as far from a climatologist as a meteorologist can get. Kind of sad. And exceptionally misleading to the viewers. But that never held Fox News back before.

  26. Hugo Schmidt

    Oh good grief – just when I think I’ve seen it all. I really, really pity people who have to rely on the MSM for their science. It’s one reason I hang out here.

    Spare me “Media Matters” though…

  27. katwagner

    OK, hush up a minute.

    “There’s no way that you put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it won’t warm and it won’t melt. The uncertainty is when.” Liz Morris, polar research veteran from Cambridge University and part of a multitude of scientists studying Greenland’s ice sheet.

    The quote is from a piece by The Associated Press, complete with interactive sidebars and photo essay entitled “Greenland’s Ice Puzzle is key to rising seas.” On today’s front at MSNBC.com. TODAY.

    Temperatures over the ice have risen 4 degrees F in 20 years. Greenland lost ice four times faster in the period 2004-2009 than from 1995 to 2000. Scientists are studying the plumbing of these glaciers since warm water spreads under them enabling glaciers to move faster.

    I don’t have a problem with main stream media outlets; I have a huge problem with Fox “news” which quotes every whackadoo out there and calls it news. I really can’t stand Murdock. Didn’t I say this last week? I’m having a deja view moment.

    Anyway, you all need to go read the piece and look at the photos.

  28. Chris

    I wonder how many of the Fox news watchers read Scientific American.
    For Calvin and Hobbs take on this
    http://climatehawk.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/calvin-theology.gif

  29. Ed Hatem

    The one thing I’ve learned from dealing with those who get their information from Fox is the fact that there is no point debating with them. Regardless of where you point them, they will claim that the site you gleamed your information from is biased. The only sites that aren’t biased? Why those aligned politically with Fox News of course. Its a handy closed circle of logic they have where their information is the only information worth having.

  30. George Cornelius

    I want to comment that it is not a minor issue that you were unaware that CO2 traps, then reradiates at different wavelengths, thermal radiation from the earth’s surface. This is key to understanding the (somewhat inappropriately named) ‘greenhouse’ behavior of gases such as CO2.

    That is not the controversial part of the theory. The controversial part of the theory has to do with multiplier effects. Since CO2 by itself cannot explain the warming we are seeing, there are postulated effects that accelerate the process – multipliers greater than 1 that compound the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane.

    There are also issues with regard to truly understanding how water vapor – clouds, essentially – interact with heat that is trapped due to the behavior of these gases. It is claimed that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas and has a greater effect than all the so-called ‘poluting’ greenhouse gases, and if we do not understand how cloud formation is affected by heating of the crust and the troposphere, we are missing a key part of the picture.

    My opinion: ‘climate science’ exists almost entirely because of fears of global warming, and global warming has been an important issue for a relatively short time – 15 years or so. A great many now discredited theories that were supported by scientific consensus had much longer runs than that. Phrenology comes to mind; Freudian psychology (still somewhat controversial but dwindling in importance); and the eugenics or master race/genetic purity movement. Oh, and the ‘experts’ of George Washington’s time built lead dentures for him, and when he was sick and dying practiced ‘blood-letting’ to eliminate the ‘bad blood’ in his body. Consensus of experts only goes so far.

    Global warming exists, and has been going on for millenia. Humans _appear_ to have accelerated (doubled) its rate. The claim is that the signal to noise ratio in the data is such that we have only been able to see the signal (anthropogenic effects) emerge from the background noise (normal temperature variations) in the last 15 years. I’m willing to accept that as a hypothesis, and a prudent society should start planning for the worst case scenario. But please don’t give me the _settled science_ mantra. We’re in the curve fit phase, where we get a correlation between what man has done and what is occurring; and correlation often but not always reflects a cause and effect relationship. Real, established science conducts controlled trials, and since at the moment that is not possible, we go with plausibility instead.

    Plausibility arguments are OK. But admit it if that’s what you are doing. And since the cost of ignoring a quite possibly correct hypothesis is high, go ahead and assume the science is correct and start planning for it.

    Untenable to some, but the only established and tested solution to anthropogenic global warming is nuclear power. _No_ greenhouse gases, and there’s plenty available for approximately 100 years, long enough to come close to eliminating if not starting to reverse man’s effect while buying us time to find what is going to work in the longer term (other fissionable materials; safe breeder reactors; fusion; and, last and least likely due to price and availability, solar, wind, and wave power).

  31. Chris

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
    - Doctor Who (the 4th doctor)

  32. NJmark

    Is it FOX NEWS or is it just PROPAGANDA for a Political point of view. Remember the First Law of Politics, “Never let the facts get in the way of a political opinion.”

  33. Jan

    “That’s wrong because of the reason I just stated above, but also because of the small fact that our temperature hasn’t leveled off. This is a relatively new denier claim that’s been making the rounds, and it’s flatly (haha) wrong.”

    Denier claim? What about the China aerosols masking temps?

    The problem is the ideologue is using the Hansen GISS stats, which always show warming as a matter of faith and maintaining funding. Every good scientist should use the satellite data, which do show a recent stability. Why, I do not know, but it blasts apart the theory that recent temps are mostly controlled by anthro. greenhouse gases.

  34. simon

    Thank you for some examples of where such as small percentage can make a difference.
    I didn’t ask to be smart, but because I genuinely care; this is the first time I have had a chance to talk to level headed people about this.

    What about all the other arguments like this has happened before / it used to be so warm in London the Romans grew grapes / we are at the closest point in our orbit to the Sun – that sort of thing?

    Currently my personal belief is that our output of CO2 is not causing global warming . I was asked at what percentage do I think a problem would happen. I guess at greater than 10%. I cannot help but think that the wonderful thing that is Earth can deal with such a small number, especially since the time that we will be outputting CO2 is such a small amount compared to the larger picture. Furthermore, we are doing far more tangible and measurable damage that could actually be tackled.

    I have been trying to find a link to a NASA document I read, but of course I cannot. It said that they had satellites measuring the temperature of the earth, and for a ten year period there was no significant change.

    Again, I don’t ask this to cause a problem, but because I would like to understand the issue better please.

    Thank you.

  35. Randy A.

    Good Lord.

    If a mechanic tells you the brakes on your car need repair, you might get a second opinion. If the second mechanic agrees, you get your brakes fixed! You don’t wait for proof, or to understand the exactly what’s wrong. And you don’t listen to your brother-in-law when he says that you don’t really need all four brakes.

    Today we have expert after expert telling us that the Earth is warming up, and it’s our fault. We have a second and a two-thousand and second opinion.

    So it’s time to DO something! Stop waiting for proof, stop waiting to understand, and for heaven’s sake, stop listening to fruitloops like Bastardi.

  36. Makoto

    @simon (30) – Currently we’re close to the furthest we can be from the sun (the furthest point was in July), but we’re still baking in North America at least. And since this distance goes through its cycle on a yearly basis, it’s not a good indicator of long term warming or cooling in any case.

    Obviously the Earth has been through both warm and cold periods before. The planet is an unstable system, “overcorrecting” itself in a variety of ways. For example, temperatures go up a little, then methane previously locked in ice gets released, causing further warming, etc, etc, but then a new trigger ends up leading to the reversing of the trend, possibly even to an ice age. And then back the other way again, reversing again and again at various points along the way.

    When you have an already unstable system, adding new elements to it – some percentage of new CO2 to the mix, for example – you destabilize it further. I’m not sure why you’ve gone with a 10% influx of CO2 to cause problems – as another post said, if you add 1 degree of heat (0.47% if we’re talking F), you go from hot water to boiling. And since we already know the Earth goes through its own changes, adding anything will cause still further changes. How slight or how great is a better question.

    If you can find the NASA link about temperatures, that would be good reading, considering http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  37. Jeff P.

    Didn’t the founding fathers put separation of laboratory and state in the constitution? Call your representative let’s get to work!

  38. Dave R

    Simon:
    >What about all the other arguments

    See skepticalscience.com

    >Currently my personal belief is

    Irrelevant.

    >I guess at

    Irrelevant.

    >I cannot help but think that

    Irrelevant.

    >I have been trying to find a link to a NASA document I read, but of course I cannot. It said that they had satellites measuring the temperature of the earth

    NASA’s temperature data can be found at data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

  39. The thing is, whatever the cause of global warming, we’re not going to do a damn thing about it unless our survival is threatened. Just get over the idea that we control the world and prepare to adapt.

    What’s so disastrous about a warmer planet anyway? Longer growing seasons, more vegetation, etc. seems like it can only be beneficial to life. Primates are tropical creatures, so rapid warming of the poles sounds good to me. I think this whole issue is being blown way out of proportion, particularly by groups with nefarious political agendas who want to dismantle industrial civilization, engage in wealth distribution and turn climate change hysteria into the new Marxism. You can laugh at this, but I know it’s true because I’ve encountered many of these folks. To the climate militants, scientists like Phil Plait are just useful idiots.

  40. Dave R

    Jan:
    >The problem is the ideologue is using the Hansen GISS stats, which always show warming as a matter of faith and maintaining funding.

    You’ve made a serious accusation of fraud there. Support it with evidence or withdraw it.

    >Every good scientist should use the satellite data

    There is little difference between the two main satellite data sets and the two main surface data sets: See tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/comparing-temperature-data-sets/

    >which do show a recent stability.

    The BA already gave you a link which shows that this claim is nonsense: tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/learning-from-bastardis-mistakes/

  41. Dave R

    Sith Master Sean:
    >so rapid warming of the poles sounds good to me.

    Unfortunately, we don’t do science based on what “sounds good” to random ignorant commenters on the internet.

    >groups with nefarious political agendas who want to dismantle industrial civilization, engage in wealth distribution and turn climate change hysteria into the new Marxism.

    Go and see your doctor. They can help you.

  42. VinceRN

    While there are things within global warming I question, like how sure we are of the exact numbers or of exactly what those numbers mean, or the motivations and politics involved, there are a few things that are undeniable.

    First, the global environment is, if fact, changing. It’s supposed to change of course, but the changes going on now don’t fit what it looks like should be going on.

    Second, the carbon cycle is part of the global environment and humans are changing the carbon cycle by taking carbon out of the earth where it would otherwise stay for a really long time and putting it into the atmosphere. Prior to the industrial revolution this wasn’t happening.

    Certainly carbon may not be the only factor, but there’s really no way to realistically claim it isn’t a very large factor.

  43. brad tittle

    Nice link to the temperature data. Then we discover that NO ONE wants to talk about where Zero is.

    Start you damn charts at zero. It is a great way to stop fooling yourself.

  44. Very weak rebuttal sir. Seeing a doctor won’t change the fact that I have encountered these people, they really do exist, and they actually do want to see industrial civilization destroyed. Many of them are embittered ex-scientists, as a matter of fact. But my larger point is that this debate is somewhat academic because we don’t control the climate and have no way of solving this problem that doesn’t create as much suffering as it’s supposed to prevent. This is what you call a “Kobayashi Maru” scenario. The best hope imo is to make like James Tiberius and change the rules of the game by developing technological game-changers quick, fast and in a hurry.

  45. Ed Hatem

    Where folks like the “Sith Master” go off the reservation is not understanding heat = energy. One degree of extra heat generates a tremendous amount of energy. For example, a rise in sea surface temperature by half a degree Celsius will result in 40% increase in hurricane activity. Global warming isn’t about going outside and instead of it being 79 degrees its suddenly 80 because you drove your car too much last year. Its about fundamentally changing the global weather patterns. Droughts, floods, record snowfalls, and wildly fluctuating temperatures are all symptoms of a larger problem. Snowmaggedon? That doesn’t happen without a tremendous amount of moisture in the atmosphere. Moisture doesn’t get into the atmosphere without heat. Honestly I think that’s where those people who are fighting for people to wake up and understand the danger we are all in go wrong. Don’t talk about temperature. One degree of heat or even five degrees of heat don’t register with these people largely because of the nonsense Sith spouted. Talk energy. Talk about what that energy can do. Talk about the fact that the Saffir Simpson Scale for hurricanes is effectively defunct because hurricane anatomy has changed to the point that the scale is hopelessly outdated. Maybe that will get people to understand this. But I doubt it. Because, after all, if Exxon and BP tell us that the environment is okay, well that’s good enough for me. They are, after all, experts on screwing environments up.

  46. katwagner

    Sith Master Sean, go ask polar bears if rapid warming of their home sounds good to them. Also the MSNBC writeup says Bangladesh will disappear underwater along with Florida coastlines. Ask those people if rapid global warming is working for them.

    @30 George Cornelius, you need to go read the AP report because it’s full of brand new science – funded in large part by the NSF – and the scientists themselves say they need more people helping them up there, more satellites to gather information and more funding would help. Greenland’s plumbing is huge, and the way Greenland goes, the rest of the world will follow.

  47. Theramansi

    “Sith Master Sean Says: What’s so disastrous about a warmer planet anyway?”

    *points at Venus*

  48. Rich

    Let’s remember that global climate denialism was invented by the American Petroleum Institute in 1998. Any and every argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming can trace its DNA directly back to them. It’s something we’ve been fighting ever since. And that’s a fact.

  49. Lawrence

    Yes, there were times in the planet’s history where is was warmer – the biggest difference is that during those periods there weren’t 6 – 7 billion people living on the planet, reliant upon a fragile global trading system for food and energy resources – where large dislocations of population or lack of access to vital resources could have a devastating impact.

  50. Dave R

    brad tittle:
    >Then we discover that NO ONE wants to talk about where Zero is

    It’s the change in temperature that we’re interested in and the effect that will have on things that matter to us. This is why temperature anomalies are calculated and plotted on the graphs. The location of the zero — just below the middle on the graph I linked to, fyi — is of no consequence. That’s why the only people who want to talk about it are those who are as ignorant as you.

  51. @8. Brian :

    rob@#3: One really shouldn’t make fun of people based on their names. That said, you made me laugh.

    Bastardi sounds like a joke name to begin with. ;-)

    That’s his real surname not a psuedonymn moniker he adopted or a deliberate mocking corruption? Really? :-o

    [Sheepishly has to admit he doesn't get the Rob@#3 joke though. Do I need to be able to speak Latin?]

    @31. Chris :

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
    - Doctor Who (the 4th doctor)

    Great quote. :-)

    All too true. Tom Baker was the first [Gallifreyan] Doctor I saw and is still my favorite one. What was the episode do you know?

    @6. James : “Is this a rebuttal to Bastardi, or a leftist political statement? Just curious, you know.”

    This struck me as a pretty effective rebuttal demolishing Bastardi’s arguments for their hopelessly flawed misunderstanding of science and failure to know what the observed recorded facts are.

  52. Meanwhile outside the Fox studio and those sitting in air-conditioned houses listening to them – there’s apparently a huge heatwave on in the USA
    as noted here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVh7z-0oo6o&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=1

    via the latest ‘Climate Crock’ series and on the midday TV news just heard that there’s a record heatwave in the former USSR as well.

    Then there’s the multiple lines and sources of evidence provided on this blog before :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/26/climate-change-the-evidence/

    Whilst for #4. Glenn A :

    Well, here is one patently absurd claim: “Basically, and simply put, we know global warming is not due to the Sun”
    Who said that? Oh PHIL. You must think we get our heat from the moon.
    Out of context? Yep. Cuts both ways.

    I suggest you see this clip :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=59

    which notes in the first few seconds that the useful question, the pertinent one, here is NOT “Does the Sun affect our climate” but rather “Does the Sun have anything to do with the current unequivocal heating of our globe experienced over the last 100 years and ongoing?” The answer is no.

    The rest of the video there demolishes the idea the Sun is the cause of Global Overheating – as the recent solar minimum while temperatures remained high indicate.

  53. bad Jim

    The joke at #3 is, I think, a reference to the old ersatz Latin line, “illegitimi non carborundum”, meaning “Don’t let the bastards grind you down”, carborundum being a common abrasive agent, silicon carbide.

  54. bcw

    @George Cornelius:

    You open with an error: the earth’s surface absorbs the shorter wavelength (primarily visible) light from the sun, gets warm and re-emits the absorbed energy into thermal wavelengths. As you can tell with your eyes: CO2 is transparent in the visible and has little effect on incoming sunlight.

    CO2 is black at thermal wavelengths so it repeatedly absorbs and re-emits the thermal energy. Energy conservation means that the gas warms at each absorption and cools on each re-emission, the energy cannot be lost. However, this means that energy moves away from the earth only diffusively, being repeatedly scattered back towards the earth, slowing the leakage of heat into space. This also means that the atmosphere does not get cold instantly as you move away from the earth’s surface.

    The multiplier effects are not black magic. The largest is just the fact that warm air holds more water and water is also black in the infrared. Next, is the change in reflectivity as the sea and land ice melts – ice tends to keep the earth cool because it reflects the visible light from the sun back into space.

    Clouds are more complex since high clouds tend to reflect light back into space before it can heat the earth and low clouds help trap warmth (the reason cloudy nights tend to not cool much.) Measurement and ever more sophisticated modeling says that clouds pretty much average out.

    Arguments like yours are nothing more than saying because it’s complicated there is no effect which is specious. We are not “curve fitting.” that’s just you saying you don’t understand the math.

    Climate has changed repeatedly over on long time scales, with at least five major extinction events including wiping out the dinosaurs and almost killing off humans during the last ice age. What matters to us now is not what happens over thousands and millions of years but what happens in the next fifty. The motions of continents and ocean currents and volcanoes that drove past events are not affecting us on human timescales. The only big driver of climate now is human-released CO2.

    Science is not funded on a “gives the answer we want” basis, but on “will it give new information.” Every scientist’s dream is to pull an Einstein and transform some piece of science into something new. Boring doesn’t get published. At this point, a real model that shows why doubling of CO2 would NOT have a significant effect would be extremely important, but instead of real scientists creating an alternative consistent physical theory we get clowns taking potshots at the models. Denialism is not science.

  55. QuietDesperation

    I saw this guy once. Can’t forget that name.

    It was on CNN, though.

  56. Gord

    My God, there is not even one of the posters above that has a CLUE what the Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” is!

    The Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” relies on Back-Radiation from an average -20 deg C Atmosphere HEATING UP an average +15 deg C Earth!

    The fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” is completely described in the IPCC AR4 report here:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

    On Pg. 115
    Frequently Asked Question 1.3
    What is the Greenhouse Effect?

    “The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet)part of the spectrum.

    Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space.

    The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere.

    To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space.

    Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1).

    Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth.

    This is called the greenhouse effect.”

    Did you understand what “reradiated back to Earth” means?

    That is the Back-Radiation from the Colder Atmosphere heating the Warmer Earth!
    ——-
    The Figure 1 is also on Pg. 115

    FAQ 1.3, Figure 1. An idealised model of the natural greenhouse effect. See text for explanation.

    Quoted right from Figure 1…

    “The Greenhouse Effect
    Some of the infrared radiation passes through the atmosphere but most is absorbed and re-emitted in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and clouds.

    The effect of this is to warm the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere.”

    That is the Back-Radiation from the Colder Atmosphere heating the Warmer Earth!

    ——
    FAQ 1.1, Figure 1 (is Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram)
    It’s on Pg.96 of the IPCC AR4 Report.

    From the Kiel and Trenberth diagram you can see that there is 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.

    You can also see from the diagram that there is 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth.

    This Back Radiation is said to be constantly flowing, day and night, to keep the Earth’s surface temperature at +15 deg C.

    That is the Back-Radiation from the Colder Atmosphere heating the Warmer Earth!
    ————–
    The Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 EXCEEDS the Solar radiation of 168 w/m^2…and the Solar Radiation is THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!!!

    That VIOLATES The Law of Conservation of Energy because ENERGY HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN CREATED.

    A Colder Atmosphere HEATING UP a Warmer Earth also VIOLATES The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

    “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

    ————–
    The FACTS are that there is no “Greenhouse Effect” as is evident from the First and 2nd Law and is completely supported by actual measurements.

    PROOF:

    1) There are Zero Laws of Science to support the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect”.
    2) All Direct Measurements of “Back-Radiation” can ONLY be done with COOLED IR DETECTORS, COOLED FAR BELOW THE COLDER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.
    3) If cooled IR detectors are not used, it is impossible to directly measure “Back-Radiation” on the Warmer Earth Surface.
    4) If “Back-Radiation” could reach the Earth’s Surface then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating, day and night, when pointed at the Cold Atmosphere.
    5) There are Zero Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

    I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

    If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.

  57. simon

    Okay, how about this?
    The half life of CO2 is 55 years.

    Therefore, should we not stop worry about trying to reduce it, and find a scientific way of dealing with the effects?

    By the way, 20 different mechanics telling me my brakes need replacing is not the same thing. Everyone can see all the factors affecting my brakes. If I went back 200 years, everyone would have told me the world was flat.

  58. @ ^ simon : “If I went back 200 years, everyone would have told me the world was flat.”

    Actually, no. Most scholars at the time of Columbus knew the world was round.

    The Greek astronomer, geographer and polymath Eratosthenes – the third Chief Librarian of the Great Library of Alexandria – even worked out the circumference of the Earth with remarkable accuracy (Click on my name for the wiki-basics of that) using shadows at midday in two cities and geometry.

    It is a popular but wrong urban legend that Christopher Columbus thought the world was wrong whilst all others at the time believed it to be flat. Columbus just had the idea the earth was a lot smaller in radius than it was – and was saved by the continent the Europeans of the time didn’t know existed – or, to be more precise, the islands known as the West Indies.

  59. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ simon (continued)

    The half life of CO2 is 55 years.

    What is your source for that and what does it decay into?

    Half life usually refers to radiocative decay and, as far as I’m aware, carbon dioxide isn’t radioactive.

    There is certainly a carbon cycle and under natural conditions C02 may be returned from the atmosphere into the soil or water or other form in 55 years, I’m not sure.

    However, humans are certainly changing things from the natural cycle by rapidly burning and adding to our atmosphere over centuries, fossil fuels that took millenia to build up underground. That menas what used tohappen may not do so as much anymore. In short, all bets are off.

    Therefore, [because of the half-life of Co2] should we not stop worry about trying to reduce it, and find a scientific way of dealing with the effects?

    Well to some degree yes.

    Thermal inertia the cumulative affect of the Co2 already produced and building up over time means we are committed already to further Global Overheating. We will have to think about adapting. Problem is that if start hitting some key tipping points eg.

    I) The melting of Siberian permafrost releasing vast quantites of methane

    II) The dieback of rainforests and changed ecosystems incl. phytoplankon radically reducing the amount of Co2 that our biosphere stores – a major plugging up of the “carbon sinks” and in some cases their transformations into overflowing sources of co2 release instead.

    &

    III) albedo changes where arctic and other ice sheets that used to refelect 80% of the light becoming open water that absorbs 80 % of the sunlight landing on them instead.

    We may end up in really dramatic trouble. :-(

    It may wellbe toolate already – but ideally we do need to try and cut the amount of Carbon dioxide emitted by us as soon as possible by as much as possible to reduce that risk.

    Here’s an analogy for this : You’re in a racecar heading off the track and inevitably about tohit thewall – do you do nothing and allow it to hit at the maximum speed or slow the car however youcan, braking even spinning it so the impact speed is reduced?

    @54. bad Jim :

    The joke at #3 is, I think, a reference to the old ersatz Latin line, “illegitimi non carborundum”, meaning “Don’t let the bastards grind you down”, carborundum being a common abrasive agent, silicon carbide.

    Okay, thanks. :-)

  60. Dave R

    Simon:
    >Again, I don’t ask this to cause a problem, but because I would like to understand the issue better please. [...] The half life of CO2 is 55 years.

    That isn’t a question, it is an unsupported assertion. Given the nonsense you’ve already posted we are not going to accept your unsupported claims. You have already been given the link that shows that your latest claim is false: sks.to/residence

    Contrary to your claim quoted above, it’s becoming clearer with every post that you are not here to get help overcoming your ignorance, but simply to spread lies.

    >If I went back 200 years, everyone would have told me the world was flat.

    False: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

  61. “What I don’t understand is how that the amount of CO2 humans release can make any difference when the percentage is around .5.”

    First—I’m not saying you do this, but many do—understand what’s going on before ignorantly repeating some pseudoscientific denialist claim.

    Second: many poisons can kill you even if the amount you ingest is a negligible fraction of your weight. By the same logic, you could deny that such poisons would kill you.

  62. simon

    Thank you to the people who have responded with information to help me further understand the problem. I will take the time to go and read the links that have been posted.

    As to the people whom think I am just here to spread lies, yes, thats right dears, I have so much free time I just jump on to comments on blogs and post GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX type messages. I came here to speak to people who have real information and not to have my character attacked. Its not like I can turn to the media to get non-basied information :)

    I personally do what I can to help look after this planet. I just want to make sure that the effort I put in goes into something that actually makes a difference.

    Sorry if my 200 years was too soon, and as for the half life of carbon I just put into Google and it came back with the figure of 55 years.

    Please remember that if someone is ignorant it might not be a deliberate thing, they might just need educating. And however well educated one is regarding a matter, there are plenty of others matters that they might be regraded as ignorant about.

  63. Dave R

    Simon:
    >if someone is ignorant it might not be a deliberate thing

    If that’s the case for you then you should be asking questions, not stating “facts” that have already been shown to be false.

  64. db26

    THAT IGNORANT BASTARD!

  65. Messier Tidy Upper

    @39. Sith Master Sean :

    The thing is, whatever the cause of global warming, we’re not going to do a damn thing about it unless our survival is threatened. Just get over the idea that we control the world and prepare to adapt.

    Who are you refering to as “we’ and ‘our’ here?

    Do “we” (humans) control the planet?

    Well, not exactly but the science is showing we do affect it in some significant ways. That our impact is changing how things would otherwise work – and often for the worse.

    Is that NOT worth considering and trying to remedy where we can?

    What’s so disastrous about a warmer planet anyway? Longer growing seasons, more vegetation, etc. seems like it can only be beneficial to life.

    Worse droughts, worse storms, worse floods, reduced glaciers and ice sheets mean less water for some regions, ecosystems thatpeople have adpte dto and are able to cope with later to ones they may be less well able to survive in.

    Primates are tropical creatures, so rapid warming of the poles sounds good to me.

    So if the poles becomes tropical and that’s good – what do the tropics become like iand is *that* still so good?

    Are w ereally tropcial today? What conditions do you prefer to live in at home – thirty degrees and humid most days, hot nights so you struggle to sleep, torrential rain and violent storms? Do youset your thermostat totropcial conditions or temperatre moderate ones? Do you live in the tropics or atleats reguluarly visit them? Which nations have the highest populations and the best successes and they largely troical or not?

    I think this whole issue is being blown way out of proportion, particularly by groups with nefarious political agendas who want to dismantle industrial civilization, engage in wealth distribution and turn climate change hysteria into the new Marxism. You can laugh at this, but I know it’s true because I’ve encountered many of these folks. To the climate militants, scientists like Phil Plait are just useful idiots.

    Citations please.

    Which individuals have you encountered specifically? What precisely have they argued for?

    Are they in fact climate scientists who know what they are talking about and if not how are they actually relevant to a discussion about the actual science undertaken using the scientific method?

    @62. simon :

    Thank you to the people who have responded with information to help me further understand the problem. I will take the time to go and read the links that have been posted.

    My pleasure. Glad it helps. Also FYI I was for a few years a “Climate Contrarian” myself. I know frompainfulexperience that it is sometimes painully hard to alter your views and accept that some of the things youthought were true aren’t. I wish you the best and urge you to look at what the actual qualified scientists say. Realclimate and DeSmog Blog are a couple of websites I suggest you visit alog with a few more I’ll link for you.

    @59. Messier Tidy Upper : Apologies for all the typos. Hope folks still get the gist of it all.

  66. simon

    The whole point of me taking the time to post was to check the information that I had found, and to see the opinion of others about it, and then for me to re-evaluate my opinion on the matter.

    A quick look at my posts show that I have used a question mark against most of the “facts” that I have posted. To me this means that I am asking to check the information. And just because one knows them to be false does not mean that another does.

    An attitude like that reminds me of school where you are asked to put your hand up to answer a question then get ridiculed for being wrong; at least I am trying (very trying if you where to ask my friends), and am not basing my opinion on the press.

    I have taken the time to go to the Internet and search for information regarding the problem.
    Here is one page that I found a while ago:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    See, I have been trying to improve my ignorance for a number of years, but one can only go on the information that one can find, or the help that others provide.

  67. (Cont.) Gyah! More typos. Sorry. Believe it or not, I do try to spell things right. I just sucjk at typing and suck even more at seeing teh typographical errors until after the time has expired. Arrgh! :-(

    Hope there’s not too much problem understanding what I’ve written because of it.

    @62. simon :

    Here’s a few sites I’d recommend you read through :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/06/the_global_warming_crisis.php

    Or / & watch :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

    The first of a good Youtube series which are all worth watching.

    Also click on my name here for a link to Chris Mooney’s DeSmogBlog.

  68. Messier Tidy Upper

    Plus I’d advise reading :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_Hotter_Planet

    &

    http://polesapart.com/

    & here’s :

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#sense

    another Youtube series I found very entertaining and informative which helped alter my former Climate Contrarian views – along with arguing the issue on this very blog. ;-)

  69. bcw

    Simon: not always a good idea to take the google as a source when you only get one close hit for an idea – “the CO2 half life” reference is a garbled misunderstanding of ocean absorption of CO2 which has long mixing times.

    There is a reservoir effect, CO2 is being absorbed in the ocean, however less and less as the world warms and the ocean becomes more saturated with CO2. Ocean CO2 has increased the acidity of the ocean measurably putting stress on corals and other carbonate-shelled creatures. This is bad for our food supply.

    See sites like RealClimate if you want accurate information.

  70. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ 39. Sith Master Sean :

    What’s so disastrous about a warmer planet anyway? Longer growing seasons, more vegetation, etc. seems like it can only be beneficial to life.

    See :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

    Oh & this clip :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=25

    As well as this one :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo&feature=related

    too.

  71. Mike

    @39. Sith Master Sean :

                   What’s so disastrous about a warmer planet anyway? Longer growing seasons, more vegetation, etc. seems like it can only be beneficial to life.
     

    One potential problem with a warmer planet, at least on the scales being talked about by climatologists (which I believe is between about 2 and 5 °C over a short time scale) is the possible disruption to the food chain caused by the denaturing of enzymes in many species, particularly autotrophs.
     

    Basically if plants and algae can no longer undergo photosynthesis because the warmer temperatures denature the enzymes that they use for the relevant reactions, then those life forms die, or at least become less efficient than they currently are. This has three effects:
     

    1) Less food for herbivores – which has a knock-on effect of no food for carnivores when the herbivores die
    2) Less oxygen production – so animals can’t breathe
    3) Less removal of carbon from the atmosphere – so global warming becomes even worse.
     

    In addition, a lot of carbon and methane is trapped in the ice caps, so when they melt, they release these greenhouse gasses, as well as reducing the planetary albedo (essentially how much heat gets reflected back into space without being absorbed by the planet) which could greatly exacerbate the warming effects, making it even more likely that the benefits of autotrophs could be lost.
     

    And that’s ignoring the direct impact that higher temperatures have on heterotrophs. Cold blooded animals are particularly vulnerable to changing temperatures, as they have no way to regulate their internal temperatures. Imagine swathes of dangerous crocodiles, snakes, aligators, spiders, and scorpians migrating away from the tropics as their environment becomes too hot for them, and the impact that could have on the human settlements that are invaded.
     

    Now, I don’t pretend to be an expert in any of these fields, so I have no idea about the extent of the impact, but as a logical exercise, it’s fairly obvious that a rapid increase in environmental temperature could have a substantial impact on life as we know it. Even if life, and humanity in particular, were to survive rapid increases in temperature, life as we know it would end. We would have to come to terms with a new natural order.
     

    Personally, I think that it’s worth trying to ensure that doing so does not become necessary, regardless of whether you think we’re causing the changes or not.

  72. Johan

    “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” — IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth.

  73. Bill Yarber

    Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas which currently constitutes 0.04% of our atmosphere.

    Fact: water vapor is nearly 250 times as potent (3+% of our atmosphere and 3 times more effective) as a GHG than CO2.

    Fact: CO2 concentration increase after the Earth warms (by 200-800 years) and decreases after the Earth cools (by 800-2,000 years). The analysis of the ice cores tested from various glaciers around the world comfirm this.

    Fact: CO2 concentrations have been estimated to be as high as 7,000 ppm (about 17 times today’s level) several million years ago when Earth’s temperature was 7-9C above taday and life still flourished. Ego, no tipping point in the foreseeable future.

    Fact: Methane and Ethane concentrations in our atmosphere (both in the ppb range) have been dropping slightly over the past 10-15 years.

    CO2is a trivial GHG and man’s contribution to changes in CO2 contration over the past 100 years is relatively insignificant.

    Connect the dots people, CO2 is not a problem or a pollutant. It is absolutely vital to all carbon based life on this planet and our survival!

    Yes, CO2 is a

  74. Climatologists must shake their heads and wonder sometimes why suddenly so many people, from professionals in completely different fields, to half-educated laymen, think they understand climate science better than the people who’ve devoted their careers to its study. Biochemists don’t have to take this crap.

  75. Doug Little

    Mike @72

    Just to add that the world is going to get way more crowded as well.

    A study in the April, 2007 issue of Environment and Urbanization reports that 634 million people live in coastal areas within 30 feet (9.1 m) of sea level. The study also reported that about two thirds of the world’s cities with over five million people are located in these low-lying coastal areas. The IPCC report of 2007 estimated that accelerated melting of the Himalayan ice caps and the resulting rise in sea levels would likely increase the severity of flooding in the short term during the rainy season and greatly magnify the impact of tidal storm surges during the cyclone season. A sea-level rise of just 400 mm in the Bay of Bengal would put 11 percent of the Bangladesh’s coastal land underwater, creating 7 to 10 million climate refugees.

  76. simon

    Thanks again.
    Will go and read all the links.

    Then I’ll come back here and say I still don’t believe, in CAPS ;)

  77. Rich

    @ #74

    Ripped straight from the American Petroleum Institute, Bill?

    Read this before you check your objectivity at the door.

    http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html

  78. Mike

    @74. Bill Yarber :

              CO2is a trivial GHG and man’s contribution to changes in CO2 contration over the past 100 years is relatively insignificant.


    While what you say is accurate to a point, what’s really relevant is that it only needs an insignificant change in temperatures to bring about conditions that are catastrophic for life as we know it. Each 1 °C on top of the current ~16 °C is only a change of 0.35% when you consider the temperature on the Kelvin scale.
     
    It doesn’t need a massive tip in the balance of greenhouse gases to bring about temperature changes that have a substantially-negaitve impact on life. But the real problem is that small increases in temperature due to CO2 emissions can snowball when ice melts, releasing methane, more CO2, and a lot more water vapour (which, as you say, is a more potent greenhouse gas).
     
    You absolutely have to consider these snowball effects (known as coupling) when you calculate how serious CO2 emissions are.
     
    In addition, fossil fuels are eventually going to run out anyway, so any effort we put into switching to renewable energy sources, to help with global warming, will benefit us in the long run due to already having the necessary infrastructure in place when the energy cost of extracting fossil fuels eventually beomes greater than the energy in the fossil fuels we’re extracting.
     
    There is no reason to oppose the steps being taken to avert global warming, because even if global warming were a hoax, or if climatologists were just wrong about it, those steps would be beneficial in and of themselves anyway.

  79. James

    Regardless of the cause the one point that most people miss when talking about climate is that we have to be prepared for change. It is pure human fantasy to assume that the Earth today is some sort of steady state system that is supposed to remain exactly as it is. Ocean levels will change and coastlines along with it. Rain belts will shift (North Africa used to be the bread basket of the Roman Empire before the Sahara ate it) and glaciers will flow and retreat.

    Nearly all the ideas in the climate debate are built on the false supposition that the climate that supports the current geopolitical state is the norm. Let’s quit trying to find someone to blame and figure out how to deal with change that will come regardless of whose fault it is.

  80. ND

    Bill Yarber: “Connect the dots people, CO2 is not a problem or a pollutant. It is absolutely vital to all carbon based life on this planet and our survival!”

    Wow. Amazing how such a small amount of CO2 is vital to life on Earth. Amazing how such a small amount of CO2 has such a large impact on our lives, by your own words. And yet it’s not supposed to have an impact as a GHG. If CO2 is vital to life and thus our survival, should we pump more CO2 into the air? Is more better? Are we running out of CO2? Your line on CO2 being to life is complete red herring. It’s our non-stop and increasing contribution of CO2 into our atmosphere and it’s impact as a HGH that’s the issue. We’re not threatening the existence of life on Earth.

    “CO2 concentrations have been estimated to be as high as 7,000 ppm (about 17 times today’s level) several million years ago when Earth’s temperature was 7-9C above today and life still flourished.”

    Again red herring. Nobody is talking about destruction of life on Earth. The first impact will be to our civilization. Wars over change in availability and access to resources is one major concern.

    “Methane and Ethane concentrations in our atmosphere (both in the ppb range) have been dropping slightly over the past 10-15 years.”

    Yes and …? I’m not sure if I should trust you on your facts but you’re not following through with the impact of what this decrease means? You’re making an insinuation and that’s worthless.

    “water vapor is nearly 250 times as potent (3+% of our atmosphere and 3 times more effective) as a GHG than CO2.”

    Yes and …? CO2 is not the only GHG impacting Earth temps, but we’re constantly and increasingly pumping CO2 in the air and that’s not part of the natural carbon cycle. You’re completely ignoring the impact of CO2. Again, a dangling red herring.

  81. MartinM

    CO2 concentrations have been estimated to be as high as 7,000 ppm (about 17 times today’s level) several million years ago when Earth’s temperature was 7-9C above today and life still flourished.

    All else being equal, that would imply a climate sensitivity of about 1.7 – 2.1 degC per doubling of CO2. Of course, all else is not equal, since the Sun’s output was rather less back then, making the implied climate sensitivity even higher. Not so trivial after all, it would seem.

  82. Daniel J. Andrews

    @Bill Yarber (74). The only facts in your post are that all your facts are used and misused in recycled denier nonsense that has been rebutted many times, some decades ago. If you think skeptical science can’t be trusted, then follow the links to the source experts.

    Re: water vapor bigger greenhouse gas. Water vapor is a positive feedback. The more CO2, the more water vapor you get. It makes warming worse. Water vapor is also short-lived in the atmosphere. CO2 definitely is not. See skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

    Re: CO2 increases after earth warms. In the past orbital variations started the temperatures rising and then CO2 amplified it. If CO2 didn’t amplify it then there is no way to explain why things did get so warm in the past as the orbital variations aren’t enough. CO2 can act as both feedback and cause of warming. In our current case, CO2 has warmed the atmosphere which causes more CO2 to be released from other sources (e.g. melting permafrost)–that is, it is a cause and a feedback. skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    I also encourage you (and everyone) to view Dr. Richard Alley’s CO2: The Biggest Control Knob. Below is a written summary with a link to the actual video. It is a great lecture.
    wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1453

    Fact: CO2 concentrations have been estimated to be as high as 7,000 ppm (about 17 times today’s level) several million years ago when Earth’s temperature was 7-9C above taday and life still flourished.

    Several things wrong here. When CO2 was higher, the sun was cooler. Second major thing wrong is the time scale. Changes in the past took hundreds of thousands of years, even millions (usually). Things had time to evolve, adapt. We’re doing the same thing except in a century or two. No time to evolve, adapt.

    When climate did change quickly, there were at least five major mass extinction events, at least one of them probably caused by high levels of CO2 (see Permian-Triassic event). Sure life flourished…eventually

    Another thing wrong is that in the past, human civilization didn’t exist. Now human civilization does exist (supposedly anyway). It is little comfort knowing that life will continue to flourish when a drought is wiping out your entire civilization (as has happened numerous times within our recorded history).

    Related to that, is our civilizations are built and depend upon having a relatively stable climate., which we’ve had for the past 10,000 years or so. Bump up temps 7 to 9 degrees and we’ll be in a vastly different world that we’re not ready for.

    See skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

    Fact: Methane and Ethane concentrations in our atmosphere (both in the ppb range) have been dropping slightly over the past 10-15 years.

    Not sure where this one came from. Check your sources. If you got it from the same place you got the rest of the misinformation above, then it shouldn’t be trusted either. What I did find, just for methane, was

    Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled. However, in the past decade, while methane concentrations have continued to increase, the overall rate of methane growth has slowed (Dlugokencky et al, 2003). Given our incomplete understanding of the global methane budget, it is not clear if this slow down is temporary or permanent.

    from climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight1/default.htm.

    Re: CO2is a trivial GHG and man’s contribution to changes in CO2 contration over the past 100 years is relatively insignificant.
    More misinformation and a very old one and if possible, even more nonsensical than the other factoids taken out of context. A real zombie argument (you kill it, but it just keeps coming back). See skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    Connect the dots people, CO2 is not a problem or a pollutant. It is absolutely vital to all carbon based life on this planet and our survival!

    Yes, connect the dots. Everything you’ve said is wrong. You’ve spread misinformation, probably unwittingly. Your sources are very very wrong. As Phil has said, who would you trust…someone who gets the high school basics wrong, or the people who have spent decades studying the different issues? By the way, no-one says CO2 is not vital to life. Water and food are vital to life too. Too much will kill you and/or destroy huge areas. See skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm and skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

  83. Daniel J. Andrews

    Hm, others beat me to it. As pointed out above, Bill, you actually seem to contradict yourself. You claim that high CO2 led to high temps in the past yet don’t acknowledge our increasing levels of CO2 will have any effect. That’s what you get when you cut and paste from denier sites– contradictions. Don’t believe that? See here

    skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

    where the same people can’t decide if it is warming, cooling, not changing, if it is the sun, the clouds, the cosmic rays or ABCO2 (anything but CO2), or if CO2 is causing it, but it won’t change much, the changes will be good, it is all natural anyway and can’t be stopped, climate sensitivity is high (MWP was warmer) or low (CO2 doesn’t cause temp changes), can’t trust temp data but they don’t hesitate to use (or misuse) the data when it suits them. They’re all over the frakkin’ map…these aren’t science skeptics, they’re clowns, believing six contradictory things before breakfast, tossing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick.

    And people wonder why scientists don’t take self-proclaimed skeptics seriously? Maybe if some of these skeptics (Christie, Michaels, Spencer) would stand up and tell people like Watts and Bastardi, “sorry, but you are very wrong and here’s why”, they might be taken more seriously. Instead, they sit back and let misinformation accumulate and give the impression they believe these things themselves. And rest assured, not one of those people (in brackets) I just mentioned thinks Bastardi is right…I imagine even they had a head-desk moment when they heard what he said.

  84. Bill Yarber

    Do any of you people have any knowledge about feedbacks, process dynamics or thermodynamics. The primary regulators og Earth’s atmosphere are the Sun and our oceans, the Sun is the source of 98+% of the energy in our environmental envelop and the oceans are the largest storage vehicle of that energy. Our atmosphere old less than 1% of the energy stored in our oceans. CO2 concentrations have a very slight impact on how much energy our atmosphere can store.

    Water vapor has been declining slightly over the past 20 years. It does not increase because CO2 increases. Earth’s climate is dominated by negative feedback. If it wasn’t we would either be in a run-a-way greenhouse enviroment (CO2 concentrations estimated to be 7,000ppm millions of years ago) or we would still be an ice ball which is believed to have happened twice; 600 million and 2.4 billion years ago. We are in neither state, we are in an interglacial, which are very beneficial to humans. Earth’s climate is a relatively stable, although chaotic, system. It is constantly changing. Over the last 3 million years, since the movement of the South American plate and the formation of Central America, Earth’s climate has varied between ice ages and interglacial. Earth’s orbital dynamics have a major impact, as do change in ocean circulations. We are nearing the end of the Holocene interglacial. In the past 10,000 years, Earth has been as much as 4C warmer than today. And as much as 9C colder during ice ages. Changes in CO2 concentrations caused none of those changes!

  85. Lawrence

    So Bill, what are your credentials exactly?

  86. ND

    Bill Yarber: “Do any of you people have any knowledge about feedbacks, process dynamics or thermodynamics. ”

    Do you? Do you have any science background?

  87. Keith Bowden

    For people who think we can’t affect the atmosphere… have they looked at LA (in particular) in the last 100 years? :)

  88. MartinM

    Do any of you people have any knowledge about feedbacks, process dynamics or thermodynamics. The primary regulators og Earth’s atmosphere are the Sun and our oceans, the Sun is the source of 98+% of the energy in our environmental envelop and the oceans are the largest storage vehicle of that energy.

    Solar output has been basically flat for about 60 years, and only the upper 100m or so of the oceans exchange heat with the atmosphere over short timescales. Proper mixing with the deep ocean takes centuries if not millenia.

    Our atmosphere old less than 1% of the energy stored in our oceans. CO2 concentrations have a very slight impact on how much energy our atmosphere can store.

    It’s got nothing to do with how much energy our atmosphere can store, but how much it actually does. Reducing the rate at which the atmosphere loses energy via IR radiation increases its energy content. This is not rocket science.

    Water vapor has been declining slightly over the past 20 years.

    False. Water vapour trends are positive over that period, according to the satellite data, the primary radiosonde data, and all but one reanalysis product.

    It does not increase because CO2 increases.

    No, it increases because temperature increases, which is currently happening as a result of CO2 emissions.

    Earth’s climate is dominated by negative feedback.

    We know that. It’s called the Planck response, and it’s a fundamental aspect of all climate models. The uncertainty in climate sensitivity comes largely from uncertainties in other feedbacks, but no credible model produces a value of less than 1.5 degC per doubling of CO2, and the best estimate is double that. Furthermore, the uncertainty is not symmetrical; the lower bound is better established than the upper.

    If it wasn’t we would either be in a run-a-way greenhouse enviroment (CO2 concentrations estimated to be 7,000ppm millions of years ago) or we would still be an ice ball which is believed to have happened twice; 600 million and 2.4 billion years ago.

    Neither of those are runaway effects; in both states, the net feedback is still negative. Venus is a true example of a runaway greenhouse effect, but that’s not possible on Earth.

    We are in neither state, we are in an interglacial, which are very beneficial to humans. Earth’s climate is a relatively stable, although chaotic, system. It is constantly changing. Over the last 3 million years, since the movement of the South American plate and the formation of Central America, Earth’s climate has varied between ice ages and interglacial. Earth’s orbital dynamics have a major impact, as do change in ocean circulations. We are nearing the end of the Holocene interglacial. In the past 10,000 years, Earth has been as much as 4C warmer than today. And as much as 9C colder during ice ages. Changes in CO2 concentrations caused none of those changes!

    Then I take it you have an alternative model which recreates those changes without a significant climate sensitivity to CO2. Let’s see it.

  89. ND

    Bill Yarber,

    You asserted that methane/ethane and water vapor in the atmosphere has been going down. Others have noted that it is not the case. Since you have made the assertions first, please provide some sources on the decrease. Thanks.

  90. DigitalAxis

    @57. Gord

    I think you’re confusing temperature with energy.

  91. Tom

    If you start a quasi-religious cult that tolerates no challenge to its computer-generated prophecy for the next 90 years,(not exactly a “fact” yet, is it?), then you are going to have guys like Bastardi springing up to rebel. I believe many people don’t applaud the so-called deniers because they are making a good scientific argument, rather because they reject an unvetted forecast of warming apocolypse that’s being taken as physical law and used to dictate an unpalatable political agenda.

  92. Ross

    http://www.slate.com/id/2251297/

    My browser here is terrible, so I’m not sure if that link works, but I think it’s an interesting take on climate change and the real effect it’s already having on the global economy.

  93. Joe Wheelock

    @ Sith Master Sean comment: What’s so disastrous about a warmer planet anyway? Longer growing seasons, more vegetation, etc. seems like it can only be beneficial to life. Primates are tropical creatures, so rapid warming of the poles sounds good to me.

    I found this several years ago:

    http://www.worlddreambank.org/D/DUBIA.HTM

  94. CB

    Heh, talk about misunderstanding basic physics concepts, look at Gord up there. “Zomg, the cold atmosphere is heating the warmer earth, that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics! ”

    No, see, that’s not what’s happening. The amount of radiation the earth’s surface is emitting (solely due to its temperature) is more than what the atmosphere re-radiates back. This means it has a net loss of energy, meaning the earth becomes cooler — no violation of thermodynamics here. However because the rate of cooling is lower as a result of the re-radiated infrared, the equilibrium point is higher.

    The atmosphere is “heating” the earth in the same sense that a blanket “heats” your body — it doesn’t, it just causes you to retain more body heat, so the equilibrium point rises. The Greenhouse Effect causes the earth to retain more solar energy, so the equilibrium point rises.

    The part about how it violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is even more out there. Just because the W/m^2 of some part of the earth is more than solar irradiation (e.g. the black body radiation of the earth’s surface itself) doesn’t violate thermodynamics, because what matters is the energy in the system. If you move a ton of energy from one part of the system to another, and then move most of it back, you have a small net change, and it doesn’t matter that the individual energy transfers were greater than the net input. Also, the number for solar radiation is just wrong. Try more like 340 W/m^2 at the surface on average (including the night side).

    But I do have to give props for originality — at least, it was new to me!

  95. Frank

    Just curious. If global warming is bad does that mean global freezing would be good?

  96. Bill Yarber: “Our atmosphere old less than 1% of the energy stored in our oceans. CO2 concentrations have a very slight impact on how much energy our atmosphere can store. ”

    Has anyone said that increase of greenhouse gases means that those gases hold the energy? I thought they generally REFLECTED the energy back down, giving the oceans another go at it.

  97. Jeffersonian

    Ever notice that the favorite derailing tactic used by deniers is to immediately bring politics into a scientific discussion? Ever notice that even though it’s a global topic they offer skewed political observation from just one country?

  98. @Frank #98
    Just curious. If drowning in water is bad, does that mean dying of thirst is being completely obtuse?

  99. Dave Nunn

    “When you have an already unstable system, adding new elements to it – some percentage of new CO2 to the mix, for example – you destabilize it further. I’m not sure why you’ve gone with a 10% influx of CO2 to cause problems – as another post said, if you add 1 degree of heat (0.47% if we’re talking F), you go from hot water to boiling. And since we already know the Earth goes through its own changes, adding anything will cause still further changes. How slight or how great is a better question.”

    Who ever wrote this failed physics at school.
    The author confuses temperature with energy. For a substance to change state it requires a non-linear application of energy to achieve that state change.
    The latent heat of vapourisation will require a input of 2260kJ per kilogram to change water state to vapour on top of the 4200kJ/kg per celcius temperature rise.
    This non-linear effect also questions the CO2 – Water vapour accelerated positive feedback hypothesis given the known quantities involved.
    Why do people ignore the elephants in the room? i.e. the sun, planetery motion, the oceans and the molten core of the earth.
    Even if the greens were right their solutions are wrong. Wind turbines acheive nothing except bad fuel bills and the enrichment of landowners. If they really were concerned they would advocate rapid growth in nuclear sources and subsequent research to develop new generations of that arm of technology.

  100. Bartman

    I worked with Joe Bastardi at Accu-Weather back in the early 90′s. He was a good meteorologist who lived and breathed weather forecasting. He could tell you all the details of storms that he lived through growing up in New Jersey. He could be a contrarian and not shy about putting out his beliefs for a forecast and why he didn’t agree with the general consensus that was arrived at in the 3AM meeting. He could be a dick but he would also apologize when he had yelled at someone.

    Sometimes I think he doesn’t completely understand some things. One morning he came in, sat down, looked at the computer and exploded “I can’t believe this is happening again, every time I come in the forecast that I wrote is wiped out.” I glanced at the screen, took the mouse and said “Joe, it’s not wiped out, you just need to use these scrollbars and scroll up to see your forecast”.

    Still, I hate to see him do things as bone-headed as denying climate change and other ideas he’s gone on about.

  101. fred edison

    #100 Jeffersonian
    Yes and yes, to ad nauseam. That and global warming is simply too inconvenient for fact resistant people like Bastardi and the corporate friendly agenda driven Fox News. So what do they do? Fight tooth and nail to deny the science facts and the inevitable effects of CO2 forced global warming.

    If you poke around YouTube you can find people like Bill Nye schooling Bastardi in basic science. But Joe just seems to sit there with a grin on his face as if everything is bouncing off his thick skull. I think we can agree that this won’t be the last pseudoscience anti-reality tirade from him. Deniers like Joe are like wack-a-moles, you keep knocking them down but they keep popping back up.

  102. Joe Bastardi

    The message is that co2 has virtually no effect on the greenhouse effect ( technically, its not a greenhouse since there is escaping into space of heat, as I am sure you understand, but you mislabel the effect anyway, then turn around and tell me I dont know what I am talking about) That is the message. In addition in real life the reason co2 is pumped into actual real live greenhouses is not to keep them warmer, but because of its real value PLANT FOOD. That is a side issue.

    But look its very very simple. The earths temperature has leveled off in the face of rising co2 that by the way we contribute precious little too anyway. If you are right, why has it leveled off. Natural Variation??? Magic??? Divine intervention. So the simple test is in front of us. If as I believe the big natural drivers of the sun, the oceans, and the wild card, volcanic activity cool us back to where we were in the 70s as measured BY OBJECTIVE SOURCES. THE SATELLITE. NOT NASA READJUSTMENTS OR PROXY TREE RINGS OR WHATEVER YOU SEEM TO VALUE MORE THAN OBJECTIVE REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS, then I am right., if not I am wrong.

    But please stop it. In the end, only the blind will not see the answer. If I am wrong, the earths temps warm ( it is below the IPCC forecast and no where near the runaway tipping point that was being yelled about) I will admit it, and wind up on the ash heap of history. But if it stays steady or goes down, will you do the same. Given the attacks on me, in the face of the past 15 years, and the excuses about where the “missing heat” is, I think not. It will simply be another excuse for trying to justify what is plainly turning against you and for good reason. co2 has precious little to do with the climate

    Which is the point I am trying to make with rational people of good will

    By the way. I am for ALL ENERGY that makes life easier for people on earth. People have to know where its warm or cold, and need the forecast for it. In fact what is baffling about people questioning my motives is that solar and wind energy is a better economic incentive for me! An oil company outside of hurricanes, wants to know the result of the weather.. A solar and wind company not only wants the result, but needs to know how the weather affects their operation.. when it will be windy, cloudy etc. So please stop the attacks on my motives, My only motive is to be right on this forecast, which is all this is, and sadly has been twisted into some massive movement to influence what we did not create, nor can control

    BTW I do enjoy your articles for the most part

  103. joe bastardi

    Question:
    Where were the attacks on Bill Nye in his debate with me when he tried to equate the earth to Venus to make his point, and then used some dye and water example to show how co2 pollutes. My point is you miss the entire crux of my argument which your position on co2 is flawed and it is a red herring in the whole global climate picture. That simple
    I realize the last thing you want is simple, as simple examples are things people understand, but you allow an engineer that is on TV get away with what he does, simply because he is on your side. I didnt see anyone on your side of the issue bringing up how absurd using Venus and its atmosphere to make a point about earth was

    In the end, let the data decide who is right and who is wrong

  104. Donni Doophuss

    It is typical of you “scientists” like you, Phil, to get the facts wrong on carbon dioxide while berating Professor Bastardi’s factually correct scientific knowledge. Just because Bastardi is a meteorologist, climate alarmists dismiss his knowledge. But just because he studies meteors doesn’t mean that he is wrong on climate science.
    And as for carbon dioxide being a grenhouse gas, if it really were I’d not be able to breathe whenever I went into my greenhouse! So I think that the burden of proof is on you so called “scientists” to prove that carbon dioxide is in my greenhouse!
    You “scientists” can’t even see the plainly totally utterly completely obvious, namely that the planet is heating due to undersea volcanoes. The image of these volcanoes are focussed by the expanding arctic and antarctic ice caps to produce what you purblind “scientists” refer to as the sun. The planet is cooling due to the expansion of the ice caps which balances the effect of the undersea volcanoes. This has been adequately explained by the scientific papers published by Professors Bastardi, Bitchi and Angri at the Heartland Institute, but which you have ignored due to your innate bias to the communist leftist marxist stalinist peer reviewed conspiracy media.
    Get it right next time Phil, and us climate skepticks won’t be laughing at your complete ignorance of science.

  105. Steve Metzler

    #67 simon Says:

    I have taken the time to go to the Internet and search for information regarding the problem.
    Here is one page that I found a while ago:
    geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    See, I have been trying to improve my ignorance for a number of years, but one can only go on the information that one can find, or the help that others provide.

    The trouble with just looking at random pages on the web if you’re trying to research something that you have little prior knowledge of… is that you’re just as likely to spend a long time reading a bunch of misinformation as you are reading pages that are based on the actual science.

    For instance, I can tell after a cursory glance that the page you linked to above is a denier site. There are more than a few ‘tells’ in what’s posted there. In the very first sentence, it purports that mankind’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is only .028%. Climatologists put just the amount that CO2 concentration contributes down for between 9 – 26% of the effect. The reason for the range of uncertainty there is because there are complex interactions between CO2 and water vapour (which accounts for 36 – 72% of the greenhouse effect), so there is an overlap because they both absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies. But .028% is so far off the mark as to be ludicrous. It is based on a complete misunderstanding of the basic physics involved. The possibility that the misunderstanding is intentional cannot be ruled out ;-)

    The other big ‘tell’ is that near the bottom of the page (after all that useless ‘mathturbation’), the author quotes Fred Singer: a professional denier of nearly anything that a right-wing think tank will pay him to deny.

    To get a good grounding in the science of AGW, I recommend you read at least the first few chapters of Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming: A History. For refuting individual climate skeptic arguments, Skeptical Science is also a good resource.

    Tamino’s Open Mind is very good for exposing the faulty statistics used by the deniers. And once you’ve got a firm grounding in the science after all of that, Real Climate should be your next destination. Stick at it it for a year or so, and I think you will find that your perspective of the AGW problem changes considerably from what it is now.

  106. Dave Nunn

    Specific heat capacity of liquid water should read 4200J/kg per degree Celcius.
    Apologies for typo.

  107. Ron Embersen

    I don’t believe in global warming. There may be plenty of scientific evidence for it, but there is NO non scientific evidence for it. Which is why I remain Skeptikal.

  108. Steve Metzler

    #110 Ron Embersen Says:

    I don’t believe in global warming. There may be plenty of scientific evidence for it, but there is NO non scientific evidence for it. Which is why I remain Skeptikal.

    How about a .8C rise in average global temps since the start of the industrial revolution? Record low arctic ice extent and volume? Spring comes earlier every year? Winter river and lake ice melts earlier every year? Species moving hundreds of miles north of where they were just 30 years ago to escape the increasing temps?

    None of those ‘non-scientific’ indicators are apparent to you?

  109. CB

    @ “joe bastardi”

    The message is that co2 has virtually no effect on the greenhouse effect ( technically, its not a greenhouse since there is escaping into space of heat, as I am sure you understand, but you mislabel the effect anyway, then turn around and tell me I dont know what I am talking about)

    Ha! It’s not a greenhouse because heat escapes… unlike a man-made greenhouse?! No, greenhouses are greenhouses because they merely increase heat retention, by using a material that is more permeable to visible light than it is to infrared (like glass, or CO2). Glass also prevents convective heat loss, but the vacuum of space serves that role in the atmospheric greenhouse.

    If you do know what you’re talking about, then you’re leveraging that knowledge to ensure you get everything wrong in these finely crafted trolls. Good job! They’re very amusing.

  110. Chris Winter

    Tom wrote (#94): “(not exactly a “fact” yet, is it?)”

    You’re right, Tom: the drastic climate changes projected for the end of the 21st century haven’t happened yet. Neither has the end of the 21st century.

    What you’re doing is arguing that because those things haven’t happened yet, they never can happen. The same bogus argument appears now and again — but, curiously, almost always with regard to climate.

    As you are (I assume) a healthy person, could you seriously make that argument for contracting a fatal disease, or being involved in a debilitating automobile accident?

    The only way to discredit the scientific view of global warming is to break the chain of evidence that supports it. Can you do that?

    Right. Neither can anyone else, apparently, despite the acclaim and riches that would result.

  111. Chris Winter

    Sith Master Sean wrote: “The thing is, whatever the cause of global warming, we’re not going to do a damn thing about it unless our survival is threatened. Just get over the idea that we control the world and prepare to adapt.”

    Can you prove our survival isn’t threatened? Picture a world where nine-tenths of the population is seriously hungry and thirsty. What would they be doing about it?

    What would the people who are relatively well off be doing? Remember that at least some of those will have nuclear weapons.

    That’s why the world’s military services are worried about climate change: They know privation is a big forcing factor for conflict. Have a look at Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer. It’s a very readable book.

  112. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ 107. Donni Doophuss :

    It is typical of you “scientists” like you, Phil, to get the facts wrong on carbon dioxide while berating Professor Bastardi’s factually correct scientific knowledge. Just because Bastardi is a meteorologist, climate alarmists dismiss his knowledge. But just because he studies meteors doesn’t mean that he is wrong on climate science.

    Er ..what? Bastardi’s study of the weather makes him a meteorologist – a person who studies meteors is a meteoriticist.

    [.. Reads further.]

    Aha! You’re a Poe aren’t you? Good one! Had me going there. ;-)

    &

    @110. Ron Embersen : A-annd another Poe parody here. Right? ;-)

    @114. Chris Winter : “Have a look at Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer.”

    Thanks for that recommendation. I’ll have to see if I can find a copy of it somewhere.

  113. MartinM

    Bastardi’s protestations might be a touch more convincing had he bothered to address the points Phil made. Bastardi got very basic thermodynamics hopelessly wrong, and his comments don’t even mention this. He’s just doing the classic Gish Gallop.

  114. @106. joe bastardi :

    Question: Where were the attacks on Bill Nye in his debate with me when he tried to equate the earth to Venus to make his point, and then used some dye and water example to show how co2 pollutes. My point is you miss the entire crux of my argument which your position on co2 is flawed and it is a red herring in the whole global climate picture.

    Earth and Venus are planetary “sisters” – almost identical inmost geological paramters, same size, composition and mass. So Venus is then comparable to Earth. The reason it’s different is that the extra heat from it’s location closer to the Sun caused a runaway greenhouse effect which has made it into “Svante’s* Inferno” – a world hotter and more hostile even than Mercury, the closest planet of all to the Sun.

    So Venus provides an analogy, an example of what too much carbon dioxide in an atmosphere can do. How is that an attack on you or a red herring exactly?

    How is the position of the 98% or thereabouts of climatologists – based on the sound and well established physics of how carbon dioxide works – flawed and what is your alternative theory that better matches observed facts and predicts future outcomes better?

    That simple. I realize the last thing you want is simple, as simple examples are things people understand, but you allow an engineer that is on TV get away with what he does, simply because he is on your side. I didnt see anyone on your side of the issue bringing up how absurd using Venus and its atmosphere to make a point about earth was

    How is using Venus absurd? What do you think “an engineer” – presumably you mean Bill Nye – is “getting away with” by comparing Earth and Venus in this manner?

    In the end, let the data decide who is right and who is wrong.

    Yes, lets. 8)

    NASA has it on record that 2011 was the hottest year ever tying with 2005. Multiple studies and multiple lines of evidence are indicating that our planet is hotting up and that we are responsible.

    (Click on my name for a bit more of this evidence.)

    What actual scientific evidence do the Climate Contrarians have on their side? Not much as far as I can now see.

    ————–

    * After Svante Arrhenius who first came up with the Greenhouse effect idea on how carbon dioxide affects our planetary climate in 1896. (Wikipedia.)

  115. MartinM

    Heh. The link at #115 is hilarious. Yes, the amount of energy the Earth loses to space must equal the amount it receives from the Sun – at equilibrium. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere decreases the outgoing energy, moving the point of equilibrium to a higher temperature.

  116. Marcus

    Please, those of you who buy into AGW and CAGW, please just promise me that you’ll keep a record of your statements and hypotheses. You’ve been beaten on the science- relying only on a notion of consensus as proof!- and now descend into name calling and wailing.

    I hope, twenty years from now, when this has all been laughed off to the dustbin of history, that you feel some measure of shame for your intellectual laziness.

  117. Steve Metzler

    I hope, twenty years from now, when this has all been laughed off to the dustbin of history, that you feel some measure of shame for your intellectual laziness.

    Pot, meet kettle. Project, much?

  118. Gord

    Re: CB @97

    If you actually read my Post#57 you would realize that I have only used the data in the IPCC AR4 report!
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

    - The IPCC AR4 report clearly defines the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” as relying on Back-Radiation from an average -20 deg C Atmosphere HEATING UP an average +15 deg C Earth!

    (see Pg.115 of the IPCC AR4 Report…Frequently Asked Question 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?, Figure 1 is also on Pg. 115)

    - The 168 watts/m^2 of Solar Energy (the ONLY Energy Source) being absorbed by the Earth Surface and the 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth comes DIRECTLY from Figure 1 ( Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram). It’s on Pg.96 of the IPCC AR4 Report.

    Cleary, this VIOLATES The Law of Conservation of Energy since the Back-Radiation of 324 w/m^2 EXCEEDS the Solar Energy of 168 w/m^2 (the ONLY Energy Source). It also Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    There are a number of other quantites that Exceed the Solar Energy as well!
    ——
    You also IGNORED the Facts, Measurement PROOF and my challenge:

    “The FACTS are that there is no “Greenhouse Effect” as is evident from the First and 2nd Law and is completely supported by actual measurements.

    PROOF:

    1) There are Zero Laws of Science to support the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect”.
    2) All Direct Measurements of “Back-Radiation” can ONLY be done with COOLED IR DETECTORS, COOLED FAR BELOW THE COLDER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.
    3) If cooled IR detectors are not used, it is impossible to directly measure “Back-Radiation” on the Warmer Earth Surface.
    4) If “Back-Radiation” could reach the Earth’s Surface then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating, day and night, when pointed at the Cold Atmosphere.
    5) There are Zero Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

    I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

    If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.”
    ———-
    CB, your post#97 “blanket Greenhouse Effect” is not supported by the IPCC AR4 report.

    It is TOTALLY DIFFERENT as you can see from the above.

    There is only ONE way to increase a Body’s temperature, and that is to Increase the amount of absorbed Energy:

    Stefan-Boltzman Law

    P/A = BC*T^4 (watts/m^2)

    T =((P/A)/BC)^0.25

    BC = 5.67 X 10^-8, T = temperature K, P = Watts and A = Area

    The IPCC AR4 (Trenberth’s Energy Budget)report uses the Stefan-Boltzman Law to determine the Earth’s surface temperature by adding the Cold Atmosphere Back-Radition w/m^2 to the Solar Energy w/m^2!
    ——–

    I thought you AGW’ers were big on the “concensus” of the IPCC “scientists” and here you are developing your own “Greenhouse Effect”

    I find that to be absolutely Contradictory and Hillarious.

    —–
    Your “blanket Greenhouse Effect” also Violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, there are ZERO measurements to support it and ACTUAL Measurements totally DIS-PROVE your “theory”.

    Example:

    Radiation emitted by a human body

    “The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but CLOTHING REDUCES THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

    Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body HAS to supply heat energy to the Blanket to increase it’s temperature.

    The ONLY way to Increase the Body temperature of +33 deg C is to INCREASE the watts/m^2 ABSORBED by the Body (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law above)!

  119. Chris Winter

    Great googly moogly, Gord! That quote from Wikipedia describes the phenomenon you’re claiming to debunk.

    The clothing becomes the new surface for purposes of measurement. The fact that it has a lower temperature (28 versus 33°C) is because it retards heat loss from the body somewhat.

    (Yes, the article is deficient in not mentioning heat loss for both conditions.)

    You can see the same thing in the lower photograph opposite the portion you quoted. The man’s skin is brighter than his shirt.

    None so blind…

  120. Gord

    Re: Chris Winter @124

    Maybe you don’t understand the difference betwwen Heating and Cooling.

    The temperature of the Human Body DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C when covered with Clothes…that is called COOLING!

    Likewise, the Earth’s temperature can only DROP when covered with a atmospheric “blanket”.

    There is no HEATING of the +15 deg C Earth from a -20 deg C Atmosphere.
    ————
    Anorther Example:

    Ever notice that the microprocessor in your Computer has a Heat-Sink on it to keep it cool?

    The microprocessor has to dissipate the it’s internal Watts which causes the the microprocessor to heat up.

    The microprocessor may have to dissipate say 10 watts of power over say a 0.01 m^2 surface area.

    The surface temp of the Microprocessor can be calculated by the Stefan – Boltzmann Law.

    Power/Area = Boltzmann’s Constant X Temp^4
    Temp^4 = 1000 w/m^2 / 5.67 X 10^-8 = 1.76 X 10^10
    Temp = 364 K or 91 deg C

    We want the Microprocessor to drop in temperature by placing a Heat Sink on it that will only be heated to 25 deg C or 298 K

    A Heat Sink is initially at room temperature (20 deg C) and is placed on the Microprocessor so heat transfer by radiation is dominant.

    The Heat Sink has to have a larger surface area and that can be calculated:
    Power/Area = 5.67 X 10^-8 X 298^4 = 447 w/m^2
    Area = 10 Watts/447 = 0.022 m^2

    The Microprocessor and the Heat Sink will now operate at a temperature of 25 deg C.

    A DROP in temperature from 91 deg C to 25 deg C.

    Did the Heat Sink “retard” the Microprocessors heat radiation?….Of course NOT!
    ——-
    Heat Sink materials are chosen for their high emissivity.

    A material that has a high emissivity will be efficient absorbers and emitters heat energy and produce the maximum amount of cooling.

    The largest possible value for an emissivity is 1.

    The atmosphere also increases the Radiating surface area of the Earth and can only COOL the Earth.

    If CO2 is increased in the atmosphere, the emissivity of the atmosphere will also increase, making it a more efficient Heat-Sink.
    ——–
    PS:

    Any Luck finding EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth?

    If you can’t do this, then you should stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.”

  121. Messier Tidy Upper

    @120. Marcus :

    Please, those of you who buy into AGW and CAGW, please just promise me that you’ll keep a record of your statements and hypotheses.

    I’m sure these threads will still be around and known about. I really very much doubt the BA will delete any of them but there’s always the printer for hard-copy if you want to make sure.

    You’ve been beaten on the science- relying only on a notion of consensus as proof!

    As Obi-wan kenobi would say “Oh I don’t think so!” ;-)

    Have you actually looked at any of the science out there? Why do you think there’s a scientific consensus of thousands of really bright independent scientists over not just decades but over centuries if NOT the overwhelming evidence and basic physics principles?

    You know that 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year, that glaciers are melting globally and that we know human carbon dioxide has a specific isotopic signature and that there are a lot of other facts supporting the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory right?

    – and now descend into name calling and wailing.

    Examples please?

    I have tried very hard to avoid name-calling. The BA has, I admit, used the term “Denier” but while I disagree with his use of that term; he has made a reasonable case for using it and would I think, consider it a descriptive rather than merely abusive term.

    A few here and elsewhere on the side of the Climatological expert consensus may be resorting to abuse and name-calling but I do not think the majority who accept the climatological mainstream view are doing so. Plenty of people are making good calm science based arguments on this topic explaining why we think as we do. I hope I am – & try to be – one of them.

  122. Messier Tidy Upper

    @125. Gord :

    Likewise, the Earth’s temperature can only DROP when covered with a atmospheric “blanket”.

    Eh? So by that logic the nightside of our (almost) atmosphere-less Moon should be warmer than the atmosphere blanketed Earth is at night! Right?

    What is the Lunar minimum temperature?

    Quickly checks wikipedia :

    [the] Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measured the lowest summer temperatures in craters at the southern pole at 35 K (−238 °C),[77] and just 26 K close to the winter solstice in north polar Hermite Crater. This is the coldest temperature in the Solar System ever measured by a spacecraft, colder even than the surface of Pluto.[76]

    Now okay, that’s for permanently shadowed craters. Unfair perhaps.

    So what about the overall lunar minimum temp? Let’s see : Minus 180 degrees celcius.* How does that compare with Earth? ? Well the coldest natural spot on our whole planet – Antartica – gets down to “only” a relatively warm −89 °C (−129 °F) so, clearly that’s your idea busted tight there.

    Further example for you here : Which planet is nearer to the Sun – Mercury or Venus? Which planet is hotter? Why?

    There is no HEATING of the +15 deg C Earth from a -20 deg C Atmosphere.

    I think you’re confused here because the +15 deg Earth is, I think, including the atmosphere.

    I also think you need to clarify here which level of atmosphere you are discussing given our atmosphere varies greatly in characetristics with altitude and is layered into tropossphere, stratosphere, mesosphere xenosphere, etc ..

    Plus note that the atmosphere isn’t the primary cause of heating – ie. the Sun is hetaing it but still has asecondary effect.

    Its the same as with the blankets analogy – a blanket doesn’t directly warm you – it’s not a heat source – but it acts to insulate and retain the heat that *you* produce.

    So, no, it’s not the atmosphere that is directly heating us but it is the atmosphere insulating us and keeping us warmer than we’d be without it. Now the added co2 is making, to use the blanket analogy, this atmosphere blanket thicker and hotter.

    Being nice and warm is good. Being too hot isn’t. Human co2 emissions are turning our atmsophere from doing the first – keeping us cosy – into one the second – making us uncomfortably hot. Which isn’t a good thing. Like with a blanket, this process takes time. Unlike a blanket we can’t take our atmosphere off.

    Does this help your understanding at all? I hope so. :-)

    —-

    * Source : page 288, ‘Collins Internet linked Dictionary of Astronomy’, John Daintith & William Gould, Collins 2006.

  123. MartinM

    Any Luck finding EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth?

    Back radiation. Contrary to your assertions, you don’t need a cooled detector to observe it. A simple IR thermometer will do the trick.

  124. Gord

    Re: MartinM @ 128

    Are you serious?

    Don’t you know how IR Thermometers work?

    The IR detector in IR Thermometers is usually either a themocouple or themistor.

    When an IR Thermometer is pointed at the Cold Sky the themocouple or themistor transfer heat radiation from the Warmer themocouple or themistor to the Cold Sky, changing the bias voltage across across the themocouple or themistor.

    The change in voltage is propotional to the change in temperature and that is used to calculate the temperature.
    —–
    This is also what happens when a Solar Oven is pointed at the Cold Sky.

    A Solar Oven is parabolic mirror that concentrates all Electromagnetic Field Energy at a focal point.

    If water is placed at the focal point and the Solar Oven is pointed at the Sun, the water will boil.

    If the Solar Oven is pointed at the Cold Atmosphere, the water will COOL and even FREEZE.

    The following paper by The Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University measurements PROVES that that there was ONLY HEAT TRANSFER FROM THE WARM WATER TO THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE causing the water to COOL or FREEZE.
    ——–
    Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives

    “The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees.

    These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky.

    For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward.

    Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.

    The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C.
    So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere.”

    http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht
    ———-
    This link PROVES that heating of the Earth’s surface cannot occur from the colder atmosphere.

    In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY!

    All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere!

    It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C!

    “If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved
    ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F.”

    And, this also confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics….heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects.
    ——-
    Like I said before:

    2) All Direct Measurements of “Back-Radiation” can ONLY be done with COOLED IR DETECTORS, COOLED FAR BELOW THE COLDER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.
    3) If cooled IR detectors are not used, it is impossible to directly measure “Back-Radiation” on the Warmer Earth Surface.
    4) If “Back-Radiation” could reach the Earth’s Surface then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating, day and night, when pointed at the Cold Atmosphere.
    5) There are Zero Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

  125. Gord

    Re: Messier Tidy Upper @ 127

    First let’s deal with the EARTH and what the IPCC AR4 Report says:

    Did you not read my post#57 where I quoted DIRECTLY from the IPCC AR4 Report what their definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect” is?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

    FAQ 1.1, Figure 1 (is Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram)
    It’s on Pg.96 of the IPCC AR4 Report.

    From the Kiel and Trenberth diagram you can see that there is 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.

    You can also see from the diagram that there is 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth.

    This Back Radiation is said to be constantly flowing, day and night, to keep the Earth’s surface temperature at +15 deg C.

    The Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” relies on Back-Radiation from an average -20 deg C Atmosphere HEATING UP an average +15 deg C Earth!
    ———
    The Earth’s Surface Radiation in the Kiel and Trenberth diagram is shown to be 390 w/m^2, which if you use the Stefan-Boltzman Law corresponds to 288 Kelvin or +15 deg C!

    The AVERAGE temperature of the Earth is +15 deg C as per ALL actual surface measurements by AGW’ers!

    You said “I think you’re confused here because the +15 deg Earth is, I think, including the atmosphere.”

    Obviously, You are the one that is confused!
    ——
    The Kiel and Trenberth diagram shows Atmospheric Radiation for the upper and lower Troposphere.

    If you average the temperatures of these two regions, you will get about -20 deg C AVERAGE temperature for the Colder Atmosphere.
    ——-

    I find it very AMUSING that you keep on harping about a “banket greenhouse effect” that CAN ONLY COOL THE EARTH.

    COOLING DOES NOT PRODUCE HEATING no matter how many times you try to say otherwise!

    Further, your fantasy “banket greenhouse effect” COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS the IPCC AR4 Report definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect”

    You AGW’ers always talk about their being a “consensus” of “science” and here you are promoting “your own theory”.

    What a HOOT!

    ———–
    Finally a few brief comments on the Moon and Venus.

    - The Moon does not have Oceans covering 70% of it’s surface which stores Solar heat energy and moves it from the equator to Polar regions.
    - Venus has the same amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as Mars.

    The IPCC CO2, so called forcing equation, clearly shows that Mars and Venus should have about the same temperatures because they both have same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere….and that includes the effect of the SUN as well.

    The reason that Venus is hotter than Mars and the Earth because of the HUGE ATMOSPERIC PRESSURE on Venus.

    Ever hear about the Ideal Gas Law (PV = mRT) where P = Pressure and T = Temperature?
    ————
    I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

    If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.

  126. MartinM

    Oh, for goodness sake. Please learn the difference between net and gross. The atmosphere radiates in all directions, and some of this radiation is absorbed by the Earth, making it warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. The Earth also radiates, and transfers more energy to the atmosphere than it receives. Thus, the second law is satisfied.

    This isn’t even physics you’re getting wrong. It’s arithmetic.

  127. Gord

    Re: MartinM @131

    Thanks for your “opinion”.

    There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. – Hippocrates

    The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism. – William Osler
    —–
    I’ll stick to the Laws of Science, Physics and Actual Measurements.

    The FACTS are that there is no “Greenhouse Effect” as is evident from the First and 2nd Law and is completely supported by actual measurements.

    PROOF:

    1) There are Zero Laws of Science to support the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect”.
    2) All Direct Measurements of “Back-Radiation” can ONLY be done with COOLED IR DETECTORS, COOLED FAR BELOW THE COLDER ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.
    3) If cooled IR detectors are not used, it is impossible to directly measure “Back-Radiation” on the Warmer Earth Surface.
    4) If “Back-Radiation” could reach the Earth’s Surface then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating, day and night, when pointed at the Cold Atmosphere.
    5) There are Zero Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

    I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

    If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.
    ———-
    PS:
    Do you know what a Vector Quantity is?

    Look up Electromagnetic Force (one of the Four Fundamental Forces that also includes the Force of Gravity).

    Try and use arithmetic for vector quantities in Physics and you are guaranteed to get the wrong answer every time.

    Absolutely Hillarious….are you an Accountant?

  128. MartinM

    My degree is in mathematical physics. You have no idea what y0u’re talking about. I note that you didn’t actually bother to respond to the point I made, presumably because you can’t.

  129. Gord

    Re: MartinM @131

    What a JOKE!

    First you HAVE NOT produced ANY:

    - Laws of Science that supports the Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect”
    - Measurements, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

    Why?….Beause THEY SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST!

    Why don’t you just admit it instead of RUNNING FOR THE HILLS everytime I post the TRUTH?
    ———
    Contrary to your claim that you “have a degree is in mathematical physics”, anybody with a shread of Physics training would know that “arithmetic” is not used to describe Vector Quantities.

    Vector Quantities have a Magnitude and a Direction and use of Vector Mathematics is required to describe them.

    That’s why I suggested you look up the Electromagnetic Force (one of the Four Fundamental Forces that also includes the Force of Gravity).

    All Electomagnetic Fields are Forces and are VECTOR QUANTITES like ALL FORCES are, including Gravity.
    ———–
    Photons do not propagate by themselves, they are CARRIED by an Electromagnetic Field that is a FORCE.

    Electromagnetic force
    “The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are: the strong nuclear force (which holds quarks together, along with its residual strong force effect that holds atomic nuclei together to form the nucleus), the weak nuclear force (which causes
    certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces.”

    “In physics, the electromagnetic force is the force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles. It is the electromagnetic force that holds electrons and protons together in atoms, and which hold atoms together to make molecules.

    “The electromagnetic force operates via the exchange of messenger particles called photons and virtual photons.”

    “The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force
    —————–
    Photon
    “In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic “unit” of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force CARRIER for the ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the
    microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
    ———————-
    ———————-

    If you wish to lift the block of wood UP, the force applied to the block must be greater than the Force of Gravity.
    The block of wood will NOT move in the direction of a weaker force….EVER.

    Likewise, zero Mass Photons do NOT move in the direction of the weaker Electromagnetic Field (Electromagnetic Force), cold to Hot…EVER.

    ——————
    ——————
    Electromagnetic radiation is a VECTOR QUANTITY that has the units watts/m^2 and is called Heat Flux when referring to IR radiation:

    “Heat flux or thermal flux is the rate of heat energy transfer through a given surface. The SI derived unit of heat rate is joule per second, or watt.

    Heat flux is the heat rate per unit area. In SI units, heat flux is measured in [W/m2][1]. Heat rate is a scalar quantity, while heat flux is a vectorial quantity.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux
    ——————–
    Heat Radiation
    “Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which CARRY energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot”), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

    P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4)

    Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant (5.67 X 10^-8), A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc = temperature of the surroundings or another body.

    ..when rearranged gives

    P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2)
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c2

    This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Field Vectors

    The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field…ALWAYS.

    There is absolutely no energy flow from cold to hot, complying with the First Law, the 2nd Law and the Electomagnetic Field Vector Forces.

    “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

    Do you see the words “NOT POSSIBLE”???…it is there for a REASON!
    —–
    Example:

    The Earth at (+15 deg C) 288 K will Radiate a Vector EM Field with Magnitude 390 w/m^2 and a Direction of propagation that is toward the Cold Atmosphere.

    The Atmosphere that has a (-20 deg C) 253 K temperature will Radiate an EM Field of 232 w/m^2 towards the Earth and towards Cold Space.

    Between the Earth and Cold Atmosphere the Resultant Vector EM Field will have a Magnitude of 390-232 = 158 w/m^2 TOWARD the Cold Atmosphere.

    There is Zero w/m^2 flowing from the Cold Atmosphere to the Warmer Earth and the Earth, as the 2nd Law states and ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS PROVE.

    Past the Atmosphere the Vector EM Fields will ADD and will have a Magnitude of 158 + 232 = 390 w/m^2 and a Direction of propagation that is TOWARD Cold Space.

    All the Earth’s Radiated 390 w/m^2 reaches Cold Space, complying with The Law of Conservation of Energy.

    If one uses Vector Mathematics to describe Vector Fields, you will ALWAYS get the CORRECT RESULT.

    If you use “Arithmetic” to describe Vectors, like you AGW’ers use, you will ALWAYS get a WRONG RESULT.
    —————-
    Where could you possibly get a degree in “mathematical physics” that managed to ignore:

    - The Electromagnetic Field Force (one of Four Fundamental Forces).
    - Vector Mathematics
    - Radiative Heat Transfer Physics
    - The Law of Conservation of Energy
    - The 2nd Law of Themodynamics
    - ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS

    What a HOOT!

  130. @130. Gord :

    Re: Messier Tidy Upper @ 127 :
    First let’s deal with the EARTH and what the IPCC AR4 Report says:
    Did you not read my post#57 where I quoted DIRECTLY from the IPCC AR4 Report what their definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect” is?

    Yes, I read it – and whilst there’s a lot of material there I presume you refer to page 115 of the IPCC AR4 report.

    I can’t see them calling it a “fantasy” anywhere though. ;-)

    Because it’s not.

    I’m not really sure or clear about what your problem with it is.

    FAQ 1.1, Figure 1 (is Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram) It’s on Pg.96 of the IPCC AR4 Report. From the Kiel and Trenberth diagram you can see that there is 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface. You can also see from the diagram that there is 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the Earth. This Back Radiation is said to be constantly flowing, day and night, to keep the Earth’s surface temperature at +15 deg C. The Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” relies on Back-Radiation from an average -20 deg C Atmosphere HEATING UP an average +15 deg C Earth!

    You seem to have a big misunderstanding or two here, Gord.

    The atmosphere is NOT directly heating the Earth – our Sun heats the earth – incl. the atmosphere a si tried toexplain before. The atmosphere prevents the Earth cooling down as much as it otherwise would hence the temperature range on Earth isn’t as extreme as it is for our Moon.

    You also seem to be misunderstanding the “average” which applie sboth to global temperatures and temperatures within our atmosphere which vary wildly.

    You have, I’ll note, failed to clarify which layer(s) of our atmospher youare discussing here.

    The AVERAGE temperature of the Earth is +15 deg C as per ALL actual surface measurements by AGW’ers!

    Er ..what?

    All actual surface measurements by “AGWers” (do you mean climatologists btw?) show the average temperature is + 15 C? Really? I don’t think so. Citations please.

    I’m pretty sure Climatologists have observed many regional & specific locational temperature variations and that they have noted a rsising trend in temperature graphs.

    You said “I think you’re confused here because the +15 deg Earth is, I think, including the atmosphere.”
    Obviously, You are the one that is confused!

    I am? Where is the source claiming the +15 figure is doing anything other than including the atmosphere please? Is there any statement somewhere where the temperature of the Earth is taken wthout including our atmosphere?

    I find it very AMUSING that you keep on harping about a “banket greenhouse effect” that CAN ONLY COOL THE EARTH.

    So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?!

    COOLING DOES NOT PRODUCE HEATING no matter how many times you try to say otherwise!

    Where have I – or for that matter anyone else – said otherwise.

    You seem to be totally missing the point.

    No one is arguing what you seem to think they are. The only perosn who seems tothink our atmosphere is cooling the planet rather than warming it is you.

    Our atmsophere as I’ev already explained, acts toinsulate earth and moderate its temperature variability. Our atmosphere -troposphere anyhow – is getting warmer and this is making the rest of the climate warmer.

    Further, your fantasy “banket greenhouse effect” COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS the IPCC AR4 Report definition of the Fantasy “Greehouse Effect”

    How?

    You AGW’ers always talk about their being a “consensus” of “science” and here you are promoting “your own theory”.

    My own theory? Huh? I’m just trying to explain to you what the accepted theory is. I’m not claiming it as mine although I do trust the judgement of those professional climatologists who have made their careers and spent decades studying it.

    The Moon does not have Oceans covering 70% of it’s surface which stores Solar heat energy and moves it from the equator to Polar regions.

    Indeed. Nor, more relevantly, does it have anything but thefiantestwisps of
    an atmosphere either.

    Yousem tounder tehmistaken mimpression thatan atmosphere cools a planet – specfically thatErath’s atmosphere coolds our planet – and I was simply using the analogy to reveal your misunderstadning here.

    -Venus has the same amount of CO2 in it’s atmosphere as Mars.

    I don’t believe that’s actually correct. I think Venus has far more carbon dioxide than Mars based on the Cytherean planets vastly denser atmosphere and greater planetary mass. What is your source for that?

    The IPCC CO2, so called forcing equation, clearly shows that Mars and Venus should have about the same temperatures because they both have same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere….and that includes the effect of the SUN as well.

    I doubt that’s correct. But even if so, what about the very different orbits, masses and geological histories of the two planets?

    Using the one factor and ignoring all others in a complex question like that is not logical.

    The reason that Venus is hotter than Mars and the Earth because of the HUGE ATMOSPERIC PRESSURE on Venus.

    So (settingaside the factors such as mass, orbit, history) how did that huge atmospheric pressure arise then?

    I think you’ll find the answer lies in the runaway greenhouse effect Venus experienced.

  131. Ever hear about the Ideal Gas Law (PV = mRT) where P = Pressure and T = Temperature?

    Yes I have.

    Do you think that the climatologists who are explaining the Anthropogenic Global Warming Phenomena to us all have not? Really? :roll:

    How stupid do you think climate scientists are exactly?

    All the thousands of scientific papers on Global Warming that have passed rigourous peer review, that have been cited in other papers; do you honestly think they would fail a test of basic high school physics and that this would go unnoticed?

    I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

    I challenge you to show that anyone is actually claiming that a “colder atmosphere is warming a hotter earth.”

    No one is doing so. Which makes your position what’s termed a “Strawman fallacy” – or at best a gross misunderstanding of the theory on your part.

    You seem to have read the IPCC AR4 report which you’ve cited but you don’t appear to have understood it very well at all.

    You’re rather tediously repeated “challenge” here reveals your misunderstanding of what the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory actually says and how things actually work.

    Earth’s atmosphere acts as an insulator and retains heat that would be lost into space otherwise. It is NOT, itself, a heat source.

    Just as a blanket traps heat created by your body rather than creating heat intrinisically itself. I am surprised that you seem to find this basic analogy and reality so difficult to grasp.

    If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.

    What don’t exist? The facts? ;-)

    Sorry I think you are the one here is ignoring the facts – or at least badly misunderstanding them.

    ****

    PS. Here’s some clarification for some of the sadly numeous typos (sorry) in my earlier post # 135 :

    You [#130 Gord] seem to be under the mistaken impression that an atmosphere cools a planet – specifically that Earth’s atmosphere cools our planet – and I was simply using the analogy to reveal your misunderstanding of the situation there.

    Our atmosphere, as I’ve already explained, acts to insulate Earth and moderate its temperature variability.

    So, what you’re suggesting is that a blanket (our atmosphere in this analogy) cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?!

  132. Messier Tidy Upper

    @130. Gord :

    I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

    If we set aside your fundamental misunderstanding and take this as asking “What is the scientific eveidence for the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming” then take a look at this :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/26/climate-change-the-evidence/

    & this :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/10/28/from-yellowstones-hills-to-walden-ponds-woods-evidence-of-global-warming/

    & this :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/12/30/insurance-co-blames-global-warming-for-an-especially-disastrous-2008/

    Just for starters. There’s plenty more online and in print if folks are genuinely interested in understanding this issue.

  133. Messier Tidy Upper

    Plus see :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=35

    &

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/22/antarctica-is-definitely-feeling-the-heat-from-global-warming/

    &

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/03/new-study-clinches-it-the-earth-is-warming-up/

    and there’s waa-aaay more where that came from.

    Gord #130 : “.. stop ignoring the Facts ..”

    Yes. Please do. Please take your own advice there.

    I’ve provided lots of the facts in these last two comments here. Think about that. Please.

    There isn’t just one piece of data indicating AGW is real – there are multiple sources, multiple lines of evidence, studies in various fields and, yes, multiple facts demonstrating its reality.

    We can argue over the best solutions for mitigating it. That’s legitimate. But we can’t keep denying AGW is real. It is.

  134. Gord

    Re: Messier Tidy Upper @ 135

    What a HOOT!

    You said “All actual surface measurements by “AGWers” (do you mean climatologists btw?) show the average temperature is + 15 C? Really? I don’t think so. Citations please.”

    Here are two links:

    Instrumental temperature record
    “The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C.[43] For instance, the +0.55°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.45 °C (58.00 °F) for 2007.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

    Temperature on Earth
    All the Five References have Standardized Results for the Average Surface temperature of the Earth is +15 deg C
    (Except for 1600 AD which is +16 to + 17 deg C)
    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml

    There are many,many more….don’t you know how to use GOOGLE?
    ——-
    You said “Where is the source claiming the +15 figure is doing anything other than including the atmosphere please? Is there any statement somewhere where the temperature of the Earth is taken wthout including our atmosphere?”

    Here are two links:

    Temperature in the Troposphere
    “The temperature gets colder as you go upward in the troposphere. Light from the Sun heats the ground. The warm ground gives off the heat as infrared “light”. The IR energy heats the troposphere. The lowest part of the troposphere is the warmest because it is closest to the ground, where the heat is coming from.”
    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/troposphere_temperature.html
    From the graph you can see that the average temperature of the Troposphere is (+15 at the Earth’s surface + (-55) at the tropopause )/2 = -20 deg C.

    International Standard Atmosphere
    The base temperature of the Troposphere at ground level is +15 deg C
    The Tropopause at 11 km has a temperature of -56.5 deg C.
    The average temperature of the Troposphere is -20.75 deg C
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere
    ——-
    You said “The atmosphere is NOT directly heating the Earth – our Sun heats the earth – incl. the atmosphere a si tried toexplain before.”

    The Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram shows that there is:

    - 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.

    - 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being ABSORBED by the warmer surface of the Earth.

    The Solar Energy is ONLY 168 w/m^2 and is THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!!

    The Back-Radiation from the Cold Atmosphere is 324 w/m^2 (exceeding the Solar Energy!) and IS DIRECTLY Heating the Earth.
    ——
    You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to find out what the Earth’s surface temperature is for 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
    The Earth’s surface temperature (TE) would only be:

    TE = (168 w/m^2/5.67 X 10^-8)^0.25 = 233.31 K or -39.69 deg C!!!

    HAHAHA…HAHAHA….yeah, the Earth COOLED DOWN down from -39.69 deg C to +15 deg C….due to Cold Back-Radiation DIRECTLY Heating a Warmer Earth!
    ———
    You said “So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?”

    Radiation emitted by a human body

    “The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but CLOTHING REDUCES THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

    Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body HAS to supply heat energy to the Blanket to increase it’s temperature.

    The ONLY way to Increase the Body temperature of +33 deg C is to INCREASE the watts/m^2 ABSORBED by the Body (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law above)!

    Do you think that a DROP in temperature from +33 deg C to +28 deg C is HEATING?

    You said “COOLING DOES NOT PRODUCE HEATING no matter how many times you try to say otherwise!..Where have I – or for that matter anyone else – said otherwise.”

    How about right from your post:

    - “So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?”
    - “The only perosn who seems tothink our atmosphere is cooling the planet rather than warming it is you.”

    Blankets and the Atmosphere can ONLY COOL….and COOLING IS NOT HEATING….DUH!
    ——————————–
    ——————————–
    Re:
    “The IPCC CO2, so called forcing equation, clearly shows that Mars and Venus should have about the same temperatures because they both have same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere….and that includes the effect of the SUN as well.”

    You said “I doubt that’s correct. But even if so, what about the very different orbits, masses and geological histories of the two planets?”

    Venus
    “The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth’s atmosphere while the pressure at the planet’s surface is about 92 times that at Earth’s surface…”
    Surface temp (mean) 735K or 461.85 deg C
    It has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

    Mars, atmosphere
    “The surface pressure on Mars is only about 0.7% of the average surface pressure at sea level on Earth.”
    It has an atmosphere that is composed of 95.3% CO2.
    The surface temp is about 250K or -23 deg C.
    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html

    Solar Constants
    Venus (2647 w/m^2 – 2576 w/m^2)= average of 2611.5 w/m^2
    Mars (715 w/m^2 – 492 w/m^2)= average of 603.5 w/m^2
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant

    Heating due to the Solar Constants/4 using Stephan-Boltzman Law and (albedo = 0) gives:

    Venus = 327.58 K or +54.43 deg C Black body temp.
    Mars = 227.12 K or -46.03 deg C Black body temp.

    With the addition of an atmosphere the temp increases are:

    Venus = 735K – 327.58K = 407.42K (461.85 C – 54.43 C = 407.42 deg C)
    Mars = 250K – 227.12K = 22.88K (-23 deg C -(-46.03 C)= 23 deg C)

    ——-
    The IPCC uses this formula for a calculation of CO2′s relationship to changes in W/m^2 forcing (I will call it delta F).

    delta F = 5.35 LN( C/Co) where LN is the natural logarithm, Co is the CO2 in PARTS PER MILLION for a starting point, C is the CO2 in PARTS PER MILLION for analysis and F is the forcing in W/m^2.

    The IPCC also uses a figure of 0.297 deg C change per each W/m^2. If we multiply both sides of the formula by 0.297 we will obtain the relationship:

    delta T = 1.59 LN ( C/Co) where delta T is the change in temperature (in deg C), C and Co are in PARTS PER MILLION.

    Venus has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2 or 965,000 PARTS PER MILLION.

    Mars has an atmosphere composed of 95.3% CO2 or 953,000 PARTS PER MILLION.

    Using the IPCC CO2 “heating formula”, how much warmer should Venus be compared to Mars?

    delta T = 1.59 LN (965,000/953,000) = 0.02 deg C!!!

    That’s it, Venus should be just 0.02 deg C warmer than Mars using your IPCC Greenhouse Effect “science”!

    Venus and Mars have about the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere (96.5% and 95.3%) yet their temperature increases due to the addition of an atmosphere vary by 407.42 deg C – 23 deg C = 384.42 deg C!

    CO2 obviously does NOT have any effect on the temperature increases of these planets.

    The Atmospheric Pressure is what causes the difference in temperature:

    VENUS ATMOSPHERE PROFILE FROM A MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRINCIPLE

    “There one can check,at each height, that using pressure and temperature as
    input, the value of density obtained from the equation of
    the ideal gases is, in all cases, equal to the experimental
    value with a discrepancy lower than 2 per cent.”

    “For ideal gases, the equation of state, for 1mol, is
    PV = R* T
    (where R* = 8.3143 J mol-1 K-1 is the universal gas
    constant)”

    “FIG. 2: Pressure-temperature profile of the atmosphere of
    Venus. The data (black dots) have been taken from Table 1,
    and the fitting line is an adiabatic as given by Eq.(19).”

    “FIG. 3: Pressure-temperature profile of the atmosphere of
    Venus. The data (black dots) come from Table 1 and the
    theoretical results (continuous line) have been obtained using
    the extended VG method.”

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0609/0609649v1.pdf

    This whole paper deals with the heating of the Venus atmosphere due to atmospheric pressure!

  135. Gord

    Re: Messier Tidy Upper @136

    You asked:
    “How stupid do you think climate scientists are exactly?
    All the thousands of scientific papers on Global Warming that have passed rigourous peer review, that have been cited in other papers; do you honestly think they would fail a test of basic high school physics and that this would go unnoticed?”

    How stupid do Quack climate “scientists” have to be to think that Back-Radiation from a -20 deg C Atmosphere can HEAT-UP a +15 deg C Earth?

    How stupid do Quack climate “scientists” have to be to IGNORE ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS that PROVE that the Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” DOES NOT EXIST?
    —–
    These so called “scientists” are more stupid than any 4 year-old child, that certainly knows that Cold Objects DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Objects.
    —–
    Why don’t you put a Can of warm beer at +15 deg C into a Freezer that is -20 deg C and tell us how much the beer HEATS-UP?

    PS: You can put as much CO2 as you want in the Freezer (even 96.5% CO2 like Venus or 95.3% CO2 like Mars) and WRAP THE CAN OF BEER IN A BLANKET.

    I look forward to your next post to get the RESULTS.

    Maybe some day you will wake-up and face Reality.

    You AGW’ers are a real HOOT!

  136. MartinM

    Contrary to your claim that you “have a degree is in mathematical physics”, anybody with a shread of Physics training would know that “arithmetic” is not used to describe Vector Quantities.

    Wrong. Vector addition is precisely arithmetic, and nothing more.

    Likewise, zero Mass Photons do NOT move in the direction of the weaker Electromagnetic Field (Electromagnetic Force), cold to Hot…EVER.

    Wrong (also, backwards). Photons have no charge. They mediate the electromagnetic force, but are not themselves subject to it. This is why QED is not QCD. A photon source is not going to magically determine that there’s a stronger source elsewhere and refuse to emit in that direction. The Earth’s surface and atmosphere both radiate (approximately) isotropically; photons travelling in all directions. The total energy carried by the photons travelling from hotter to colder areas is greater than the total energy carried by photons travelling from colder to hotter areas, which is all that’s required to satisfy the second law.

    P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4)

    Well done, you can quote formulae. Do you understand it? Did you notice that P is the net radiated power, not the total? If you look at the top of that page, you’ll find that the total radiated power is given by P = e*sigma*AT^4. The total radiated power from the surroundings to the object is given by P = e*sigma*ATc^4. The difference of these two terms is the net radiated power, and will always have the same sign as the temperature difference. The derivation of this formula explicitly assumes energy flow in both directions.

    This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Field Vectors

    Oh, look! Arithmetic!

    The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A

    Wrong. Power per unit area is not magnitude, but intensity, the rate of energy flux through a surface.

    and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field…ALWAYS.

    This is the second time you’ve got your own argument backwards. Hotter objects radiate more energy, and so have the ‘larger’ field, as you put it. You should be arguing that the direction of propogation is away from the ‘larger’ field.

    “Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

    Do you see the words “NOT POSSIBLE”???…it is there for a REASON!

    Still not understanding the difference between net and gross, I see. Look, if your version was correct, we’d have a serious problem. Because the temperature of the atmosphere does not decrease monotonically. Rather, it decreases through the troposphere (mostly), then increases through the stratosphere. So up around the tropopause, you have a layer of air which is cooler than that both below and above. If your version of thermodynamics were correct, this would be unstable. Energy would flow into this region from above and below, while none could flow out in either direction. The additional energy would heat the region until it reached the same temperature as its surroundings.

    Worse still, since photons apparently can’t travel from colder to hotter materials, that means no radiative cooling of anything below the tropopause either, since those photons would have to cross through the stratosphere to escape the atmosphere. The temperature inversion at the tropopause would essentially create an impenetrable barrier through which no heat could flow, and all the energy the Earth’s surface receives from the Sun would be trapped, causing the oceans to boil in pretty short order.

    Oddly enough, this hasn’t actually happened.

  137. I have had enough of Gord breaking my one commenting rule: don’t be a jerk. I will mark his messages as spam as they come in, so you don’t have to bother replying to him anymore.

  138. MartinM
  139. Wade

    After 150 years of warming, the oceans have called a timeout and decided to stop warming for a while.

    http://www.real-science.com/ncar-calls-decade-long-global-warming-timeout

  140. bbmcrae

    I like that God Capitalizes random Words and WHOLE words while SCREAMING! It really bolsters his credibility.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »