The Plain Truth About Glorious Carbon Dioxide

Posted on February 16, 2009
Posted By: Alan Caruba
 
We are going to begin 2009 with a lesson about carbon dioxide (CO2).

Why do we need to know about CO2? Because the President-elect, several of his choices for environmental and energy agencies, the Supreme Court and much of the U.S. Congress has no idea what they are talking about and, worse, want to pass legislation and regulations that will further bankrupt the United States of America.

Do I have your attention now?

For the purpose of the lesson, I will be borrowing heavily from a paper on CO2 written by Robert A. Ashworth [http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/No_Evidence.pdf]. It requires some understanding of science, but anyone with a reasonable education and common sense should be able to read it on their own. Ashworth is a chemical engineer.

Suffice it to say that if any of the nitwits babbling about CO2 and global warming ever went to any of the several dozen excellent websites that provide accurate scientific data and analysis, they would cease from their abusive manipulation of the public and perhaps find honest work.

To begin at the beginning; at the heart of the global warming hoax is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While it purports to represent the views of thousands of scientists, it does not. As Ashworth notes, "Most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise. In the United States 31,072 scientists, including the author, have signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement." An additional 1,000 scientists are being verified to be added to the list. Thousands more exist who find the assertion the CO2 will destroy the Earth totally absurd.

Here's what you need to know; if an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) is directly related, i.e. causes changes in the Earth's temperature, there would be a direct correlation between the two. As CO2 rose, we would see a comparable rise in the Earth's temperature. This correlation does not exist.

Global warming liars, however, insist that CO2 builds up on the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this is untrue. "Every year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere," notes Ashworth, "and the reduction continues until around mid-to-late August when plants start to go dormant."

"It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide." Farmers call this the growing season, followed by the harvest season, followed by snow and cold during which nothing grows. Modern civilization, beginning about 5,000 years ago, is predicated on the ability to provide food to both humans and livestock, all based on these obvious seasonal cycles.

The ancient Egyptians and Mayans understood the seasons, but they are apparently too difficult a concept for today's many ex-politicians, some PhD's, United Nation's flunkies, and high school teachers.

Warming and cooling cycles are well known throughout human history, reaching back to the days of ancient Rome. There were Viking settlements in Greenland because they arrived in warmer times. By 1410 the place froze up. Shakespeare lived during a Little Ice Age when the Thames would freeze too. The man-made emissions of CO2 had nothing, zero, to do with these climate events.

The IPCC, however, with its agenda to tax and control energy use that produces CO2, is not based on either the obvious or more complex science involved. Its "data" is the invention of computer models that are deliberately manipulated to produce false results which, in turn, can be announced and repeated worldwide.

In March 2008, The Heartland Institute brought together more than 500 climatologists, meteorologists, economists, and others for two days of seminars and addresses that totally destroyed the IPCC's lies. It will do so again for a second time, March 8-10 of this year in New York City. Suffice it to say that the mainstream media did it best to ridicule or ignore the event and will no doubt do so again.

Here, then, is a fundamental fact about CO2 you need to commit to memory. "Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man." Nature is a totally self-regulating mechanism that dwarfs any mindless effort to "control" the amount of CO2 produced by coal-fired utilities, steel manufacturers, autos and trucks, and gasoline fueled lawn mowers, not to forget fireplaces where logs glow or just about any human activity you can name, including exhaling two pounds of the stuff every day!

"Further," says Ashworth, "no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on Earth. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases plant growth, which is a very good thing during a period of world population growth and an increasing demand for food."

"Taxing carbon," Ashworth adds, "would do absolutely nothing to improve the climate but would be devastating hardship to the people of the world." For example, U.S. Representative John Dingell's plan to tax carbon would add 13% to the cost of electricity and 32% to the cost of gasoline; just what we need during a Recession that threatens to become a Depression.

Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently asked, "How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant."

It is time to rebuke everyone attempting to foist the global warming hoax and carbon taxes on the United States and the rest of the world. It is time let Congress and the White House know that Americans will not be ruled by laws that have no scientific merit.

 
 
Authored By:
Alan Caruba is the founder, in 1990, of The National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about "scare campaigns" that are designed to influence public opinion and policy. The Center maintains a website at www.anxietycenter.com. These days he is best known for his blog "Warning Signs" (http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com) that has recently
 

Other Posts by: Alan Caruba

The EPA's War on America - October 22, 2013

Related Posts

Future Energy Options By A.K. Shyam
 
 

Comments

February, 16 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

You've got a lot of scientists in your corner, Alan. Maybe too many. Al Gore was not my favorite politician and Nobel laureate, far from it, because anybody who is nominated for president of the United States and chooses somebody like Mr Lieberman as his vice presidential candidate does not have what it takes to fill that office. But he was right about one thing: many of the so-called scientists offering their opinions about global warming and the like are not scientists but busybodies who need to be taught how to think.

In case you are not aware, the voters in the US want something done about what might be called 'excess' carbon. In that case what the Heartland Institute and similar nuthouses should be doing is thinking about a comprehensive energy policy that also suppresses 'some' carbon, regardless of the realities and/or dangers of anthropogenic carbon emissions. Here I agree with you that the new president made some mistakes in the recruitment of hi energy team - or environmental team as I insist on calling them. At the same time I am very aware that President Obama can do no 'right', because many - if not most - of the Heartland Institute geniuses wanted as president a man who was in favor of a hundred years of war in order to win a war that was actually won about five years ago. Now there was a man who could do no wrong, or so some people probably still think.

February, 16 2009

Jude Clemente says

Another great article Alan. Your use of logic is what scares the global warming alarmists who have profitted off the hoax. Follow the money - whether it is Gore making millions or researchers getting grants to study "global warming." Unfortunately, it is evident no one is listening. The published scientists that realize the hoax of global warming have been marginalized by the media. Questioning the situation puts oneself out on a limb.

February, 16 2009

John K. Sutherland says

Well said Alan. The wheels started to come off this AGW bus last year, but it will take a few years for the mainstream media to catch on. Contrary to what Fred is saying, most of the US general public knows it too. They certainly do in England. Wait for the 'usual suspects' to pile onto you. They obviously don't read those reputable science sites you mentioned.

February, 16 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

I don't believe that most of the "US general public" believes that AGW is a hoax, John. The statistics that I occasionally encounter certainly don't give that impression, and both presidential candidates promised to do something about warming.

Of course, for me it is a non-question. I get no grants to study this issue, and if I did get one I would go to Paris and stay twisted on wine most of the day. There are some interesting economic aspects of the topic, but I have no desire to work on them. The greens have gone crazy on the subject of the Russian gas pipeline in the Baltic, and I definitely do not want to say anything that they might construe as favorable to their screwy opinions.

February, 16 2009

James Carson says

Banks << I don't believe that most of the "US general public" believes that AGW is a hoax, John. >>

Nevertheless, AGW is a low priority for the US public regardless of whether or not they believe it is a hoax.

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

February, 16 2009

Alan Caruba says

If Ferdinand dislikes The Heartland Institute, it must be a very good group, indeed!

I shall be attending its second international conference on climate change to be held in March. Several hundred (it was over 500 last year) of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists, economists, and other science and policy folk were in attendence and shall be again.

Heartland must be truly horrid. They only managed to attract as speakers, Vaclav Kaus, the Czech Republic's president, the former prime minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, and American astronaut Dr. Jack Scmiitt, among others.

I shall write a report on the event for EnergyPulse.Net!!

February, 16 2009

Bob Amorosi says

James,

Fixing the economy will always trump everything else on the public's list of priorities, because regardless whether AGW is real or not, the economy affects everyone in a very real manner. Before the current economic crisis unfolded, AGW had been growing in importance throughout the public, and it is now on the backburner since the economic crisis is now simply a shorter term threat to everyone.

Alan's article reminds us all that the earth is very resilient where nature has a way of balancing things out over time. The key phrase here is "over time" which many Greens don't think we have enough of to risk doing nothing. The earth may very well survive massive changes in climate patterns and cycles, but humans may go the way of the dodo birds if climate cycles swing too far for whatever reason.

And Alan, I wouldn't be too worried that pending acts by Obama's administration will further bankrupt the United States of America. The feds have already built up a massive debt load (per capita) that eventually will make foreign lenders charge a premium interest rate to extend further credit to the US, and in time even refuse to lend. The US is on the verge of a depression era catastrophe in its economy, and the ONLY solution is to spend its way out with massive make-work efforts, akin to what WWII successfully did. So in the end it doesn't matter that much what Washington spends its stimulus money on, as long as it gets people working again and credit flowing again.

February, 17 2009

James Carson says

Bob, AGW is not just on the back burner, it is DEAD LAST in the list of public concerns here in the US. It follows Economy, Jobs, Social Security, Education, Energy, Medicare, Healthcare, Deficit Reduction, Health Insurance, Helping the Poor, Crime, Moral Decline, Military, Tax Cuts, Environment, Immigration, Lobbyists and Trade Policy.

Only thirty percent rate dealing with AGW as a 'top priority' and had been falling from well before the inception of any economic problems. Twice as many people rate energy as an important national priority as do AGW and rated it much higher even before the spike in energy prices. Dealing with AGW was dead last a year ago, and has never rated above the bottom three concerns of Americans.

February, 17 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Mr Carson, I didn't say anything about how the public rates AWG. If they rate it first or last or are as uninterested as I am, it is the same with me. As I mentioned, I don't think about it any more, and the economy, jobs, and social security should be at the top of their preference ladder. What should come next? Well, it shouldn't be education, because I could fix that in a heartbeat - assuming that I were appointed president. I would make sure for instance that every educational institute in the US had a policewoman at the door to keep Alan and his heartland colleagues out.

Alan said that the Heartland Institute is going to host a conference that will be attended by some leading cranks, busybodies, know-nothings, academic parasites, and the like. In addition, a few celebrities will give boring and silly lectures. One of them however is groovy, by whom I mean Vaclav Klaus. He's against the EU, and anyone against the EU is A-OK with me. What he thinks about AWG is his own business, and I would be grateful if he did not get in my face with his opinions on that subject.

About Alan and the new administration. He deals in conservative clap-trap. I vote for the Democrats, but I have a high tolerance for the Republicans and conservatives - assuming that they are genuine conservatives and not cranks. However I know - as many of the people contributing to this and other forums do not know - that people like Alan say a prayer every night that the Obama program will fail. That's their concept of patriotism.

February, 17 2009

Dilip James says

While it does seem a fairly ambiguous situation science wise, still we must remember that today there more than 800 million cars world wide, not counting buses and two wheelers, planes etc., It would be highly optimistic to think that these together with power plants, industries etc., are gaving no effect at all! Remember it is not all carbon dioxide. Even if it was, what about the rate at which the amazon rain forest is being cut down. A MILLION ACRES a day!! How long can the world sustam this kind of damage? Once the Amazon rain forest goes, you can expect really big climatic changes.

February, 17 2009

Bob Amorosi says

James,

I'm not that surprised Americans have AGW dead last on their priority list. But as I said, economic issues will always trump everything else, and judging from the list you present above, the top ones "Economy, Jobs, Social Security, Education, Energy, Medicare, Healthcare, Deficit Reduction, Health Insurance, Helping the Poor," most seem pretty much like monetary issues to me, even Education which leads to better higher paying jobs.

I suspect AGW is somewhat higher in priority here in Canada where we have disappearing mountain glaciers and an Arctic polar ice cap that has been melting back every summer more so than ever before, at an accelerating pace in the last several years. Predictions are it will disappear completely in summer in the very near future. Tell the threatened polar bears and Inuit natives that AGW is a hoax while the permafrost is melting beneath their feet.

If AGW proves to be real, you can just wait for a fresh water crisis to rear its ugly head down the road in many parts of the US, as it did in many areas of the southeast in recent years. At one point officials were considering water rationing in Atlanta if I recall.

February, 17 2009

Len Gould says

Alan: So far, I've read your reference to page 1 and found this beauty "does any evidence exist to support the premise that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have caused the earth to warm?" -- DUH. 1) Earth and Moon recieve exactly the same solar energy. Earth atmosphere contains normally 180 to 280 ppmv CO2, historical average surface temperature is about 33 degC higher than Moon. 2) history of GHG levels and glacations over past 480,000 years based on ice cores from Vostok, Antartica and Greenland show average temperatures match GHG levels very closely. 3) others.

Can HARDLY WAIT (NOT) to learn that Robert A. Ashworth's publications have overturned the present understanding of climate science (ha ha).

Ridiculous.

February, 17 2009

Len Gould says

Alan: Further on, your author demonstrates an inability to even do simple arithmatic, with "This graphic violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which in essence state that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put into that system." -- It is plain to see that the figures in the referenced graphic do balance, IF one knows that the energy arriving at the earth's surface is a combination of fresh incoming insolation PLUS previously outgoing IR radiation which has been intercepted by GHG's and re-radiated back to earth's surface. Incoming to surface = 168 + 324 = 492 Outgoing = 390 + 78 + 24 = 492

Perhaps your ideal scientist ran out of fingers and toes?

February, 17 2009

Jim Beyer says

I don't know why Energypulse even allows articles like this. It is complete garbage. Perhaps I should write a few articles for Energypulse. If I was careful to include some "page 3" girls from the London tabloids, perhaps that would increase the page hits.

This paper doesn't say anything substantive. It merely states that the IPCC is lying to you in its effort to control and tax the world. That's it.

Nevertheless, using your own words Alan: "Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 emitted by man and nature." Not that I trust anything you say, but let's assume that's true. So what becomes of the other 1.5%? Wouldn't it have to go into the atmosphere? Aren't you contradicting yourself? (Note also that some of this absorption involves acidifying the oceans with extra CO2. Not necessarily the best thing in the world.)

And why this "CO2 is not a pollutant" tripe? If you went into a box containing 100% CO2 you would die. Heck if you went into a box containing 100% oxygen you would die. The fact that something is good and safe at one concentration does not mean it is safe and good at ALL concentrations. Maybe Alan, you HAVE been in one of those boxes; it would explain your brain-dead essays.

Oh, is that an ad hominem attack? Sort of like "nitwits babbling about CO2", "Global warming liars", "the IPCC's lies"? Oh, I am SO sorry.

John,

I know you are far smarter than this. Your articles concerning AGW are at least critical of valid points. You don't wordsmith that fact of annual CO2 variation to imply that CO2 levels are not increasing at all. It disappoints me that you give any validity to this article whatsoever.

For the umpteenth time, to all you AGW skeptics, your case is not improved by printing tripe. Or maybe it is. Hell, it worked for Hitler. Just keep repeating a lie long enough and people will start to believe it. You might as well blame the Jews for global warming instead of CO2. That would have the same validity compared to what is printed above.

February, 17 2009

David Bush says

I have an idea, let’s not do anything about the CO2 issue and wait for more data (50 years minimum for a statistical sample) and then see who is right.

February, 17 2009

Jim Beyer says

Note that Alan could have commented that former astronaut Harrison Schmitt has joined the ranks of AGW skeptics, which I consider significant. But instead he writes a note stating "CO2 is our friend".

February, 17 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Jim, exactly what tabloid are we talking about here?

February, 17 2009

Don Hirschberg says

I do not understand how the question of CO2 warming has produced such a sharp dichotomy.

We all know the phenomenon of warming in a greenhouse is real and can be demonstrated. But we also know the planet is not simply a big greenhouse. There are so many variables whose influences have not been quantified. Some are warming, some are cooling. Among all these variables how important is CO2?

February, 18 2009

Roger Arnold says

Wow, Alan! You have really swallowed the "AGW is a hoax" conspiracy nonsense hook, line, and sinker! Amazing! Been reading Lord Moncton and company, have you?

You've even copied the style, with the sneering references to "global warming liars" and the confident echoing of blatant non-sequitors. "if an increase in carbon dioxide .. causes changes in the Earth's temperature, there would be a direct correlation between the two." And "no regulation by man is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant". If you say it with enough assurance, people will have to believe that you know what you're talking about, won't they? Well, some certainly will.

As to that first point, it's like arguing that since cancer occurs among people who have never smoked, smoking can't possibly have anything to do with cancer. An apt example, perhaps, since the PR networks involved in spreading the denial memes are much the same as those that lobbied so successfully for so many hears on behalf of the tobacco industry.

The fact is that neither the IPCC nor any serious climatologist has ever claimed that atmospheric CO2 levels are the only thing that affects global average temperatures. But after factoring in the influence of high altitude particulates, the average extent and albedo of forests, deserts, grasslands, oceans, and snow cover, the orbital parameters of the earth, and the wind and tide driven mixing rate between ocean surface waters and the cold ocean depths, why then yes, you will find a very solid correlation between CO2 levels and average global temperatures.

Not that the greenhouse effects of CO2 need to be tickled out of the complex historical climate record. They can be calculated and measured very precisely from the spectroscopic absorbtion and emission coefficients of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And if you happen to doubt the theory on which the calculations are based, all you have to do is go outside, send up a radiosonde, and record a high resolution thermal spectrogram of the night sky. What you'll find is that the spectrum you measure matches precisely with what the theory calculates, from the temperature and humidity profiles recorded by the radiosonde.

The effect of increasing CO2 levels is the same, at ground level, as an increase in solar irradiance. Period. I don't think even you, Alan, would argue that a 1% increase in solar irradiance would have no effect on global temperatures?

February, 18 2009

Len Gould says

Vistor Bush: "I have an idea, let’s not do anything about the CO2 issue and wait for more data (50 years minimum for a statistical sample) and then see who is right." -- Its difficult to believe that investigative science has sunk to so low a point. Imagine J Watt, Thomas Edison, Micheal Faraday or Nicola Tesla taking such an attitude. We'd have utilities operating equipment so obsolete by modern standards it would be laughable. Oh, wait....

February, 18 2009

J Bartsch says

The whole article is preposturous. It is utterly depressing to read something so ridiculous and actually find people believing it. I wonder why this insult to serious scientists (and anyone who has just a basic understanding of simple physics) could be printed! How dare anyone insult Europeans of buying into this muck (John), slander!

February, 18 2009

David Bush says

Len, Please note the hint of sarcasm in my original comment. It is obvious that by the time we get a statistical sample, if AGW skeptics are wrong, it will be too late to do anything about it.

February, 18 2009

Alan Caruba says

"Alan said that the Heartland Institute is going to host a conference that will be attended by some leading cranks, busybodies, know-nothings, academic parasites, and the like."

No, Ferdinand, Alan said the very opposite of this and you know it. Your ability to ignore facts or twist them is impressive.

The simple fact is that the Earth has had periods in which there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than now. It is equal in importance to the survival of all life on Earth as oxygen. To suggest its emission must or even can be limited by humans is absurd. This is particularly true when you consider that the UN Kyoto Protocol does not include either China or India.

The Earth is now ten years into a cooling cycle. We are at the end of an interglacial period of some 11,500 years. The Sun's magnetic storms (sunspots) are greatly reduced. All of this indicates a new ice age is just around the corner.

That CO2 is being discussed at all is testimony to the global propaganda program about global warming and all current polling reveals that the public has figured out that it is a hoax. Those that say it is real or is coming are liars.

February, 18 2009

Jim Beyer says

Deconstructing Alan:

"The simple fact is that the Earth has had periods in which there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than now." But not when modern human civilization resided upon it. One cause of the massive Permian extinction was the rise of CO2 levels to 800 ppm.

"It is equal in importance to the survival of all life on Earth as oxygen." This is not actually true. Both Venus and Mars are lifeless, or nearly so. Both have CO2 atmospheres.

"To suggest its emission must or even can be limited by humans is absurd." CO2 levels did not start to rise as they did until the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since we are responsible for this rise, we can in theory, affect its decline, to some extent.

"This is particularly true when you consider that the UN Kyoto Protocol does not include either China or India." This is a political issue, not a scientific one. New protocols will include all major parties, including China and India.

"The Earth is now ten years into a cooling cycle. We are at the end of an interglacial period of some 11,500 years. The Sun's magnetic storms (sunspots) are greatly reduced. All of this indicates a new ice age is just around the corner." Basically more tripe. What is 'around the corner' in terms of years? Yes, we are subject to the ice age cycles, but are also subject to influences such as CO2 concentrations. See Mr. Arnold above.

"That CO2 is being discussed at all is testimony to the global propaganda program about global warming and all current polling reveals that the public has figured out that it is a hoax. Those that say it is real or is coming are liars." Desperate tripe. No factual content at all. Just raving.

February, 18 2009

John K. Sutherland says

Jim, You say: 'Desperate tripe. No factual content at all. Just raving.'

I agree that that is what your commnets can be described as when you go to such illogical extremes as you do, as do Bartsch, Bush and Arnold too, and even Len. I am sure we will all forgive you however for these little tantrums.

February, 18 2009

Bob Amorosi says

John,

Let's say AGW is a big hoax as claimed in this article, and purported by many "liars". How then do YOU explain to the polar bears and Inuit natives in the Arcitc the realities of melting permafrost beneath their homes, disappearing mountain glaciers, and the increasingly receding polar ice cap each summer? Are we to believe something ludicrous like Aliens are visiting the earth and carving up and taking away all the ice because we cannot conclusively prove otherwise?

We may not have conclusive proof for AGW, but boy is there ever lots of circumstantial evidence, which is hard to believe is all purely coincidence.

February, 18 2009

Don Hirschberg says

Len wrote: "...taking such an attitude. We'd have utilities operating equipment so obsolete by modern standards it would be laughable."

Actually, I know that 80 years ago, and maybe more, the electric utility customer had pretty much the same service as he has today. Infact if you lived near downtown you could still buy DC at several voltages for old elevator or traction motors,for electro-plating and for charging batteries of electric delivery vans. All done without any electronics.

February, 19 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Sorry Alan, I guess that I was thinking of someone else. But in any event, when I am appointed president I will have policewomen at the doors of our educational institutes in order to...well keep out the intellectually undesirable.

February, 19 2009

John K. Sutherland says

Bob, Weather changes, and climate conditions fluctuate. If, however you see only one side of what is happening - only one extreme and not the other - you will blind yourself to what is normal and natural. You may not know this yet, but the satellite that was used to measure arctic ice area, has been noticeably deteriorating for the last couple of months, maybe much more - they are checking. It has been causing an apparent loss of many thousands of km2 of ice that did not actually disappear. Now they admit this on WUWT, who first wondered about this. I suggest you read more Climate audit, WUWT and, of course, the lengthy article I wrote on the corruption of the entire IPCC and UN effort on Climate. John.

February, 19 2009

Jim Beyer says

OK, when John basically says "I know you are but what am I?", the debate is completely eroded.

I have no trouble with people being skeptical about AGW. As I've said earlier, it's an important issue to get right, one way or another. (FWIW, I beginning to realize alarmist pronouncements are not necessarily productive even if they are true, as change can only occur at a certain rate anyway. On the other hand, making meek statements may encourage people to do nothing - it's a tough situation.)

That being said, it does surprise me that something like Alan's article above would be considered a helpful statement for an AGW skeptic. If I was taking that side, I would be annoyed with something like that, just as I'm annoyed with extreme statements on the pro AGW side. (The Greenland Ice will take 1,000 years or so to melt under the most extreme of circumstances, so it's not productive to talk about sea level rises due to that scenario, as if it would happen overnight. There. See? I can make some effort at fairness.)

There are pro AGW article and con AGW articles. And there are good articles and bad articles. This is a bad article that happens to be skeptical about AGW.

February, 19 2009

Len Gould says

Jim has made the correct final analysis. Every person approaching the issue scientifically, whether convinced or sceptical of AGW effects and their costs, should shudder and condemn such nonsense as the above article, which can only be recieved as wisdom by those approaching the issue from religious faith. I'm personally about half convinced of the dangers of anthro GHG emissions but certain that reducing those to pre-industrial levels is not impossible technically, easily doable financially (for society overall, though agreed a big problem for certain speculators in the future values of eg. coal reserves etc.) and worth any social risk involved.

After all, sooner or later we're going to do it (eliminate significant use of fossil fuels as energy sources) anyway so what's the huge fuss? This generation or the generation two away in the future? Wiith a smart transition plan, we could make their task a lot less disruptive.

February, 19 2009

Len Gould says

And don't give me that "honest pure science is more inportant" crap again. If accurate science is important to you, then your first duty is to condemn the above article.

February, 19 2009

John K. Sutherland says

That was a much more measured and sensible response Jim. Thank you.

Len, you are still far too rabidly and impatiently ad hominem.

However, I do detect a significant lessening in both of your extreme pro-AGW positions, and for the right reasons too. It sounds as though some rational observations are making it through to you.

And yes Jim, you should write your own article for this site. I suspect it would be well recieved, even by me.

February, 19 2009

Len Gould says

John: Two points. First, my position on this issue has not changed one iota in the past few years. Second, the only ad hominem in my above is directed to the supposed "scientist" referenced by Alan. Anyone who chooses to publish claimed "peer-reviewed science" articles with such nonsense in them can continue to anticipate such scornful treatment.

February, 19 2009

John K. Sutherland says

But Len! But Len! Please do share with us the three, four or five main, absolutely unarguable, points that definitively tell you that carbon dioxide is the driving force behind recent climate on this planet. Not that are 'predicted' to be, but are defined to be.

Thanks in advance.

February, 19 2009

Jim Beyer says

John,

I haven't changed my positions on AGW. (I really LIKE to, however, because it's so depressing...) I think how it might be addressed is important for economic and other considerations, but I've voiced this view for some time. Even when Michael Crichton was interviewed by Charlie Rose, he advocated most carbon reducing measures (gas tax, etc.) but simply felt that a panic/crash program was not justified. Justified or not, I'm not sure crash programs are even possible.

Also some of the pro-AGW information is alarmist and extreme, I find the quality of the AGW skeptic material much worse. Claims of 'conspiracy', for example, like the alleged conspiracies to kill JFK, really mean the disparate information is collaborating on a position you don't like. Some multiple entities are not all seeing AGW issues, but rather they are 'conspiring' to move forward this agenda. I don't see that as credible.

Much of the other anti-AGW is very poor quality. Examples like the paper above are really not helpful, just as screaming Greenpeace activists are not helpful on the pro-AGW side. This is assuming you are trying to find the truth, and not merely trying to "win". If you are trying to "win", then perhaps the above paper has some utility.

On the other hand, the scientific community has acted fairly flip on an issue which is complex, uses data which can be hard to acquire, normalize, etc., and which has extreme economic implications on the world. Their arrogance on this matter is not helpful either. But that doesn't mean they are wrong. But I will admit their economic bedside manner leaves much to be desired.

I would ask interested parties on both sides to ask yourselves the hard questions. What is the weakest position of the your own belief? Are you prepared to switch sides? (If you aren't then that's fine, but cease calling yourself a seeker of truth.) I AM willing to switch sides on this, if the evidence presents itself, but it hasn't to date, at least for me. (Reasonable arguments about the ability of the world to unify to solve this problem, etc., is NOT, in my opinion, the question at hand. The question is how much a threat is AGW liable to pose to all of us?)

I'd say the weakest position from the pro-AGW side is ironically, also it's strongest position. Let me try to explain. I think the weakest aspect of the pro-AGW viewpoint is that they are not really sure EXACTLY what is going to happen with these increased CO2 levels. There are lots of complicated forward and backward feedback loops going on. It's hard to know what is going to happen.

On the other hand, they KNOW the basic physics of the CO2 and how it is warming things. They KNOW that climates have switched very quickly in the past; a "tipping point" could occur. They can seem some regional affects of this warming in various parts of the world, especially at the poles. So think their professional uneasiness with the state of affairs is truly felt by them. But they don't have the concrete answers that one would like to have to motivate the extreme actions they believe are necessary. Add the arrogance factor, and they can be hard to deal with for people who aren't sheep.

So I fall into the camp that feels that there is adequate evidence to be highly concerned. I think by and large, the scientific community prefers to avoid crying wolf, but they should be better about their own uncertainty of the specifics, while being clear about their certainty of the concern overall. Perhaps that is some source of the rancor with this dialogue.

February, 19 2009

Bob Ashworth says

Len:

Ever take a course in thermodynamics? It is necessary to evaluate global warming. All I presented was real data. What real data don't you like.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not correlate with the average earth temperature rise or fall.

The amount of CO2 made by man's activities is miniscule compared to nature (IPCC's own data). If we instantly eliminted all of the anthroppogenic CO2 the concentration would go back to the 2002-2003 level when it was much warmer than it is today.

The green house signature the IPCC predicts must be there is not there.

The balance the IPCC gives in its graph on radiant energy does balance but they add re-radiated enrgy which is impossible. You can't get more energy from the earth than hit it in the first place. What they are telling you is that if you stand in front of a fire you will keep heating up until you burn up. Gore got the cause and effect reversed in his "Conventient Lie" documentary. A global spike from the sun heats up the earth and water and CO2 is later liberated from the water due to less solubility at higher temperature.

I have never before analyzed a scientific premise that has absolutely no empirical data to back it up.

Gore invented the internet (that is what he said) and made a lot of money from Google, Then he invented global warming from CO2 and is making even more money from Generation Management Investment LLP.

February, 19 2009

Malcolm Rawlingson says

My good friend Professor Fred has persuaded me not to care about global warming because it is the best political leverage we have ever had to remove ourselves from reliance on oil and coal. The substitution of nuclear energy for fossil fuels to generate electricity will yield very large and long term cost and environmental benefits and perhaps stop the deaths of thousands of miners every year in holes in the ground called mines.

So while I consider the whole IPCC gambit a complete hoax scientifically with hardly a shred of real data to support it - as long as the net result is a move to zero emissions nuclear energy then I'm delighted.

We will get stuck with a few wind generators and a few solar panels which will prove themselves not to work very effectively and we'll have to take them all down again but nuclear energy will easily be able to pick up the energy shortfall without too much of a problem.

And of course if we get electric vehicles (a big IF) then nuclear is ideally positioned to generate that power too.

So whether you believe in global warming or not makes no difference to the fact that fossil fuels are very limited in the long term future of the planet.

The quicker we change over to nuclear energy the better off and safer we will all be.

And for Bob Ashworth - keep up the great work. While I do not care much what politicians believe or don't believe - I do think it important that we uphold the principal of truth in science. Without that we really are in deep trouble.

Malcolm

February, 19 2009

Jim Beyer says

Malcolm & Fred,

Normally, I'd agree with you on the point of not caring whether AGW is real. However, that is a bit too Machiavellian for many people (including John S., I think), so while it may be a pragmatic answer to this quandary, it really isn't an honest one.

February, 19 2009

Jim Beyer says

Bob Ashworth,

You are incorrect. You CAN get more energy energy from the earth than hit it during a short period of time, because there is energy in the system (in the form of a heated earth) that has built up over time. A simple example of this is when it is nighttime on Earth, the temperature drops a few 10s of degrees. When it is nighttime on the moon, it drops hundreds of degrees. Why? Because the earth's atmosphere can recapture some of the emitted energy and reflect it back to the ground. It takes more TIME for that energy to leave.

Look how hot venus is. Much hotter than it "should" be, even though it is closer to the sun. It is hot because it has a thick atmosphere, and thus retains even more of the energy sent to it than the earth does.

February, 20 2009

Roger Arnold says

Mr. Ashworth,

OK, I read the whole of your article, and I see where Alan was getting his misinformation.

It's sad. Under other circumstances, the two of us would probably get along fine, and share much in common. I figure that anybody who refers to himself as "this old chemical engineer" can't be all bad. However, as the cards lay, I have to be the bad guy, and break the news that you have made a fool of yourself in public.

I somehow don't think you'll be thanking me for that. Ah, well.

Here's two bits worth of practical advice to forestall a recurrence: when you find what seems to you a screamingly obvious blunder in a work that has been vetted as carefully by as many credentialed scientists as the IPCC reports, your first thought should be "hmm, maybe I'm missing something here. What is this really saying?". Your second thought should be the same. And the third. Loop until the "aha!" moment hits.

Agree with them or not, the IPCC authors are not rank amateurs. They do not make elementary blunders involving the laws of thermodynamics. Go back and study your figure 8. The energy flows all balance -- as they must. I assure you that there is no violation of any law of thermodynamics. And yes, I did study the subject. The difference, apparently, is that I understood it.

It's not your fault, however. I doubt that you are naturally so arrogant as to make such a mistake on you own. You're a victim and unwitting tool of the denial machine. You've soaked up so much anti-IPCC nonsense that when you found something that struck you as a blunder, it didn't even occur to you to really think about it. You just took it as confirmation that, yep, those IPCC political appointees sure are dumb!

I'm sorry to say it, but you've been used, Mr. Ashworth.

February, 20 2009

Jim Beyer says

I've noticed that Roger is very rarely mistaken.

His comments are well-taken, especially the 4th and 5th paragraphs. There really aren't going to be obvious blunders. Science is a competitive business and huge mistakes as proposed by Mr. Ashworth would mostly likely have been picked up by others. (That being said, I do think the Scientific community has been very lax in explaining the problems with the hydrogen economy, so they are not flawless by any means....)

I think what's telling about this, and about ourselves, if we are honest, is how reasonable people like Mr. Ashworth and Mr. Caruba can be swayed by belief over objectivity to find themselves in untenable positions. Let me be clear, BOTH sides are guilty of this (pro-AGW and the AGW-skeptics). I've had countless professors (about AGW) say "The debate is over." Well, maybe. But if it really was, then they wouldn't have to say that, would they? You don't hear too many people saying the debate is over on the theory of gravity, for example. They don't need to. What I think they are really saying is "Look, we really, really, think AGW is real; but it's a complex subject that is difficult to convey to the lay person. But it's real, I assure you."

While that position may rightfully be considered arrogant and not a little paternalistic, efforts by laypersons to dig up contrarian evidence inevitably end up like Mr. Ashworth. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AGW SKEPTICS DON'T SEE HOW BAD THEIR COUNTER ARGUMENTS ARE. I really don't. That mystifies me. I'm sure Alan Caruba is a bright person. He should've been able to see that Mr. Ashworth's paper was highly problematic. But he didn't. I'm left to believe he was looking for counter-evidence, and then didn't question it when he thought he saw it.

Even John Sutherland applauded the paper, though he is much brighter than that and has never used arguments so simplistic to advance his beliefs.

Gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any here) we HAVE to avoid that mindset. We HAVE to adhere to facts, as far as we can see them. We HAVE to be self-critical at all times.

One doesn't have to be objective, but one should be aware of one's leanings. (Ironically, I've found that keeps one on an even keel better than simply assuming one is being objective when most of the time, one is not.)

There is something about this topic, AGW. I can't count how many people I've talked to on both sides of the subject drift into a belief system and ignore contrarian evidence or concerns. These are ordinarily, biright, objective people on other matters. It mystifies me. I can only believe that many of these people have already made up their minds, one way or another, and thus filter all information (good or otherwise) to support their mindset.

It's a huge problem. As I've said earlier, it is important to get AGW RIGHT, and this is not a good way of doing it. The skeptics are sloppy with their evidence (much, much worse than anything they ascribe to the IPCC) and the Scientists are sloppy about conveying the complexities and uncertainties on this subject. (Uncertainties about the particulars, but not uncertainty about the overall concern.)

We all have to act and think better on this topic.

February, 20 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Malcolm,

Plug-in electric vehicles are the only hope of keeping automobiles and trucks on our roads if you agree fossil fuel sources will eventually die. In my opinion we WILL get them, no IFs or doubts about it, but it just might take a long time yet to see millions of them.

I am betting we will also get much more nuclear stations on the grid, but I am not so bearish on solar and wind as you are. There are plenty of examples of residential solar systems in practice now that can make a house self sufficient, and even sell excess capacity back into the grid during daylight hours. Local utilities including my own have special arrangements to accommodate customers who have local micro-generators of any kind. The ONLY barrier to mass marketing of privately-owned micro-generators on more residential sites currently is their cost. But commercial costs have a way of coming down over time for many examples of new technologies, I know because I have lived in an industry that this happens to routinely, especially when more R&D money is continually pumped into them as they are being today. Concentrated solar panels and combined heat and power micro-generators have huge potential for lower cost residential applications.

I wouldn't worry though, the grid and large central nuclear stations will never be replaced by widespread micro-generation. We will still need them for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow for extended periods. The difference will be many consumers won't depend on them full time anymore as we do now.

February, 20 2009

Bob Ashworth says

Roger Arnold:

What course in thermo did you take where you found you could get more energy out than you put into a system. As I said the energy balances do balance but they are based on the presumption of re-radiated energy. This graph was not originally in the IPCC analysis, it was put in later based a graph by a couple of guys from Colorada. It clearly violates the first and second laws of themodynamics.

The IPCC may not be rank amateurs but they are not good scientists. If you develop a computer model you check it against real data. They don't.

Before I wrote this paper I wrote a paper on CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming. It has been peer reviewed and will be published in Chemical Engineering Progress in the June 2009 edition and will also be published by a Univeristy in India. Both the natural warmers and the CO2 warmers missed the ozone reduction effect. You have heard the earth warmed abnormally from the mid sixties to say 1998 and has cooled since then (CFCs banned by Montreal Protocol). Coincidentally the CO2 was increasing as well during that period and many got confused and thought it was CO2 causing the warming. It was not. The IPCC made a big deal out of the earth warming but failed to also tell us that the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere cooled almost three times as much as the earth-lower troposhpere warmed over that period. I completed mass and energy balances around the earth - lower troposphere and compared them to the lower stratosphere- upper troposphere and found that the energy not being absorbed in the upper atmosphere was enough to warm up the earth some 0.5C over that period (the total warming seen).

I have people attacking me but they never give specifics in the data I present showing where I am wrong, usually they just attack me personally. At least you questioned one point. What else in the data I presented do you think is wrong. If someone finds something let me know. If I am wrong, I wll change it. Science to me is a search for truth and that is all it is.

I was not influenced by others to the point I would mimic what they were saying. I do listen to others opinions and if I am convinced they are right I will support them. I wrote the CFC paper before I interfaced with anyone. You can read an earlier version of what will be published in CEP on a website that is based on truth in philosphy and science. http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm

Jim Breyer also wrote: "It is equal in importance to the survival of all life on Earth as oxygen." This is not actually true. Both Venus and Mars are lifeless, or nearly so. Both have CO2 atmospheres.

Jim - Mars and Venus have little to no water there so no plants grow and thus no animals are there either. Plants absorb CO2. In combination with UV light and through a process called photosynthesis create carbohydrates and liberate oxygen so animals can live and survive on earth. In case you don't know photosynthesis is also an endothermic reaction (heat absorbing - a cooling reaction)

February, 20 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Malcolm,

Martin Rosenburg's "Say You Want A Revolution" blog on the EnergyCentral blogs page today quote;

US federal Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. "ITEM: $7,500 - $12,500 - the size of tax credits available for plug-in electric vehicles, from the same Act. HELLO! Any one doubt that plug-ins are on the way - BIG TIME."

Get ready Malcolm, the demands on the grid are going to skyrocket. Let's hope and pray we can manage the growing grid demand with Smart Grid technology, or alternatively build new generation fast enough to handle it all. Otherwise you can look forward to using your toilets in the dark when rolling blackouts hit us down the road at peak times.

February, 20 2009

Len Gould says

Bob Ashworth: "Ever take a course in thermodynamics?" -- Yes.

February, 20 2009

Len Gould says

Bob Ashworth: "As I said the energy balances do balance but they are based on the presumption of re-radiated energy. This graph was not originally in the IPCC analysis, it was put in later based a graph by a couple of guys from Colorada. It clearly violates the first and second laws of themodynamics. " -- Suggest you follow the excellent advice of Roger Arnold above.

And one of the very best days I've had in many years was the day several years ago when I first encountered (on PhysOrg.com newssite) the theory that cosmic rays could be a (to then ignored) significant balancing factor in earth's climate. The theoretical arguments were very carefully presented, very solid science and it looked to me like this single item might have the potential to allow me to significantly re-formulate my concerns regarding AGW and GHG's. Alas, that hope too proved false.

If anyone comes up with additional solid science that can cause me to drop my concerns, I will in an instant.

February, 20 2009

Jim Beyer says

I've taken a course in thermodynamics as well. Two, in fact. Plus grad level heat transfer and fluid dynamics.

And Bob, I DID refute your claims specifically. You failed to account for the residual heat that is present on the planet that can produce the re-radiation. The numbers DO work.

And there's plenty of water on mars. If the frozen water was allowed to melt, half of mars would be oceans.

I'm sorry, but you are just digging yourself in deeper on this one.

February, 20 2009

Len Gould says

"Old Chemists never die: they reach thermodynamical equilibrium" (unknown).

February, 20 2009

David Bush says

I commend Alan Caruba for his article, if nothing else, he does stimulate discussion on a topic.

February, 20 2009

Bob Ashworth says

Len:

I have debunked every aspect of the IPCC premise that CO2 is cauisng global warming. You and Roger believe you can get more energy out of a system than you put in. Okay, you buy into re-radiation. What other actual data I presented do you disagree with. What solid scientific data I presented do you believe is wrong.

1) Do you agree with Gore that CO2 increased and then the global temperature increased? The actual data plots when put on the same graph shows just the opposite.

2) Do you believe that the temperature fluctuations on earth do correlate with CO2 concentrations. What actual data presented do you think is wrong?

3) Do you believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is long-lived. You don't believe that CO2 cycles with the northern hemisphere growing season?

4) Do you disagree that the earth has cooled from 1998 and not warmed as the IPCC computer models predict? Actual temperature measurements show cooling, not warming.

5) Do you disagree with the small contribution of CO2 that man emits compared to nature? This was from an IPCC study.

6) You believe that a greenhouse signature is there in the atmosphere. The temperature measurements taken show a signature most like that for ozone depletion - no hot spot is found.

What I presented is solid science.

Jim: You have only commented on the re-radiation issue, please comment on the items above as well. If your re-radiation is correct then you., Roger and Len should get together and make a perpetual motion machine. How do you calculate the residual heat in the earth. Please send me those calculations along with the T^4 radiation calculations for heat transfer by radiation at the various temperatures.

Here in Houston it may be 70F in the day then 35F at night. Do you do those calculations minute by minute or hour by hour averaging all of the temperatures from around the world. You can get a 30 degree drop in temperature in a couple of hours, can't be much residual heat here on the earth for that to occur.

Ice is not useful to plant growth Jim. Plants use water in photosynthesis, not ice. Plants also don't grow in -50 oC environments that i am aware of. Maybe if you did dig deeper maybe you could pick up the heat in the soil, create water and grow plants in the sparse atmosphere there.

Pardon my sarcasm, are you living in Gore's virtual reality like the IPCC has opted for?

February, 20 2009

Jim Beyer says

Bob,

No.

Enough is enough. No. I will not comment on more of your points. Why? Because there is no end to it. But refuting one should be enough.

Roger was kind enough to comment on your mis-guided notions with some gentleness, but now you simply come back with more ravings and denials.

One can't have a reasonable discourse with an unreasonable person. If and when you wish to become reasonable, let me know.

OK, one more point: annual CO2 variation. Yes, the growing season does take some CO2 out of the air annually, and the fall die-off returns it back. But if you see by the numbers, only a small portion is removed. So yes, it's possible that a single molecule of CO2 can be emitted and then re-absorbed in only one year, or even one day, for that matter. But statistically, the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is something like 30-90 years.

Based on your own paper, about 5 ppm of CO2 variation occurs from a baseline of about 385 ppm. So Let's do the math. 5 ppm goes in in the Fall. It is mixed with the 380 ppm already there, so it makes up 5/385 or 0.01298 of the CO2. Following me so far? The next Summer, 5 ppm comes out. But of that 5 ppm (randomly selected) only 0.01298 of it is going to be from the Fall, or a total of 0.065 ppm (4.935 ppm is from the rest of the CO2 atmosphere that was already there.) So it looks like it will take 5/0.065 = 76 years for all of that 5 ppm of emitted CO2 from the Fall to be fully removed from the atmosphere (based on a crude linear approximation in this simplified example). Hmm, looks like the IPCC might be more right after all. Big surprise......

February, 20 2009

Jim Beyer says

Lest we find Mr. Ashworth's absurd claims amusing, remember Voltaire:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

February, 20 2009

Bob Ashworth says

Jim: No, the real reason is you can not refute the other data. Your analysis is too simplistic to mean anything. You must take into account the growth in CO2 concentration over a year. It has averaged around 1.7 ppmv increase per year from 1998 to 2008. Of that according to the IPCC data man's contribution was only 3% x 1.7 ppmv or 0.015 ppmv. The CO2 increase in the fall and the decrease in the spriing is nearly the same, around 5-8 ppmv. Your analysis tells you nothing about how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere, because if it is increasing every year as it has been any prediction about length of time is meaningless. As it does increase each year plant growth follows suit and more CO2 is removed. Since CO2 concentration does not correlate with the earth's temperature at all, although an interesting discussion it really means nothing to the global warming debate.

I believe the CO2 is being increased by the metlting of the permafrost. Researchers that investigated this estimated the release of methane carbon at 100 times that of anthropogenic emissions. It had been tied up in the permafrost for 10,000 years before destruction of ozone caused the Arctic and Antarctic to warm up over twice (1.2 C) that for the average earth temperature rise.

I too am tired of the banner. This is my last posting. Sorry I confused some of you with real data measurements; stay with the GI-GO IPCC computer modeling if you choose. However, Truth alone triumphs. More and more scientists are awakening from their slumber on CO2 warming and those that have supported this farce for their own personal gain one day will be discredited and trusted nevermore. As well it should be!

February, 20 2009

Jeff Presley says

I have literally been sitting on my hands in this discussion because I frankly have better things to do with my time. Furthermore my company now has a newly issued patent that is predicated on the political reality that CO2 mitigation is necessary. That said, I remain a skeptic on the basis of precisely what Jim talks about in his posts, ESPECIALLY the hubris of "the debate is over" crowd. NOTHING could be further from the truth, in fact the "debate" has been smothered wherever and however possible, which is what guarantees for me the fact that this is NOTHING about science and everything about politics.

To use your own quote against you Jim, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." FULLY applies against the AGW crowd! We've already seen mass starvation and food riots caused by redirection of corn and other crops from the food chain to the fuel chain in the name of stopping global warming. If that isn't an atrocity, I'd like to know what is. Or should we wait until hospitals start losing patients because their power is too unpredictable to support life sustaining equipment?

It is furthermore interesting that your super-cynical critical mind goes into full gear when you're reading arguments AGAINST AGW but goes on hiatus when reading the so-called science FOR AGW! I've pointed you time and again to Watts Up with That website and climateaudit.org which you've pointedly ignored. Where's the critical thinking when you're reading about corrupted data, missing data, refusal to release supporting data and on and on and on? Oh that's right, by NEVER going there you NEVER have to pollute your prejudice with contrary FACTS.

THIS is what the skeptics are pointing to and all you and Roger and Len can say is it is backed by "scientists" who are peer reviewed? What happens when the peer review process falls flat on its face, what happens when they don't even follow their own published standards? When McIntyre requests from a peer reviewed publication release of the source documents and data, why do they constantly refuse even though they REQUIRE all of that and more from McIntyre when he (usually unsuccessfully) attempts to get one of his own article published there? He is doing what they are SUPPOSED TO BE DOING and they are furious with him for it!

I admire the honesty and pragmatism of Banks and Rawlingson, because they are at least men enough to admit they like the potential outcome enough to not worry about the means. But my worry is if garbage "science" is allowed to pollute the political waters in THIS case, even if the outcome could be beneficial in THIS instance (possibly more nuclear) will we be so lucky the next time? This is why debate is NOT to be muzzled, and why we need to take science back to the "scientific method".

Finally Jim, Bob asked legitimate questions AFTER you attacked him and your response is to attack again? Too bad, what respect I was starting to give you is rapidly diminishing. Be a man, answer the questions or concede the points, this is how it works in debate.

February, 20 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

If you really want, I will answer the other questions if Bob concedes the points that I have already made, namely:

1) The Figure 8 graph from his paper does NOT violate any thermodynamic laws, Bob is mistaken.

2) CO2 DOES reside in the atmosphere for 50-90 years or whatever, like the IPCC says; Bob is mistaken.

February, 20 2009

Len Gould says

I would also point out that it is absurd to propose that there is some sort of conspiracy underway to compromise every known principle of science simply in the interests of whimsy.

"I've pointed you time and again to Watts Up with That website and climateaudit.org which you've pointedly ignored. Where's the critical thinking when you're reading about corrupted data, missing data, refusal to release supporting data and on and on and on? Oh that's right, by NEVER going there you NEVER have to pollute your prejudice with contrary FACTS. "

I've seen more reliable stuff supporting that other great paranoid conspiracy theory, that the world trade centre buildings were brought down by pre-planted explosives.

Jim and I above have CLEARLY pointed out, a glaring error in Bob's referenced paper regarding earth atmospheric energy balance., and get nothing in response except ravings about conspiracy.

ENOUGH!

February, 20 2009

Len Gould says

Sorry, I also should have acknowledged Bob's attempt at an "appeal to authority" argument regarding his supposed superiority with thermodynamics.

BTW, if you're looking for additional items in the referenced paper which should be corrected, please repair the claim that "ice age warming begins before GHG increases". If you'd included the historic curves for atmospheric methane levels as well as CO2, you would see that GHG level increases clearly preced each abrupt melting at the end of each ice age. Obviously some trigger occurs at 120,000 year intervals (likely Milankovitch cycle changes) to initiate an increase in the GHG methane levels in the atmosphere, triggering a DRAMATIC global increase in temperatures which then either by warming the oceans thus releasing more CO2 or thawing bog permafrost and undersea clathrates releasing further methane which is then converted to CO2, initiates a feedback cycle which rapidly completely removes the continental glaciers from nearly all land masses.

The timing of the methane curves (leading the warming) is what is decisive, and it is deliberate deception to leave them off.

BTW, taking earth atmosphere's CO2 levels from 280 ppmv to 500 ppmv with fossil fuel CO2 SHOULD be just as capaable of such triggering as the very slight inputs of the Milankovitch orbital variations. The lastest report of a research vessel which sailed accros northern Russia last summer indicated they discovered huge areas of the artic ocean where methane is directly bubbling to the surface....

February, 20 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Well, well, Mr. Ashworth, you seemed to have overlooked how complex our climate behavior really is. While you and Alan have been busy trying to discredit the warming effects of CO2, you both forgot all about methane. But thanks to Len, and Jim, we are all a little better educated now. And so are our political leaders already educated. Just yesterday president Obama visited Canada, and during his very brief discussions with our prime minister Stephen Harper, both countries' leaders are committed to doing something about climate change, and carbon emissions management is among the biggest blips on their radar screens. The AGW debate will soon morph into just how carbon emissions management will unfold commercially, and the scientific studies will have been viewed as having done a good job directing public policies on energy.

Start preparing yourself Bob and Alan for a more fossil-free future for energy. If I were you guys, I wouldn't waste time writing articles like this one or publishing papers on CO2. A more useful subject to write about would be on ideas for capturing the methane trapped under the ocean floors that is now escaping.

February, 21 2009

James Carson says

Jim Beyer << Lest we find Mr. Ashworth's absurd claims amusing, remember Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." >>

I recalled Voltaire myself when contemplating the disastrous consequences of ethanol mandates. I still wonder how many children suffered hungry nights because their supper ended up in somebody's gas tank. THAT is an atrocity.

February, 21 2009

Roger Arnold says

At the risk of prolonging a discussion that probably ought to be allowed a dignified death, I'm going to take the time to address a few of Bob Ashworth's points.

The link to Mr. Ashworth's paper isn't working this morning, and I don't see it listed in the articles at the 'ilovemycarbondioxide' home page. Not sure what's happening there, but I had no trouble finding other copies of the same figure. I'm curious as to how Mr. Ashworth, while conceding that the energy flows all balance, can continue to insist that the figure shows the earth radiating more energy than it receives. It shows 492 watts / m^2 absorbed at the surface -- 168 from incoming solar and 324 from the atmosphere ("back radiation"). And it shows 492 watts / m^2 leaving the surface -- 390 by surface radiation, 78 by evapo-transpiration, and 24 by thermal convection. So where's this alleged violation?

One of the more annoying misrepresentations in the paper was its pretense that the annual fluctuation in CO2 levels in the Keeling record is news to the IPCC, and that it is somehow supposed to refute claims of anthropogenic origin for increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The annual fluctuation, small in percentage terms, was noticed from the beginning and was one of the most striking features of the record. Keeling's measurements were the first to have the precision and repeatability to reveal that "breath of Gaia". In the chemical methods that were used before Keeling assembled his equipment, those fluctuations would have been completely lost in the measurment noise.

The fluctuations are due to seasonal variations in the rate of photosynthesis in the Northern hemisphere. What's significant, however, is not the fluctuations, but the fact that each year, the peak and the trough are a bit higher than they were the year before. That's evident even in the short 10-year chart used in Ashworth's paper to show the supposed non-correleation between average global temperatures and CO2 levels. So atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing. The annual increase comes to about 50% of the annual output of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels and production of cement.

As to the utter nonsense about the non-existence of the greenhouse effect, Ashworth can be grateful that he's wrong. Because without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice.

Or perhaps he wishes to challenge the measured value of the Stefan-Boltzman constant?

February, 21 2009

Jim Beyer says

James wrote:

"I recalled Voltaire myself when contemplating the disastrous consequences of ethanol mandates. I still wonder how many children suffered hungry nights because their supper ended up in somebody's gas tank. THAT is an atrocity."

I find this comment a bit disingenuous. Although I am not a fan of ethanol for lots of reasons, efficiency being one of them, using the image of starving children to critique ethanol mandates is misplaced. If one wished to use that argument, then one should simply cite the tremendous resource use of the West and the developed world in general. Then one need not stop at ethanol, but one could also point to bottled water, suburbia, the car culture in general, and the consumer need to eat oranges in January.

On the other hand, at what point does the prospect of starving children not simply be an issue of resource distribution, but also one of population limits as well? As we scorpions continue to multiply within this fixed size bottle, we will experience more problematic issues such as ethanol mandates. But it might not be a bad idea to try to note the larger problem as well, and not just the specific symptom.

February, 21 2009

Jim Beyer says

Roger,

Bob's concern was that the re-radiation seemed to be creating energy out of whole cloth. He didn't understand where it came from in the first place.

Also, it was only a few years ago that climatologists determined that the other 50% of the CO2 produced by fossil fuels and cement production where being absorbed by the oceans.

February, 21 2009

James Carson says

Beyer << I find this comment a bit disingenuous.... using the image of starving children to critique ethanol mandates is misplaced. >>

My comment is not 'disingenuous' at all. Government ethanol mandates led DIRECTLY to massive increases in the price of all grains, especially corn. The price of a basic meal in the poorest regions of the world doubled and tripled, pushing millions from the margin into severe hunger. We have even seen food riots.

On the other hand, none of those other activities you mentioned has caused any such consequence. How has bottled water led to any impact on the poor? Has it raised the price of water? Has my SUV led to any consequence, other than employment for somebody? In fact, my desire to eat oranges in January contributes to the well being of an orange grower somewhere, enabling him to feed his children bread.

I also remind you that it was you who brought up Voltaire's quip. I merely pointed out that implementing the environmentalist agenda has already led to atrocities.

<< On the other hand, at what point does the prospect of starving children not simply be an issue of resource distribution, but also one of population limits as well? >>

Your question presumes a zero-sum world. As I pointed out above, my desire for oranges in January has led to negative consequences for none, and employment for whomever grows the oranges.

February, 21 2009

Jeff Presley says

Bob Ashworth has already begged out of this "discussion". He called it bantering (actually typo'd banner) but his point was well made. Since you didn't respond properly to his questions and since he'd had enough of the ad hominems personally directed, I can't really blame him. Nor is it my purview to defend his paper, I'm sure he can adequately do that in the journal in which it is to be published and not here against you amateurs. I can state that I work with two Phd's in Chemical Engineering and there is NO ONE who can hold a candle to them in thermodynamics. Chem E's LIVE and DIE by thermodynamics, ALL their work deals with heat flows and they can shut you down with Navier Stokes understanding. I haven't looked closely at the 492 watts in and out problem, but can state with certainty that there is NO REAL SYSTEM where energy in EQUALS energy out, yet alone improves. Energy doesn't get created and the supposed CO2 effect is anything but perfectly efficient. A CO2 laser which is PURE CO2 can only achieve about 30% efficiency, usually less, even far less. Add impurities and the efficiency goes down to .1% pretty quickly. What do you call impurity levels when the ratio of CO2 is down to 385 ppm?

The scientific method states that you make an observation, verify that observation, create a hypothesis, devise an experiment and formulate a theory. In the case of climate AGW, the observations were flawed, the hypothesis PRECEDED the observation (see Arrhenius), no experiments have been conducted (replaced instead by computer "models") and theory shoved down everyone's throats even though a few of the "steps" have been skipped. Those of us from the "old school" take umbrage at this. Jim can call us old geezers if he likes, but a lot of his world has been created and sustained by the science created by the old geezer crowd, and he damn well better be appreciative of it, before he finds out that his button pushing generation doesn't really understand what they're doing as they produce incorrect answers to the 14th decimal place.

Roger, I generally respect you when you talk about electricity, but you should stay at home in this argument. The other side of the moon coin is that the DAYTIME temp exceeds 120C, where on earth does THAT happen? Therefore there is an obvious ameliorative effect from the atmosphere too. Were it to only heat, why aren't we having this discussion at a balmy 400C? I further guarantee that if I can spin the moon fast enough, I could settle on some pretty comfortable temperatures, even without an atmosphere. In fact our satellites do precisely this.

The misnomer of the greenhouse effect is that no consideration is made of the FACT that there are no WALLS on our "greenhouse". Without sidewalls a greenhouse is MEANINGLESS. That was the thrust of the German scientists paper that we discussed six months ago. EXPERIMENT would quickly demonstrate that even if you put up a nice thick glass roof on your greenhouse and constructed it to re-emit radiation, without the sidewalls you don't get to heat the air beneath, convection and conduction currents make sure of that. Climate "scientists" use Navier Stokes equations in their GHC models, but don't understand them the way Chem E's do, and so don't know how to establish proper boundary conditions. Furthermore, unlike climate scientists, Chem E's are eventually bound to actually ACCOMPLISH something, like an industrial process, so they follow up their simulations with actual EXPERIMENT, and then scale up to production levels. Again something climate "scientists" can't even imagine accomplishing.

NUFF SAID

February, 21 2009

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Jeff.

"before he finds out that his button pushing generation doesn't really understand what they're doing as they produce incorrect answers to the 14th decimal place"

Superbly put.

These wonderfully creative computer models presumably have the same basis as the ones used to routinely create our 5 day weather forecast wrongly.

If we can't forecast the waether even a few days out with anything more than a 50-50 probability please don't any one tell me we can do it 50 years out.

As you say Jim these models simply create the wrong answer to the umpteenth decimal place. Because that is the mentality of the people that create them. And the politicians know that no one else (particularly them) understands any thing at all about the climate of the earth then you have the perfect mix of making fortunes anmd getting political power by scaring the public half to death.

Malcolm

February, 21 2009

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Bob - sorry to burst the bubble of electric vehicles but I do not see them coming any time soon. Investing massive amounts of government or any one elses money does not guarantee a result.

Ballard Power has invested Billions into hydrogen fuel cells...do you see any on the road. NO. There is not a single hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in mass production. Major technical problems abound. Like the cells cannot withstand the high vibrations levels of roadways...they are still VERY expensive to produce and don't last very long. The there is the slight problem of finding a handy dandy hydrogen supply in the middle of the Prairies.

So don't equate billions of dollars spent to successful results when it comes to electric vehicles. Electrical energy storage is a major technical hurdle to overcome and we have been trying to do it for well over 100 years with almost no major progress beyond the lead acid battery.

While I would really like to see electric vehicles - I am not holding my breath. We will see short range hybrids but they will still use gasoline.

My preferred vehicle is natural gas. It doesn't require any technical breakthrough. Petrol engines work great on methane gas and we can make methane from electrolysis of hydrogen and combining it with any carbon based material. An ideal base load fit for nuclear.

That makes much more sense to me. And there is a methane gas infrastructure already.

Malcolm

February, 21 2009

Alan Caruba says

Jeepers, creepers! If it ain't CO2 that we should worry about, then we better start worrying about methane. And if ain't methane, then it will be some other scary gas.

It's a scam, guys. The desperate efforts to disparage the science put forth by Bob Ashworth is evidence enough of that.

Global warming? Global cooling? How'bout you guys check out the SUN as a possible factor, eh? How about known cycles of reoccurring ice ages?

Who are the real deniers of the science? Al Gore, James Hansen, and some folks here.

February, 21 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

I really urge you to look at Figure 8 on his paper:

Ashworth Paper

There is NO thermodynamic problem with the diagram. Bob is mistaken. We've had our differences in the past, but I really don't think this is something you should hitch your wagon to.

Also, Bob Ashworth never said this paper (linked above) was going to be published. It's his paper "CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming", that's going to be published.

All the diagram is really saying is that if you have an atmosphere, the heat takes longer to dissipate from a planet. The atmosphere is an insulator. That's ALL it was trying to show. We can see this is the case because of the extremes of temperature one that are present on the moon (no atmosphere) vs. the moderate swings experienced on Earth (atmosphere); yet they are the same distance from the sun.

Jeff states further:

"I can state that I work with two Phd's in Chemical Engineering and there is NO ONE who can hold a candle to them in thermodynamics."

Then show them the paper. I'd be very curious about what they think of it.

"I haven't looked closely at the 492 watts in and out problem...."

You should.

"...but can state with certainty that there is NO REAL SYSTEM where energy in EQUALS energy out, yet alone improves."

I have no argument with you on this point.

February, 21 2009

Jim Beyer says

James Carson,

Point well taken. And yes, Voltaire's quip applies to everyone.

February, 21 2009

Roger Arnold says

Jeff,

You're confusing energy and work. Energy in and energy out are ALWAYS equal; that's the first law of thermodynamics. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed". (Well, that was pre-"E=mc^2", but it still holds if you're not dealing with matter-energy conversions.)

It's WORK out that is always less than energy in; that's the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's where you get into the whole "capacity of energy to do work" business, with Carnot efficiencies and "quality of energy" considerations. And just what wierd connection do you imagine between atmospheric CO2, the greenhouse effect, and laser efficiency? There IS none -- short of the quantum mechanics that accounts for absorption and emission coefficients.

I further guarantee that if I can spin the moon fast enough, I could settle on some pretty comfortable temperatures, even without an atmosphere.
Actually, not all that comfortable. It would be about negative 15 C, if I recall. That's the average temperature of a spinning sphere at 1 AU, when its average albedo is about the same at visible and thermal IR wavelengths. You can shift the temperature up if you paint it with something that is blackish at visible wavelengths, but highly reflective at thermal IR. Or down, if your paint is highly reflective at visible wavelenghts, and highly absorbtive / emissive at thermal wavelengths.

February, 22 2009

Jeff Presley says

Roger, wrong, this is why you're not a Chem E. The movement of heat ALONE is all that is necessary, and that movement will LOSE energy. Yes, it can all be accounted for, but no it is not "equal" as you describe it. The first law of thermodynamics was immediately found to be flawed because it didn't account for REALITY. This is why the second law was formulated, heat gets lost to the surrounding environment (when work is being performed and achieves an absolute entropy fairly quickly when heat is the desired product). In fact Carnot himself was an early theorist and formulated the basis of the 2nd law and what became the third. His formula: e = 1 - TL / TH proved that you would need absolute zero (Kelvin) to achieve full efficiency and such a state is not possible (see Snow below).

The British scientist and author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws:

1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).

2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

The laser discussion is to try to bring home the point that the theorists are claiming about CO2 in the first place. They claim the same quantum mechanics you allude to, and yet ignore the vast inefficiencies of same. In fact as a thought exercise, you should look at this the other way. Why can't you make a CO2 laser MORE efficient that 30%? Where is the extra energy going? This is why the CO2 experiment I keep asking for is ignored by the climate scientists, they already know how it is going to turn out, and it is far less doom and gloom than they desire; headlines like, "CO2 may contribute a minute fraction of heat energy to the environment" aren't going to sell many papers.

February, 22 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

How is this for a scam, Alan, courtesy of your favorite presidential candidate. Promising to keep wars going for a hundred years in order to obtain victories that were actually obtained 5 or 6 years ago.

Incidentally, occasionally I have dreams (of a sort) about staying in Chicago and teaching thermodynamics or strength of materials, but even if work out cannot equal energy in, the breeder must come close...or do I fail thermodynamics too.

February, 22 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

You are wrong, Roger is right. No energy is ever "lost". Exergy is lost and entropy is increased. And once again, you bring up lasers and C.P. Snow, but you don't address the simple issues brought by my 2 points on Feb. 20. You won't even look at the paper that we are critiquing!!

This is why it is pointless to debate you (and many other AGW skeptics); rather than address the point at hand, you expand the rhetoric to include other unrelated issues, in an effort to paper over a mistake you either will not admit to, or don't even seem to understand. (I'm not sure what's worse.)

I'm sure at some point you and Alan will claim another victory and then go home. However, impartial 3rd party readers may think otherwise.

P.S. I don't know what your CO2 laser reference even has to do with the atmosphere. A CO2 laser is excited with ELECTRICAL energy (100% exergy) and apparently 30% of that energy can be emitted as light. The rest would be emitted as some kind of heat. What does this have to do with AGW? There is no electrical excitation of CO2 in the atmosphere, as I am aware of.

February, 22 2009

Roger Arnold says

Roger, wrong, this is why you're not a Chem E. The movement of heat ALONE is all that is necessary, and that movement will LOSE energy.
LOL!

You know, Jeff, one of the frequent points of the anti-AGW crowd with which I have always had some sympathy is that it's hard to get the IPCC supporters to address the issues "on their merit". Instead, they resort to "appeals to authority" and put-downs of "you simply don't know what you're talking about". Now here you come, asserting that because I'm not a Chem E, I'm unqualified to recognize what does or does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Well, I am beginning to understand the frustration that causes so many IPCC supporters to throw up their hands and refuse to engage.

I recommend against it, but if you must judge arguments on the basis of the credentials of their proponents, you should know that I was a physicist before I got into computer science and microprocessor architectures. I may not use it in my professional work, but I can assure you that a thorough understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is imprinted deeply in my brain cells.

You should also know that I'm not in the habit of writing about matters that I don't understand in a manner that would suggest that I do. That's close to the ultimate sin in my personal value scheme, and one of the few things that will reliably trigger my anger when I encounter it from others.

February, 22 2009

Len Gould says

If the fact that atmospheric methane is also a GHG of concern in this duscussion is news to you, Alan, then you certainly have no business writing about this topic.

February, 23 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

I don't think that Alan will go home, Jim. Instead I think that he will proceed to the anti-AGW gig being organized by the Heartland Institute with hope in his heart of receiving their praise for putting a gang of what he would describe as AGW nutters in their place. Of course, what he should hope is that the above exchange of opinions - which is so much to his disfavor - is not printed out and copies placed alongside the peanuts and soft drinks at the Hearland's wecoming party, which is where a certain economist liked to put things when he was passing out uncomplimentary information about various subjects and persons.

As he has indicated above, or elsewhere, the good Alan thinks that I am one of those nutters. And he's right, because since I possess a conservative streak I have done everything possible to agree with some of the non-technical things that he says, given that the technical issues of this discussion have unfortunately moved out of my range.

But to no avail, because as they used to say when I was a boy, 'he wants me to go all the way'. And not just me, which is why we will find ourselves suffering more of his fanaticism.

.

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

As Jeff and Roger pointed out, the earth is a spinning ball with a certain reflectivity (albedo) and a with certain insulating cover of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Increasing the CO2 and other greenhouse gases will increase the surface temperature, but by how much? And at what rate? These are the questions that reasonable AGW skeptics (and believers, for that matter) should be asking.

It's not that complicated a problem conceptually. The devil is in the details, like many things.

February, 23 2009

John K. Sutherland says

and then, or course, there is that biggest heat sink of all - the oceans and seas - just sitting there and soaking up as much of that energy as it can, and not warming up nearly as much as the AGW alarmists are hoping it would have by now, so ignore those inconvenient ocean sensors of ARGOS. Also, ignore the inconvenient satellite measurements which are not playing ball either. Also, ignore the biggest heat transfer medium of all - water vapor; focus upon the minor things like carbon dioxide and whatever one can throw at methane. Ignore also the role of El Nino, la Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillations, ENSO, and numerous other major oceanic disturbances that are neither built into those jokes of models, nor are well understood or addressed in any understanding way by the IPCC. It's still like groping in the entrails of chickens for rational answers. Get the science pinned down first before we throw our entire future down the toilet running after every hysterical 'Sky is falling' pronouncement of the IPCC, Hansen, or politicians like Gore and other Dems. and some of those Reps. John.

February, 23 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Malcolm,

Even the initial short-range gasoline hybrids will be plug-in rechargeable. The Chevrolet Volt due out next year is already advertising its standard 120VAC wall plug cord for recharging, and that it will go the first 40 miles on a full charge before its gasoline engine starts up to take over charging the batteries. When consumers discover the huge cost difference between the electrical energy from their wall outlets and gasoline, you can bet everyone who gets one of these hybrids will use their wall plugs. After all the types of consumers that will initially buy these vehicles are precisely the ones looking to save money on their bills.

I will grant you that battery technology needs to make serious advancements before we see long range all-electric vehicles. There is huge investment going into battery R&D today, and agreed lots of money won’t guarantee breakthroughs but it's no different that playing lotteries - if you don't spend the money on them you are guaranteed to never win.

Maybe your suggestion of methane production from hydrogen electrolysis combined with carbon materials will buy some time as our oil runs out. Natural gas vehicles have been around for a long time now, and could become much more popular if gasoline prices skyrocket in future. But many in the industry think natural gas prices tend to mirror the oil markets, so I wouldn't count on it happening unless large numbers of methane production plants spring up along with the extra electricity generators to run them. I’ll bet it will take a huge crisis for this to happen because no one will want to build all those expensive plants. Heavens, getting more nuclear plants built just to handle our current electricity needs is like pulling teeth largely because no one really wants to spend on their huge capital costs.

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

Malcolm,

I would add that it's not applicable to compare the problems of hydrogen fuel cells to battery technology. While batteries aren't perfect yet, Toyota built a perfectly acceptable battery for their RAV4-EV, the EV-95. These batteries, built on NiMH technology, are still working today, after 120,000+ miles. One can reasonable argue the issue of costs, but a high volume manufacturing would likely have made these batteries cheap enough at least for PHEV applications. But Toyota was sued by GM/Cobasys and ceased making 95-amp-hour NiMH batteries.

Now everyone has their hopes pinned on Lithium Ion.....

I like NG vehicles too, especially when compared to hydrogen. Best bet is a tri-fuel (liquid fuel, NG, electricity) PHEV.

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

John,

Your vague diatribe about AGW doubts is no more helpful than the vague diatribes from the AGW fearmongers.

February, 23 2009

John K. Sutherland says

Jim, Your assinine comment tries to casually dismiss the most important chunks of climate influencing features on the planet, most, if not all of which are very poorly understood and do not figure into the IPCC scam.

This is like saying 'we have analysed a piece of this guy's toenail, so let's go ahead with the head transplant.

February, 23 2009

Bob Amorosi says

John,

Most of us thinkers on this website will acknowledge that the earth's climate behavior over time is very complex, influenced by many factors. There are no guarantees of anyone’s predictions far into the future. But, so what. All that matters now is two things. Our dependence on oil and all other fossil fuels will ultimately force us into alternatives because they will run out eventually, and cause a great deal of economic havoc along the way from their price run ups driven by growing demand, especially from the far east. Secondly, most of our political leaders are now firmly on a path to start the head transplant now because it will take decades to get us off our old ways of massive energy consumption. Anything faster is probably too disruptive, and carbon emissions management will be their tool to do so because you cannot deny CO2 is the common thread for any form off fossil fuel use. Any high-school chemistry course will teach that.

The anti-AGW people should wake up and see that our governments are not going to listen to them any longer, and will proceed with the head transplant whether they like it or not. Here in Ontario our provincial government is just today releasing its Green Energy Act legislation, further promoting incentives for more renewable energy sources electricity, and pressuring manufacturers of consumer goods to become more energy efficient (according to EnergyStar standards) as part of a bigger push onto consumers of a culture of conservation.

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

John,

I am not dismissing them. But launching into a huge new set of issues, when the anti-AGW will not even address the 2 basic points I made on Feb. 20, is, in my mind, avoidance own your part to coming to terms with problematic thinking. Address those two points and we can talk some more.

February, 23 2009

Len Gould says

John: 2008 Was Earth's Coolest Year Since 2000 Though this may seem, in title, to support your position, in fact the article states

"The GISS analysis found that the global average surface air temperature was 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the global mean for 1951 to 1980, the baseline period for the study. Most of the world was either near normal or warmer in 2008 than the norm. Eurasia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (see figures), while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average.

The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year, the research team noted. "

Simply taking ocean temperatures in isolation tells one very little.

February, 23 2009

Jeff Presley says

Roger, since you claim to be a physicist, I strongly encourage you to read the paper written by real physicists referenced here. But furthermore for EVERYONE present, I recommend reading the entire post of Feb 14th, 2008 wherein Herr Gerlich deals with his many castigators.

Since the tone of those referenced posts mimics the tone presented here, it is no surprise that pedigreed Phd's are reluctant to enter this kind of blogsphere to waste their substantial intellectual talents on the great unwashed. I READ their paper and I've had it peer reviewed by MY scientists, and it stands up to intense scrutiny. And before you disparage my scientists, recognize they have over 80 patents between them, and over 200 PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED papers on a variety of topics. Not to mention that in what passes for research nowadays, recently Lawrence Livermore Labs published a new paper which did nothing more than rehash and review a paper published by one of my colleagues almost 30 years ago.

Gerlich coined a new term, well a new etymology in saying the IPCC was engaged in nonsense (non-science). To put it bluntly, virtual climate research (Pierrhumbert and his buddies may call it "real climate" research) is nonsense (non-science). The thousands of publications reviewing the results of these computer games are not worth the papers they are printed on, not to mention the hardware, CPU times and memory. This is a man, a real scientist, calling a spade a spade, and God Bless him for doing so, the world needs more like him.

Jim, there's a reason I keep bringing up lasers, because I'm trying to dumb something down for this audience. Apparently I haven't dumbed it down enough. But since you're such an expert on the subject can you tell me where electromagnetism ends and light begins? And yes, this is a trick question.

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

So what of my two points of Feb. 20? Still no reply I see....

February, 23 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim if you're asking ME a question you'll have to ask ME the question here. I believe I already said defending Bob's paper wasn't my purview. Why don't you peruse the paper I referenced above, you'll likely find your answers there. Oh and you owe ME an answer since unlike when you were talking with Bob, I WAS asking YOU.

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

Here's the refutation of Jeff's new paper, also in the same archive. Neither has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (not that that should matter either way, right?)

Refutation of Gerlich and Tscheuschner

So can I assume by bringing forward some new paper that you are writing the Ashworth paper off as problematic, Jeff? Just wondering....

(Why rebut a critique when you can just jump to a new topic or a new paper?)

February, 23 2009

Roger Arnold says

Roger, since you claim to be a physicist, I strongly encourage you to read the paper written by real physicists referenced here. But furthermore for EVERYONE present, I recommend reading the entire post of Feb 14th, 2008 wherein Herr Gerlich deals with his many castigators.
OK. Read it. It's garbage.

I know that's not an answer that will satisfy you in any way, Jeff, but the time it would take to explain everything that's wrong with it is on the order of magnitude of the time it would take to write a good science textbook. I'll let you know if and when I do anything about it. Depends in part on what others have written, and how many people appear to be getting taken in by the paper. Guess I'll start by reading the refutation that Jim posted above.

February, 23 2009

Jeff Presley says

Quoting directly from a different blog, the following sums up my opinion also about these matters: Ted Annonson

Whenever I read something put out by the AGW crowd, it reminds me of the only thing I remember from my 1944 class in mathematical analysis which was the instructor saying— Hucksters often take true numbers and facts and present them in such a manner that it creates a false picture of reality. (Not his exact words, but–)

He then gave the following illustration

Three salesmen were late for a convention and had a hard time trying to find a room for the night. Finally at one hotel the clerk said he had one single room for $30.00 and he could have two more beds installed, so each of them would only pay $10.00.(3x$10.00=$30.00 Right?) Later the clerk started to think that maybe they payed too much for that crowded room, so he gave the bellboy $5.00 to divide among the three. Since $5.00 is not divisible evenly by three, the bellboy just gave each $1.00 and kept $2.00 for himself. This meant that each salesman only paid $9.00. ($10.00-$1.00=$9.00 Right?) But 3x$9.00=$27.00 plus the $2.00 that the bellboy make $29.00(Right?), So where did the other dollar go?

So, to summarize, figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.

Jim, your paper "proves" absolutely nothing, but like the example above leads us on a merry chase of self-sufficient equations tending in a wrong logical direction. Skipping all his math it is easy to summarize your Mr. Smith's paper as follows: Assume that the greenhouse effect is real. Do some equations. Call it a proof. Reiterate that the greenhouse effect is real.

Realize even many AGW scientists readily admit there isn't a greenhouse effect but call it a thought-model instead. They then proceed to pretend it is real nevertheless.

Roger, I await your textbook with interest. Meanwhile if I had the time I would prepare a treatise on what the term ENERGY actually means, I'd assumed it was fully understood, that being part of the name of this website, but apparently not. Reminder, heat is the lowest form of energy. After heat comes...

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

I guess proof is in the eye of the beholder. One could say the same thing about the Gerlich paper, that is: Assume the greenhouse effect is NOT real. Do some equations. Call it a proof. Reiterate that the greenhouse effect is not real. So I guess we are back where we started aren't we?

Hmm, sort of makes the notion of peer-reviewed papers more attractive all the time....

I would summarize Mr. Smith's paper as follows: Analyze temperatures of planets (non-moving, moving, with and without atmosperes, with and without varying albedos) to determine expected temperatures. Note that expected temperature of earth (and other planets with atmospheres) are quite a bit higher than this expectation. (Non-atmospheric planets not so much.) Conclude that atmosphere (all other things considered) plays some role in increasing ave. temp of planets. That is, math theory verified by observation.

The $2.00 is just the difference between what the salesmen paid ($27.00) and what the clerk thought they paid ($25.00).

February, 23 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim, the key difference is your Smith postulates about planets but offers no proofs, as identified in the scientific method by EXPERIMENT. The physicists DID setup simple experiments which immediately proved their point. Other experiments have followed. Pointing to a planet and saying, "I postulate this is what is happening" is no proof and no experiment can be setup. This is why real physics trumps climatology, the physicists are setting up super colliders and other experiments which prove or disprove their hypotheses.

Interestingly while looking into your Mr. Smith I found my own Mr. Smith. The difference is mine invented the CCD. Using some of the same logic including the temp ^ 4th your Smith did, my Smith came to a diametrically opposed conclusion.

And when it comes to the all important radiative cooling that is supposed to comprise the greenhouse effect and the CO2 influence; well black body radiation goes as the 4th power of temperature, not linearly with temperature, and since the earth’s emitted IR will be bounded by that of a black body at the same temperature; once again averaging the temperatures of different places achieves no useful knowledge. Over the ever present daily range from max to min surface temperatures on earth, the total surface emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude from Antarctic lows to desert highs. It would be closer to reality to take the fourth power of the measured temperatures before doing any averaging; but the planet earth doesn’t do that either. It applies the real laws of physics in real time to the instantaneous local conditions at every point on the planet, and it integrates the effect of all that in real time to eventually build up a climatic effect over time. So far as I can tell climate models do not even attempt to do what the planet itself does do. So as far as I am concerned, the whole methodolgy is as phony as a three dollar bill.

So you can argue about GISS and RISS etc all day, but none of it has anything to do with what planet earth is actually doing.

February, 23 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

Then why is Mercury (440K) so much colder than Venus (737K) despite being much closer to the sun? Don't say it's Mercury's albedo (.106) compared to Venus's (.65) because that alone wouldn't account for it.

February, 24 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

What happened to the excellent Bob Ashworth? Did by any chance he listen to Alan as to what kind of war goes on in this forum?

February, 24 2009

Len Gould says

Jeff: IF your latest post WERE correct, (and I don't think it is) it would still only argue that the models currently in use are not perfectly precise, not that GHG's have no effect on earth's average temperature. My concern is entirely based on the known and provable effects of GHG's on earth's average temperature, not so much on the results of any computer models. The likely range of error (I hesitate to use the word "error" at this point, in its scientific meaning, as many try to exploit that as well. Substitute "imprecision") merely put a range on the timing of the likely outcomes.

February, 24 2009

Len Gould says

BTW. Start with $30, hotel desk keeps $25, guests keep $3, bellhop keeps $2. All balances, confusion is just selected wording.

February, 24 2009

Jim Beyer says

It would be reasonable for AGW skeptics to question the amount of additional warming caused by some additional CO2. I would find that a very valid concern. And even all those additional feedbacks that John S. cited. All valid stuff.

But instead they propose stuff like greenhouse warming does not occur at all! What gives? It is almost as if these "technical" papers are not really playing to the technical crowd; but are more like props for AGW skeptics to wave in front of non-technical people. I hate to sound so jaded, but that's how I see it.

February, 24 2009

Jim Beyer says

So I noticed the NASA CO2 observing satellite just crashed on launch. Obviously a conspiracy on the part of the pro-AGW crowd to hide the truth. Or a conspiracy on the part of the anti-AGW crowd to hide the truth.

Gee, that poor satellite never had a chance.....

February, 24 2009

Jeff Presley says

How about the errant sensor on the satellite measuring the arctic ice? Let's see, they "misunderestimated" the size of the ice by around 190K sq miles? Shall we substitute the word, "imprecision" for an error the size of the state of California? An error that supported an invalid hypothesis and that was covered up until Climate Audit and others called them to task on it? Perhaps NASA blew up their own satellite to save themselves future embarrassment?

Jim, while we are trying to save what is left of science from the mob, let us drop altogether the words "greenhouse effect" and substitute what IS happening a blanket effect. The blanket effect of clouds and some gasses, will if persistent enough help trap the radiated energy. Note that for a long time the albedo effect kept the planet cooler, but without a means of escape warming was inevitable.

Now when we focus on blanket effect, as we should it becomes far more clear how desert temperatures cool off so rapidly at night even though they have that wonderful CO2 blanket that DOESN'T DO A DAMN THING all night, but on those rare occasions where there is sufficient cloud cover, lo and behold the nights are warmer! Imagine that!

Let's recap shall we? Clouds MASSIVE climate effect, CO2 PUNY climate effect. CO2 as a driver, apparently impossible to prove by experiment, but easy in the video games, er I mean climate software models, but unfortunately their predictive and historical abilities are nonexistent. Of course if we could just redefine that pesky term, imprecision, proofs will be a lot easier.

Len, "selected wording" EXACTLY! So when the AGW crowd puts out a clarion call about for instance acidification of the oceans (even though anyone with a saltwater aquarium can tell you that is impossible) and points to PH measures from 200 years before PH was invented as a concept (I guess they're time travelers too), well it just brings out the skeptic in me, I'll admit it. Selected wording indeed.

February, 24 2009

Peter Weigand says

While not an expert, it seems logical to me that most things that spew CO2 also spew other things along with it, so if we focus on emissions reductions in the name of CO2 or efficiency, reclycling, whatever flavor of "green" you choose, then that's a good thing.

So while I don't have multiple degrees in science to put forth a "learned" opinion, I don't think the whole CO2 argument really matters in the bigger picture. The consumer, business and government behavioral change train has already left the station, so perhaps this collection of 500 great minds can put them to use helping direct all of us unwashed masses into making the most of this instead of wasting time arguing if its true or not.

February, 24 2009

Patrick Mazza says

Very disappointing to see such garbage as part of a supposedly reputable site for energy professionals. The fact, verified by ice cores and other natural records, is that CO2 concentrations have increased by over 33% since the beginning of the industrial revolution 250 years ago, or for most of the last 700,000 years. The freewheeling use of such terms as "liars" and "hoax" signifies grand blovination. T I doubt that Europe and Japan, or major companies ranging from BP to Shell to 3M, would have engaged major CO2 reduction efforts on the basis of a hox.

February, 24 2009

Ronald Gramm says

The article says TRUTH right down to each and every sentance. I am encourafing everybody to go to www.exonerateco2.com and read it all. Most particulatly, scroll down to Page 178 and look at "Radio-Actoive-Free Water And Food" which explains WHY DOeEand The NRC , and our innocent Presidents hate CO2. I have 3 more pages I finished today and will e-mail them if you want. I am asking people to step forward and buy my delicious web site and make a book about it so I can get off the project and go back to my work on www.3-windows.com It seems like someone has been looking over my shoulder as you will see. Ronald

February, 24 2009

John Plodinec says

Alan's article is, in fact, very bad. However, I have to admit to wanting to curse both the pro's and the con's. There really are two issues - only one of which Alan addresses. 1. Is the earth warming? I can't see how anyone can argue with the data - the earth has warmed significantly over the last 40 yrs. We are seeing the effects in such direct measures as ocean temperatures and in indirect measures such as longer growing seasons, less snow melt... 2. Is CO2 the cause? Here, I think there can be serious disagreement. While one of the commenters mentioned the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout geologic history, he failed to also point out that CO2 is a lagging indicator - temperature rises and then CO2 concentration goes up. To me, a more logical explanation is simply that the global community's increased and increasing energy consumption (esp. in the developing countries) since the '70's has meant more waste heat going to the earth and oceans.

Given the certainty of 1, and the uncertainty of 2, I conclude that we simply do not have a basis for carbon-based policy remedies. What we can do - and I believe is justified - is start to greatly increase energy efficiency now. This will begin to address the problem whether CO2 is the cause or not. Rather than an economy-stifling cap-and-trade system, how about incentives to businesses and individuals to adopt energy efficient technologies (i.e., help to defray the capital costs). This will certainly work more rapidly than cap-and-trade, and will be the best kind of government policy - encouragement of markets instead of substitution of an intricate game for a real market.

February, 24 2009

Richard Vesel says

The Plain Truth About the Glorious Alan Caruba

Alan again reduces a complex scientific issue to attack rhetoric rubbish, complete with pseudo-science website references. He does so with all the accuracy and flamboyance of a Creationist attacking evolutionary biology.

Facts: Current atmospheric CO2 load is a bit over 2 trillion tons, and we are adding 1.2% to that total every year. The "miracle of compound interest" is working in favor of the historical, preindustrial CO2 level of 150-250ppm being driven through the current 385ppm, and on its way to where? 500ppm, 800ppm ... 1000ppm!?!

Our children or grandchildren will have to live with the CO2 global surplus we are building right now, and with a system which will continue to worsen the situation, if we insist on continuing with Alan's beloved "business as usual" approach. They will have to abandon New York City, and much of the state of Florida, if we hit 1000ppm, a level which can forseen by 2100 on the BAU path we are being encouraged to follow by Alan and the Climate Creationist lobby.

Yes, the truth is revealed - Alan is in the pocket of Big Oil & Coal, and will pump this stuff out as long as he is paid to do so...

February, 24 2009

bill payne says

We got an email ack from WPA Tuesday February 23, 2009.

"[O]ur conclusion, based on is statements in this letter to you is that EPA in the case of Desert Rock EPA has violated its charter by failing to render "enforcement activities related to pollution abatement and control to provide for the treatment of the environment as a single interrelated system" by not considering possible damage caused to the environment as result of possible new construction in Arizona which may be unserviceable for electric energy and water shortages reasons in the future.

Appearance has been created by this violation of charter that EPA has, in fact, improperly favored Arizona new construction industry by initially permitting Desert Rock and then by issuing a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit (AZP 04-01) authorizing construction of the Desert Rock Energy Facility (Desert Rock) without explanation of why the new electricity is needed or the damage done to the environment, both in New Mexico and Arizona, by possible new construction.

EPA's failure, in the case of Desert Rock, to follow its own rules, we feel, have voided the permitting process.

Therefore, we ask that EPA deny Desert Rock permit for failure of EPA to follow its own rules and possible EPA collusion with Arizona new construction industry for an attempt to improperly obtain that permit.

If EPA does not grant this request, then please inform us of any appeals processes as well as procedures for filing complaints against those at EPA may have been improperly involved with Arizona new construction interests in the permitting process.

Please respond by March 2, 2009..."

http://www.prosefights.org/coal/desertrockcomment/desertrockcomment.htm#lapka

We will post soon.

February, 24 2009

Ian McQueen says

Bob Amorosi wrote about the Chevrolet Volt: "it will go the first 40 miles on a full charge before its gasoline engine starts up to take over charging the batteries". Bob, this is the story that GM has successfully been throwing out, but keep in mind that the engine will be the only thing actually powering the car. The battery could go missing and the car would still move.

As for: " When consumers discover the huge cost difference between the electrical energy from their wall outlets and gasoline, you can bet everyone who gets one of these hybrids will use their wall plugs", that's what we think in a ceteris paribus world. But you can be sure that governments or power companies will quickly find a way to increase the tariff charged for electricity used to recharge car batteries. Governments aren't going to forgo road taxes.

February, 24 2009

Collin Whitehead says

I'm unsubscribing.

February, 24 2009

Tim Martin says

I'm guessing Alan's comments regarding scientific opinion considers ALL scientists (and apparently engineers) some of whom are probably not that familiar with the research. 90+% of climatologists believe that mankind is contributing to global warming.

February, 24 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Ian,

I agree completely that we will face a consumer electricity rate crisis in the future, partly from all the looming demands on our electricity grids, and partly as you say that governments won't let road taxes disappear that easily. But I stil believe gasoline will continue to cost more than electricity to power electric vehicles because of declining world oil production and growing demand. So we will be hit with a double whammy - high future oil prices AND skyrocketiong electricity rates for consumers.

February, 25 2009

Liz Bossley says

Hey relax! I am not a scientist so I know better than to engage in the scientific debate but if you are worried about consultants, traders and others making out like bandits on the global warming premise rest assured that nothing could be further from the truth. There are many investors out there who have bought emissions allowances in the expectation of tough legislation to mitigate climate change who are now looking at an extremely sick portfolio. Similarly the carbon sector is suffering the same job losses as the rest of the economy. I am personally not that worried about a huge cost of emissions allowances getting passed on to the consumer. The first Kyoto commitment period of 2008-2012 is 8 billion allowances long, out of a total of about 61 billion allocated by the UNFCCC. And that's before you take project based allowances into account. The price of allowances will always tend to reflect a surplus because what we are dealing in is not carbon at all, it is political risk. The supply and demand for carbon allowances is determined by the political will to cap emissions at a meaningfully low level. I think we can rely on politicians, who constantly have one eye on the next election campaign, to fail to generate a high carbon price. The same basic issue would be the case if we abandoned cap-and-trade and went for tax.

February, 25 2009

Len Gould says

Ian MsQueen: "keep in mind that the engine will be the only thing actually powering the car {GM Volt}." -- Actually, that's a PLUG-HYBRID, so it can get energy for motion either from the onboard engine OR from the grid.

John Plodinec: "he failed to also point out that CO2 is a lagging indicator - temperature rises and then CO2 concentration goes up. .... I conclude that we simply do not have a basis for carbon-based policy remedies. " -- Considering CO2 + methane together, and especially methane alone, greenhouse gas levels have actually historically preceeded the breakups of ice ages. Anything methane can do regarding trapping re-radiation from earth, CO2 can also do. Now please detail the scientific basis for your conclusion or revise it.

February, 25 2009

Bobby Smith says

Here's a thought: Most 'scientists' who believe in global warming also believe in evolution. If animals are in a constant state of improvement through the survival of the fittest evolution, would it really matter if the climate changes? Isn't environmental change the stimulus for a stronger species? It seems to me that all the wheels are starting to come off the wagon.

February, 25 2009

Jim Beyer says

Bobby,

By that same token, wouldn't our energy system become stronger if it evolved into something that didn't emit carbon? You preach the value of change in an effort to maintain the status quo. Amazing.

February, 25 2009

Alan Caruba says

"I'm guessing Alan's comments regarding scientific opinion considers ALL scientists (and apparently engineers) some of whom are probably not that familiar with the research. 90+% of climatologists believe that mankind is contributing to global warming."

Sorry, but this is just the same Green propaganda that they have been getting away with for years. There is NO consensus about scientists in the fields of climatology and meteorology. Engineers, too, understand the fundamentals of CO2.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a gas that is vital to all life on Earth. It's not something you regulate in the name of a global warming that is not occurring.

No one argues that the Earth has not warmed since the end of the last mini ice age around 1850. It has warmed about one degree Fahrenheit and that warming has been entirely natural.

All the current satellite data since 1998 indicate a distinct cooling cycle and the lack of magnetic storms on the Sun is a further supporting factor.

Those who advocate global warming may be sincere, but they are deliberately ignoring the science. Indeed, GW is about using alleged science for purely political purposes.

February, 25 2009

Len Gould says

Study: Antarctic glaciers slipping swiftly seaward - Physorg.com

"A report by thousands of scientists for the 2007-2008 International Polar Year concluded that the western part of the continent is warming up, not just the Antarctic Peninsula. ....

During the International Polar Year, thousands of scientists from more than 60 countries engaged in intense Arctic and Antarctic research over the past two southern summer seasons - on the ice, at sea, and via icebreaker, submarine and surveillance satellite.

The biggest western Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 percent faster than it was in the 1970s, discharging water and ice more rapidly into the ocean, Summerhayes said.

The Smith Glacier, also in western Antarctica, is moving 83 percent faster than it did in 1992, he said.

All the glaciers in the area together lose a total of around 114 billion tons per year because the discharge is much greater than the new snowfall, Summerhayes said. ....

Sea levels will rise faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summerhayes said."

February, 25 2009

Len Gould says

Deliberately ignoring te science, eh Alan?

February, 25 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Sorry to burst your bubble Alan, but Obama is quoted in his powerful address last night to Congress as referring to CO2 as "pollution". What matters is HOW MUCH CO2 is in the atmosphere, and anyone will agree a certain amount is vital for plant life on earth. The earth's climate behavior, and resulting wishes of the public and our governments don't care much anymore what scientists claim, rightly or wrongly, including yourself. They’ve already formed their conclusions from simple observations of climate behavior, and from what the majority of scientists are telling them.

What really matters now is what our political leaders will do to change the status quo. Obama's stimulus package focusing on energy as one of three pillars means his administration, along with the majority in the public and scientific community, all oppose the status quo. So you can bet safely on seeing much more money being pumped into renewable source generation, Smart Grids, and new economic rules for carbon emissions management being adopted.

Like I said before, I wouldn’t waste your time writing articles like this anymore, as they are surely going to viewed by most in time as whining only to resist change.

February, 25 2009

Len Gould says

Perhaps I might ask you, Alan, to point out some genuine science which you think I am "deliberately ignoring"? Something more like science than this article?

February, 25 2009

**** **** says

Septimus van der Linden 2.25.09 Chevy Volt -hooray ! 45 miles on a battery charge. The Chery from China ready to roll gets 93 Miles(150 km) twice that of the Chevy Volt.

Plug-in vehicles good for the Postal Service . Stop-start operation. Maybe all Government issued vehicles should be Plug-in, just so that they cannot drive too many miles !

February, 25 2009

Jim Beyer says

This will sound biased, but I guess I don't really care anymore. I've found this whole exercise to be a lesson that the AGW skeptics (if represented fairly by the posters here) to be highly non-technical and simplistic in their arguments. Instead of honing in on reasonable concerns about the validity of global warming pronouncements, they seem to also include every hare-brained theory imaginable, many which NO serious researchers would consider seriously.

There is little debate in the normal sense of the word, because if a concern is raised about point A, their response is: Well, then what about point B? ("Jim: You have only commented on the re-radiation issue, please comment on the items above as well.")

When pressed about problematic issues, the AGW skeptics simply duck out.

This all seems very similar to why Evolution adherents are loathe to debate Creationists. Because the Creationists do not show up to debate the issues; they show up to make pronouncements.

Just looking at Alan's last posting, you simply simple a series of pronouncements, with no concept of justifying any of them. Just statements we are support to accept without question.

To any SERIOUS AGW skeptics out there: this is not a winning strategy.

February, 25 2009

John K. Sutherland says

Len, Jim and others, Please consider this recent uncharacteristically undiplomatic break of some scientists in Japan with the IPCC dogma.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

Enjoy.

February, 25 2009

Jim Beyer says

John,

Fine, I will check it out.

Before I do, I just hope it is not:

1. An extreme fringe group that is garnering more publicity than deserved.

2. A small number of emeritus researchers who haven't published since 1985. (I don't mean to be harsh on this point, but even Einstein did not accept Quantum Theory.)

We'll see....

February, 25 2009

Jim Beyer says

John,

Hmm. I dunno.

It would be nice to see a complete translated version of the report, other than selected passages pushed by a journalist with known anti-AGW leanings.

I don't have enough information to make an assessment.

February, 25 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Alan, are you saying that more than 10% of genuine climate scientists are rejecting AGW. If so, give me a number. And listen, I'm talking about GENUINE climate scientists, and not people like you and me and Bjorn Lomborg and Paul Johnson and Richard Quest. Especially me, because although I was first in my thermodynamics class at Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago), I was booted out of that fine establishment after my first year for scholarly incompetence.

And John, I'm surprised at you mentioning Japanese scientists. Shocked actually. I hope that you don't mean those frequenting the Sweet Dreams cabaret in Kobe Japan. They would break with anythng or anybody around midnight, for reasons that I prefer not to discuss at the present time.

Anybody get any more messages from Bob Ashworth?

February, 25 2009

Michael Keller says

At the potential risk of spinning-up some, concentrate on using energy more efficiently, producing it more efficiently and doing so with the cost to the end user always a major consideration. The greenhouse gas problem will ultimately take care of itself. Case in point: Prius hybrid.

Spending stupefying amounts of money on inherently uneconomic options is just plain dopey.

February, 25 2009

Len Gould says

Micheal: What's really plain dopey is pissing everyone in the discussion off by denying a very high probability reality (not you, others above). And it's very hard to convince me that simple unguided economic utility-seeking will avoid burning coal and releasing the CO2 in favour of slightly more costly solar thermal etc.

February, 25 2009

Scott Greenbaum says

All I know is that the average concentration of CO2 is riasing in the atmosphere. This is a change. All changes have affects on there system. Some good and some bad. Since we are not sure what the affects of changing CO2 will have, is it not logical that we do something to reduce the change until we know if the change is positive or negative.

Since CO2 is a pollutant we should have enough experience to show that adding pollution to a system usually ends up being bad. Therefore we should work to reduce the potential change and control CO2 emmissions.

February, 25 2009

Jim Beyer says

Fred,

Like Elvis, I believe Bob has left the building. The paper brought up by Jeff is more interesting anyway.

February, 25 2009

Steve Vrchota says

I don't know why Energypulse even allows articles like-

The Plain Truth About Glorious Carbon Dioxide 02/16/09 - By Alan Caruba , CEO, The Caruba Organization

This was listed as a headline story. It is complete garbage and contains no useful information. It is political and emotionally biased. Alan does not even seem to have done basic research to back up his facts on the numbers of supporters of global climate change. Even if you do not believe in global warming it is contains no significant information. This paper doesn't say anything substantive. It merely states that the problem is totally made up by people who want to control other people's lives.

Why would this be worthy of a publication that allows a forum on energy issues.

If this article was reviewed for publishing by the staff at EnergyPulse, it calls into question the validity and function of any papers published.

February, 25 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Steve,

Many papers published on this website typically do not contain technical facts or scientific data. On the contrary I would say a significant number are opinions and views only, with multiple purposes including controlling others or lobbying for vested interests. Remember this a forum for discussion, not just a journal to disseminate scientific data or studies like others do. Our political leaders often tend to bow to widespread public pressures, rightly or wrongly, even when such pressures are motivated by politics and emotion, so many feel it is a necessary evil to hear from those motivated as such. As an engineer, I for one would love to see less of articles like this, or at least a willingness of their authors to listen to counter views backed up by scientific facts. But we have to live with them in a free speech society.

February, 25 2009

Bobby Smith says

Jim, It's funny how Creationists are the only 'debaters' who show up with pronouncements. Where are the transitional species and missing links that 'scientists' have been looking for all these years? Although it is taught as fact, evolution is still only a theory and unfortunately for folks like you, it will never be proven.

As far as the energy system goes, man-made systems don't evolve. Your eloquent words are lofty but contain little substance. The thought of a coal plant evolving into some green generation source with less CO2 emissions is asinine. The entire subject of climate change is political and religious and one must follow the money to get to the root of the matter. It's all about power and control.

February, 25 2009

Jeff Presley says

Len, I'll take a crack at that, my apologies to all the lost Johnny come-lately's who have magically appeared in this thread, never to be heard from again. To do so I'll take the amusing satirical style our own Professor Banks likes to use when discussing the European Union:

A report by thousands of scientists partying it up on the taxpayer's dime from 60 countries was released recently. Although there was some dissent, a quick frog-walk to the side of any seagoing vessel or tall building was more than enough to convince said dissenters that now was NOT the time to kill the goose laying the golden eggs.

Professor Porkbarrel put it rather bluntly, "We are enjoying the fruits of years of fear mongering. Instead of scraping for every grant, we only have to pitch some bogus "study" in the name of global warming and it is approved without a second's thought. Personally I chose "investigating" the arctic because I'd always wanted to take a vacation on Norwegian Cruise Lines. Now I take the vacation AND get paid for it! Some of my colleagues attempted to dispute our report's findings, stating that we were making claims we couldn't possibly back up. Can you believe those numbskulls? Fortunately after a blanket party we were able to convince them of the error of their ways and now we can present a united front. Good thing too, because next year I'm planning a vacation to Patagonia and I want to make sure my grant has enough money for my wife AND my mistress. Of course as long as we keep beating the sky is falling drum, our requests can never be refused and boy do we have allies in the white house now!"

Unfortunately, Arctic Sea Ice Increases at Record Rate

Not to be outdone, the "scientists" just make some modifications and voila $10Billion more this year in the junket kitty:



Hopefully this animated gif will actually be animated on this forum. It shows how "massaged" data looks.

And if you think any scientists are being paid anything CLOSE to the amount the AGW crowd is getting you are on drugs. Under Clinton climate studies got $175M per year TOPS, under Bush, $5BILLION, under Obama, well the sky's the limit, but at least $10Billion per year. That's just THIS country, add in those 59 OTHER countries your article mentions (except Japan soon perhaps) and as the Senator said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money".

Alan Caruba has already stated he makes NO MONEY for doing this, and those other "emeritus" scientists are likewise making NO MONEY for standing up to the feeding trough frenzy, they are simply doing it because what they are observing today has NOTHING to do with the science they grew up with and which has given us the world we enjoy today, including the physics that makes the computer I'm typing this on function. And not only am I making NO MONEY on this, it is actually hurting my prospects because of the previously mentioned patent.

Reread my scientific method post above and tell me WHERE the AGW "scientists" are following ANY of it! Where is the simple experiment that measures the "Forcing" effect of trace amounts of CO2 to water vapor heat retention? Why hasn't this been done, when there are 10's of Billion$ being spent on junkets, meetings and parties. I'll tell you why, the experiment is TOO simple and the results are already known or suspected, in other words there are NO results.

I'm giving you an opportunity here Len. Get off this bandwagon so that in a few years you can say, "I told you so" when the wheels fall off. If the science were solid there would be zero skeptics, there would be no websites run by interested netizens just trying to keep the information brokers honest. Show me that experiment and I'll join your side in a heartbeat, don't and I won't, it is that simple.

February, 26 2009

Len Gould says

Jeff: Congratulations. You've constructed a post which is irrefutable. Mainly because it contains no scientific argument, simply emotional argument. Where I studied science, that didn't pass muster.

Please detail your concept of the "experiment" which would verify CO2's heat retention effect. Is it a 100 km tall gas retention box of clear plastic, pressurized to 1 bar at the base, with means to control all elements of the gas mixture plus humidity at many intervals, cloud formation systems, and a 1350 watt/sq m white light source at the top? $10 billion might be a bit low just for the satisfaction of quieting a bunch of people who can't understand relatively simple issues like radiation capture and release by gas molecules. And, based on your above attack on pretty much every scientist reviewed by the IPCC, accusing them of gross corruption and financial waste (eg. the entire field of climatology) I thought saving money mattered to you!

February, 26 2009

Len Gould says

And if such a large proportion of legitimate active publishing climatologists disagree with the IPCC's summary of the field but are being suppressed by some grand conspiracy of non-scientists, why is Alan in his article above reduced to referencing such uslessly non-scientific papers as the one he did?

February, 26 2009

Len Gould says

I like this para from Barrett808, posted to TheOilDrum.com yesterday.

[QUOTE]Fundamentally, climate science is based on well-understood principles of thermodynamics. Before humans burned the sequestered carbon (fossil fuels), Earth was in thermal equilibrium with space. Humans introduced a sudden, 500-gigaton excursion in the global carbon budget. Because CO2 is a "heat-trapping gas," Earth is now in disequilibrium with space. To return to thermal equilibrium, the atmosphere must warm.

The rest is details. Interesting details, to be sure, but the basic thermodynamics have been understood since Svante Arrhenius published in 1896." [/QUOTE]

Agreed, perhaps it oversimplifies time's relationship to thermal equilibrium, but is most economical word-wise.

Interested people may also find these two links useful

RAYMOND T. PIERREHUMBERT - Professor in Geophysical Sciences at U Chicago

The Climate Book - RAYMOND T. PIERREHUMBERT - to be published by Cambridge University Press

February, 26 2009

Michael Keller says

Gould – I stand by my remarks: concentrate on the efficient production and use of energy, with the consumer’s wallet a major concern. Greenhouse gases issues will ultimately take care of themselves as a serendipitous byproduct.

To be blunt, the conjectured impact of greenhouse gas on climate is hardly an absolutely fatal condition to mankind. The lack of affordable energy is fatal to our civilization. I might add, the lack of greenhouse gases is, curiously enough, absolutely fatal to mankind.

If something is not efficient and is not economic, then do not waste everybody’s money on the adventure. Let’s examine a few options. 1. Put wind turbines where the wind does not blow. Just plain dopey. 2. Put solar where the sun does not shine. Just plain dopey. 3. Extremely expensive and inefficient nuclear plants. Just plain dopey. 4. Inefficient coal plants that will unquestionably have huge carbon costs imposed on them. Just plain dopey. Clearly, the option needs to be tailored to location while carefully considering the fundamental technology. Examples: 1. Solar in select parts of the Southwest. Should work. 2. Wind turbines in select parts of the Midwest. Should work. 3. Cost effective and efficient nuclear power. Will work, but seems unlikely that the current generation of plants can meet the criteria. The next generation of nuclear plants might work, but that remains to be seen. 4. Cost effective and efficient coal. Should work, but seems unlikely conventional coal burning technologies can meet the criteria. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technology using advanced gas turbines might work, but that remains to be seen.

Whatever the selected option, it must stand on it’s own two feet without being propped up by on-going subsidies, whether the option is wind, solar, nuclear, coal or something else. Please note that “requiring” the use of renewable energy is, in fact, a de facto subsidy.

February, 26 2009

John K. Sutherland says

And then there are many tens of high quality papers here:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/climate-library

ths most recent paper by Joseph D'Aleo: - US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895 - is not in this list. When I get a link to it I will post it. The paper is quite persuasive about climate being driven more by PDO, AMO, ENSO, and Solar variations than by carbon dioxide.

February, 26 2009

John K. Sutherland says

And then these observations by DeWeese:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8819

Admittedly it is throwing names around and numbers, but Len doesn't seem to believe that there really is anyone out there who disagrees with him or the IPCC. When one considers that many of those speaking up now, were former writers and editors for the IPCC, one has to stop and think. At least, one hopes so.

February, 26 2009

Mike Vande Voort says

Len G.

so where did all the carbon in coal, oil, NG, etc come from ??

February, 26 2009

Bob Ashworth says

I will get back in for a few more comments.

First of all, the CO2 global warmers never quote what real data is showing, all they do is refer to peer reviewed papers that are based on computer models. They don’t like the real temperature and CO2 measurements because it does not support that CO2 is causing warming. One should never believe what is in a scientific paper until you check it out yourself. Don’t believe me either. Analyze the data to make sure it is correct. That is all I did and found CO2 causing global warming was completely bogus.

Most people don’t realize that every 80,000 to 120,000 years the sun gives off a massive increase in radiation compared to its normal 11-year cycle. This is shown in the Vostok Ice Core data graph. Gore intimated that CO2 caused the earth to warm. Alas it was the just opposite. The earth warmed then CO2 started increasing due to reduced solubility in water at higher temperatures.

We are in a normal 11-year cycle now and are at the lower solar irradiance portion of that cycle. That is one reason why it is colder this year than say five years ago when it was near the top of the cycle for the solar irradiance hitting the earth.

Regarding the inane IPCC so-called “Greenhouse Effect”, it is nothing like a greenhouse. A green house is an insulator, but when the sun goes down in the spring and fall it must be heated. I worked on a fluid bed combustor we installed in a greenhouse to do just that. Maybe the IPCC should visit one and do radiation measurements. But oh, they couldn't do that because they are averse to analyzing real data.

The IPCC shows 168 W/m^2 hitting the earth but through their make believe re-radiation phenomenon the earth radiates 390 W/m^2 back to the atmosphere. Radiation also travels at 3x10^10 cm/sec and happens near instantaneously, can’t hold it back so it will build up, sorry guys.

Suggest that the CO2 global warmers stop blogging for a couple of weeks, analyze the empirical data out there and see the truth for yourself. It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist”. It is there in plain view for anyone to see.

Hint, if CO2 is causing warming then as it increases temperature will increase as well. Don’t use the mid sixties to the end of the nineties in that analysis because that was when CFC destruction of ozone was causing abnormal warming. Montreal Protocol implementation stopped that trend.

February, 26 2009

Larry Graus says

Mr. Gould:

I have not read all the comments on this board yet, but when I came to your first one, I was somewhat taken aback:

Len Gould 2.17.09

"Alan: So far, I've read your reference to page 1 and found this beauty "does any evidence exist to support the premise that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have caused the earth to warm?" -- DUH. 1) Earth and Moon recieve exactly the same solar energy. Earth atmosphere contains normally 180 to 280 ppmv CO2, historical average surface temperature is about 33 degC higher than Moon. 2) history of GHG levels and glacations over past 480,000 years based on ice cores from Vostok, Antartica and Greenland show average temperatures match GHG levels very closely. 3) others.

Can HARDLY WAIT (NOT) to learn that Robert A. Ashworth's publications have overturned the present understanding of climate science (ha ha).

'Ridiculous. " Are you aware that the moon has NO atmosphere? You have a body which receives solar radiation on the side facing the sun, and you have that same heat being radiated off into space on the dark side. I'd be very willing to bet that it neither heats up nor cools down much beyond the natural inceases and decreases in the amount of solar radition it receives.

On the other hand, Earth has surface water and an atmosphere that holds in heat.

It doesn't surprise ME that the Earth is 33 degrees Celsius warmer. Of course, I'm NOT a scientist. If your is the kind of science that AGW believers are using, I have no doubt that they believe there is GCC going on.

February, 26 2009

Len Gould says

Bob Ashworth: "They don’t like the real temperature and CO2 measurements because it does not support that CO2 is causing warming. " -- I don't much like basing any conclusions on real temperature measurements because a) earth's weather is subject to very broad veriations in time and region. b) earth's oceans make huge heat-sinks which can temporarily mask significant increases in retained heat for significant periods.

"every 80,000 to 120,000 years the sun gives off a massive increase in radiation compared to its normal 11-year cycle." --- Where did you get that little gem of non-science? The 120,000 year cycles which underlie the historical ice age cycles are variations in earth's orbit, mainly causing changes in the relative exposure of Northern vs. Southern hemispheres to direct sunlight, Look up Milankovitch cycles. And they are VERY minor variation, having a HUGE relative effect. Anyone who understands the cause/effect there should be VERY wary of increasing GHG levels in atmosphere at current rates.

February, 26 2009

Andre Basler says

Why do we even consider CO2 and global warming. If it indeed exists, global warming that is, it is only part of the bigger picture.

I'm sure both sides here will agree that we have limited oil on earth. We use it for plastics (look around you and realize how much there is) and many many other things. What a poor choice to burn it for a very low energy conversion rate to kinetic energy to move us around in our cars.

I'm also sure, neither side wants their kids to sniff a tailpipe or coal fired power plant exhaust all day long. Besides the bad smell, it kills you. By the way, no filter gets it all out.

Finally I'm sure, both sides agree that we import a lot of oil, giving our money to other countries (= bad for us). Oh, and our guys are fighting there right now, too. For me, that’s not worth it.

I'm sure I could find a few more reasons we theoretically agree on. But I think the real problem is this: People will find any excuse they can to be able to keep their mansions, SUVs, pools, boats, processed food (they want to keep their heaviness, too), etc.

Global warming, or global climate change (it may actually get colder, dryer, wetter, warmer, depending on where you are) is not the issue! Saving energy and resources is. Your precious children demand it! (Yes, that would be the fat thing way in the back of your fat SUV, in the child car seat for “weight challenged” kids). Use some common sense, folks.

February, 27 2009

Jim Beyer says

The second paragraph Len's last comment is worth re-reading.

It's interesting in several ways.

1. AGW skeptics seem willing to rip up theories that have been broadly accepted for decades (long before the global warming controversy), such as the Milankovitch cycles.

2. The Milankovitch cycles ARE controversial in some ways. Most because a) they are persuasive; they fit the climate variations too closely in their timeframes, b) they are so subtle that it is hard for researchers to believe that they would affect climate.

The skeptics are correct in noting that climate estimation is a subtle, complex, and difficult enterprise. But there is numerous evidence that it CAN change quickly, and has in the past. Based on this information, it is not unreasonable for researchers to be gravely concerned about heightened CO2 levels. Yes, more definitive information is needed to ascertain what is going on, and what should or shouldn't be done.

This all supports my previous statement that BOTH sides are burdened with evidence to indicate whether or not these CO2 concentrations are a concern.

What do we do until then?

1) Spend $$$ to get nuclear competitive with coal. 2) Build nuclear plants instead of coal plants. 3) Fund #1 via a carbon tax.

February, 27 2009

Len Gould says

Larry Graus: "If your is the kind of science that AGW believers are using, I have no doubt that they believe there is GCC going on." -- Thank you.

February, 27 2009

John K. Sutherland says

If one looks at the article 'climate flicker' on Anthony Watt's site (WUWT), one sees that there was a NATURAL abrupt change of average temperature of about 10 degrees C over 20 years with drastic cooling and heating at the end ot the Dryas about 12,000 years ago. Why do we then assume that an average temperature change, even as little as 1 degree C over 100 years PREDICTED (probably wrongly) by various alarmists, for our future, needs to be either civilization shattering, or even anthropogenically induced, when it certainly cannot be blamed on carbon dioxide at all, but has more to do with PDO, AMO, La Nina, El Nino, and other ocean disturbances that I mentioned above.

Len, please write your own article for this site on this subject. You've had enough to say to do so, and for at least three such articles, and if you would stick with believable and verifiable science rather than believing your tin God; Al Gore, we all might get somewhere.

February, 27 2009

Bob Ashworth says

Larry and Len: Do you two look to see what the temperature is outside or do you just use one of those good old meteorologist computer models. Yes the weathermen historically are very accurate so their predictions must be true. If the temperature outside doesn't match their predictions there must be something wrong with your thermometer. Never believe your lying eyes, completely trust Gore, the weathermen and the IPCC. But then again Gore, Hansen and the IPCC have no science, least I couldn't find any. But then again maybe you are happier living in your make believe worlds! Kids seem to be happier than grownups.

On Larry's point (Ha Ha). Well, if made-up data doesn't match real data then yes I should be able to change the pseudo-climate science to real science. Truth is powerful gentlemen. I asked you guys to analyze the real data but if you see it and don't believe it then it has to be Gore's ga ga land for the two of you. Every global warmer I have interfaced with is the same, quote peer reviewed papers, never analyze the real data. Have a wonderful day in the matrix world you two have created for yourselves and keep the banter going.

February, 27 2009

Len Gould says

John: "an average temperature change, even as little as 1 degree C over 100 years PREDICTED (probably wrongly) by various alarmists" -- I wish.

(From Stanford Report, February 18, 2009 - Chris Field of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science) [QUOTE] Field was a coordinating lead author of the fourth assessment, Climate Change 2007, which concluded that the Earth's temperature is likely to increase 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius) by 2100, depending on how many tons of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere in coming decades. But recent climate studies suggest that the fourth assessment report underestimated the potential severity of global warming over the next 100 years. "We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said.[/QUOTE] 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius is very likely a significantly over-conservative estimate. After all, the political team on the IPCC largely kowtowed to the Bush admin's apointees who made no bones about wanting to water the findings down in every way possible. You guys have things all backwards.

Also, when have i ever made ANY reference to Al Gore? AFAK, he's a very late comer to this issue, though I have no problem with most of his efforts to widen the base of people who are aware of this issue. Haven't seen his movie yet though but assume it was vetted by top climate scientists.

February, 27 2009

Jeff Presley says

Len, is your mother named Sybil by chance? Because apparently you are suffering from multiple personality disorder. You tell a SCIENTIST that he's being non-scientific and then in defense of AGW, you bring up a Serbian who showed that epochal changes in climate were COMPLETELY NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS! I have to admit, I wrote the satirical post above with an eye towards adding some humor to what occasionally gets to be heated and even rude discourse, but you take the cake for giving me yet another laugh out loud moment. Almost as funny as your infinitely energetic photon taking a Brownian walk through 30 kilometers of atmosphere. While I'm psychoanalyzing you, I'll have to consider your need to put professional scientists down, compensation for something missing in your own life perhaps? I find it funny that your heroes are bandwagon AGW "scientists" who do nothing more than analyze and statistically rehash reports, while those doing actual EXPERIMENTS or who have ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING IN THE REAL WORLD earn none of your respect. I guess when you live in mental masturbation land, this is the expected result.

Furthermore your "experiment" is laughable on its face. It is typical of you to create a ridiculous straw man, attribute it to me and then criticize your own creation. I criticize your own stupid experiment also, so apparently we are in complete agreement. I can deal with all your other points just as easily for instance the political team statement just above. Perhaps given the REALITY that occurred after the IPCC report was published the AGW wackos should be thankful their ridiculous assertions were mitigated. Oh but we aren't living in reality land we're living in mental masturbation land where all we need to do is massage data with statistical "smoothing", adjustments and downright fraudulent numbers to attempt to keep the leaky AGW boat afloat.

You're pointedly ignoring my animated gif above, which demonstrates before and after pictures of "modified" data, which came from published sources. That's why Realclimate.org went to a fully moderated site format, so they could immediately remove embarrassing and incriminating evidence. Unfortunately for them, others keep track of these things even though keeping them honest is well nigh impossible. The psychosis there has extended so far that Gavin credits imaginary netizens with catching precisely the identical errors that McIntyre reported previously so the imaginary friend gets full credit for the "scoop". Since Steve doesn't live in their fantasy land he only laughs, as I do, about the chicanery going on in the land of Nod, er I mean AGW support land.

Now Len, I know darn good and well you aren't going to click on these links but OTHERS reading here WILL and they'll be just as suspicious as you SHOULD be about your heroes. Personally, I'd pick new heroes, but to each his own. Oh and I shouldn't but you just leave yourself hanging out there with these ridiculous statements so Haven't seen his movie yet though but assume it was vetted by top climate scientists LOL

February, 28 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Well Rachel, it's time to wrap this one up, isn't it? Put it on the back burner, or something like that, because it's getting out of hand. I notice for instance that Bob Ashworth is back in the building after receiving what I thought was a piece of very bad news from Roger.

Anyway, if we can draw one conclusion from the present exercise, it might be that it is going to be very hard for President Obama's energy team - which I still think of as an environmental team - to come to any usable decision about this subject without flipping a coin. Maybe the best thing to do is to follow the advice of Michael Keller: concentrate on obtaining the energy we need and let the next president take care of global warming - as I am sure that Ms Clinton is looking forward to doing. Or something like that.

For those persons however who would like to prolong this...this ecstasy. I am sure that the good Alan will bring us something from the Heartland gig. If he finds this site unfriendly to his science however he might be interested in one that asked me for contributions...until they found out a few things about me that I would have preferred for them not to find out, although I don't know what those things are. But, as they say, their game their rules.

February, 28 2009

Jim Beyer says

I think it's telling how rancorous the debate is. Neither side seems to want to believe the other points the other side tries to make. Neither side even wants to accept that debate is warranted. I don't know how the numbers match up, but even if 51% believe that AGW is real, I don't think this is an issue to say "screw you" to the minority and walk away from.

Meaning no disrespect, but I'm not sure how 'fringe' many of the AGW skeptics are. I'm confused why major companies did not fight this more if they felt the contrary evidence was so compelling. (Look how oil companies still fight the notion of peak oil, for instance, despite much more evidence to the contrary.)

Anyway, for skeptics, my unofficial poll indicates that the main concerns about the AGW notion are: 1) The idea that the ice core record shows CO2 following temperature, and not the other way around; 2) The significance of recent sun-spot activities on impacting recent warming trends; 3) The inaccuracy of open-ended modeling, which are tweaked with the newest information to fit the measured temperature curves; 4) The poor quality of local temperature measurements that go into the models and estimates in the first place.

Is that pretty good coverage? Have I missed any other major points? As I've said before, I have no problem debating reasonable points of contention. But I find it an insulting time waste to spend bandwidth on basic, ludicrous notions that have been dismissed decades earlier, long before AGW allegedly became politicized.

February, 28 2009

James Carson says

Jim Beyer << Is that pretty good coverage? Have I missed any other major points? >>

Yes, you have.

I may have missed it, but there is a key point to which you have failed to respond. The Ashworth paper notes on page six that the agw process as described by the IPCC requires that the middle troposphere develop a relative hot spot over the tropics. That hot spot is missing in the empirical data.

Dr. David Evans, a computer scientist with six years experience with the Australian government modeling forest and agricultural exchanges with the atmosphere for ghg management purposes has made the same point.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

In real science, that is called a 'refutation'.

February, 28 2009

Jim Beyer says

James,

That point seems to be pretty well debunked here:

Explanation of hotspot controversy

More tellingly, this whole things seems to be due to a single person writing an op-ed piece in Australia who is NOT a climate researcher and has never written a peer-reviewed article on climate research. (He's apparently a Phd. in EE.)

But then the anti-AGW folks reference the single article, and then start referencing themselves, and lo and behold, you have a "consensus" of scientists opposing AGW!

I'm sorry, this is not an example of real science.

February, 28 2009

Jim Beyer says

James,

Also notice that Ashworth grabbed the exact same pictures, probably from Evans' paper. So two different people have not "made the same point." Ashworth was copying or referencing Evans.

February, 28 2009

James Carson says

Where is the refutation of Evans? The hotspot is missing, but must be there if agw is a valid theory. Lambert's point about the stratosphere cooling is nonsense. The middle troposphere relative increase in temperature is NECESSARY for the agw theory to explain the warming. It's absence refutes the theory.

<< More tellingly, this whole things seems to be due to a single person writing an op-ed piece in Australia who is NOT a climate researcher and has never written a peer-reviewed article on climate research. (He's apparently a Phd. in EE.) >>

Nevertheless, Evans is "a computer scientist with six years experience with the Australian government modeling forest and agricultural exchanges with the atmosphere for ghg management purposes"

SIX YEARS EXPERIENCE modeling this stuff. Go ahead and trash him if it makes you feel better.

February, 28 2009

James Carson says

Here is a more complete rendition of the argument by Monckton. Yes, I know that Monckton is not a scientist himself, he is a journalist. However, please note that he does cite leading meteorologists in this paper.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf

<< Meaning no disrespect, but I'm not sure how 'fringe' many of the AGW skeptics are.>>

They are not 'fringe' at all. Many are leading luminaries in the field.

<< I'm confused why major companies did not fight this more if they felt the contrary evidence was so compelling. >>

Are you really this naive?

February, 28 2009

Jim Beyer says

<>

Are you really this paranoid?

February, 28 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim, The other element which I've brought up again and again is the obvious skewing of the topic by the media and the AGW scientists. Why is news about global warming always bad? Why do scientists offer such dire predictions about the future of the environment? Pat Michaels says it's only natural, because of the way we do science today, where issues compete with each other for funding from a monopoly provider: the federal government. This leads to a culture of scientific exaggeration and a political community that takes credit from having saved us from certain doom—a doom played out nightly on the network news. Meltdown details hundreds of misstatements and exaggerations propagated by the professional community on the issue of climate change, including several scientific papers in major journals that were wrong at the time they were published, all consistent with the notion of what Michaels calls "predictable distortion." I may have attempted humor (everyone seems to have gotten the joke but Len) on this distortion, but it is no laughing matter and it IS real, as has been proven time and again beyond the hundreds of examples in this book. The real difference today is sites like WUWT have been doing a phenomenal job of catching the exaggerations and outright prevarications.

Predictable distortion indeed, as documented years ago in: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow (Cato Institute, 2004)

Even hotter off the press is this paper by Moncton. It neatly discusses the hotspot issue (pg 6-7). However before he is upbraided for not being a "climate scientist", let's recap their scorecard shall we? They've been caught red-handed "cooking the books" have made obvious and egregious distortions (Hansen's 30 METER oceans rise comes to mind) and are in a profession where apparently it is unnecessary to ever actually ACCOMPLISH anything!

March, 01 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

Well I see the new Monckton paper has quite a few quotes from Lindzen, discussing the effects of greenhouse gases on the planet. That's all fine. But back on 2/24, you were saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist, it's all made up. So I'm just wondering which of these papers am I supposed to believe, the Monckton paper or the Gerlich paper? Because they are not compatible with each other.

March, 01 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Jim, I wonder if peak oil belongs in this discussion. My best (engineering) student in Bangkok last year worked for an oil company, and he told he that his boss told him to never mention that topic. This I can understand, because if the TV audience thought that peak oil was right around the corner, they would find something else to power their rides. (I can also suggest that we don't know how his boss really thinks.)

One must then immediately ask what his Big Oil colleagues think of M. de Margarie, the CEO of Total (France), who has now said that the global oil output will never exceed 89 mb/d. That could mean peak oil at any time. Alan, why don't your thoughts on this claim with us.

March, 01 2009

Jim Beyer says

Fred,

There are many who think that if the TV audience thought that peak oil was right around the corner, society would collapse.

However, the wizards of Wall Street were clever enough to tank the economy such that world oil demand is now far below 89 mb/day.

I think Roger is correct in that the rage and anger about AGW is due to its implications of growth limits and restriction; but peak oil will do all of that much sooner and with greater ferocity. And worst of all, peak oil can't even be blamed on Al Gore.

PHEVs have the ability to displace enough oil fast enough to stay ahead of the oil production decline, and also do so fairly inexpensively. These should be developed with some urgency.

March, 01 2009

James Carson says

Presley << Why is news about global warming always bad? >>

Indeed.... I recall an article about how the increased CO2 was causing poison ivy to become more potent. How often do we hear in the msm about increased crop yields?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060530-warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1122_021125_CropYields.html

Beyer << Are you really this paranoid? >>

Do I need to dredge up where a high government official (James Hansen) has called for prosecution of energy company executives for denying 'climate change'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange

March, 01 2009

Jim Beyer says

James,

Well, given all of that, one would think the likes of Exxon or Peabody Coal could drum some better research than something compiled by a journalist, a peripheral climate researcher, or a retired German mathematician. Failing that, it would be nice if these papers at least had the potential of telling a consistent counter story; but they do not -- Gerlich is incompatible with Monckton. Gerlich believes the earth is warming, and Evans does not, so they are incompatible as well. I think Monckton also thinks the earth is warming, so he is also incompatible with Evans.

I will ask you the same question I asked Jeff, since Gerlich, Evans, and Monckton, are not compatible, which of these am I supposed to accept, and which do I throw out?

March, 01 2009

James Carson says

Jim Beyer, you can throw out the theory that 'climate change' is due to carbon dioxide emissions. The signature (rising temps in the middle troposphere) that must be there is not. That is a definitive refutation. Their 'disagreement' is merely a function of the fact that there is not yet any consensus to explain the miniscule warming we may or may not have experienced. Why do you think they need to be compatible or consistent?

As for my own beliefs..... I probably should remain silent because I am neither a meteorologist nor climatologist. Nevertheless, one thing I have noticed is the dearth of diagnostics in the analyses that find warming. I wondered about that. So, I, myself, looked at the data (UAH) that purports to show the rising trendline. A first semester statistics student would indeed find a statistically significant trend.

Lower Troposphere Dataset: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

However, a graduate statistics student would find substantial serial correlation in the residuals, indicating that a seriously flawed trend model. When you apply a more apt ARIMA(1,1,0) model, the trend term disappears. That does not exactly refute the notion that temps are rising, just that the phenomenon is a lot more complex than a trend model can describe.

I have no more than a few ideas about why the earth's surface has (may have) warmed slightly in recent decades. However, the lack of the tropical middle troposphere heat increase signature definitely rules out carbon dioxide and ghg's in general as the culprit. It may also rule out solar increase.

I have read speculation that a rising surface temperature, stable middle troposphere temperature and falling stratosphere temperature is consistent with ozone depletion and depletion of atmospheric aerosols. The latter may be due to cleaner heavy industry, less agricultural burning for clearing land and (especially) less volcanic activity. You may recall that the global cooling that Hansen & company predicted in the 1970s was a consequence of increased industrial pollution.

One more point. The more important and interesting point to me is, why is CO2 rising at all? I find it hard to believe that the carbon cycle is that rigid. The natural variation in carbon dioxide release through vulcanism is larger than human activity by orders of magnitude. An increase in CO2 emissions whether anthropogenic or natural should lead to natural sequestration at a higher rate. It looks to me like there is some sort of new 'constriction' in the carbon cycle that is inhibiting sequestration.

March, 01 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim a journalist, a peripheral climate researcher, or a retired German mathematician? Let's see Monckton can be called a journalist but also a peer of the realm and has some other qualifications I don't remember and won't bother to look up. Lindzen "peripheral" climate researcher? He is the FREAKING Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology! I guess in your book, MIT is some marginal school of higher learning? Gerlich is not to my knowledge retired, nor is his co-author. They've published quite a bit, but it is mostly in German, imagine that? I've also posted from Christy and others here, so you'd have to include their opinions as well. Christy was one of the first to worry about the tropospheric temperature aberrations from the models. He and Lindzen have both talked about the improper use of greenhouse term.

Reread my 2/24 post. Greenhouse effect is a misnomer, because what makes a greenhouse warm up are the WALLS not the ceiling. Frame one in without the walls and you'll see what I mean. The only "effect" of a greenhouse is that UV light gets to come in and help feed the plants' photosynthesis process (along with water and CO2), not that it is warming them. I've built greenhouses, ventilation is critical for summer yes, because of the walls, but so is heating for cooler climates because there is NO WAY the greenhouse is self-sustaining for heat unless the sun is shining more than 12 hours a day, at least at my latitude (zone 3-4). And in fact, at night it almost immediately starts losing heat because the glass doesn't retain it (R value of 2 or less). If you're in the tropics I guess you don't need a greenhouse eh? Their sole purpose is to extend the growing season of plants which otherwise couldn't survive the outside climate. Period.

Quoting Monckton: Climatic prediction is, as Lorenz said it was, an initial-state problem. It is also a boundary-value problem. It is also a non-linearity problem. It is also a problem whose evolutionary processes are insufficiently understood. When studying the climate we are in the same predicament as Christopher Columbus. When he set out for the Americas, he did not know where he was going; on the way there, he did not know what route he was following; when he got there he did not know where he was; when he returned he did not know where he had been; and, like very nearly every climate scientist worldwide, he did the whole thing on taxpayers’ money.

Two years ago on this site I spoke of the Lorenz attractor, written up in a book called appropriately enough CHAOS. Just like Mandelbrot equations can mimic pretty landscapes and seascapes that DON'T EXIST, climate models can do the same, dependent on their initial input variables and their boundary conditions. But without confirmation experiments, they are nothing but video games as Gerlich describes them. Instead of trying to model the entire planet, they should try to model a terrarium, and then see if the model matches the results, and work their way out from there. This is what REAL scientists do, real engineers, real programmers, real doctors, and so on. The reason we do things in the lab is to CONTROL THEM, pretending the chaotic earth is a laboratory is naive to the extreme.

March, 01 2009

Jim Beyer says

James,

If the papers aren't consistent, then they are just independent wads of mud that are being thrown at the AGW theory, in the hopes that one of them sticks. This is not science, this not is an effort to find the truth; it's an effort to discredit AGW.

If one was seeking the truth, then one would be concerned that the papers are wildly incompatible. Lindzen clearly would not agree with much (or any) of what Gerlich has to say. (I'm not talking about some mild nuances or differences of opinion, which would be reasonable, but major disagreements about very basic concepts.)

Please note that I have no trouble with someone wishing to disprove AGW, or finding evidence that does so. I would LOVE to see a thoughtful, well-written paper that dismisses AGW. But I do have trouble when numerous papers proposed to dismiss global warming are presented which are completely inconsistent. To me, that means that YOU (the AGW skeptics) have little or no regard for a consistent truth; just in the effort to convince people to your way of thinking.

If you DID have some regard for truth, you'd at least try to weed out the most problematic papers which are most clearly erroneous. This would include the Gerlich paper, in my opinion. And the Ashworth paper is far worse than that one.

This ties in yet again with my biggest concern of the AGW skeptics -- the quality of the information presented. Any of you skeptics could have replied immediately to this posting by Alan in saying: "My God this is awful, you should read this paper by XXX or YYY instead." But instead, it's simply "Bravo Alan! And Mr. Ashworth too! Thanks for saying you are skeptical of AGW!"

Even if the IPCC has been unscientific and political in their practices (that's an if, but not a big if; I'm not quite THAT naive) that's no excuse for the skeptics to do so as well. That just makes this whole matter worse.

March, 01 2009

Alan Caruba says

Here's everything you need to know about global warming. On March 2nd, there is a protest scheduled to protest a coal-fired plant that provides electricity to the nation's capitol building.

The forecast is for a BLIZZARD. The event might have to be cancelled or, if it goes on, the protesters will be standing around in a foot or more of SNOW.

The plant is being protested on the grounds that burning coal is a contributing factor to global warming.

Just how crazy does one have to be to believe in a dramatic global warming that will destroy the Earth and all life on it?

March, 01 2009

James Carson says

Jim Beyer << If the papers aren't consistent, then they are just independent wads of mud that are being thrown at the AGW theory, in the hopes that one of them sticks. This is not science, this not is an effort to find the truth; it's an effort to discredit AGW. >>

Or, it could be that nobody understands what is going on, if anything, but that we are pretty sure that it has nothing to do with ghg SINCE THE SIGNATURE THAT MUST BE THERE IS MISSING. When are you going to address that, instead of attacking motives? You have made so many of them... do you really believe that ad hominem attacks are effective?

<< If you DID have some regard for truth, you'd at least try to weed out the most problematic papers which are most clearly erroneous. >>

I am not a scientist in the field, so I am not overly concerned with the 'truth'. I am, however, concerned with confirming the basis for spending trillions of dollars re-tooling the world energy economy. At this juncture, I am not even close to being convinced.

<< I would LOVE to see a thoughtful, well-written paper that dismisses AGW. But I do have trouble when numerous papers proposed to dismiss global warming are presented which are completely inconsistent. >>

They ARE consistent on one conclusion: That agw as a consequence of ghg's is not happening. Please consider that they are under no obligation whatsoever to present an alternative explanation. The MISSING SIGNATURE is, itself, sufficient to dismiss the theory. As I noted earlier, there is reason to question whether any warming has even occurred. The statistics support both sides.

March, 01 2009

Len Gould says

It would be unbelievable if I hadn't seen that history of Alan's articles and posts here. Claims that "AGW MUST be nonsense because it may snow on a winter day near Washington"?

Jeff: -- The point of that post was to request YOUR design for "an experiment", presumeably one more complex than were done by any of the qualified scientists who detailed the effect in the 1800's, else why would you bring up the question? I note that, again as usual, you tried to dodge the question with insults. Perhaps ypu should refer back to

Roger Arnold's post -- "They can be calculated and measured very precisely from the spectroscopic absorbtion and emission coefficients of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And if you happen to doubt the theory on which the calculations are based, all you have to do is go outside, send up a radiosonde, and record a high resolution thermal spectrogram of the night sky. What you'll find is that the spectrum you measure matches precisely with what the theory calculates, from the temperature and humidity profiles recorded by the radiosonde. "

March, 02 2009

Jim Beyer says

James,

I've haven't seen any source other than Evans complaining about this alleged missing signature. I thought I addressed that from the note from Lambert. Here is a further explanation: RealClimate Explanation of signature

I don't see how noting that your multiple arguments are not self-consistent is an ad hominem attack.

James wrote: "...I am not overly concerned with the 'truth'."

I could have a field day with this one, but instead I will point out is that what you are really trying to say is that you don't feel the AGW skeptics should be burdened with providing a counter explanation. That you have no burden of proof to present. But you do. For two reasons. First of all, humans have raised CO2 levels to unprecedented levels -- so one really is burdened to verify that this is not harmful. (If I dumped huge amounts of some chemical in the water you and your family drink, I think you would find it odd for me to ask you to PROVE that is was harmful before I stopped dumping there.) Second, on a practical level, given the purchase that AGW already has in the scientific and political communities, it's not enough to just try to cast doubt, you need to figure out what is going on. (Likewise, the AGW community is burdened with proving CO2 is causing global warming because of the costs of remediation/changeover. BOTH sides are burdened.)

"Please consider that they are under no obligation whatsoever to present an alternative explanation."

But they are. As mentioned above.

This is a another problem I have with AGW skeptics -- their lack of acceptance of the burden of proof. If you didn't want to be burdened with this, then humanity shouldn't have raised CO2 levels by 40% since the Industrial Revolution, the highest levels in 650,000 years.

March, 02 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim,, your search for a "consistent truth" has no more relevance than Einstein's search for a universal (unified field) theory, a theory which has YET to see the light of day! In such a chaotic environment with our puny knowledge of all the inputs and outputs of "nature" let alone climate, it is no wonder there is no unified theory. You might as well discount everything Einstein and others have said about E=MC^2 and all the rest, since a "unified" answer isn't forthcoming. Einstein himself rejected quantum theory (as presented) on the basis that God doesn't play dice with the universe. However, if he DOES, then what is the point of our trying to discover 'truths' that may or may not even exist, or if they do, disappear with the next roll?

By the way, since AGW has taken on the form of evidence presented in court rather than "science", it is perfectly acceptable to show the witness has been caught in a lie (or several hundred in this case) for ALL testimony of said witness to be rejected out of hand.

Len, I've already stated ONE experiment, you're either too obtuse or ignorant or both to have recognized it. Yes, I've been insulting to you and YOU have been insulting to innumerable posters including me on this site. Grow a pair.

Your contention is that trace amounts of CO2 DRIVE the REAL climate multiplier, water vapor. My answer is simple, throw away the crappy computer models that tell us nothing verifiable (and are laughingly erroneous at what they HAVE predicted) and devise a simple experiment (the terrarium) and verify this so-called forcing effect. No I don't need a 30 kilometer high terrarium, the effect should show up on a small scale as easily as a large one. The difficulty of course is adding a couple of molecules of CO2 to the mix since there is such a tiny amount of it. For instance Argon is 24 TIMES more prevalent in our atmosphere than CO2, so adding CO2 with a pipette will be problematic to the extreme. I'll let you do the math (if you're capable) of the number of molecules of CO2 in a cubic meter of terrarium "air".

March, 02 2009

Jim Beyer says

1 cubic meter = 1000 liters, and 22.4 liters per mole at STP. So a total of 44.64 moles. Assuming 385 ppm, that would mean 0.0172 moles or CO2 or about .76 grams (44 grams per mole of CO2).

March, 02 2009

Len Gould says

Jeff: I was TRYING to get you to declare the size of your "terrarium experiment" and why the particular size you have in mind may make produce valuable results, but apparently you're confused even about which part of one's anatomy to think with. Are you proposing, I suppose, that with a 1 cu m terrarium you could accurately ptedict snowfalls near Washington? Or what presently unknown physical phenomenon exactly would you test for? (Caution, that's a trick question).

March, 02 2009

Roger Arnold says

James Carson:
The more important and interesting point to me is, why is CO2 rising at all? I find it hard to believe that the carbon cycle is that rigid. The natural variation in carbon dioxide release through vulcanism is larger than human activity by orders of magnitude. An increase in CO2 emissions whether anthropogenic or natural should lead to natural sequestration at a higher rate.
This is wrong on several counts. For starters, volcanism contributes a negligible amount to the carbon flow, compared to either anthropogenic or natural sources. "Natural sources" being processes that recycle biomass back into CO2 and water vapor: animal respiration, bacterial decomposition, and fire.

Natural sources produce some 20 times more CO2 annually (IIRC) than anthropogenic sources (fossil fuel burning and cement production), but the amount produced and the amount withdrawn (via photosynthesis) are closely linked. Standing biomass can act as a either a net CO2 source or sink, depending on whether its amount, worldwide, is decreasing (desertification and deforestation) or increasing (reforestation). But for the most part, it stays in balance. The CO2 that is locked up in today's photosynthesis gets released tomorrow when the plant is eaten or dies and decays. There's no known homeostatic mechanism that would result in an increased inventory of standing biomass in response to increased atmospheric CO2.

The measured annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is only about half of what is contributed by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Given that, the problem needing explanation isn't where the added CO2 is coming from, it's why the observed increase isn't larger. It has a straightforward answer: there's an increase in CO2 dissolved in the surface waters of the ocean that is roughly equal to the increase in atmospheric levels.

March, 02 2009

Roger Arnold says

Regarding the role of water vapor vs. other greenhouse gases:

In terms of its effect in slowing radiative transport through the atmosphere (its greenhouse effectiveness), water vapor is far more potent than CO2. As everybody acknowledges. But the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is entirely dependent on global temperatures. If there were no other greenhouse gasses to provide a radiative insulating effect, then year after year, the earth's atmosphere would become slightly colder and slightly drier. The trend would continue, until the earth was a frozen ball, with essentially no atmospheric water vapor. It's average surface temperature woud be the same 33 C colder that is calculated in the absence of any greenhouse warming.

There's evidence suggesting that exactly that has occurred in the geological past, when CO2 levels became extremely depressed. (Google "snowball earth".)

The bottom line is that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) do indeed play a critical role in global temperatures. They provide the basic "signal" that water vapor serves to amplify.

March, 03 2009

Jeff Presley says

Len, I'm guessing you're not being obtuse, this is just all you have to work with (above the collar I mean). You can make anatomical references if you desire, after all this is the Internet where men are men and cowards can throw insults at will. Of course in person, you'd be far more circumspect, otherwise you'd find yourself mulling over a handful of assorted ivory that used to be your teeth.

Trying to model the entire planet is ridiculous, even though that's precisely what the computer models are attempting to do. The experiment could work with a light bulb and extremely accurate thermometers. Apparently the ability to conceive of an experiment and set it up is becoming a lost art. Just because computers give answers, doesn't mean they are the RIGHT answers. And only a fool trusts the computer answers implicitly and doesn't at least attempt to do verification. So far the IPCC has failed miserably at this task.

Good job Jim, the question was for Len but you almost answered it correctly (forgot to multiply by Avogadro constant). Interestingly you used something called a mole. That term was devised through EXPERIMENT and careful and analytical MEASUREMENT. There is a lot of science like that; as Newton said, "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants".

Folks like me in the AGW skeptics class are more than a little concerned about the lack of precision in measurements, the conflict of interest, the pandering to the press instead of engaging peers, suppression of dissent, non-adherence to the scientific method, and jumping to a conclusion against a specific "culprit" (CO2) rather than following ALL the evidence no matter where it leads (my CSI metaphor).

Unlike Len, I've personally met with and engaged in discussion with so-called climate scientists. The last time was at a geological conference at the Colorado School of Mines where one with a Phd in Oceanographic Climatology gave a presentation. I was in a different track so missed her talk, but ran into her later in the lobby of the hotel. I asked her a few questions about hydrates, which she was CLUELESS ABOUT!! She tried to harrumph her way out of it, but unfortunately for her, she was at a GEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE and the lobby was FULL of geologists. She humiliated herself and literally ran away. Luckily for her I didn't ask those questions at her talk, or she'd have embarrassed herself in front of the entire auditorium rather than a dozen or so. YOU WOULD THINK IF YOU'D GOTTEN A PHD IN OCEANOGRAPHIC CLIMATOLOGY YOU'D HAVE AT LEAST LEARNED ABOUT HYDRATES!?!?! The fact she was clueless about them caused my already low opinion of climate "scientists" to go even lower. Unfortunately she is now busily "educating" our next generation of climatologists. I'm sure their indoctrination is proceeding according to plan, and by the time THEIR next generation is "educated" we won't need to worry about the pesky scientific method ever again, it will have become a quaint relic of a bygone era.

March, 04 2009

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Jeff, "CLUELESS"...clueless at the Colorado School of Mines. You should go to one of their energy economics conferences.

March, 04 2009

Len Gould says

Jeff: So I suppose next you'll claim its impossible to find a single clueless AGW sceptic? Just peruse any weblog. And you're doing a lot of talking and not much detailing of your "experiment". "The experiment could work with a light bulb and extremely accurate thermometers". Again, what youd you be measuring, in support of what hypothesis? (Is this the third or fourth request?)

March, 04 2009

Len Gould says

Again, what would you be measuring, in support of what hypothesis?

March, 04 2009

Jim Beyer says

I've noticed Jeff gets a little ADD when pressed for specifics. And not a peep about Roger's comments.

I'm not sure what any terrarium experiment would accomplish. CO2 the gas heats up a certain amount based on the light frequencies hitting it. Water vapor increases a certain amount based on the ambient temperature. I don't think most reasonable people doubt that that occurs.

The issue is how much is occurring, and what a delta change of CO2 produces in terms of a delta change in temperature. (And the non-linear nature of the changes that are predicted by the climatologists - what really supports that? How strong and accurate is THAT evidence?) Yet, yet another thing that bugs me about the AGW skeptics -- they don't even ask the right critical questions.....

March, 04 2009

Jeff Presley says

Len, there may indeed be clueless AGW skeptics, but THEY aren't collecting 10's of BILLION$ per year "analyzing" the climate! I'm reasonably certain that when you go to a doctor you want that person to have more than a modicum of knowledge about their profession? Or is a witch doctor as good as a cardiologist in your book? Good luck with that heart condition then. People holding themselves out to be experts in their profession have been caught red-handed cooking the books, lying to congress, the litany of sins I pointed out above which YOU have not addressed, and no we aren't talking about CEO's here.

Since we've had seven years now of global cooling the mantra has even changed from anthropogenic global warming to "Climate Change", since the "Climate Experts" don't have a bloody clue what they are doing.

Jim, if the test is so simple why hasn't it been done? CO2 the gas re-radiates INEFFICIENTLY in the infrared band, and if you have 100% CO2 the effect is well known. Hence my CO2 laser metaphor (you still haven't answered my question about electromagnetics, and a good thing too). What isn't defined is how it works (as a driver) in a CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT at the same minuscule levels it appears in nature. Your non-linear statement is itself non-linear, are you trying to say that chaos rules climate? Congratulations, it has and it will, I don't need a Phd in climate science to understand that.

Let me make one point perfectly clear. Unlike Len here, I have a real job and real work to do that doesn't involve being a full-time unpaid AGW skeptic. I'm a concerned citizen because I don't want to see horrible policy mistakes being made in the name of something that is tenuous at best and a complete fraud at worst. Even Steve McIntyre didn't start out as a professional AGW skeptic, but has morphed himself that way, and makes his living from DONATIONS to his website. That's it! And yet every AGW climate scientist on the planet treads in fear of Steve, because he holds them to account! They outspend him thousands to one, have armies of paid staff and sycophant journalists, and yet they fear him. A smart person would have to wonder why, if they have nothing to hide? A dumb person would be... on their bandwagon?

March, 04 2009

Jim Beyer says

Let me try putting up an image.

Here's the reference:

GHG absorption graph

Anyway, it shows that CO2 blocks an infrared 'opening' in the H2O spectrum. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is well-known.

March, 04 2009

Jim Beyer says

Here's a different chart showing a slightly different take on CO2, giving it the 'shoulder' above 13 microns, instead of H2O:

reference:

Another absoption chart

March, 04 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim, the IPCC assumes radiative equilibrium, a state which has NEVER EXISTED! They have been proved wrong on this time and again, but like a lie repeated often enough it keeps coming back from the dead.


< />

and this

March, 04 2009

Jeff Presley says

second gif didn't make it, but here's the link in English. What is MOST interesting about Hug is he actually setup an EXPERIMENT, imagine THAT? He was also scientist enough to submit to a pseudo-peer public review process, which cost him emotionally and professionally since he was going against the IPCC dogma. Later he was joined by Barrett I also recommend you read the Open Review" especially this post

Remember also that although indeed the absorption spectra for CO2 is well-known, what has NOT been demonstrated is what happens at SMALL CONCENTRATIONS OF CO2, until Hug did it. Was there a radiative forcing effect? Yes, but a FACTOR of 80 TIMES smaller than the IPCC claimed! And the "hole" in the tropospheric measurements wasn't created by some computer scientist in Australia as claimed in a previous post above, it was and IS well KNOWN to exist, see Spencer, Christy et al.

Because Len won't click on a link, I'll post the conclusion here: 4. Discussion & Conclusions The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive, and therefore produce too much global warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The IPCC has simply assumed that mechanisms of climate change like that addressed here do not exist. But that assumption is quite arbitrary and, as shown here, very likely wrong. My use of only PDO-forced variations in the Earth's radiative energy budget to explain two-thirds of the global warming trend is no less biased than the IPCC's use of carbon dioxide to explain global warming without accounting for natural climate variability. If any IPCC scientists would like to dispute that claim, please e-mail me at roy.spencer (at) nsstc.uah.edu.

If the PDO has recently entered into a new, negative phase, then we can expect that global average temperatures, which haven't risen for at least seven years now, could actually start to fall in the coming years. The recovery of Arctic sea ice now underway might be an early sign that this is indeed happening.

I am posting this information in advance of publication because of its potential importance to pending EPA regulations or congressional legislation which assume that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Since the mainstream news media now refuse to report on peer-reviewed scientific articles which contradict the views of the IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hansen, I am forced to bypass them entirely.

We need to consider the very real possibility that carbon dioxide - which is necessary for life on Earth and of which there is precious little in the atmosphere - might well be like the innocent bystander who has been unjustly accused of a crime based upon little more than circumstantial evidence.

March, 05 2009

Len Gould says

"If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less", "most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes" -- a lot of if's and mights, on which to base a lot of absolute statements, Jeff. CO2 "might be the innocent bystander"?

Then again, it might not. Give us odds based on all the facts, not just the facts you like.

March, 05 2009

Len Gould says

From Hug's The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact? "If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 " -- is nearly the last item stated. My question in all of this is, do any of these guys consider what happens to earth's real atmosphere as a result of a small amount of warming? Hint -- the absolute water vapour content will increase, resulting in a further increase in IR absorption. It is not clear to me that Hug is including this factor in his "experiments" but it appears that he may not be, because 7.2 degC is only about 20% of the total greenhouse effect on earth, even according to Hug, the remainder being primarily due to atmospheric water vapour and water droplets.

If in fact Hug is ignoring this issue, then I conclude he is either deliberately misleading or incompetent. The fact that he does not even discuss this obvious issue is a significant concern.

March, 05 2009

Len Gould says

To clarify, my point is that any experiment which claims to reproduce the effects of increasing CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere must also reproduce the effects of any small increase in average temperature on all the other thermal retention factors involved in earth's climate affected by even a smal increase in thermal retention due to increased CO2 content. a) increases in atmospheric water vapour content. b) reductions in albedo due to reduced snow-ice cover. c) increases in atmospheric methane content due to warming of peat boglands, permafrost, and ocean clathrates. d) changes in ocean circulation. e) changes in forest fire locations and frequency. f) etc. etc. How does Hug deal with these issues in his "10 cm glass cylinder (150 cm3, with IR-transparent window) " ?

He certainly doesn't inform us of this obvious issue in his discussion.

March, 05 2009

Len Gould says

And as for your repeating of that canard "The recovery of Arctic sea ice now underway", again let me refer you to Arctic sea ice hits second-lowest extent, likely lowest volume, say CU-Boulder researchers.

[QUOTE]"Average sea ice extent during September, a benchmark measurement in the scientific study of Arctic sea ice, was 1.8 million square miles. The record monthly low, set in 2007, was 1.65 million square miles. The third lowest monthly low was 2.15 square miles in 2005, according researchers at the center.

The 2008 low strongly reinforces the 30-year downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, said CU-Boulder Research Professor Mark Serreze, an NSIDC senior scientist. The 2008 September low was 34 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 and only 9 percent greater than the 2007 record. Because the 2008 low was so far below the September average, the negative trend in the September extent has been pulled downward, from a minus 10.7 percent per decade to a minus 11.7 percent per decade, he said.

"When you look at the sharp decline we have seen over the past 30 years, a recovery from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all," Serreze said. "Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous."[/QUOTE]

But I and others have pointed this out to you before, yet you still use language and context which would imply that there is some dramatic contradiction to IPCC conclusions in there. Enough please.

March, 05 2009

Jim Beyer says

Pretty good thread refuting the Barrett-Hug claim:

Why Hug is Mistaken

March, 05 2009

Jim Beyer says

Note also that in any case Hug COMPLETELY contradicts the Gerlich paper, to which Jeff also linked.

March, 05 2009

Jim Beyer says

Let me try to refute what Hug is proposing clearly and succinctly.

Hug thinks the additional radiative forcing of more CO2 in the atmosphere would be very tiny because the CO2 that is there already is already absorbing all the IR emissions from the earth. (Instead of being absorbed in 10 meters of air column, it would be in 9.7 meters or whatever.)

Proof that this thinking is flawed is easily shown with the planet Venus, which is MUCH hotter than the earth (surface is about 750K), even given its closer proximity to the Sun. Why? Because it's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen. If the carbon dioxide on earth was already "maxed out" on its IR absorption (I've heard this argument before), then the Venus wouldn't be any hotter, due to the extra CO2. But it is.

The note referenced above touches on more precisely why Hug's thinking is flawed and what is really occurring.

March, 05 2009

Len Gould says

Arctic summer ice could vanish by 2013, expert says

[QUOTE]OTTAWA, March 5 (Reuters) - The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover in summer could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted, a leading polar expert said on Thursday.

Warwick Vincent, director of the Centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which call for an ice free summer in 2013.[/QUOTE]

March, 05 2009

Jeff Presley says

Len, when you see something in ITALICS that means I am quoting SOMEONE ELSE!! So plz do not ascribe to ME words that belong to SOMEONE ELSE. You made your usual dozen posts and therefore it will take me some time to get to all of them. I'll ignore your spurious Venus argument, that has been asked and answered a dozen times. Hint, the earth is NOT going to have a 90+% CO2 level, even if EVERY DROP OF OIL, COAL and every plant on the planet is burned. Not even close. We also don't know if its heat started from volcanic action, although that's certainly probable, so the non-troposphere effect is irrelevant if the heat being retained was subterranean.

You start to make some interesting points about the experiment, but realize, Hug was NOT testing what I want tested, he's just the CLOSEST to what I want checked. Unlike your wacked out heroes, like Hansen, Hug had the intelligence to establish a BASE CASE with zero CO2. Recognize what he was looking to resolve, if you read his paper, was the missing tropospheric heating, which in case you're asleep at the switch is STILL MISSING!!! Also interesting that now that your favorite villain CO2 is getting a potential reprieve, you and your ilk start to bring in the usual suspects, including methane. But while we're on the subject of global warming and methane, this little tidbit, which I'm sure I've mentioned before because I just grabbed the book and I've got a bookmark to the page:

1894: After two unsuccessful efforts by members of the Geographical Survey of Canada to drill for gas near the Athabasca River, they move locations to a site near the Pelican River. At 250 meters, the drillers strike an enormous reservoir of natural gas, which will blow wild for twenty-one years. Fueling the Future

So, do we get to blame Canada for global warming? Another source that I can't get my hands on at the moment from USGS theorized that GSC had hit the largest gas field of all time and the whole thing was vented to the atmosphere. Maybe you're right after all, since GSC did it, it IS manmade global warming! Should everyone bomb Canada now or wait until after the Stanley Cup playoffs? <-- joking... :)

OhmyGod, Arctic sea ice returning to historic levels, news at 11:00 Should I post pictures of sailing ships going through the arctic when it was supposedly covered with ice? Should I mention the vikings for the hundredth time? Oh by the way, the author I was quoting is HIMSELF a climate scientist so even if he doesn't get headlines by crying that the sky is falling, I'm certain he is privvy to ACCURATE AND DOCUMENTED climate information, if you think he's lying I suggest you send him an email, it is listed in his paper you're afraid to read.

March, 05 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim, not a very good thread because Hug and Barrett were missing. MY post on the other hand had questions asked and answered, but I don't blame you if you want my debaters to be unable to respond so your debaters have a chance to win. Read the other post and you'll see the same tired arguments were addressed. You'll also see that Barrett was professionally attacked because he dared to speak the truth, EXACTLY the kind of behavior that should NEVER occur in Science except that apparently it is not only allowed but encouraged where AGW is concerned. Reread my post about the concerns on 3/3/09.

In fact I'll make it easier and repeat it here: Folks like me in the AGW skeptics class are more than a little concerned about the lack of precision in measurements, the conflict of interest, the pandering to the press instead of engaging peers, suppression of dissent, non-adherence to the scientific method, and jumping to a conclusion against a specific "culprit" (CO2) rather than following ALL the evidence no matter where it leads (my CSI metaphor).

Hug does not contradict the Gerlich paper. Gerlich et al are saying the greenhouse effect is a false metaphor among other things, is that what you're getting at? After all, because of the suppression of dissent mentioned above, he was risking his professional career to even do what he did. He dared not go further, and keep his day job. This has NEVER been the case for any other scientific endeavor, the blacklist squad is alive and well. But hey, according to YOU they are saving the world so I guess any and all methods are perfectly fair? Now if only those pesky models could predict ANYTHING worth a damn, they wouldn't have to put up with all this criticism.

March, 06 2009

Len Gould says

Jeff: "Also interesting that now that your favorite villain CO2 is getting a potential reprieve, you and your ilk start to bring in the usual suspects, including methane." -- Whaaaaaaaaaat? And you wonder whyi sometimes get insulting!

March, 06 2009

Jim Beyer says

To be clear, I will hold my sarcastic tongue....

Jeff, Venus is not being heated by volcanic activity. That's an utterly ridiculous notion.

March, 06 2009

Jim Beyer says

Jeff,

I have followed the evidence. Some of it leads to Venus. I see evidence of planet warming there. You see mysterious volcanoes that don't exist. Mysterious volcanoes that can keep an entire planet constantly and evenly heated hotter than Mercury even though it's much further from the sun!

March, 06 2009

Jeff Presley says

Albedo effect. The discussion on Venus being a young planet should be re-examined. The SAME math that your climate modelers use shows Venus not even approaching the temperatures it does, so what IS the cause? I say volcanoes, it is a better theory than solar alone.

March, 06 2009

Jim Beyer says

"Albedo effect." Nope. Venus has a much higher albedo (.65) than either Mercury (.11-.12) or the Earth (.367).

How much did the temperature rise on Earth when Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo erupted? Zilch. In fact, it probably when down slightly.

Think of how many eruptions would need to be ongoing at any one time on Venus to keep it a few hundred degrees hotter than Mercury. You'd need tens or hundreds of thousands of Pinatubos going all at once, all of the time. This is simply not credible. We would have noticed them. If we can notice active volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io, then we can sense them on Venus. Especially 100,000 going at once.....

(You seem to imply it would only need be done once and then the heat would somehow "stay' there. But that's not the case. kT4 ensures that any planet-borne heat would quickly radiate away.)

The only credible, possible cause of Venus's warming is the insulative effect of its atmosphere. Namely, the greenhouse effect which allows sunlight in, but impedes IR radiation from leaving.

March, 06 2009

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Well folks, Having just got back from the Bahamas where it was unseasonably cold - you will need to do a great deal of persuading to get this old nuclear engineer to believe that Global warming is coming to this planet any time soon. Apparently it was due to the jet stream bringing cold air from the North to Southern latitudes....or so the theory goes. As far as Venus goes....we can't even figure out what is going on on this little patch of the Universe - let alone Venus.

Lost in all the discussion abobe was Mr Vande Voorts fine comment

"Mike Vande Voort 2.26.09 Len G. so where did all the carbon in coal, oil, NG, etc come from ??" May be I missed it but I did not see a reply.

Also regarding electric plug-in's. The public ought to have NO expectation that they will be cheaper to operate. If there are only a few thousand on the road and government revenues from gasoline sales are unaffected sure.....as soon as they are mass produced watch the taxes go onto electricity instead of gasoline and then they become just as expensive as gasoline engines.

If you really think any government wants to spend money to reduce peoples spending on fuels - forget it. Remember the biggest cost in gasoline is NOT the crude oil OR the distribution network OR the gas station profit margin....the Government makes most of the money.

Does any one REALLY think they are going to give that up. Dream on my friends dream on. Electric cars if they are ever developed will be no cheaper to operate that gasoline cars are now. Your Government and mine will see to it that they are not.

Malcolm

March, 07 2009

Bob Amorosi says

Malcolm,

Regarding taxes shifting from gasoline to electricity if plug-in electric vehicles become widespread, you are absolutely right. Consumers are in for painfully large rate increases on electricity down the road from this, plus all the other expensive looming demands on the grid and our beleaguered utility companies, including the billions to be spent on more nuclear plants in places like Ontario

So Malcolm, now that we agree, consider the economic crisis we’re presently in. If it isn’t already bad enough, just ask your local restaurant, dry cleaning shop, or local auto manufacturing factory what a doubling or tripling of electricity rates down the road will do to the viability of their businesses. If you think businesses and consumers are under economic siege now, just wait to see what the future has in store for us. I feel very sorry for our children as they may look back on 2007 and realize we all never had it so good economically, or such a good standard of living as back then.

If my doom and gloom predictions are correct, consumers and businesses will more than ever before be looking for ways to save money on their energy bills. Conservation, distributed local electricity generation, and automated demand response technology in businesses and residential homes should become very prominent on everyone’s radar screens down the road.

Start saving your pennies Malcolm, we’re going to need them.

March, 08 2009

Len Gould says

Malcolm: "Mike Vande Voort 2.26.09 Len G. so where did all the carbon in coal, oil, NG, etc come from ??" May be I missed it but I did not see a reply. -- I'll deal with it since its you asking, Malcolm. Obviously from CO2 in the atmosphere. As also the white chalk cliffs of Dover, and many other mineral formations. Is there any evidence that anyone here is unaware that at one time earth's atmosphere was almost entirely CO2? And that no animal life, being oxygen dependent, existed until photosynthetic plants developed and reduced the CO2 content and raised the oxygen content. What relevance to any climate which could possibly support modern human civilization? Are you proposing that it would be fine to go back to the atmosphere which existed in the Carboniferous Era?

May I commend to you a close reading of the following, Climate and the Carboniferous Period - geocraft.com , in which it clearly states the close relationship between a) Atmospheric CO2 levels b) the arrangement of the continental landmass plates. c) earth's average temperatures.

[QUOTE]Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

....

Two special conditions of terrestrial landmass distribution, when they exist concurrently, appear as a sort of common denominator for the occurrence of very long-term simultaneous declines in both global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2):

1) the existence of a continuous continental landmass stretching from pole to pole, restricting free circulation of polar and tropical waters, and

2) the existence of a large (south) polar landmass capable of supporting thick glacial ice accumulations.

These special conditions existed during the Carboniferous Period, as they do today in our present Quaternary Period.[/QUOTE]

I have pointed these issues out to all on other occasions. Too bad prejudice overcomes learning.

March, 09 2009

Jeff Presley says

Jim, I was looking for a smiley face on your post, but apparently I missed it. Should I remind you of what the word ALBEDO means? The HIGHER the number the more reflective the surface, hence the sunlight CANNOT penetrate, I'm talking sunlight not IR here. The SAME formulas used for watts per square meter hitting the earth show Venus substantially colder than it is, but of course without "modifications" they show Earth at 77 C! so they apparently need help, fortunately the models get "tweaked" until they show the numbers the modelers want them to. Realize just how THICK the clouds are on Venus, contributing to its incredibly high albedo. BTW the CORRECT number is 76%, not your .65 number, so you have to account for a LOT of heating with only 24% of the energy (or a LOT less) ever even MAKING it to the surface...

Len, the Earth NEVER had almost 100% CO2 atmosphere. You mention carboniferous era, and apparently forgot to look at the chart I provided previously and which your OWN LINK provides (and of course it is the exact same image I posted previously).

Perhaps where YOU learned(?) science, they didn't explain the difference between 7000 parts per million and something like 700,000 ppm (which itself would only be 70%)

I further wonder if you really read the entire page you posted, especially this part at the end: What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

Too bad prejudice overcomes intelligence

March, 09 2009

Jeff Presley says

Perhaps where YOU learned(?) science, they didn't explain the difference between 7000 parts per million and something like 700,000 ppm (which itself would only be 70%)

I further wonder if you really read the entire page you posted, especially this part at the end: What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

Too bad prejudice overcomes intelligence

March, 10 2009

Bob Ashworth says

The President of the Czech Republic sees clearly!!!

NEW YORK--Environmentalists--even mainstream environmentalists such as Al Gore--are less concerned about any crisis posed by global warming than they are eager to command human behaviour and restrict economic activity, the President of the Czech Republic told the second International Conference on Climate Change here Sunday.

Vaclav Klaus, who also is serving a rotating term as president of the European Union, triggered the approving applause of about 600 attendees as he said, "Their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development, and return mankind centuries back."

Klaus was one of three presenters Sunday evening as the largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics kicked off a 2 1/2 day conference confronting the issue, "Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?' Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, which produced the conference, and Richard Lindzen, a leading meteorologic physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, earned prolonged applause with their presentations as well.

But Klaus was the hit of the evening as he declared that the global warming alarmists he has encountered "are interested neither in temperature, carbon dioxide, competing scientific hypotheses and their testing, nor in freedom or markets. They are interested in their businesses and their profits--made with the help of politicians."

While Klaus hit hard at what he called the political rent-seekers, he earned another round of applause as he said alarmists are "not able to explain why the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998, and decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that the people have been adding increasing amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere."

Klaus scoffed at politicians who urge radical actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through various schemes, such as taxing current to benefit future generations and being "generously altruistic" in restricting the pace of business activity in their economies.

He declared, "We could have made such far-reaching decisions only on the absolutely unrealistic assumption that we know all relevant parameters of the future economic system."

He concluded to a standing ovation by saying, "It is evident that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate. They want to change our behaviour ... to control and manipulate us."

March, 13 2009

Mike Vande Voort says

Len Gould, glad you brought up the limestone, if I recall correctly from high school that would be a sedimentary rock, almost entirely a product of animal activity, all of which were using oxygen in their life cycles. The are millions of cubic miles of limestone, which has effectively sequestered most of that 1500 ppm co2 you are so concerned about. I would propose that you could cleanly burn every last drop of hydrocarbon that you could feasibly pump or mine and it could not have any ill effect on our environment, based on rather certain historical data. BTW, plants grow optimally at co2 levels of 1500 ppm, right now they suffer from a partial presure deficit equivalent to trying to breath at 20-25,000 feet, When humans are suffering respiratory distress, up to 10% co2 is aded to the breathing mixture to IMPROVE respiration. The only downside I can see to having the co2 levels double, triple or quadruple is that I will have to mow the grass more often. :-)

April, 01 2009

Richard Vesel says

I think the only sensible thing to do, experimentally speaking, is to sequester several hundred individuals, permanently, into atmospheres of 600, 800 and 1000 ppm CO2, and see what happens to them over the course of a few years.

Since atmospheric levels are increasing by a few ppm per year, soon to go through 400, we should have some scientific evidence that will say what will happen to mankind as he continues to dirty his atmosphere with excessive amounts of exhaust.

Jeff, do you volunteer? Bring along a pack of skeptics with you.

I can accept that warming is the current trend, and what it's causes are, may be open to debate. However, the trend towards increasing CO2 levels. WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE AN EFFECT ON CLIMATE, cannot be good for mammal life on the planet, and probably a lot of other species as well.

Simple numbers to remember (and you know how to calculate the first one yourself): Total atmospheric CO2 content 2.2 trillion tons

Annual gross CO2 production through combustion of fossil fuels 26 billion tons and climbing.

NOTE: Exxon Mobil predicts that this will be 37 billion tons by 2030. "According to ExxonMobil’s research, global energy demand is expected to increase by an average of 1.2 percent per year between 2005 and 2030—driven by growing populations and expanding economies, and assuming significant gains in energy efficiency."

Will we run the 600 ppm experiment on the entire human population, beginning in about 2030, or will Jeff and the other skeptics volunteer to be test subjects long before then?

hmmmmmmm - one wonders, really...

RWV

April, 01 2009

Richard Vesel says

Mr. VandeVoort - I think you have misread or are deliberately prevericating. Where do you find any consistent therapeutic usage of CO2 for those in respiratory distress???? Post a link, preferably to a widely used medical text or AMA article which supports your wild claim.

Geez, I hope no one repeats this nonsense...You must have been one of Alan Caruba's classmates at Joker University.

RWV

April, 04 2009

Mike Vande Voort says

Richard, see http://www.talkaboutsleep.com/sleep-disorders/archives/Snoring_apnea_abstract23.htm and http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq_othr.html

the OSHA gubment limit of CO2 is 5000 ppm, indoor levels for tight houses routinely hit 3000 ppm,

Nonsense ? being a dupe for the AGW crowd is nonsense

April, 14 2009

Richard Vesel says

Mike:

Your first link refers to a rare sleeping apnea disorder, where the patients hyperventilate and have too much O2 and not enough CO2 in their bloodstream. This small sample of six patients were treated with CO2-enriched air. As for the rest of us, we don't hyperventilate, nor do we suffer from too much oxygen and not enough CO2. Did you know that CO2 contributes to the buffering of the bloodstream, for proper blood pH levels?

CO2 falls into the category of: "Too much of a good thing, is usually a bad thing." This is especially true in human and other biologies...

Next: OSHA 5000ppm is for an eight hour exposure limit in an industrial setting - not a lifetime out in the open or at home... Your second link, if you read it carefully, bears this out exactly...by not reading and understanding, you are duping yourself.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html

http://www.kele.com/Tech/Monitor/Gases/TR-CO2.html

http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2006/07/Carbon-Dioxide-Measures-Up-as-a-Real-Hazard.aspx

OSHA's *constant* exposure limit is 1000, not 5000: =============================================== OSHA Regulations: OSHA states in 29 CFR1910.134(d) that air quality for "Breathing air shall meet at least the requirements of the specification for Grade D breathing air as described in Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification G-7.1-1989...Compressors shall be constructed and situated so as to avoid entry of contaminated into the system and suitable in-line air purifying sorbent beds and filters to further assure breathing air quality". The Compressed Gas Association (according to G-7.1-1989) lists the following maximum allowable contaminant levels in Grade D air: Carbon Monoxide - 10 ppm Carbon Dioxide - 1000 ppm Condensed Hydrocarbons - 5 mg/m3 ============================================= ( from http://www.westernsafety.com/mst/mstpg1.html )

So, I reiterate - your post is nonsense!

Tight houses are 600+ppm - buildings without adequate ventilation and have buildup of (numerous) air pollutants are termed "sick buildings", which I am sure you have heard of. Properly tight houses allow for a controlled rates of air exchange with the outdoors, for the explicit purpose of preventing buildup of bad quality air inside. Bad indoor air is currently remediable by opening the windows or doors on occasion. If the entire atmosphere hits 600ppm or higher, there is nowhere to hide, my friend. Unless we all carry tanks of purified air and breating masks around with us....in preparation for the day when it goes to 1000ppm.

I think you should live with Jeff in the 1000ppm bubble. Or maybe you'd like to go for double or nothing?

April, 17 2009

Mike Vande Voort says

Richard,

We'll try this another way.

Since you seem to know what a bad atmospheric CO2 level is, what level should it be in your perfect world ?

April, 25 2009

Scott Brooks says

I find the observations here on global warming are somewhat narrow in scope. For a more comprehensive overview I would recommend this site:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/gw_nutshell.htm.

The base site even has much more indepth reviews on the various aspects of climate change.

This paper shows that CO2 has an upper limit of forcing beyond which it's effect is insignificant.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf

Journal of Geophysical Research

Vol. 93, No. D8, Pages 9341~9364, August 20, 1988

Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three Dimensional Model

And this article tells of a former NASA scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, who found the forcing modeling of CO2 was greatly exaggerated. He was ostracized so much by Hansen moguls that he resigned in futility.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

I have found repeatedly that the alleged forcing of CO2 in climate change has been exaggerated compared to empirical data and the scientific consensus has been diverging on CO2 forcing in climate change. As many scientists have pointed out, there is the conflict of objectivity vers funding, plus the politicizing has tainted the scientific method and peer review process.

And on the Venus Green House. Since CO2 is one of the most heaviest of gases it's heating effect on Venus is largely a physical effect. The pressure on Venus is around 90 times that of Earths. Therefore the heating effect is largely adiabatic due to the gravity compressing the gas causing most of the heating. The sulfur dioxide clouds greatly inhibit the radiation of heat to space. So the heating of Venus is not proportional to the CO2 levels and the GHG effect is greatly exaggerated by many AGW proponents.

April, 28 2009

Richard Vesel says

Mike - What would be a good level? My less than well-studied opinion would be a value which does not run away or collapse on less than geologic time scales, so that life has a chance to adapt to the changes. In the self-interest of today's ecological balance (pre-1900), I would offer a range of 150 to 350 ppm, which would vary with natural cycles associated with solar and ocean-related influences. We might still see Ice Ages and warm ages, but without undue and extremely rapid influence from a man-made 1.2% increase per year. Excluding the Industrial Age and afterwards, the accepted levels of 150-250 have existed verifiably for about 650,000 years, and probably for at least the last 2 million (open for confirmation by ongoing studies of antarctic ice).

Mr. Brooks - citing an article that is 21 years old, and who's author has long since disappeared as an influence in the climate debate, does not help your position. CO2 on Venus is also not relevant to what is going on here - there's a lot of OTHER greenhouse gas influences, just as you cite the sulfur dioxide clouds. Stick with earthbound and current science ... you will fare better.

May, 01 2009

Mike Vande Voort says

Richard, Since the CO2 level has only gone up 70 ppm in the last 50 years, and we have reliable empirical evidence that the CO2 concentration has been as much as 500% higher without any evidence of adverse upset to the ecological balance, and there is no generally accepted mechanism for a "runaway" CO2 scenaro, I still posit that the current CO2 hype is fundamentally a scam. The rise in CO2 levels will taper off as the use of hydrocarbons declines due to price and availability. If 350 ppm is ok with you, 500 ppm isn't going to result in instant death. Life doesn't need geological time scales to adapt, and I don't see pre 1900 "ecological balance" datum as being a reference for anything, other than some arbitrary anthropologic bias.

May, 05 2009

Richard Vesel says

Mike - If 500 were the leveling off point, I could accept that - and that is a point at which the ICCC"hopes" we can level things off.

But, I think it is a naive assumption that we are going to stop there with a "business as usual" approach to fossil fuel consumption. There is no shortage of coal, or natural gas (check out the Haynesville Shale data, for example). If there is no cost associated with creating CO2, we will merrily continue to produce it at ever prodigious rates, and 500ppm will be in the rearview mirror by 2025-2030. THEN what???

There are known reserves of coal of almost one trillion tons worldwide. How much CO2 is that? Enough to double the current atmospheric load alone, without considering contributions from natural gas, petroleum, and ocean temperature rises. It is a recipe for runaway...

I don't buy ANY naturally declining scenario posited by the "business as usual" community, sorry.

September, 24 2009

Len Gould says

Mr Ashworth's use of a revisionist and lying historical reference, in comment near end dated 9.24.09 starting From Piers Corbyn:

Mr Ashwoth: "Piers Corbyn ... Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction" -- You clearly and knowingly are using a reference who is flat lying about how the 2003 (war on/illegal invasion of) Iraq got started. For a long period prior, Mr. Blix had convinced the Security Council that there were no WMD in Iraq. However, the US Government did a brainwash media blitz on their own people, including the President lying (probably knowingly) in a state of the union address to congress, and topped it off with a publicly broadcast presentation by Colin Powell to the UN in which Mr. Powell explicitly lied to the council members (likely due to false information provided to him by the intelligence bodies not under his control). It ruined his reputation and his excellent chances of going further in public service, though it has been clearly documented that he and his staff were blocked in their many attempts at accessing backup data beforehand, no doubt because it didn't exist. The moves ruined worldwide trust in accuracy of US staff abroad permanently, and rightly so. Trying to twist that event to discedit the UN's IPCC is unconsionable lying. Your use of such material to promote your claims leaves me believing that if you spoke the time of day I would need to consult my watch first before believing it.

December, 15 2009

Fred Linn says

Oil is running out and a major cause of pollution. Dependence on oil is a major cause of economic disruption and a threat to national security. Petroleum is now being strip mined and destroying land, water and air resources at an unprecedented rate.

Coal dug up out of the ground to be burned destroys the land, watersheds, and pollutes the air. Coal burning produces mountains of ash and releases myriad toxins into the biosphere.

Even discounting global warming entirely----we have more than ample reasons to get rid of the use of the use of coal and petroleum.

Add your comments:

Please log in to leave a comment!
back to top

Receive Energy Central eNews & Updates








 

2014 Energy Market Perspective Webinar

Thursday Jul 31, 2014 - 2:00 PM Eastern - Virtual Event

Please join Black & Veatch as we review our Mid-Year 2014 Energy Market Outlook and Industry Trends in a free, one-hour webinar. This webinar will discuss our insights into the near and long-term energy market, providing an outlook for the more...



Sponsored Content