A view of climate “on the ground” from a reporter who was there at the beginning

Elevated from a comment Theodore White says: March 8, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Let’s clarify a few things on another of Anthony’s excellent posts, like this one ‘Hey Hansen! Where’s the Beef !?’ –

It’s lengthy, but gives the view of a person who was there on the ground, covering climate science and global warming in the late 1980s – years before the AGW mania took off.

I worked as a journalist in the late 1980s in Colorado, home state of Senator Tim Wirth. I had interviewed him several times on other topics. As part of my general assignment beat, I also covered science, climate and weather, regularly at NOAA, NCAR and other federal science agencies headquarted in Colorado.

I clearly remember the tone of articles on global warming during the 1980s. Most of the concern came out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on the ozone layer. By the way, this was during the new era of climate scientists working with high-grade graphic computer modelling.

The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were that some, like Hanson, took an immediate ideological tone to explain the ozone shifts – not once mentioning the Sun or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field effect on Earth’s ozone layers. For some reason, there was a resistance to even mentioning the Sun’s effects on earth by these new climate scientists getting jobs at the science agencies. It was odd I thought.

When news editors assigned stories on the climate back then it was usually spurred by press releases out of places like NCAR, NWS, NOAA, etc., which usually featured a talk, lecture, or findings that were sent to the media. Global warming, in the mid-to-late 1980s was not the AGW ideological era that it is today.

In fact, climate scientists were not in any agreement if the earth was ‘warming’ in the 1980s – though it was true. Many scientists would roll their eyes at the mention of ‘global warming’ but many changed their tune in the 1990s just as major federal dollars were being directed to ‘man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.

But I digress – in short, when I wrote pieces on the climate, I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved. Now, though there was evidence that the use of aerosols were clearly evident in the upper atmosphere; the data did not support that this was the cause of the fear-mongering on ozone holes which was all the rage in the climate community of the late 1980s and 1990s.

NCAR had modeled on the theory that aerosols were the cause, but not the Sun, which again, I found odd, since the only major source of radiation that can only affect the opening and closings and sizes of the Earth’s ozones IS the Sun.

There is no other source of radiation that can effectively destroy the earth’s ozone layer. But what was curious (and unbelievable) is that there were obvious determined efforts (in the mid-to-late 1980s) to blame mankind for something it could not do on a planetary level – and that is to change the climate.

Only the Sun can do that.

What I noticed about Sen. Wirth and Hansen back in the late 1980s, is that there was a obvious concerted effort within the emergence of baby boomer management and personnel into climate science on the federal level; that they were pushing ideology as policy. This was a prepatory assault that was planned out.

When Al Gore rose to the vice-presidency by 1993 – Wirth and Hansen were already well out in front of the ‘man-made’ global warming pack – extending the ‘man-made’ ideology to other federal agencies and the university-level climate community – with federal dollars.

Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present – you may find some amazing numbers.

Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up (and began to alter weather data on purpose) while spending lavishly on computers pushing the AGW ideology – all at the public’s great expense.

But the media was not on board. Most journalists are ignorant of climate and weather science. I was fortunate in that I was not, so my editors passed on to me the great amount of work – and I was busy enough as it was a police reporter as it was! Since my beat included covering the climate science community in the heart of it in Colorado, I was well-attuned to how events were shaping up by 1989.

Since the mid-1980s, what I saw were articles like the one Anthony posted from 1986 were becoming more common. What I observed as professional reporter was that the ozone-layer press releases from NOAA and NCAR and other climate centers were beginning to use the same talking points in their different releases to news desks. Sometimes, these went out on the wire which were then placed into newspapers across the country without the resources to assign reporters to cover the climate.

I did not have that problem since this was part of my beat. In interviews with the particular scientists (including Hansen) what I observed was that they were heavy on the ideology, yet not sure if it was strong enough because the global weather data in the late 1980s did not strongly support their case that the world was warming because of man.

Still, by 1989, the AGW science did not make sense to me in light that it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which I remind everyone – remains in effect to this very day.

Anyhow, it did not seem to matter to Wirth’s office, Hansen, or the growing careerists at NCAR and NOAA; because whomever was pushing ‘man-made global warming’ on the United States, were also doing it at the international level too.

My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.

Events have since proven that I was right.

All this – while AGW ideologists reaped untold profits convincing populations that carbon (the very stuff we are made of) is bad and so we all have to pay for carbon to a global mafia.

In short, the careerist climate AGW scientists and their political insiders conspired to convince the world that humans had to pay dearly for exhaling the carbon gases that the natural world and our trees inhales to flourish.

Carbon is natural to Earth. It is driven by the Sun’s activity. Carbon lags far, far behind temperature (also driven by the Sun) and carbon is not – and never has been – a threat to the Earth.

Why?

Because the laws of thermodynamics and physics that govern our system says so.

191 thoughts on “A view of climate “on the ground” from a reporter who was there at the beginning

  1. During the first half of the 1980s I was a hard core deep green. I was a member of a small NGO that espoused books like “The Monkey Wrench Gang” and the “Ecotopia” series, whilst working on sustainable living projects (and boondoggles). While I was not a member of “Earth First” I networked with members. I was a true believer in runaway global warming and “the coming Human induced great extinction.” I believe Ronald Reagan was a rising Caesar, and that LA was the new Rome. My view of the future was similar to one of the “Seven Tomorrows” of Lovings et al, wherein we were in a gangster run fouled blackened fallen Earth. It is no surprise that some who stayed in that subculture (unlike ones like me who matured beyond it) have ended up with their grubby mitts on at least some of the levers of power. I point at this juncture to the warnings Paul R. Johnson gave in his key book “Intellectuals.”

  2. “I’m convinced that prophets of Doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words doomsday is a possibility.” – Darth Maurice Strong, BBC Interview, 1972.

    “I found that people were turned on that our Earth was in danger, and that our own life depends on the Earth and having a hospitable environment, and so how to translate that into a political kind of energy that would move the governments to do the right things in Stockholm [and by extension Copenhagen], to take the right decisions.” – Darth Maurice Strong.

  3. Did Maurice Strong and Al Gore get their idea from Mr. Fontenelle (11/2/1657 – 9/1/1757) or is this a case of prescience by a gifted writer?
    ”Were a few influential men to teach the most wrongheaded idea such as there was no heat from the sun, the common man would without thinking accept such knowledge as an article of faith.”

  4. Does the Magaret Thatcher story about coal strike busting play weave into this narrative in any way?

  5. If the Warmists could, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and astrophysics would be banned as if it were alchemy. Because they both put an end to the idiocy of war mists.

  6. At some point in this social engineering experiment, sales and marketing expertise entered the fray. Whoever thought of using (abusing) the precautionary priciple to bring governments and the MSM on board was a master salesman. This principle made the selling of AGW so so easy because the science could be ignored. It just didn’t matter that there might be emerging evidence which contradicted the narrative, the PP overrode any objections. As a marketing strategy it is brilliant. The fact that it is fallacious is irrelevent. You all have house insurance and car insurance don’t you. Of course you do because it is necessary. It was never pointed out that the premium was the equivalent of half the value of your home every year. Nobody queried the premise.

  7. I don’t buy the assertion that the CAGW hypothesis violates the Second Law. Sure, a cooler object cannot cause a warmer one to gain heat. But it can slow down the cooling of the warmer object. Together with another heat source (say, the Sun) the combination could (in theory) cause the hotter object to be at equilibrium at a higher temperature than it otherwise would be.

    HOWEVER, I agree that after decades of research, the case for AGW has failed monumentally. There is no hotspot in the troposphere. There is no correlation between recent CO2 increases and (lack of) temperature rise. Not that correlation equals causation anyway. There is abundant evidence that current temperature fits in with ancient cycles. Further, the behaviour and practices of pro-AGW scientists, with all their biases and preconceptions fed into their precious computer models designed to give them the answer they desire, hardly fills one with confidence in their work. I could go on – weather stations in urban heat islands, satellites giving different results, treemometers and hidden declines, the blind insistence in a positive/runaway H2O feedback from a trace gas, the insistence that Gaia is a fragile “biosphere” and after billions of years of survival is now being killed by mad bad Capitalist Man – only the religious socialists believe in that crap now.

  8. Good article. However it is undermined by statements like this…”man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. ”

    I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.

    We see this in UHI in all urban areas. We know that sulphur emissions (mainly from coal burning) can cause smog and clouds that change climate locally. We also know that CO2 is an infra-red absorber – so “in theory” it must have some effect.

    Skeptics, in order to be taken seriously, MUST accept these FACTS. What skeptics disagree with is the EXTENT of these effects (local or regional and on a overall global level very small or immeasureable). Skeptics disagree with the “CATASTROPHIC” in man-made global warming.

  9. …Carbon is natural to Earth. It is driven by the Sun’s activity. Carbon lags far, far behind temperature (also driven by the Sun) and carbon is not – and never has been – a threat to the Earth.

    By “Carbon” you mean carbon dioxide?

    I think that the lag between temperature proxies such as O18 and CO2 in ice cores may well be due to the time it takes for the oceans to warm and to circulate very slightly warmer water to the abyssal plains. Temperatures and pressures at those depths allow for CO2 to exist in a liquid state. Circulation and differences in specific gravity cause the liquid CO2 to float upward and gradually disperse in a soluble gas state in the marine water. Once slightly warmer masses of water reach abyssal depths, the result will be to force dissolved CO2 out of solution and into the atmosphere. The 800 year lag is thus the result of marine circulation patterns and speeds.

  10. Read your comments yesterday and wished you would expand a bit on the laws of thermodynamics and physics you refer to for us non cognoscenti…still do! Maybe the expansion would answer a question I had about Hansen’s 2012 Ted lecture, which I just watched with some fascination. He did not give any recent updates on global temperatures, oddly. But I was particularly interested in his graph on T, CO2, and Sea Level through time (Sea Level rise flattening a bit recently I see). It always seemed to me that rising CO2 following rising temperature in the ice core was a weak point in the AGW argument. Interested to hear that, no, this timing is exactly what Hansen would expect, because due to orbital variations the sun periodically melts the polar ice sheets, the darker earth warms more, and the warming oceans release CO2, which adds another positive feedback (no mention of water vapor). Then he said that just the same thing would be going on today, because the physics don’t change. Well, in that case, what about the physics that cause the warming trend in each of those earlier temperature cycles eventually to stop and the cooling trend kick in? Are those physics still operating? Or is the amount of anthropogenic CO2 supposed to throw the cycles out of whack? Any clarifications from either side of the debate would be appreciated.

  11. Perhaps this “on the ground from the beginning” journalist can provide actual articles that he wrote on the subject back in those heady early days of the climate conspiracy?

    That would really make it an article instead of a puffed-up comment.

  12. Mike says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Does the Magaret Thatcher story about coal strike busting play weave into this narrative in any way?
    ==========================================================
    Yes, but that was part of the parallel (international) effort. Thatcher was a political leader who used this issue for expedience.

    My view is, there were two parallel distinct efforts to advance the CAGW posit. Clearly, they collaborated, but for many years many of us weren’t even aware of people such as Phil Jones.

  13. The problem with AGW is that PR has taken over and the truth does not matter. Flattening rate of sea level rise can be ignored. A stall in temperature rise can be ignored. Low hurricane ACE intensity can be ignored. Everything that contradicts the alarming forecasts of yesteryear can be ignored. It’s always free beer tomorrow with these folks. The good news is that most of the public no longer cares one way or the other.

  14. Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up

    This is probably the fundamental issue with me. Because our country already spends more than it takes in, all of this money must be borrowed from our children and their children. They are going to be very angry if they discover that we wasted THEIR earnings on this silliness. What it amounts to is a transfer of wealth from future generations into the pockets of those profiting from this now. People 50 years from now might be looking at Al Gores descendants wanting their money back. Basically these people are stealing from those who are not yet even born.

  15. I was regarding the ozone layer scare as a rehearsal for the big global warming scare. None of the chemistry involved on the CFC is the bad guy theory makes sense to me. NIce to know now that I wasn´t wrong.

    CFCs are very stable molecules, so stable we used them as aerosol spray propellants in body deodorants. O3, on the other hand, is so reactive it is used as a sanitizer because it kills all kinds of microorganisms. And yet, people see CFCs as the reactive species.

  16. Incidently, does anyone know when Hansen started wearing that hat–was it before or after Indiana Jones? I mean, even Indy took his off to give a lecture.

  17. “…..there was a obvious concerted effort within the emergence of baby boomer management and personnel into climate science on the federal level; that they were pushing ideology as policy.”

    Spot On, Mr. White! The early 80’s were about the time I too really started questioning ‘man made ozone depletion’, the agenda behind ‘Earth Day’, and the increasingly strident declarations from ‘climate scientists’ of various portents of doom, wrought by a grasping and Gaia destroying humanity.

  18. This comment would have been a lot better if the author had left his junior high thermo theories at the door.

  19. pwl says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:12 am

    ###

    “Darth” has got to be the most apt label for him that I have encountered. It really says it all.

  20. I’m afraid I can’t take seriously the statements of a man that says that greenhouse warming violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics when serious skeptical scientists like Spencer and Lindzen says it doesn’t. The dirty secret of warmists is that most of warming has already happened, otherwise earth would be mostly frozen. Any future increases in water vapor and CO2, can only effect the parts of the spectrum that aren’t already being absorbed.

  21. Jeremy says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
    Good article. However it is undermined by statements like this…”man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. ”

    I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.

    We see this in UHI in all urban areas. We know that sulphur emissions (mainly from coal burning) can cause smog and clouds that change climate locally. We also know that CO2 is an infra-red absorber – so “in theory” it must have some effect.

    Skeptics, in order to be taken seriously, MUST accept these FACTS. What skeptics disagree with is the EXTENT of these effects (local or regional and on a overall global level very small or immeasureable). Skeptics disagree with the “CATASTROPHIC” in man-made global warming.

    I’m not aware of a proposed cap-and-trade program to manage the UHI effect.

    In other words, while you are technically correct that humans may affect the climate in many ways, AGW = carbon emission is the meme du jour.

  22. duster
    “allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?

  23. Jeremy says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
    “I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this…….. We see this in UHI in all urban areas. ”

    Urban heat Island effects are local to urban areas. They are not global. ‘Islands’ of urban heat are not global. They are not evidence of ‘man made global warming’.

    I would remind the confirmed believers of AGW that “man-made” global warming is an unproven hypothesis, as any serious and honest study of readily available data and analysis will show. It does not help AGW believers when they deny the facts. No amount of cap letter ‘shouting’ can alter that.

  24. Jimbo: it doesn’t matter what the public believe or care about – if the politicos, and esp those who run the NGO (supra-governmental international agencies) see fit to carry on promoting this lie, and so far they do, then the hemorrhaging of billions on this giant scam will continue unabated.

    Only when those in power can no longer make capital – literally – out of AGW will it cease to be policy. this is where the work is still to be done

  25. Antony please can we have the old ‘reply’ font back, I can hardly read this it’s too faint!

  26. smileyken says:
    March 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    duster
    “allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?

    Here are a couple of help sites that will help you:

    http://my.opera.com/nielsol/blog/carbon-dioxide-physics

    http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2009/02/04/chemistry-lab-demonstrations-liquid-co2-extraction/

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060830-carbon-lakes.html

    The phases that any chemical compound enters are a function of temperature and pressure. At pressures typical of the earth’s surface CO2 ice sublimes directly a gas – hence “dry ice”. At higher pressures CO2 can take on a liquid state. If you read the links above, or simply search on “CO2 phase diagram” you will find plenty of information. There are also useful little calculators on line that will provide the pressure in atmospheres for any given depth. The last site offers empirical facts to help. The liquid CO2 on the sea floor is not simply an “idea.”

    ’nuff said.

    JD

  27. Jeremy says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am

    We also know that CO2 is an infra-red absorber – so “in theory” it must have some effect.

    Agreed. However, we also know CO2 is an infra-red emitter. It must cool the atmosphere as well. Until climate scientists take a balanced look at CO2 you know it’s about “the cause” and not about science.

  28. “CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?”
    It does at high pressure. That was the context of the statement.

    Wikipedia: “liquid at 56 atm and 20 °C”

    Thanks
    JK

  29. “global weather data in the late 1980s did not strongly support their case that the world was warming because of man.”

    But the December 1988 IPCC charter certainly did, asserting that “certain human activities could change global climate patterns” and “the cause and effect relationship of human activities and climate.”

    The IPCC charter also specifically states that “certain substances are depleting the ozone layer.”

    Twenty four years later neither of those assertions have been proven.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNGA43-53.pdf

  30. “Man-made” global warming exists, IMHO, as an artifact of poor data gathering, cherry picked data points, PR scare tactics, and questionable statistics (Note the Oxford commas but I’m not Gleick). Other than that, there is a perfectly normal temp rise from the LIA that they glomed onto to make things scary.

  31. Jeremy says:
    “I would remind everyone ‘man-made’ global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.”

    Roughly 90 billion tons of CO2 are generated naturally, annually, from the sea, and 90 billion tons pa are generated from the land, and a mere 6 billion by humans burning fossil fuels. Energy experts know exactly how much fossil fuel is burned by humans. It is a miniscule amount compared to what is produced naturally by Life on Earth. With some volcanoes thrown in from time to time. Add to that the LOGARITHMIC NATURE of the warming caused by CO2 and you can see that OUR BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT. We have so little effect on the climate on Earth that it is as good as no effect at all.

    Urban heat islands are localized. Sulphur is pollution, CO2 is plant food and an essential gas for life.

    A fascinating article on how this idiocy came about. So what is the way out of it? Growing taxpayer fury at £££ $$$ millions ripoff subsidies to every Tom, Dick and Harry who came up with a creative scheme perhaps. Jeremy would have us paying out for ever. Get wise Jeremy and all the other Jeremies out there!

  32. > The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were… not once mentioning the Sun or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field effect on Earth’s ozone layers. For some reason, there was a resistance to even mentioning the Sun’s effects on earth by these new climate scientists getting jobs at the science agencies. It was odd I thought.

    You’re confused; you’re mixing up ozone and climate. And they were right, since the ozone loss was caused by CFCs, as we now know very well.

    > I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved

    No-one is suggesting that CFCs are the sole cause of warming! No-one is even suggesting they are even a significant cause. **CO2** is the main cause of warming, but not the sole one. CFCs have only a very minor role in temperature change – they are strong GHGs, but they only exist in tiny quantities.

    > CFCs are very stable molecules

    Oh dear, the I-don’t-believe-the-ozone-hole-is-caused-by-CFC’s folk are back. The reasons CFCs make it up into the stratosphere is *because* they are stable. If they weren’t stable they wouldn’t be a problem. Only once they get up into the UV-B/C/whatever do they photodissociate.

    > we also know CO2 is an infra-red emitter. It must cool the atmosphere as well

    Oh no. The greenhouse-effect-doesn’t-exist folk are back, too. There goes respectable “skepticism”.

    > Because the laws of thermodynamics and physics that govern our system says so.

    {{cn}}

  33. What is meant by the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If it did then why would Engineers have to account for differences in downward long-wave radiation on cooling rates of cooling ponds and such? (Engineers aren’t known for accommodating imaginary processes that violate laws of thermodynamics.)

    http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf

    It’s not that the GHE heats a cooler object; it’s that an object cooling radiantly cools in relation to the net radiation loss, which is its LW radiation minus the downward LW radiation.

    What is usually left out of the AGW advocates dialogue is that when it comes to GHE clouds are KING and RH(relative humidity) is QUEEN.

    [@ location of example link:]
    The change in downward LW radiation from 0% RH to 100% RH is 200 W/m2 with clear sky and 400 W/m2 with complete overcast sky. The change in downward LW radiation from clear to cloudy (complete overcast) is ~72 W/m2 @ ~0% RH; 247 W/m2 @ 25% RH; 259 W/m2 @ 50% RH; 268 W/m2 @ 75% RH; and 272 W/m2 @ 100% RH. The variation from clouds and water vapor is huge compared to the relative minuscule 3.7 W/m2 purported GHE increase from doubling CO2 concentration. Even small long term trends in cloud cover or RH would easily overwhelm any alleged effect of CO2.

  34. Every time I visit this site, I am reminded of how partisan people are on this issue. The truth is that nobody really knows for sure. Climate science is such a complicated study with so many poorly understood variables, that I can’t believe anyone can genuinely claim that AGW does or does not exist. From an independant view point, the debate reminds me of a very complicated game of chess – the only difference being, in chess, we do understand how all the variables work and interact. It never ceases to amaze me though, that even although the best chess players in the world (possibly some of our greatest minds),who understand the game intimately, are still unable to predict exactly how those variables will interact during the course of any reasonably well matched game. How then can any scientist be so sure of how all the variables involved in climate science will interact – especially of the course of such a ridiculously short space of time – in relative terms? It must be truly impossible! But alas, we are assured “the science is settled”…..and the supercomputer says “yes”!…. I think not!

  35. Atmospheric CO2 emits less infra-red than it absorbs. The difference is lost as heat. Hence “greenhouse effect”. The rate of spontaneous emission is a factor – which is lower for low energy radiation like microwave than for e.g. visible (which is was easier to develop masers before lasers). Hence the energy has a higher probability of being dissipated by molecular collisions.

    There are a series of energy transfers happening:
    1. Sun’s heat to Stefan-Bolzmann radiation energy (mostly visible).
    2. Visible light to heat at earth’s surface.
    3. Earth’s heat to Stefan-Bolzmann radiation energy (mostly microwave)
    4. Microwave energy to CO2 and H2O vibrational energy.
    5. Molecular vibrational energy to heat through molecular collisions in the atmosphere.

    There is no reduction in entropy hence no violation of the 2nd Law.

  36. Jeremy says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
    “I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT.”

    No, the GHE is a known process that is measurable. That CO2 is a GHG is a fact. That human activities emit CO2 is a fact. That the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age is well established. That background atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily since 1950’s is well established. That a doubling of CO2 will increase the GHE by about 3.7 W/m2 is accepted as a decent estimate (still as yet unmeasured). That at least some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity is supported by compelling evidence. That the increase in CO2 MAY cause SOME warming is mostly accepted, however, this is very far from proven fact and certainly no where near the “it’s all man’s fault that the temperature is rising and will continue to rise for centuries ” that you appear to be claiming is proven.

  37. Mariwarcwm says:
    March 9, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    “Roughly 90 billion tons of CO2 are generated naturally, annually, from the sea, and 90 billion tons pa are generated from the land, and a mere 6 billion by humans burning fossil fuels. Energy experts know exactly how much fossil fuel is burned by humans. It is a miniscule amount compared to what is produced naturally by Life on Earth. With some volcanoes thrown in from time to time. Add to that the LOGARITHMIC NATURE of the warming caused by CO2 and you can see that OUR BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT. We have so little effect on the climate on Earth that it is as good as no effect .”

    Interesting! Is there a reference for this data?

  38. “The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.”
    Really? Then how is it even possible for AGW to be prominent? And your other statement, that AGW cannot exist due to the 2nd Law, please explain that. It just seems to me that, if it was so obvious that fundamental laws of physics prevent AGW, then there would not be much to talk about.

  39. I would be inclined to push the objective scientific reaction to the global warming scare back a few more years to the early 1980’s (Sherwood Idso, various publications) or even the late 1970’s (Newell and Doplick, 1979).
    To me as a middle-of-the-road observationally-inclined scientist, an astonishing feature of the global warming ‘debate’ is the extent to which what one might for simplicity call the ‘Hansen effect’ has obstructed scientific progress in this field. We should be grateful to Anthony and his blogosphere colleagues for the valiant efforts they have made to reverse this irrationalist tendency.

  40. pesadia says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:35 am

    “At some point in this social engineering experiment, sales and marketing expertise entered the fray. Whoever thought of using (abusing) the precautionary priciple to bring governments and the MSM on board was a master salesman….”
    _____________________________
    His name is Stanley Greenberg and he is the husband of Rosa Delauro, the U.S. Representative of Connecticut (D) see: http://www.macmillanspeakers.com/stanleybgreenberg

  41. …The reasons CFCs make it up into the stratosphere is *because* they are stable. If they weren’t stable they wouldn’t be a problem. Only once they get up into the UV-B/C/whatever do they photodissociate.

    And how can they be photodissociated over the poles during the winter when there are SIX months of night? NIGHT as in no light to photossiociate the CFCs? How can your theory explain a larger ozone destruction over the poles due to photodissociation when the poles receive no UV radiation?

    I remind you that the so called ozone hole grows during the winter, when there is no light that could PHOTODISSOCIATE CFCs, and very low temperatures that slows down chemical reactions in gas phase. Chemical kinetics theory is not compatible with faster chemical reactions at lower temperatures. Seems that you forgot to read/edit this wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics

    Appart from that, the so called Antarctic ozone hole is bigger than the Artic one. I remind you too that most of the CFCs have been produced and used in the northern hemisphere, but the largest ozone hole lies on the southern hemisphere, yet another hole in your sorry theory.

  42. I was an “environmentalist” back in the ’90s. I was seconded to British Antartic survey to “show” that the (Man-made) ozone hole was causing damage to the plants growing underneath it.
    What the data showed was zippo, nada, zilch.
    I published this to little fanfare- you would have thought it newsworthy we weren’t going to fry.
    After this I became less idealistic and more sceptical.
    The “smart money” has moved from the ozone hole (which is still there, just as big, but not scary anymore) to Man made “climate change”.
    This particular scam has gained much more momentum but, like the ozone hole scare, it will eventually implode.

  43. While nonscientific assertions by William Connolley are regurgitated to no avail, more and more people now recognize that CO2 has no effect on climate, the rate at which a body of matter loses energy is determines by it’s molecular density, the emission wavelength of an emitting molecule or body is determined by it’s temperature, can my FiveGuys burger emit at a wavelength incident to 350 degreesF? No. The Oceans lose energy at a much slower rate vs the atmosphere for this reason, and it is why the contain so much more energy than the atmosphere.

    CO2 in the cold upper atmosphere cannot warm or slow energy loss from the higher density lower atmosphere by more than a few trillions of a degreeF because the wavelength quantified as “backradiation” is saturated in a warmer body, reducing LW release in the CO2 spectrum will simply result in more LW leaving the planet in other wavelengths, but to a barely noticable exent. The 33C warming above the S-B threshold DOES NOT REQUIRE A GHE! You have the oceans and atmosphere which will NOT lose all of their energy overnight WITH OR WITHOUT GHGes! Hence the next day you’re warmer to begin the daily heating cycle, still far from solar equilibrium.

    When I cover my body with a blanket at night, the reason the air in between my body and the blanket warms is because the blanket has a higher density than the air in between it and my body, hence a higher retainement threshold. Changing the amount of CO2 in under the blanket will do nothing to effect the temperature. My body is the warmest source in this case, and it is LW radiation from my body, UNLIKE SW radiation from the Sun which cannot be applied in the same sense because it has a vector in relation to the atmospheric LW value which has no vector, and does not travel at the same rate nor has the same perturbational value.

    This example should do it…

    If the GHE theory were correct, then if I put a cold gellpack on my head, I should expect my head to warm because my head is warming the gellpack while my body remains at 98.6 degreesF! It is so very IMPOSSIBLE!

  44. Is there a Hanson and a Hansen? Or should the former be the same Hansen.

    I’m all for stripping perps of their due title for the satirical fun and general mayhem but it kind of looses its effect if you misspell their names. :p

  45. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
    Edmund Burke

  46. > And how can they be photodissociated over the poles during the winter when there are SIX months of night?

    Not 6 months. And no, the photodissociation doesn’t occur during winter. But once dissociated, the free radiacals can survive for long enough. And the ozone hole occurs during winter because only then is ot cold enough to form PSCs. All this has been known for ages, and patiently explained many a time.

    > and very low temperatures that slows down chemical reactions in gas phase.

    Almost there, but you forgot the PSCs. The reactions occur on their surface.

    > Seems that you forgot to read/edit this wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics

    > the so called Antarctic ozone hole is bigger than the Artic [sic] one.

    Because it is colder in the Antarctic. Can you guess why?

    > I remind you too that most of the CFCs have been produced and used in the northern hemisphere,

    But they, like CO2, are well mixed. It doesn’t make any difference where they are produced.

    it would make rather more sense to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion, which would have told you what I’ve just told you.

    > While nonscientific assertions…

    I’ve pointed out that the author of this post has confused ozone depletion and global warming. So far, none of the residents here have had the courage to agree with me, even though it is obvious.

    > CO2 in the cold upper atmosphere cannot warm or slow energy loss from the higher density lower atmosphere by more than a few trillions of a degreeF because

    Richard Lindzen disagrees with you. Even recent posts here (“The skeptics case”, bad as that was) disagree with you.

    > Don Keiller says… back in the ’90s. I was seconded to British Antartic

    Were you really? I was there. I can’t say I remember you.

    > I published this to little fanfare

    {{cn}}

  47. The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were that some, like Hanson, took an immediate ideological tone to explain the ozone shifts
    —————-
    Yeah, sure. Theodore forgets to mention a whole lot of other evidence going on at the time.

    which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.
    —————
    And I will continue to remind people this is wrong. There is a big difference in being able to parrot the laws of physics and actually understanding what they mean.

    NCAR had modeled on the theory that aerosols were the cause, but not the Sun, which again, I found odd, since the only major source of radiation that can only affect the opening and closings and sizes of the Earth’s ozones IS the Sun.
    —————
    Contorted language. Theodore claims to be a professional journalist.

    My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world
    ————–
    Ah Theodores conspiracy theory. Nominative determinism perhaps.

    Most journalists are ignorant of climate and weather science.
    ————–
    That’s true and never truer than expressed in this article.

  48. Urederra says
    CFCs are very stable molecules, so stable we used them as aerosol spray propellants in body deodorants. O3, on the other hand, is so reactive it is used as a sanitizer because it kills all kinds of microorganisms. And yet, people see CFCs as the reactive species.
    ————
    Which people?

    In fact atmospheric scientists do consider them to be very stable species. That’s part of the problem. They don’t break down at low levels in the atmosphere, so they diffuse into the upper atmosphere.

    In the upper atmosphere CFCs have the crap beaten out of them by deep ultraviolet radiation from the sun. They disintegrate and the fragments are chlorine atoms which are very, very reactive indeed. These are responsible for destroying ozone. The whole chemical reaction trail has been worked out in minute detail.

    Theodore hasn’t the faintest clue about any of this stuff.

  49. William M. Connolley says:
    March 9, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    “So far, none of the residents here have had the courage to agree with me, even though it is obvious.”
    ===========
    Umm, it appears you are mixing up your Realms, and please be more careful where you post, cus it can really freak me out.

  50. Phil says:
    March 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    The real reason the air under the blanket warms is not radiation but conduction which rapidly equilibrates with the air under the blanket.

    Radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too.

    Multiple layer glazing has long been known as a method of retaining energy in homes.

    Below about 10mm gap is ineffectual because of the minimal increase in insulation, above 20/22mm gap gives diminishing returns because of convection in the unit allowing warm gas to collect at the top of the unit, thence conducting outwards. From there we move to triple or even quadruple glazing. Whatever gains are made from IR blocking coatings are minimal in comparison.

    Pilkington Bros. and others have introduced low metal glasses, (which incidentally requires importation of white sand from Spain plus much higher temperatures to melt,) to maximise transmission into the home & then coat the inner layer to reflect IR.

    I can actually see the point of allowing more light into the home but the IR coating is superfluous. (Incidentally, Pilks actually admitted that the reflective coating prevented as much admission of IR to, as transmission from the home.)

    DaveE.

  51. At some point in the last 20 years NCAR, GISS and CRU would have been eliminated in some kind of budget cutting exercise without the GHG / CFC scare that they foisted on the world.

    Instead of being wound-down, they turned into juggernauts that have 50% of the world’s population convinced of their imminent demise.

    NASA cannot cut the budget of GISS or fire Hansen or even try to control him in the least. If anyone does, he just runs to the media and pleads that his “imminent demise” storyline is being suppressed. The Director of NASA gets fired instead. That is power.

    Long ago, they figured out the scare meant prestige and funding and power and unlimited academic publishing rights. They hitched their wagon to the story and they are sticking with it since it has been so lucrative to date.

    None of their predictions has turned out to be anywhere close to true yet but we still can’t get rid of these guys and people actually believe the predictions of 20 years ago have been borne out. They even turned Wikipedia into an untrustworthy source. Ridiculous mass hysteria.

  52. William M. Connolley says:
    March 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    > we also know CO2 is an infra-red emitter. It must cool the atmosphere as well

    Oh no. The greenhouse-effect-doesn’t-exist folk are back, too. There goes respectable “skepticism”.

    So, you are denying that CO2 molecules can be exited through kinetic collisons and emit radiation as a result. Interesting, I had no idea you were a denier of basic physics.

  53. My comment referring to Anthony’s post on Hansen was unexpectedly posted on its own, so I would like to answer a question about the laws of thermodynamics and why man-made global warming is an outright lie.

    As the forecaster who called the 2009-2011 ENSO years in advance, I know a thing or two about how the Earth’s climate works; how it is forced and what the resulting weather events will be.

    The fundamental thing to remember are that there are astrophysical (causes) to geophysical (effects) laws which govern the Earth’s climate and resulting weather. No amount of opinion, ideology, or fuzzy math will ever change these laws – the First and Second laws of thermodynamics.

    These laws are the reason why the Earth can NEVER – and that means ever – become a greenhouse.

    There is no such thing as ‘man-made global warming.’ It has always been a lie and has never and will never be true. The Earth cannot become a greenhouse.

    Ever.

    I have reported on and worked in the most complex field of climate science – atmospheric physics – and I can tell you – without equivocation – that man-made global warming (so-called man-made ‘climate change) has never, ever, been true at whatsoever and never will be.

    Those who do not accept this are delusional about the rules that govern their own planet’s climate. But delusion also does not change the laws of physics no more than opinion does either. What fully and absolutely debunks anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are the laws of thermodynamics – the laws of physics.

    Any kind of so-called ‘consensus’ that hitches its wagon to the false star that ties man-made activity to Earth’s global warming violates the basic laws of physics – the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The debunking of man made warming disproves the fallacy of AGW that says there exists a mechanism where carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal forcing effect on the warmer surface below.

    That violates the First AND Second Laws of Thermodynamics. There is no glass roof on the Earth that traps excess heat as it escapes upward and out into space. Remember, the deeper the ocean – the colder the water – and remember that heat rises – it does not fall.

    What AGW proponents seem to forget is that the mechanism of warming in a real greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming of the Earth’s atmosphere – it is not a “greenhouse” effect – not even close.

    The expensive climate models used to fear-monger and bully the entire world to believe the lies of “catastrophic global warming” curiously depict net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground.

    Now that right then and there is a DIRECT violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that any machine that acts to transfer heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir – without external work applied – CANNOT exist.

    But AGW proponents – by their very claim of ‘man-made global warming’ – means they have found what amounts to a perpetual atmospheric motion machine that we all know does NOT exist. It is pure fantasy and an outright lie.

    For that lie to be true would mean to trash what cannot be trashed – the laws of Thermodynamics – by careerist ideological ‘scientists’ and their minions to bully the world into believing that the world is ‘flat’ – and we’re supposed to take that lying down?

    No way, not in a million years with me. I respect the laws of physics and suggest everyone do so so too – because if the Sun went away tomorrow – we all DEFINITELY would notice – and the laws of physics would end right there. All over. No more climate to speak of as the Earth would freeze into a giant ball of ice and there would be no life. That is the catastrophe we never want to see. Better respect the Sun because it is the Sun that is the cause of all climate change.

    The math stinks on AGW from every single conceivable angle – none more important than the laws of physics.

    Two physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner say the same thing –

    “…1) There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects.

    2) There are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet.

    (3) The frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly.

    (4) The formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately.

    (5) The assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical.

    (6) Thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero – the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

    Those who want to understand why AGW is a lie because of the laws of thermodynamics that govern the Earth’s climate and weather should take the time to read the paper linked below that was published in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

    Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper.

    Both German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%.

    They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. The German scientists show how greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

    They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the Earth works as an OPEN system. Moreover, the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does NOT occur in any fundamental work involving Thermodynamics, Physical kinetics or Radiation theory.

    So for those still clinging to the bald face lie of ‘man-made global warming’ by means of tons and tons and tons of AGW kool-aid (the real ‘climate change’ threat to the world) also know that you are effectively denying the mathematical laws that govern your own physical existence and entire climate of your own planet.

    Free Your Mind, Take The Red Pill -> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    – Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci

  54. I first heard about the likelihood of global warming in 1967 and it was probably not a new idea even then. Someone who didn’t hear about it until 20 years later was hardly in on the beginning.

    David A. Evans says: ( March 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm):

    Radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too.

    Priceless! So is energy lost from Earth by convection or by conduction?

    Theodore White says:

    The expensive climate models used to fear-monger and bully the entire world to believe the lies of “catastrophic global warming” curiously depict net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground.

    No-one is claiming that heat is flowing from the atmospheric gases to Earth. Some of the energy trapped by the gases is radiated back to the surface, reducing net energy flow from the surface. Rather like a space blanket (those tinfoil things) keeps you warm even though it is actually colder than you are. If you are going to make claims about thermodynamic laws being broken, you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out.

  55. @Richard Simons, who says, “No-one is claiming that heat is flowing from the atmospheric gases to Earth. Some of the energy trapped by the gases is radiated back to the surface, reducing net energy flow from the surface. Rather like a space blanket (those tinfoil things) keeps you warm even though it is actually colder than you are. If you are going to make claims about thermodynamic laws being broken, you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out.”

    I wrote that – “The expensive climate models used to fear-monger and bully the entire world to believe the lies of “catastrophic global warming” curiously depict net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground.”

    Now, your term of space blanket is “tinfoil.” Most of the radiative heat the Earth’s receives from the source – the Sun – is released back out into space. The Earth is an OPEN system with a highly variable water vapor gaseous climate. The Earth can never become a greenhouse. I will remind you also that I am a forecaster who knows by practice how the Earth’s climate functions.

    The Earth can never become a greenhouse no matter how hard you try to force the AGW square through the Earth’s round hole. It’s not going to happen. There are many people who talk the talk about the climate and weather but whom do not walk the walk – talk is cheap and that is all AGW ever was and ever will be – just talk.

    There are many people who speak on climate science, specifically atmospheric physics, who do not have the fundamental physical laws down pat. I forecast applying these laws and no amount of minutiae opinion which denies the laws of thermodynamics that govern the Earth can ever change these physical laws. Anyone who does (like those pushing man-made global warming ) is definitely not playing with a full deck.

  56. William M. Connolley says:
    March 9, 2012 at 4:07 pm
    Urederra says:
    March 9, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    > I remind you too that most of the CFCs have been produced and used in the northern hemisphere,

    But they, like CO2, are well mixed. It doesn’t make any difference where they are produced.

    How is CO2 well mixed? Please explain.

    it would make rather more sense to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion, which would have told you what I’ve just told you.”

    The OzoneScare was a scam: http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/10804/
    “Dr. Wil Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential”

    And everyone it seems jumped on the bankwagon to push their favourite anti-industry slant as they do now:

    “The Ozone Wars included mass media propaganda campaigns to convince the public and America’s law-makers of the following unproven theories:

    That the ozone layer would be depleted by the operation in the stratosphere or mesosphere of supersonic aircraft that exhaust water. When that theory was disproven, nitrogen oxides (NOx) replaced water as the ozone destroyers.

    That the detonation of nuclear devices whose debris clouds can produce or carry NOx into the stratosphere or mesosphere will deplete the ozone layer.

    That the ozone layer would also be depleted by the stimulation of N2O production by addition of fixed nitrogen to the biosphere whether through nitrogen fertilizers, animal wastes, combustion-produced NOx, expanded growth of legumes, infection of nonleguminous plants with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, or by green mulching.

    That the Space Shuttle would deplete the ozone layer through the release of chlorine from its rocket boosters.

    That the ozone layer would be depleted by the atmospheric release of stable chlorine-containing compounds such as chlorocarbons in general and chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) in particular, which can penetrate the stratosphere before decomposing.

    That the ozone layer would be wiped out by the atmospheric release of stable bromine-containing compounds like CH3Br, now used as a soil fumigant, which can allegedly penetrate the stratosphere before decomposing. The same claim was made in regard to brominated chlorocarbons, known as halons, used in fire-fighting equipment.

    That the ozone layer would also be depleted by the stimulation of N2O production by denitrifying bacteria through increased acidity of precipitation from atmospheric release of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. This theory claimed that the famous “acid rain” in the northern part of the United States would destroy the ozone layer indirectly, through bacteria in the soils….
    If several–and in some cases only one–of these claims were true, the atmosphere’s ozone layer would have been destroyed several times over by today. Yet, as we shall see in the chapters to come, there is no scientific evidence of any ozone depletion.” http://american_almanac.tripod.com/cfc.htm

    Same players, they just expanded the brief to include blaming everyone, Carbon Dioxide the food of us carbon life forms now demonised as a toxic promoted as a fact by those who would be horrified to be thought uncaring for life… That sums up the insanity of this scam.

    William M. Connolley says:
    March 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Oh no. The greenhouse-effect-doesn’t-exist folk are back, too. There goes respectable “skepticism”.

    Oh right, the warmists in sceptic clothing are oh so respectable, calling us “deniers”, making a point to separate themselves out so respectably from us (see Singer). Who thought of the meme “you’re giving skeptics a bad name? Heard it so often now..

    The Greenhouse Effect is a fraud, deliberate sleight of hand by excluding the Water Cycle.

    Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C. Think deserts.

    The Greenhouse Effect based on the difference between -18°C of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, and the 15°C, the claimed “warming of 33°C in the TGE”, is deliberately discrepant – there is no such effect.

    It is obviously a con the moment one puts back the whole Water Cycle.

    The rest of the fictional fisics created to support TGE by taking out convection and gravity and attraction and so on, can only fool those not taught traditional science. Traditional science is respectable, this junk fisics created through the looking glass with Alice is a joke against that.

    And that’s exactly how it must have seemed to those who created it. There must be lots of LOL from these psycho/sociopaths at how successful their con as they read all these people arguing that their fictional fisics is real, and doesn’t break the second law for example..

    I don’t know why you’re part of that con, William. In my philosophy there is no blame for being what we are, we didn’t create ourselves, but we do know the difference between good and bad and we can make a choice to bring out of ourselves one rather the other (I’m making no claims it’s easy to choose good, I certainly don’t find it to be), but it seems to me that a common failing in the supporting members of the scam is lack of objectivity and it’s this that drives them to protecting their beliefs with ever more stridently bad methods, regardless that every aspect has already been falsified, because it began an impossible scenario in real world physics, and to this end they become willing helpers of those who devised this scam who think themselves superior to others – and that’s just an illusion – who don’t care what lengths they go to in destroying the quality of life for others. Objectively facing that would be a very bitter pill to swallow for any realising how they’d been duped.

    We have a natural social gene, trust, we couldn’t function generally without it, and when that trust has been broken by someone or some event it can be hard to cope with the consequences, I think a lot of problem in communicating the real science to warmists is the wall they build up against ‘hearing’ anything that will anticipate such a breakdown in the trust they’ve invested in the AGW belief. I’m reminded of the PhD physics teacher who introduced me to the subject, when I asked why he wouldn’t read some papers I’d found contradicting AGW, he said they were of no interest and he didn’t have to read them, I paraphrase it was a while ago. And then I found the hockey stick and the saga of getting the data, and the conclusion, that any random number input would give a hockey stick because the programme was designed to do this, and the skullduggery of having people sacked and the campaign of denigration against any scientist who had objections, he still wasn’t interested in discussing it. I was rather shocked at the time, he considered himself a scientist. I’m no longer surprised by this. This was never about the science, that’s just been the vehicle for “it”. How can there be any respectability in arguing for a non-existant effect?

    And that’s what Theodore White’s talking about – the “science” is non-existant – it was never there in the first place. That’s the great illusion here.

    So, how is CO2 well mixed? Please explain.

  57. – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics.
    _____________________________________

    Quite so – well almost, and therein lies the main subject matter of my 6,600 word Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics being published on-line within the next 72 hours. But you have to find an answer to the fact that radiation from the atmosphere can slow the rate of radiative transfer of thermal energy from the surface. Have you considered such?

  58. Under the laws of a criminal trial, one must convince a jury of lay people the client (mankind) is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is a huge price to pay for ones reputation and liberty that anything less than that would be a greater crime itself.

    Wind up to 2012. Hansen’s guesses date back to 1986. The 2C rise he predicted back then has been 0.4C, the sea level has been around an inch (not yards as he so freely proclaimed). The IPCC’s original graph of projected CO2 policies and related temperatures shows 20 years or so later we are below their lowest line of stable CO2, while CO2 has continued to rise at a constant rate.
    Then after claiming the Himalayan glacier chain was losing (a very specific) 50 billion tons of ice a year, the real findings showed it had lost none for a decade.

    I have pages more, so how many reasonable doubts do the politicians want before they pack their taxes in and stop telling us when we can drive our cars and fly abroad? Never, I expect, as this was never about a trial but about an enormous robbery, and we are not the defendants but the victims and always will be until enough people go online, read the data, and stop voting in politicians set to tax the gonads off us.

  59. Theodore White says:

    Most of the radiative heat the Earth’s receives from the source – the Sun – is released back out into space.

    Currently, this is true (assuming by ‘heat’, you mean ‘energy’). It is because not all of the energy is released back into space that Earth is warming at present and will continue to do so until a new equilibrium is reached.

    The Earth can never become a greenhouse

    Then why is Earth warmer than the moon?

    Myrrh says:

    “Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C. “

    How delightfully bizarre! Do other people here agree with you? How do you think this works? Are you thinking of evaporative cooling and forgetting that the energy never actually leaves Earth, but is released again when the water vapour condenses?

  60. What is most apparent are that many people simply are not aware nor educated on the most basic of geophysical matters, practically speaking, – the climate and weather. Any skilled forecaster will tell you that it is one of the most demanding jobs because the Earth’s climate and weather is highly variable – everything always in motion. That’s the weather folks.

    I have not seen one – not a single proponent of ‘man-made global warming’ – do what I do with ease – and that is forecast seasonal or long-range weather applying the laws of physics. Yet, we are to believe that any AGW proponent is able to forecast years and decades ahead claiming the world will forever warm and blames humanity for global warming? That is ludicrous.

    We humans have a lot of problems, but we are NOT responsible for global warming. We don’t handle that and cannot do a thing about it either. That is the job of the Sun.

    All we can do is to forecast in advance and dress for the climate and weather in advance. That is in our power. Those who claim humanity is the cause of climate change do NOT have both oars in the water.

    I continue to state that the laws of physics cannot be broken by ideology, opinion, careerism, bullying, by altering/erasing weather data and pushing out AGW lies.

    The thermodynamic laws that govern the Earth’s climate says the Earth can NEVER become a greenhouse. These are mathematical truths. There is no way to ignore those facts. Period.

    Applying the principles of my expertise of the science of astrometeorology, I have forecasted that the world is headed toward Global Cooling, officially beginning later in this decade. Storms will be bigger, more damaging and we will require not less – but MORE energy sources to survive. This cooling regime will begin about 2017-18, increase into the 2020s and will peak by the mid-2030s before global cooling eventually begins to wane in the mid-2040s. We will see increasingly more La Nina-grade storms and lesser El Nino-grade storms.

    All this forced by the Sun.

    I will take ‘global warming’ over global cooling any day. Global warming is good for the Earth, but global cooling is an entirely different creature altogether. Should we enter even a mini-ice age of extreme grades of global cooling then the world’s populations will surely suffer. Global cooling is so much worse than global warming could ever be.

  61. Mostly this began in the 1960s with the re-rise of Malthusian ‘Population Bomb’ folks. In the late 60s they began to understand how to corral the peoples; and that medium was the environment. For reference, you may review UN docs and/or associated individuals outside their UN purview. Through the 1950’s and 1960s there was the anti-nuclear movement, and then the flower child hippie universe popped up. By 1969, as the latest I’ve found, the enviro recognition was clear. Then Earth Day, and the coinciding of multiple UN agencies plus NGO’s specifically for Earth. Most of the documents and statements of the players are out there in their own words, including the ‘founding fathers’ of the UN.

    What this would lead to of course is control, globally, hence global governance. It’s not a nutjob conspiracy. This goes back to the early 1900’s. Central planning, population control, eugenics, global government, essentially a technocracy. Brave New World type existance. No matter which avenue you take to any of the above, those are ALL the results.

    If you believe this is crazy, I suggest you peruse the internet yourself. I’ll remind you of Agenda21, The World Bank, IMF, forming the EU, enviro-zealots, ‘birth control’, Central Banks with fiat currency, UN agencies commissions that beat you into submission, NGOs, and Academe (including scientists).

    As for AGW or CAGW – “Rather be a denier, than a liar”

  62. I recall an argument I had with a TV news reporter in 1991 — I told her that the ozone scare would be forgotten in 20 years, just as fears in the 1970s of an impending ice age had been, but she disagreed. I should have known that it would simply be replaced by the next panique de la décennie.

  63. I feel sorry for people like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and also Christopher (Lord) Monckton, who are being vilified:-

    1. for understanding and describing the “greenhouse” effect, by some self-proclaimed sceptic people failing to understand the meaning and relevance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

    2. for understanding and describing why the “greenhouse” effect (enhanced or otherwise) is NOT a problem, by global warming alarmists with vested interests in alarmism.

    The real argument about global warming / climate change, is a quantitative one, it’s the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity, and the magnitude and arithmetical sign of the feedbacks.

    I’m surprised and disappointed that a “science” blog has “elevated” a comment including such a misleading interpretation of the Laws of Thermodynamics without explaining why respected CAGW-sceptical scientists believe it is wrong.

  64. Forgot to add, speaking of old journalism, the NYT’s Archive is a fun view of articles 40 years or so ago on climate change. Must be a subscriber to read more than title and first sentence of articles.

  65. Mike says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:16 am Does the Margaret Thatcher story about coal strike busting play weave into this narrative in any way?

    I suppose it does but she had people around her that could spread sheet and as opposed to Scargill (who like Jones knew feck all), and it gave her the knowledge that she could fight a long run as there were coal stock reserves above ground to keep the power on for 2 years!

  66. Richard, Theodore and Myrrh:

    Firstly, Richard, a simple question about the Moon proves nothing, because there are so many differences between it and Earth, including length of day, core heat and overall size. I wonder if you even know that the Moon’s surface goes above 100 deg.C during its daytime because it has no atmosphere to shield it a bit from the Sun. Mean temperatures mean nothing. This is why Myrrh is right in saying that water vapour helps to cool the surface, at least in daylight hours. I can’t vouch for his figures – I would never claim such implied accuracy as is indicated even by just two significant figures. In fact the whole atmosphere acts as a shield to the Sun, and you can see the estimates of what is absorbed even on those energy diagrams of NASA and Trenberth et al.

    Theodore is right about the Second Law of Thermodynamics preventing transfer of thermal energy from the cooler atmosphere to the surface. Unfortunately, that is not quite enough on its own to dismiss the GH effect. I explain why you need more than that in my 6,600 word paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics being published on line within the next 72 hours. You and I are in pretty close agreement, but I suggest that there will be just slight cooling until the 60 year cycle warms again from 2028 to 2058 and that the 1000 year cycle will still add 0.5 deg.C for 100 years or, at the most, 1.0 deg.C for 200 years before it starts a 500 year decline. With technology (which we probably can’t even imagine) I tend to think the world will cope with another Little Ice Age better then than it did during the last one. However, see my post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/09/a-view-of-climate-on-the-ground-from-a-reporter-who-was-there-at-the-beginning/#comment-917949

    Myrrh is quite correct in saying all that -18 deg.C and 33 deg.C business is completely incorrect, and I go into this in an Appendix to my paper.

  67. Theodore White (March 9, 2012 at 5:34 pm): Now that right then and there is a DIRECT violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that any machine that acts to transfer heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir – without external work applied – CANNOT exist.

    Classically, work = force x distance applied. In the GHE, work is done by upwelling microwave radiation in exciting CO2 and H2O into higher vibrational energy states.

  68. > What AGW proponents seem to forget is that the mechanism of warming in a real greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming of the Earth’s atmosphere

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Real_greenhouses

    > The expensive climate models used to fear-monger and bully the entire world to believe the lies of “catastrophic global warming” curiously depict net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground.

    No, they don’t. By putting in the word “net” there you expose your key error.

    > How is CO2 well mixed? Please explain.

    In the sense that it is long-lived compared to its mixing time (mixing by the turbulent motions of the atmosphere). So if you measure CO2 anywhere in the atmosphere (as long as you stay below, say, 50 km) you get pretty well the same value – 390 ppm or whatever it is now. With small regional fluctuations, of course.

    > The OzoneScare was a scam…

    Lots of words and propaganda, but nothing to dispute that actual science I’ve quoted.

    > The 2C rise he predicted

    You have no evidence he made any such prediction.

    > I have not seen one – not a single proponent of ‘man-made global warming’ – do what I do with ease – and that is forecast seasonal or long-range weather applying the laws of physics

    Well, no-one has seen you do it either. You haven’t referenced a single “prediction” of yours actually made in advance.

    > I recall an argument I had with a TV news reporter in 1991 — I told her that the ozone scare would be forgotten in 20 years

    And clearly, you were wrong. We’re still talking about ozone, no?

  69. @Theodore White, the issue is not whether heat flows back to the earth’s surface from the atmosphere, it is how easily it is released from the earth’s surface having arrived from the sun. That is about how the heat is distributed within the atmosphere which can certainly change depending on the composition of the atmosphere without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

  70. From wikipedia:

    The greenhouse effect and a real greenhouse are similar in that they both limit the rate of thermal energy flowing out of the system, but the mechanisms by which heat is retained are different.

    Like lots of stuff on wikipedia, that’s wrong, because the energy flowing out of the Earth (and its atmosphere) has to equal the energy arriving at the Earth, for equilibrium to be maintained, and it’s that that limits energy outflow, not the greenhouse effect itself.

  71. Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide.
    Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Carbon Dioxide Research Div.
    ProductType: Technical report
    NTIS Order Number: DE86008810
    Page Count: 412 pages
    Date: Dec 1985
    Author: F. M. Luther M. C. MacCracken
    This report presents the current knowns, unknowns, and uncertainties regarding the projected climate changes that might occur as a result of an increasing atmospheric CO sub 2 concentration. Further, the volume describes what research is required to estim …
    Report Number: DOE/ER-0237

    http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=DE86008810

  72. Alan Wilkinson says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:02 am

    @Theodore White, the issue is not whether heat flows back to the earth’s surface from the atmosphere, it is how easily it is released from the earth’s surface having arrived from the sun
    _________________________________

    Quite correct. As I’ve said March 9, 8:37pm above. Radiation from the atmosphere does slow the rate of radiative thermal energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, though each carbon dioxide molecule has little effect compared with each WV molecule due to its limited range of frequencies.

    But you may be forgetting that evaporation and diffusion (conduction) in total play a greater role than radiation, and these are in no way affected by that radiation from the atmosphere, and can easily compensate for any slowing of the radiation rate from the surface.

    There are many other considerations also mentioned in my paper, including stabilising effects of thermal inertia in the crust, and cooling effects of backradiation to space from solar radiation.

  73. Great article Mr. White, I experienced that very same experience in Colorado during the late 70’s and 80’s. I know from which direction you are coming from. NCAR needs to be defunded and moved to some state where real science is still taught and overboard zealot environmentalists banned. That is really what needs to happen for the sake of all.

    Thank you William M. Connolley for showing us exactly how these zealots speak. You are really good at portraying this aspect and all concentrated on one site to boot… you make it so easy to collect! Thanks. You’ve made it so simple.

  74. Zealot he may be, Mr Connolley’s understanding of thermodynamics is probably more credible than Mr White’s, ISTM.

  75. LazyTeenager says:
    March 9, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Urederra says

    CFCs are very stable molecules, so stable we used them as aerosol spray propellants in body deodorants. O3, on the other hand, is so reactive it is used as a sanitizer because it kills all kinds of microorganisms. And yet, people see CFCs as the reactive species.

    ————

    Which people?

    In fact atmospheric scientists do consider them to be very stable species. That’s part of the problem. They don’t break down at low levels in the atmosphere, so they diffuse into the upper atmosphere.

    In the upper atmosphere CFCs have the crap beaten out of them by deep ultraviolet radiation from the sun. They disintegrate and the fragments are chlorine atoms which are very, very reactive indeed. These are responsible for destroying ozone. The whole chemical reaction trail has been worked out in minute detail.

    Theodore hasn’t the faintest clue about any of this stuff.

    ————

    Chlorine atoms LazyTeenager? You mean like sea salt, sodium and chloride, NaCl, right? One of the most plentiful ionic substances beside water that covers 70% of this earth and you don’t think it is inherent in the atmosphere irregardless of trace CFCs? Those nasty chlorine ions that every living being depends for its partner nasty sodium? So you really know your “stuff” in minute detail do you?

    I’ll also thank you for making my life of gathering so much easier while I also praise William M. Connolley.

  76. I open the curtains in my living room and the room gets warmer. You will try to arrest my curtains for violating the second law of thermodynamics. Twit.

    What? This is a place where sceptics gather. Did you expect us to go easy on you because we liked your conclusions about global warming? Boy did you get that wrong. I’m a sceptic because I can’t abide nonsense not because I don’t want global warming to be true. And your nonsense annoys me just as much as Mann’s if not more.

    Your second law talk is an absolute pile of steaming … rubbish. And people spouting this kind of pseudoscientific garbage make me very angry. I have a particularly short fuse when it comes to abuses of the second law of thermodynamics because it is probably the most abused principle in science. Creationists for example will often claim that evolution violates the second law. What a load of total excrement!

    The usual trick to abusing the second law is to state it very vaguely and try to ignore the details. But you just can’t do that. The second law is very specific. It speaks of the behaviour of an ISOLATED SYSTEM. So … where exactly is your isolated system? This isn’t just a minor detail that can be ignored. You absolutely need to have an isolated system or you can’t legitimately apply the law.

    It may have escaped your notice but the Earth itself most definitely isn’t an isolated system. It has this ruddy great big heat lamp called the sun sitting up there in the sky pumping in energy 24/7. Furthermore energy also radiates out from the Earth into space at what is hopefully a comparable rate. That makes the Earth very much NOT an isolated system. So you see, this second law stuff you are peddling is complete nonsense.

    Now, in the immortal words of Monty Python “Go away or I shall taunt you a second time.”

  77. How the Earth’s greenhouse effect works:

    Energy only arrives and leaves the Earth system as radiation. Therefore energy going in equals energy going out. It arrives from the Sun mostly as visible light, and leaves mostly as microwave / infra-red radiation (because of Stefan-Bolzmann considerations).

    A microwave transparent atmosphere would allow all the microwave radiation out uninhibited. However an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, CO2, H2O, etc, intercepts a significant proportion of the microwave radiation, and converts it to heat by collision interaction between molecules, before it can be re-radiated by spontaneous emission (see Fermi’s golden rule).

    In effect the Earth’s surface has to work harder to pump the energy out into space, and it does that by being hotter. Stefan-Bolzmann rules mean that more radiation is emitted at slightly shorter wavelengths, and that maintains the radiation balance, and therefore the equilibrium.

    How does the Earth’s surface become warmer? – through energy feedback from the atmosphere. How does that happen? – I think there are several mechanisms, a significant one is water condensation – the transfer of the latent heat of water vapourisation from the atmosphere to the surface.

  78. Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present – you may find some amazing numbers.

    Speaking of some amazing numbers, time-frames and global warming/climate change … I came across some rather amazing numbers pertaining to the UN and NGOs accredited with “consultative status” between 1946 and 2011. I could not believe my eyes … and it’s definitely worse than I thought. I know that correlation does not equal causation, but perhaps further research is warranted:

    Introducing … the UN’s jolly green sustainable hockey stick

  79. Wllliam (Connolley), I don’t remember you either.
    But I don’t question whether you were at BAS or not.
    FYI I was working at Rothera Base with the BIOTAS group.
    Do you remember Pedro Montiel or David Wynn-Williams?

  80. LazyTeenager says:
    March 9, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    Urederra says
    CFCs are very stable molecules, so stable we used them as aerosol spray propellants in body deodorants. O3, on the other hand, is so reactive it is used as a sanitizer because it kills all kinds of microorganisms. And yet, people see CFCs as the reactive species.
    ————
    Which people?

    People parroting the CFC theory. When you propose a reaction mechanism you give the attacking role to the most reactive species. If you say that CFCs destroys ozone your are saying CFCs are more reactive than ozone. (Impersonal you, please excuse English language for the lack of good impersonal clauses)

    I will reply Collonney in deep later, I have no time now. I give you an appetizer, The formation of halogen radicals in the upper atmosphere is something that remains to be proven. Even though, if they are formed, they would be formed in larger amounts over the tropics and over the equator, just because those zones receive more solar radiation. So the concentration of radicals over those zones should be higher than over the poles, and therefore the destruction of ozone should be higher over the equator/tropics because or the theoretical higher radical concentration and because of the higher temperatures. Empirical data says otherwise.

  81. smileyken says:
    March 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm
    duster
    “allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?
    ————
    It does have a liquid state. Except it’s not at normal atmospheric pressure. Just look at the phase diagram.

    There are also plenty of technological applications of liquid CO2, coffee decaffienation being one amoung many.

  82. Hi Wayne
    Chlorine atoms LazyTeenager? You mean like sea salt, sodium and chloride, NaCl, right? One of the most plentiful ionic substances beside water that covers 70% of this earth and you don’t think it is inherent in the atmosphere irregardless of trace CFCs? Those nasty chlorine ions that every living being depends for its partner nasty sodium? So you really know your “stuff” in minute detail do you?
    ——————-
    Wayne, sea salt has chloride ions. In other words a chlorine atom with an extra electron giving it a negative charge. The chloride ions are stuck like glue to sodium ions. Sodium ions are sodium atoms that are missing an electron so they have a positive charge.

    The outcome of all this is that sodium chloride is a solid that can’t be carried up into the upper atmosphere. Unlike CFCs. And if it was carried up into the upper atmospher it would likely not produce chlorine atoms.

    So Wayne lets recap. Chloride ions are not the same as chlorine atoms. Chorine ions are safe, chlorine atoms would rip your eyes out.

  83. Urederra says
    People parroting the CFC theory.
    ———–
    They don’t say that at all. As I keep on telling you CFCs are not a reactive species. CFCs do not react directly with ozone. They have to be broken down first.

    The formation of halogen radicals in the upper atmosphere is something that remains to be proven.
    ———–
    The breakdown of CFCs by ultraviolet radiation is an experiment you can do in the lab.

    So the concentration of radicals over those zones should be higher than over the poles, and therefore the destruction of ozone should be higher over the equator/tropics because or the theoretical higher radical concentration and because of the higher temperatures. Empirical data says otherwise.
    ————
    That’s naive because a important part of the process is upper atmosphere ice crystals that form over Antarctica during the winter.

    Sorry but the whole process is quite complex and evidently you are trying to deny all this based on a very superficial understanding.

  84. Ian H: That makes the Earth very much NOT an isolated system. So you see, this second law stuff you are peddling is complete nonsense.
    ____________________________________

    So you think the Second Law doesn’t apply anywhere on Earth because it’s not an isolated system? Perhaps your coffee never gets cold – but mine does.

    Perhaps you had better correct Wikipedia “In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic postulate applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer,”

    So when the Sun radiates energy to the Earth and warms the surface, and the Second Law is certainly applying because we don’t see the surface warming the Sun where is the isolated system?

    In so far as radiation and the Second Law are concerned, the “isolated system” amounts to the source of spontaneous radiation and the target. Such could be a molecule on the Sun sending radiation to a molecule on the Earth’s surface, for example.

    You had best read my peer-reviewed Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics when published Monday or Tuesday, for you seem to believe in a concept of net radiation which in fact has no corresponding physical entity.

  85. Excellent post, thanks for a clear bit of history. And someone else that believes in the laws of thermodynamics disproving the GHG theory.

  86. John West says:
    March 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    What is meant by the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If it did then why would Engineers have to account for differences in downward long-wave radiation on cooling rates of cooling ponds and such? (Engineers aren’t known for accommodating imaginary processes that violate laws of thermodynamics.)

    http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf

    —————
    Thanks for the extra counter-example to the “the atmosphere can’t emit infrared radiation” nonsense.

    I use the “point the electronic IR thermometer you can buy at your local electronic store at the sky” counter example.

    What you have described is similar to my “unglazed solar pool heater” counter example.

  87. @AnotherPhilC says: March 10, 2012 at 2:17 am

    This would be one of the funniest explanations of the GH conjecture that we’ve seen here for a long time, but it just shows how people with a lack of understanding of physics can be so easily bluffed by the hoax.

    Phil says “” energy .. arrives from the Sun mostly as visible light,”
    Sorry, Phil – not quite right. Radiation with WL in the visible light spectrum is certainly not more than 50% of solar radiation. And radiation itself is neither light nor heat.

    Then he says “Earth’s surface has to work harder to pump the energy out into space, and it does that by being hotter”. Yeah – like when we pump ourselves up into a sweat on a tread mill – So the Earth pumps more energy out of itself, does it Phil? And at the same time pumps energy into itself in order to be “hotter” does it? I hope it eats all its corn flakes for breakfast.

    Oh, then we have Phil telling us there is “energy feedback from the atmosphere.” – violating the Second Law of Thermodynmaics – eh?

    Oh, but you think rain does the trick? ““the transfer of the latent heat of water vaporisation from the atmosphere to the surface.”

    Actually you might be right there – so long as the rain is warmer than the surface which can happen when it rains on snow I guess. Just perhaps not quite the average sort of situation we see 24/7 worldwide.

    You’ve been well indoctrinated by the IPCC.

  88. “…climate scientists working with high-grade graphic computer modelling. ” Ah yes, 1980’s climate modeling with at best 20×20 mile grid squares and no inclusion at all of clouds in the models. Models with the assumption that in each 400 square mile cell the weather was uniform, ie rain or snow or not over the entire area.

    “High grade” indeed, but given the technology available, the best that could be done if one wanted results to come out in days instead of months – though remembering that Earth has clouds would have helped the models’ quality.

    I recall reading something in a magazine back then about the ‘oops’ of leaving clouds out of the models – that was the first brick to fall out for me. I’d fallen for the “warming” propaganda, but I also knew computers quite well and leaving out something so blatantly obvious to anyone who ever goes outside struck me as rather incompetent on the part of the computer modelers.

    What would be fun is porting some of those old coarse climate models to current systems to watch them run in extreme speed that their programmers couldn’t even conceive of wishing for in the 80’s.

  89. > Do you remember Pedro Montiel or David Wynn-Williams?

    Vaguely; they were in Bio, I was in ICD. DWW came to sticky end, as I recall.

    > the energy flowing out of the Earth (and its atmosphere) has to equal the energy arriving at the Earth

    Good point. But that is just the intro words, which I didn’t write. I’ll put a note on the talk page, if you don’t want to. It is possible to fix things, you know. But I notice you don’t contest my main point – that the two effects (a real GH, and atmospheric GHE) are different, and the mainstream knows this perfectly well. So why don’t the regulars here correct people like White when they say this stuff which is so obviously wrong? Do you just not even bother read what he writes?

    > The formation of halogen radicals in the upper atmosphere is something that remains to be proven. Even though, if they are formed, they would be formed in larger amounts over the tropics and over the equator, just because those zones receive more solar radiation. So the concentration of radicals over those zones should be higher than over the poles, and therefore the destruction of ozone should be higher over the equator/tropics

    Oh dear. First of all, you really need to actually read up on the basic theory before you criticise it. The reason we have an ozone hole over Antarctica, so much stronger that anywhere else, is because of surface reactions on polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). This wasn’t expected in advance, but is now well understood. So yes, I’m sure the free radicals form more readily over the tropics, but they get transported (Brewer-Dobson circulation, if you want to know the term to google) and the reactions occur where the PSCs are. And the PSCs only form when its very very cold. Still no-one care to take a guess as to why they form over Antarctica but very much less over the Arctic?

  90. > The Greenhouse Effect is a fraud, deliberate sleight of hand by… (etc etc)

    Even Monckton knows you’re wrong:

    Lord Monckton then startled his audience by saying it was settled science that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 adds to it, that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, that we are largely to blame, and that some warming can be expected to result.

  91. Doug Cotton says:

    This is why Myrrh is right in saying that water vapour helps to cool the surface, at least in daylight hours.

    That is not what Myrrh said. She (he?) said:

    Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C.

    In other words, the average global temperature would be 52°C warmer.

    Myrrh is quite correct in saying all that -18 deg.C and 33 deg.C business is completely incorrect,

    Does this mean that you agree that, without water, Earth would have an average temperature of 67°C?

    Oh, then we have Phil telling us there is “energy feedback from the atmosphere.” – violating the Second Law of Thermodynmaics – eh?

    So are you claiming that there is not radiation returning to Earth’s surface from the atmosphere?

  92. Richard Simons says:
    March 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    David A. Evans says: ( March 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm):

    Radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too.

    Priceless! So is energy lost from Earth by convection or by conduction?

    Sloppy phrasing on my part. :-(

    Surface radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too. would probably be more accurate and was what I actually meant.

    DaveE.

  93. Doug Cotton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 3:58 am

    Ian H: That makes the Earth very much NOT an isolated system. So you see, this second law stuff you are peddling is complete nonsense.

    ;——————————————————————————————————————

    Ian H.: nonsense.

    The second law only requires the definition of a boundary, i.e., the definition of a system.

    Ideally, you want to avoid mass transfers across the same boundary as the energy transfers, i.e., one prefers a closed system (with only energy transfers across the boundary.)

    The entropy change of the process in question is the change in entropy of the system plus the change in entropy of the universe.

    The universe is the isolated system, i.e., the stuff outside the boundary of the system which is source of the energy (and/or mass) transfer.

    There are no free lunches.

    For instance, if I define a system as a “human”, then calculate the entropy change of the “human” while it’s alive, then the entropy change of the system will be negative, and the resulting entropy change of the universe will be positive or zero (or the “human” dies.)

    Then TOTAL entropy change of the process (system + universe) will be greater than or equal to zero (zero if the system is in equilibrium.)

  94. LazyTeenager says:
    March 10, 2012 at 3:58 am
    Urederra says
    People parroting the CFC theory.
    ———–
    They don’t say that at all.

    I looked for the sentence “CFCs destroy ozone” on google and I found 11400 results.

    As I keep on telling you CFCs are not a reactive species. CFCs do not react directly with ozone. They have to be broken down first.

    That is what I said in first place. Look who is not understanding what I am saying.

    The formation of halogen radicals in the upper atmosphere is something that remains to be proven.
    ———–
    The breakdown of CFCs by ultraviolet radiation is an experiment you can do in the lab.

    Again, look who is not understanding what I am saying. I am quite aware of that experiment, I have even done it myself (with N-bromosuccinimide as a bromine radical source) and there are some neat videos on youtube proving that. But that is not what I said, what I said that the formation of halogen radicals IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE is something that remains to be proven.
    The point is not that ultraviolet light can break CFCs, the point is that CFCs are not the cause of the so-called ozone hole because they cannot reach the zone of the stratosphere where ozone is formed.

    The lightest CFC, chlorofluoromethane has a molecular weight (m.w.) of 68, and it is liquid below -9 C. dichloromethane, the next in line, has a m.w. = 84 and is liquid at room temperature. Halon 2311 has a m.w. = 196 and it is also a liquid. Just for comparison, He m.w. = 4 Ar m.w.= 40, Rn m.w. = 222. If you fill a balloon with helium it goes up, if you fill it with argon it remains down and everybody knows that radon levels build up in basements and lower floors of contaminated houses. With that in mind, how can you expect Halon 2311 (m.w. = 196) to go up to the stratosphere?
    I have tried to find a CFCs global distribution map in the atmosphere and I couldn’t. I only found computer model distributions (I want real empirical data) or CFCs distributions in the oceans. The highest is at the labrador sea, by the way, and very little over the southern hemisphere when compared to the northern one.

    So the concentration of radicals over those zones should be higher than over the poles, and therefore the destruction of ozone should be higher over the equator/tropics because or the theoretical higher radical concentration and because of the higher temperatures. Empirical data says otherwise.
    ————
    That’s naive because a important part of the process is upper atmosphere ice crystals that form over Antarctica during the winter.
    Sorry but the whole process is quite complex and evidently you are trying to deny all this based on a very superficial understanding.

    LOL. Now it is you the one denying photodissociation. As I said, if CFCs reach the stratosphere they will be splitted into radicals by UV radiation. That happens in the lab without the need of ice crystals. But, as I said, if CFCs reach the stratosphere, they will be splitted in higher quantities where there is more solar radiation and temperature (over the equator and tropics) and never over the poles during the six months of winter, again, because there is little to none UV radiation.
    The cause of low ozone levels over the poles is something very easy to explain, Gordon Dobson already knew that ozone is unstable and will decompose over time. It is replenished when UV radiation splits O2 molecules into O radicals that react with more O2 rendering O3. Since there is little UV radiation over the poles during the winter, O3 levels cannot be replenished until summer.

  95. The few people who do understand why the laws of physics prove that the Earth can never become a greenhouse and that humanity is not the cause of global warming are to be commended. This is because their eyes are open and they can think for themselves.

    That in itself shows that it always worth reminding those who lack the intelligence at this time to see right through the lies of anthropogenic global warming. What completely disproves AGW are the laws of physics. The physical laws of heat, energy and work is essential to understand the laws of thermodynamics.

    The rampant ideology in science in general and in climate science in particular which relates to global warming also shows how those who push the lie of ‘man-made global warming’ dismiss the Sun and fail to understand how the Earth’s climate system works.

    This is a major problem of seeing the big picture, which is common among those who play with science but require remedial lessons on how the earth’s weather system operates.

    I forecast applying these principles, but those who deny the physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate and weather cannot forecast in the real world. That is proof right there of the fallacy of those pushing the lie of AGW – that is, the lie of man-made forcing of earth’s climate by carbonic acid gas, or CO2.

    What physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner say about the computer models used as ‘proof’ of man-made global warming is telling –

    “Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by
    introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model.”

    Computer modelling used to force the lie of AGW does not make sense since it is well known among skilled forecasters and experts that there are a wide variety of transfer phenomena.

    “Radiative transfer, heat transfer, momentum transfer, mass transfer, energy transfer, etc. along with the various kinds of interfaces, static or moving, between solids, fluids, gases, plasmas, etc., for where there does not exist any applicable theory,” say Dr. Gerlich and Tscheuschner.

    “In the approximated discretized equations, artificial unphysical boundary conditions are
    introduced in order to prevent running the system into unphysical states. Such a calculation
    which yields an arbitrary result is no calculation in the sense of physics, and hence,
    in the sense of science.

    “There is no reason to believe that global climatologists do not know these fundamental scientific facts. Nevertheless, in their summaries for policymakers, global climatologists claim that they can compute the influence of carbon dioxide on the climates.

    This is the contention of AGW proponents, who by the claim of man-made global warming violate the First and Second Laws Of Thermodynamics:

    First Law of Thermodynamics – In all cases, when work is transformed into heat, an amount of heat in proportion to the produced work is used up, and vice versa, the same amount of heat can be produced by the consumption of an equal amount of work. Work can be transformed into heat and vice versa, where the amount of one is in proportion to the amount of the other. This is a de nition of the mechanical heat equivalent.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one. A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation. This applies to radiation as well.

  96. Theodore White says: March 10, 2012 at 10:32 am
    “The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one. A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation. This applies to radiation as well.”

    That reminds me – I must throw out my microwave oven, since it violates the second law of thermodynamics, it being impossible for microwaves from a cold cavity magnetron to make a hot liquid even hotter. Or something.

  97. Urederra says
    With that in mind, how can you expect Halon 2311 (m.w. = 196) to go up to the stratosphere?
    ——————–
    Simple mixing. In other words diffusion and convection. Its true that if you put it into a balloon it will not mix and the ballon will sink due to buoancy.

    If it’s mixed simple bouancy considerations don’t apply. However there is some degree of vertical segregation due to gravity acting on the heavier halons vs N2. This can be calculated and verified by experiment for static atmospheres. But the effect is very small and largely trumped by winds and convection.

    Conclusion. There is nothing stopping CFCs being transported around the world and into the upper atmosphere.

  98. @Doug Cotton says: March 10, 2012 at 4:38 am

    “Phil says “” energy .. arrives from the Sun mostly as visible light,”
    Sorry, Phil – not quite right. Radiation with WL in the visible light spectrum is certainly not more than 50% of solar radiation. And radiation itself is neither light nor heat.”

    Electromagnetic radiation is energy. A very tiny amount of the incoming Solar radiation ENERGY arrives as microwave or infra-red, most arrives at shorter wavelengths, compared with black body radiation energy emitted by the Earth, which is mostly microwave and IR. Check the Stefan-Bolzmann curves for different temperatures, 280K for the Earth, 6000K for the Sun.

    “Then he says “Earth’s surface has to work harder to pump the energy out into space, and it does that by being hotter”. Yeah – like when we pump ourselves up into a sweat on a tread mill – So the Earth pumps more energy out of itself, does it Phil? And at the same time pumps energy into itself in order to be “hotter” does it? I hope it eats all its corn flakes for breakfast.”

    The Earth’s surface has to be at a higher temperature to maintain a radiative energy balance of incoming and outgoing energy, than in the absence of greenhouse gases.

    “Oh, then we have Phil telling us there is “energy feedback from the atmosphere.” – violating the Second Law of Thermodynmaics – eh?”

    No it doesn’t however you spell it.

    “Oh, but you think rain does the trick? ““the transfer of the latent heat of water vaporisation from the atmosphere to the surface.””

    Surface condensation is a factor. At night especially the surface will be cooler than the atmosphere. Back radiation is a factor too.

    “Actually you might be right there – so long as the rain is warmer than the surface which can happen when it rains on snow I guess. Just perhaps not quite the average sort of situation we see 24/7 worldwide.
    You’ve been well indoctrinated by the IPCC.”

    I’m on the side of Lindzen, Spencer and Monckton. I’m not prepared to accept gibberish interpretations of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

  99. Theodore says
    The physical laws of heat, energy and work is essential to understand the laws of thermodynamics.
    ————
    True. But the kicker is you have to understand these things properly. Theodore does not.

    There are a bunch of undergraduate misconceptions wandering around with mass confusion about the distinctions between heat and radiation. You cannot criticism AGW while being embarrassingly confused about this kind of stuff.

    1. AGW does NOT violate any laws of thermodynamics.
    2. The understanding of why the earth has the temperature it does, a question independent of AGW, does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.
    3. Downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.

    Let’s look at the process components:
    1. Does the atmosphere emit IR radiation. YES.
    2. Is this radiation emitted in all directions both up and down and sideways. YES.
    3. Is this radiation absorbed by vegetation, soil, snow, rocks and water. YES.
    4. Will this absorbed radiation be converted into heat. YES.
    5. Will this additional heat cause the temperature of the surface to be higher than otherwise. YES.

    Conclusion 1.
    Therefore logically if the atmosphere is warm and contains constituents that emit IR radiation the surface will be warmer than otherwise.

    Conclusion 2.
    There is something wrong with Theodore’s understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

  100. Urederra says:
    March 10, 2012 at 9:51 am
    LazyTeenager says:
    March 10, 2012 at 3:58 am
    Urederra says
    People parroting the CFC theory.
    ———–
    But that is not what I said, what I said that the formation of halogen radicals IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE is something that remains to be proven.

    I suggest you read some of the series of papers by Zander in the 90’s.
    He shows Chlorine is in the form of organic molecules in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, as you move further higher in the stratosphere the organic form decreases while the inorganic form increases (total Cl conserved) indicating formation by photolysis rather than upward transport. Also he shows the corresponding Fluorine compounds following the same pattern, both increased with time in parallel with the increase in atmospheric CFC concentration.
    The presence of the intermediates COF2 and COFCl indicate clearly the origin of the halogen compounds in the stratosphere as the photolysis products of CFCs. So it does not remain to be proven, as you put it.

    The point is not that ultraviolet light can break CFCs, the point is that CFCs are not the cause of the so-called ozone hole because they cannot reach the zone of the stratosphere where ozone is formed.

    Of course they can, and their presence there has been well documented.

    The lightest CFC, chlorofluoromethane has a molecular weight (m.w.) of 68, and it is liquid below -9 C. dichloromethane, the next in line, has a m.w. = 84 and is liquid at room temperature. Halon 2311 has a m.w. = 196 and it is also a liquid. Just for comparison, He m.w. = 4 Ar m.w.= 40, Rn m.w. = 222. If you fill a balloon with helium it goes up, if you fill it with argon it remains down and everybody knows that radon levels build up in basements and lower floors of contaminated houses. With that in mind, how can you expect Halon 2311 (m.w. = 196) to go up to the stratosphere?

    Turbulent transport and diffusion, you’ll be telling us next that it’s impossible for gliders to fly!
    That they are liquid at room temperature is not relevant since in the atmosphere at partial pressures of less than a mPa I guarantee they’re gases.

    I have tried to find a CFCs global distribution map in the atmosphere and I couldn´t.

  101. SteveSadlov says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:13 am
    During the first half of the 1980s I was a hard core deep green.
    —————
    I have never been a hard core deep green. I am immune to bad storytelling of all colors. Left wing, right wing it does not matter, if it’s BS I know.

    I have seen rabid communists nearly drink themselves to death and then turn into rabid religious nuts. So it’s my view that there is no real difference between left wingers and right wingers, it’s all just a desperate desire to imagine that they are wiser than they really are.

    I can deal with the uncertainty of not knowing everything, most people cannot. They are weak and cowardly.

  102. Doug Cotton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 4:38 am
    You’ve been well indoctrinated by the IPCC.

    The fact I said nothing about any anthropogenic component. So any IPCC allegations are absurd on your part.

  103. Let’s take a look at why some people use ideology over basic climate fundamentals. Our example comes from “Lazy Teenager” – who lallygags on the earth’s climate with unsubstantiated comments which are ideological, wrong and proves the ‘non-science’ and total lack of understanding of his own planet’s climate.

    “Theodore says The physical laws of heat, energy and work is essential to understand the laws of thermodynamics.
    ————
    Lazy Teenager says, “True. But the kicker is you have to understand these things properly. Theodore does not.”

    Theo Questions: You contradict yourself. First you say that what I said was true; then you insult and say, in the same sentence mind you, that ‘Theodore’ does not understand the truth of what he said?

    Then you, Lazy Teenager continue: “There are a bunch of undergraduate misconceptions wandering around with mass confusion about the distinctions between heat and radiation. You cannot criticism AGW while being embarrassingly confused about this kind of stuff.”

    Theo Questions: What does, as you say,” ‘a bunch’ of undergraduate misconceptions” have to do with the laws that regulate the Earth’s climate? AGW cannot exist on Earth, our planet. It is impossible according to the laws of physics. The confusion and embarrassment, son, is wholly yours.

    Lazy Teenager then says –

    1. AGW does NOT violate any laws of thermodynamics.

    Theo Questions: Prove it. You have not done so. The laws of thermodynamics are always in operation. You have not proven that they are not. And, the fact that you can actually say this proves my point that AGW ideology has no place in science (or anywhere else.) You need to take the red pill and wake up Lazy Teen. You’ve consumed AGW propaganda and all its fuzzy math that could not forecast a bowl of soup on a cold day.

    Lazy Teenager then says –

    “Conclusion 1. Therefore logically if the atmosphere is warm and contains constituents that emit IR radiation the surface will be warmer than otherwise. Conclusion 2. There is something wrong with Theodore’s understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.”

    Theo Says – The laws of thermodynamics speaks openly all around us, and you too kiddo. If you only open your eyes and mind. Nature requires no understanding – just your keen observation and attention. Mother Nature works just fine on her own. If it isn’t broke then don’t fix it. That is your problem Lazy Teenager. Learn to pay attention. I didn’t create the laws of physics, but I do know and respect them. So should you. I just work here kiddo.

    Theo’s Conclusion: “All Truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

  104. For Joanna, the reference. Even if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow then the total would only reduce by 3-6%, hardly significant.

    “Humans produce between 3 and 6% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Natural carbon sources produce much larger quantities than mankind, but this is offset by the vast natural carbon sinks that remove CO2 from the air. The current imbalance is due to human activity.”

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_increases_the_amount_of_carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere

  105. Theodore, do you have any copies of the reports you made in the 80’s? The only Theodore White I can find with Google with any connection with climate is an astrologer. I’m sure that is not you. This should be an easy thing for you to produce, Yes?

  106. You’ve consumed AGW propaganda and all its fuzzy math that could not forecast a bowl of soup on a cold day.

    Theodore: Instead of insults and repeating essentially the same material multiple times, perhaps you could clearly explain to us exactly how the concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Feel free to use as much math as you need, but avoid the word ‘heat’ if you possibly can as thinking in terms of energy clarifies things no end.

  107. @ Richard Simons, – study for yourself what should be self-evident to you since I assume you live on the Earth and should already know the laws of thermodynamics – it speaks for itself. I don’t take part in ideological ping-pong head games (useless and a cover for those who cannot forecast nor accept climate truths) as I am too busy actually working forecasting the climate and weather using the laws of physics.

    I repost again what I’ve already said – The math stinks on AGW from every single conceivable angle – none more important than the laws of physics.

    Two physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner say the same thing. Why don’t you actually READ the scientific paper which is self-explanatory rather than talk?

    If you do not already know why it is impossible for AGW to exist on Earth due to the laws of physics then I suggest you read the math yourself, i.e., why man-made global warming is impossible on earth. You cannot get around the physical laws with your opinions, and presumed predetermined AGW ideology – they are useless against the laws of physics. You should know better.

    “…1) There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects.

    2) There are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet.

    (3) The frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly.

    (4) The formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately.

    (5) The assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical.

    (6) Thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero – the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

    Those who want to understand why AGW is a lie because of the laws of thermodynamics that govern the Earth’s climate and weather should take the time to read the paper linked below that was published in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

    Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper.

    Both German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%.

    They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. The German scientists show how greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

    They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the Earth works as an OPEN system. Moreover, the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does NOT occur in any fundamental work involving Thermodynamics, Physical kinetics or Radiation theory.

    So for those still clinging to the bald face lie of ‘man-made global warming’ by means of tons and tons and tons of AGW kool-aid (the real ‘climate change’ threat to the world) also know that you are effectively denying the mathematical laws that govern your own physical existence and entire climate of your own planet.

    Free Your Mind, Take The Red Pill -> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    – Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci

  108. @Theodore White
    “(5) The assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical.”

    No idea what you mean by “unphysical” but there has to be a radiative balance between electromagnetic radiation energy arriving at the Earth from the Sun, and electromagnetic radiation energy leaving the Earth into space, otherwise the Earth would keep warming (or cooling) until the balance became established.

    What do you mean?

  109. Theodore. First, I doubt that anyone trying to open your mind here believes that greenhouse heating has anything to do with the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of “greenhouse gases”. So we would all be much happier without the word “greenhouse” used at all.

    Second, we know about the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper and are unconvinced. For a start it contradicts the known historic changes in global temperature which do not correlate smoothly with solar radiation.

    Third, it is plain experience that insulating materials (even clouds) can change the temperature of an object subject to heat sources and fluxes. Your attempts to apply the laws of thermodynamics to inapplicable subsystem elements are invalid.

    Sadly this thread is a train-wreck.

  110. @AnotherPhilC,

    What I mean about the assumption of a radiative balance being unphysical is that the Earth does not have a ‘balanced’ climate. This is the serious error anyone who drinks the AGW kool-aid makes.

    This is key to get this – especially for anyone who seeks to know and forecast the earth’s climate – that the earth has a highly-variable water vapor gaseous climate that is always in motion. We live on a rotating globe with a primary star that causes our climate to change.

    The Earth, I remind one and all, is a planet and lives in space. That is where our climate and subsequent weather is forced from because of the laws of physics.

    The entire fallacy of man-made global warming is built on violations of the laws of physics, and specifically violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Anyone who believes in the lies and propaganda of AGW needs to have their heads checked.

    The assumption of Earth’s radiative balance is core to AGW ideology and all of their so-called ‘scientific’ literature and propaganda. The assumption is physically impossible by the laws of nature itself – and cannot occur on earth. Game over. It’s a no-brainer.

    But the fact that some actually believe the AGW propaganda – despite the laws of physics – tells you just how far IQs have fallen of late.

    This notion of radiative forcing by the IPCC is based on their assumption of climate equilibrium on earth – meaning – IPCC/AGW scientists claimed that, ” A change in average net radiation at the top of the troposphere (known as the tropopause), because of a change in either solar or infrared radiation, is de fined for the purpose of this report as a radiative forcing. A radiative forcing perturbs the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. Over time climate responds to the perturbation to re-establish the radiative balance. A positive radiative forcing tends on average to warm the surface; a negative radiative forcing on average tends to cool the surface. As defined here, the incoming solar radiation is not considered a radiative forcing, but a change in the amount of incoming solar radiation would be a radiative forcing. For example, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to a reduction in outgoing infrared radiation and a positive radiative forcing….”

    Now, that mish-mash of AGW fuzzy wuzzy thinking and piss poor knowledge of the earth’s climate proves why AGW proponents are in total denial in the real world where we live.

    The laws of physics state that the earth cannot become a man-made greenhouse or ever have this kind of so-called ‘climate change’ forced on it by man.

    The SUN forces the Earth’s climate – not humanity.

    The AGW ideology even on Wikipedia even gets it totally wrong as they claim this about the second law of thermodynamics. Climate science is in such terrible shape because of these Gupervilles who cannot count and obviously are not playing with all 52 cards in their deck –

    They say that – ” Some have problems with the energy that is radiated by the greenhouse gases towards the surface of the Earth (150 W=m2) because this energy flows from a colder body apparently violating the second law of thermodynamics. This is a wrong interpretation, since it ignores the radiation of the Sun (even 6000 K). With respect to the total balance the second law is obeyed indeed…”

    Did anyone notice anything?

    The AGW ideologue who wrote that confuses ENERGY with heat.

    That dog does not hunt.

    Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out that, “Furthermore, the system in question here is the atmospheric system of the Earth including the Earth’s ground. Since this system is assumed to be in radiative balance with its environment, and any other forms of energy and mass exchange with its environment are strictly prohibited; it de fines a system in the sense of thermodynamics for which the second law holds strictly.”

  111. A map of CFC distribution in the atmosphere.

    Oh yeah, just to nail it down a good place to start learning about ozone depletion and the Antarctic ozone hole, remains Robert Parson’s Ozone FAQ. Since the mechanism of the hole formation is not trivially simple, a long quote will be useful (the . . . mean that Eli has not included the more technical/somewhat digressive material. Interested bunnies are invited to RTFR)
    —————————–
    a.) The Polar Vortex

    As the air in the antarctic stratosphere cools and descends during the winter, the Coriolis effect sets up a strong westerly circulation around the pole. When the sun returns in the spring the winds weaken, but the vortex remains stable until November. The air over antarctica is largely isolated from the rest of the atmosphere, forming a gigantic reaction vessel. The vortex is not circular, it has an oblong shape with the long axis extending out over Patagonia. . . .

    b.) Polar Stratospheric Clouds (“PSC”)

    The Polar vortex is extremely cold; temperatures in the lower stratosphere drop below -80 C. Under these conditions large numbers of clouds appear in the stratosphere. These clouds are composed largely of nitric acid and water, probably in the form of crystals of nitric acid trihydrate (“NAT”), HNO3.3(H2O). . . . .

    c.) Reactions On Stratospheric Clouds

    Most of the chlorine in the stratosphere ends up in one of the reservoir compounds, Chlorine Nitrate (ClONO2) or Hydrogen Chloride (HCl). Laboratory experiments have shown, however, that these compounds, ordinarily inert in the stratosphere, do react on the surfaces of polar stratospheric cloud particles. HCl dissolves into the particles as they grow, and when a ClONO2 molecule becomes adsorbed the following reactions take place:

    ClONO2 + HCl -> Cl2 + HNO3
    ClONO2 + H2O -> HOCl + HNO3

    The Nitric acid, HNO3, stays in the cloud particle.. . . . .

    d.) Sedimentation and Denitrification

    The clouds may [may is too weak this happening is the prelude to forming an ozone hole- E.R.] eventually grow big enough so that they settle out of the stratosphere, carrying the nitric acid with them (“denitrification”). . . . .

    e.) Photolysis of active chlorine compounds

    The Cl2 and HOCl produced by the heterogeneous reactions are easily photolyzed, even in the antarctic winter when there is little UV present. The sun is always very low in the polar winter, so the light takes a long path through the atmosphere and the short-wave UV is selectively absorbed. Molecular chlorine, however, absorbs _visible_ and near-UV light:

    Cl2 + hv -> 2 Cl
    Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2

    The effect is to produce large amounts of ClO. This ClO would ordinarily be captured by NO2 and returned to the ClONO2 reservoir, but “denoxification” and “denitrification” prevent this by removing NO2.

    f.) Catalytic destruction of ozone by active chlorine

    As discussed in Part I, Cl and ClO can form a catalytic cycle that efficiently destroys ozone. That cycle used free oxygen atoms, however, which are only abundant in the upper stratosphere; it cannot explain the ozone hole which forms in the lower stratosphere. Instead, the principal mechanism involves chlorine peroxide, ClOOCl (often referred to as the “ClO dimer”) [Molina and Molina]:

    ClO + ClO -> ClOOCl
    ClOOCl + hv -> Cl + ClOO
    ClOO -> Cl + O2
    2 Cl + 2 O3 -> 2 ClO + 2 O2
    ——————————-
    Net: 2 O3 -> 3 O2

    At polar stratospheric temperatures this sequence is extremely fast and it dominates the ozone-destruction process. The second step, photolysis of chlorine peroxide, requires UV light which only becomes abundant in the lower stratosphere in the spring. Thus one has a long buildup of ClO and ClOOCl during the winter, followed by massive ozone destruction in the spring. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for about 70% of the antarctic ozone loss.

    The theory described above (often called the “PSC theory”) was developed during the years 1985-87. At the same time, others proposed completely different mechanisms, making no use of chlorine chemistry. The two most prominent alternative explanations were one that postulated large increases in nitrogen oxides arising from enhanced solar activity, and one that postulated an upwelling of ozone-poor air from the troposphere into the cold stratospheric vortex. Each hypothesis made definite predictions, and a program of measurements was carried out to test these. The solar activity hypothesis predicted enhanced levels of Nitrogen oxides (NOx), whereas the measurements show unusually _low_ NOx, in accordance with the PSC hypothesis. The “upwelling” hypothesis predicted upward air motion in the lower stratosphere, which is inconsistent with measurements of atmospheric tracers such as N2O which show that the motion is primarily downwards.

    Positive evidence for the PSC theory comes from ground-based and airborne observations of the various chlorine-containing compounds. These show that the reservoir species HCl and ClONO2 are extensively depleted in the antarctic winter and spring, while the concentration of the active, ozone-depleting species ClO is strongly enhanced. Measurements also show enormously enhanced concentrations of the molecule OClO. This is formed by a side-reaction in the BrO/ClO mechanism described above.

    Further evidence comes from laboratory studies. The gas-phase reactions have been reproduced in the laboratory, and shown to proceed at the rates required in order for them to be important in the polar stratosphere. . . . .

    The “smoking gun” is usually considered to be the simultaneous in-situ measurements of a variety of trace gases from an ER-2 stratospheric aircraft (a converted U2 spy plane) in August-October 1987. [Tuck et al.] These measurements demonstrated a striking “anticorrelation” between local ozone concentrations and ClO concentrations. Upon entering the ozone hole, ClO concentrations suddenly jump by a factor of 20 or more, while ozone concentrations drop by more than 50%. Even local fluctuations in the concentrations of the two species are tightly correlated. [Anderson et al.] The correlation is quantitatively accurate: from the measured local ClO concentrations together with reaction rate constants measured in the laboratory, one can calculate ozone destruction rates which agree well with the measured ozone concentrations.
    ————————

    References provided in the FAQ

  112. Robert Murphy,

    The clue lies in how Theodore signs some of his posts here: Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci. If you look at his empty website accumetweather.blogspot.com you will see that the proprietor of that site signs himself in the same manner. You will also note that in his bio he claims to have been a crime, but not a science or environment reporter. I suspect the blogger and our poster are one and the same.

  113. @Rattus Norvegicus, there is no clue. Why don’t you simply ask rather than to presume? What is wrong with that? And what does me being a polymath – journalist and forecaster have to do with the topic of AGW violating the laws of thermodynamics?

    These laws will not change for anyone, so I find it curious that as usual, some bozo who claims ‘knowledge’ of the earth’s climate while pushing AGW goes on to make low brow comments without being able to prove and back up the false claims of man-made global warming.

    There are journalists who specialize in more than one beat, or fields, which is typical of some skilled journalists who have to cover many topics while on deadline. Reporters who are restricted to one field, or beat are seen by editors as liabilities simply because they are not well-rounded.

    I worked as a police reporter and general assignment journalist and investigative reporter and have written professionally on a wide variety of topics – including meteorology, the environment, nuclear power, energy, transportation, climatology, astrophysics, geology, biology, geophysics, space weather and general science among other subjects. I’ve interviewed thousands of experts in a wide range of fields and am versed in the scientific discipline. Excuse me for being myself.

    What is your excuse?

  114. Theodore White wrote:

    “But the fact that some actually believe the AGW propaganda – despite the laws of physics – tells you just how far IQs have fallen of late.”

    I was joking about throwing the microwave oven away. LOL.

  115. Rattus Norvegicus,

    So this *is* the Theodore White who lists himself as an astrologer? The one who says this on his website:

    “Told I’m clairvoyant, I can only describe myself as a polymath who learned Natural Astrology as a child. I advanced to Judicial Astrology, interpreting Natal Horoscopes & Secondary Progressions. My expertise ranges from long-range climate/weather forecasting to economics to personal horoscope readings to the astrological world prophecies of Michel Nostradamus – all based on the principles of Mundane Astrology.”
    ?

    This is someone who is to be taken seriously about science?

  116. LazyTeenager says:
    “I use the “point the electronic IR thermometer you can buy at your local electronic store at the sky” counter example. ”

    LOL, I just used that one on the Monckton thread! I think a lot of the problem is that there’s been to many bad analogies made trying to explain the GHE (including the name itself).

  117. Urederra says:
    March 10, 2012 at 9:51 am

    The cause of low ozone levels over the poles is something very easy to explain, Gordon Dobson already knew that ozone is unstable and will decompose over time. It is replenished when UV radiation splits O2 molecules into O radicals that react with more O2 rendering O3. Since there is little UV radiation over the poles during the winter, O3 levels cannot be replenished until summer.

    ;—————————————————————————–

    During the summer when there’s UV present, and the ozone at the poles is lower than in the winter.

    During the winter, there is a longitudinal movement of ozone to the pole and the destruction of ozone takes place in the polar vortex.

    See

    http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/selectMap

    and compare January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2011. The ozone concentrations are higher in the winter.

  118. Agile Aspect says:
    March 11, 2012 at 9:30 am

    During the summer when there’s UV present, and the ozone at the poles is lower than in the winter.

    During the winter, there is a longitudinal movement of ozone to the pole and the destruction of ozone takes place in the polar vortex.

    See

    http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/selectMap

    and compare January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2011. The ozone concentrations are higher in the winter.

    errr… nope.

    See…

    http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm

    Look at the graph, southern hemisphere, the so-called hole is larger in September, at the end of the austral winter.

  119. @Alan Wilkinson says:Theodore. First, I doubt that anyone trying to open your mind here believes that greenhouse heating has anything to do with the misnamed “greenhouse effect” of “greenhouse gases”. So we would all be much happier without the word “greenhouse” used at all.

    Second, we know about the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper and are unconvinced. For a start it contradicts the known historic changes in global temperature which do not correlate smoothly with solar radiation.

    Third, it is plain experience that insulating materials (even clouds) can change the temperature of an object subject to heat sources and fluxes. Your attempts to apply the laws of thermodynamics to inapplicable subsystem elements are invalid.
    _________________________

    Alan, AGW is built directly upon the earth becoming a ‘man-made greenhouse’ which the earth can never become according to the laws of physics that govern our climate.

    Second, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper states clearly that there is no way to state what a planet’s global temperature is – much less historic changes in a planet’s world temperature.

    Third, you are better served to study what you already should know and that are the laws of thermodynamics that rule the Earth’s climate.

    Another thing –

    One of the worst things to come out of the worldwide AGW lie-and-pony-show is the fact that its proponents are anti-science, anti-social and anti-anything that does not subscribe to its sick propaganda that denies the laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate and weather.

    The rudeness, lack of scientific & observation methods along with common sense and professionalism has long been widely endemic among those who are clueless about their own planet’s weather. Ideology has no place in Science.

  120. guess as to why they form over Antarctica but very much less over the Arctic?

    William M. Connolley says:
    March 10, 2012 at 6:51 am
    > The Greenhouse Effect is a fraud, deliberate sleight of hand by… (etc etc)

    Even Monckton knows you’re wrong:

    Lord Monckton then startled his audience by saying it was settled science that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 adds to it, that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, that we are largely to blame, and that some warming can be expected to result.

    ======================

    See my post to him: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/#comment-919500

    There is no The Greenhouse Effect– why not? Because etc.

  121. Eli Rabett says:
    March 10, 2012 at 8:17 pm
    A map of CFC distribution in the atmosphere.

    Oh, thanks.

    Well, as you can see, the concentration of CFC-12, whatever the units are, is the highest in the equator and goes down at the poles (a pity it only reaches to 60 degrees), and it goes down with altittude too, to the point that it is non existant at 60 degrees 45 Km over sea level)

    So, over the equator there is a higher concentration of CFC-12, a higher solar radiation and higher temperature than at the poles, yet, the claim is that CFCs breaks ozone over the poles, but apparently, not over the equator, despite that the 3 variables (concentration, solar radiation and temperature) favour the reaction over the equator. It is chemical kinetics upside down)

    a.) The Polar Vortex
    As the air in the antarctic stratosphere cools and descends during the winter, the Coriolis effect sets up a strong westerly circulation around the pole. When the sun returns in the spring the winds weaken, but the vortex remains stable until November. The air over antarctica is largely isolated from the rest of the atmosphere, forming a gigantic reaction vessel. The vortex is not circular, it has an oblong shape with the long axis extending out over Patagonia. . . .

    So?. How does the vortex speed up the reaction? If the vortex makes the air with larger amounts of CFCs ascend then there could be a point, but if it descends, how can speed up the reaction?

    b.) Polar Stratospheric Clouds (“PSC”)
    The Polar vortex is extremely cold; temperatures in the lower stratosphere drop below -80 C. Under these conditions large numbers of clouds appear in the stratosphere. These clouds are composed largely of nitric acid and water, probably in the form of crystals of nitric acid trihydrate (“NAT”), HNO3.3(H2O). . . . .

    Here they say that the those clouds are rare.

    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/cool-science/2009/rare-mother-of-pearl-clouds-sighted-in-antarctica

    Besides, those clouds reach a maximum altittude of 20-25 Km, while the so-called ozone layer expands from 15 Km up to 55 Km. http://www.meteo.lv/public/28974.html They only touch the lower portion of the layer. Most of the ozone is located in the top part of the layer, where it is formed.

    c.) Reactions On Stratospheric Clouds …

    Again, so?. None of the mentioned reactions involve CFCs or O3 .

    d.) Sedimentation and Denitrification

    e.) Photolysis of active chlorine compounds

    f.) Catalytic destruction of ozone by active chlorine

    I read the explanation and checked the equations several times but I have not found a single mention of CFCs. The first mention of Chlorine is here: “Most of the chlorine in the stratosphere ends up in one of the reservoir compounds” From there everything seems fine as a theory, but it doesn’t mention CFCs anywhere in the mechanism nor is explained how “most of the chlorine in the stratosphere ends up in one of the reservoir compounds” how? What is the origin of that chlorine? CFCs? And how is the chlorine released from CFCs?

    I don’t get why they didn’t mention the lack or reduction of ozone production during the winter over the poles. Maybe because it is inconvenient.
    I prefer the old Dobson theory, that one that says that the lack of ozone over the poles during the winter is due to the fact that ozone is unstable and decomposes over time and because there is no ozone production over the poles due to the low UV levels present. It hasn’t been falsified and it is simpler, and that a win according to Occam’s razor.

  122. “Well, as you can see, the concentration of CFC-12, whatever the units are, is the highest in the equator and goes down at the poles”

    Actually not. There is a north south asymmetry, because almost all of the CFCs were emitted in the Northern Hemisphere and the time for mixing across the poles is of the same order as the time to reach the stratosphere. The circulation is driven by what are called the Hadley and Ferrel cells (google or look in the Wikipedia or ask you local meteorologist) and account for where the CFCs are carried into the stratosphere. This is all quite well understood and verified by any number of tracer studies. Also you have to account for how ozone and the photolysis products from the CFCs are transported in the stratosphere by the Dobson circulation (google is your friend).

    “None of the mentioned reactions involve CFCs or O3 . ”

    You are missing the point. CFC (chloro, fluoro carbons) decompose in the stratosphere to form Cl atoms by far UV photolysis. So the CFCs enter the story as the source of the Cl atoms. They are for sure there.

    CFC = hv –> nCl + other stuff

    These reactions are very well measured in the lab and in vivo.

    The Cl atoms react with O3, ozone, to form ClO as in

    Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
    Cl + O3 –> ClO + O2

    Eli wrote this twice because two ClO react with each other to form ClOOCl

    ClO + ClO -> ClOOCl

    The ClOOCl is the result of reacting two ozone molecules with two Cl atoms, so two ozone molecules have disappeared. The ClOOCl rapidly absorbs another photon and falls apart in two steps

    ClOOCl + hv -> Cl + ClOO
    ClOO –> Cl + O2

    At this point two ozone molecules have been transformed into three O2 molecules and the Cl atom has been regenerated. Two Cl atoms have catalytically destroyed two ozone molecules
    ——————————-
    Net: 2 O3 -> 3 O2

    Go read the FAQ for a start. More detail at the Stratospheric Ozone Textbook.

  123. Urederra says:
    March 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Agile Aspect says:
    March 11, 2012 at 9:30 am

    During the summer when there’s UV present, and the ozone at the poles is lower than in the winter.

    errr… nope.

    See…

    http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm

    Look at the graph, southern hemisphere, the so-called hole is larger in September, at the end of the austral winter.
    ;—————————————————————————————————————–

    Arguing that there is no ozone hole is a “straw man” argument.

    What you call the “ozone hole” is the known as the vortex – and I as far as I know, I don’t think anyone is arguing there is no vortex or “ozone hole” at the South pole.

    It’s the extreme cold of the vortex which destroys the ozone – did you notice the ozone piled up next to the vortex?

    The argument is about where the ozone comes from.

    If you had actually look beyond the first image, you might have noticed the other images support my claim, namely, that there is very little ozone in the polar regions at the onset of winter and the ozone flows longitudinally into the South pole during the winter.

    Scroll down on the page and there images from May and July – very little ozone.

    Q.E.D.

    Note most of the other images on the URL you posted are from

    http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/selectMap

    If you use this interface, it’s trivial to show the ozone is longitudinally flowing into the polar regions during the winter since you can choose any date you like – and any pole you like (use the polar projections for clarity.)

  124. “Ian H says:
    March 10, 2012 at 2:04 am
    The second law is very specific. It speaks of the behaviour of an ISOLATED SYSTEM.”

    Do you think this means there is perpetual motion in all non-isolated systems then?

  125. Theodore: Gerlich and Tscheuschner make a fairly basic error. They say “A machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir (e.g. stratosphere) to a high temperature reservoir (e.g. atmosphere) without external work applied, cannot exist – even if it is radiatively coupled to an environment, to which it is radiatively balanced. A modern climate model is supposed to be such a variant of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.”
    Their supposition is wrong. The argument is that Earth’s surface is radiating energy into space. A dry, CO2-free atmosphere absorbs and reradiates very little of this radiation. However, CO2 and water vapour (and some other constituents) absorb some of the outgoing radiation and reradiate it, with some of it going back to Earth’s surface. The surface is receiving radiation from the sun, as before, but now there is also additional radiation returning from the atmosphere. Note: No mention of heat and no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Tell me: what is your reason for accepting the claims of Gerlich and Tscheuschner over those of essentially all climatologists?

  126. Hi Richard,

    I suggest you actually re-read that section since you’ve taken it out of context. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are self-explanatory.

    These are Principe that cannot be broken and it is exactly for that reason that the AGW kool-aid drinkers (the worst of whom I consider mad hatters and clearly not in possession of a full deck) would try to insult the intelligence of all people by claiming the Earth is really flat, not round, does not rotate and is isolated with a Sun that has little if really any forcing on the earth at all. None of those things are true to those with open eyes, ears and a mind to think for themselves.

    But that is exactly what those who claim man warms the world are saying. Again, that is not true because the laws of physics say so. The prime mover of these laws which rule our system you have seen every day of your life – it is called THE SUN.

    Any attempt to violate these laws would immediately mean that the laws of physics do not apply and therefore the Earth’s system is in chaos. That has never happened and I tell you the reason why – because of the Sun – the Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth.

    The real ‘chaos’ has (and is) taking place in the minds of those careerists and believers in the fallacy, myth and lie of man-made global warming.

    Man does not cause global warming – the Sun causes global warming and global cooling. Which one do I prefer? I prefer global warming because it is good for the earth and so should you. Global Cooling is much worse than global warming could ever, ever be.

    Also I do not know what you mean by saying “essentially all climatologists.” Gerlich and Tscheuschner are far from the only scientists to know and state without equivocation that AGW is impossible on Earth.

    The fact of the matter is that many climatologists, along with those in my forecasting field of atmospheric physics, space weather and meteorology are well aware of the laws of thermodynamics.

    There is no ‘perpetual machine’ that violates the laws which govern the earth’s climate.

    As for your mention of ‘additional radiation returning from the atmosphere,” can you clarify just how this has anything to do with the second law? Of course there is always some back radiation the earth retains, but to take the quantum leap to say that carbonic acid, which is what we call C02 forces heat to ‘fall’ but not rise – is ludicrous.

    Again, where is the perpetual machine that allows the impossible to happen? I have not found it, and neither has any climatologist and/or physicist.

    There is no AGW perpetual machine that violates the laws of physics that says the Earth can ever become a greenhouse, and that essentially is what those who push ‘man-made global warming’ are saying.

    It is impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse, forever with warming temperatures into ad infinitum because that violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics that have governed the Earth since its origin straight to this very day.

    Only the Sun can change the climate and it performs its many functions very, very well and if the Sun ever goes away – we all go away. So, better to get off that AGW kool-aid train and respect the Sun a lot more than some of you appear to do.

    The Sun is the cause of climate change – global warming, global cooling and everything else in between.

  127. Eli Rabett says:
    March 11, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    “Well, as you can see, the concentration of CFC-12, whatever the units are, is the highest in the equator and goes down at the poles”
    Actually not. There is a north south asymmetry, because almost all of the CFCs were emitted in the Northern Hemisphere and the time for mixing across the poles is of the same order as the time to reach the stratosphere.

    Oh, c’mon, the dark orange blob that says 398 is just over the equator, that marks the highest concentations of CFC12 in the graph. Note that there is no CFC12 at an altittude of 45 Km and over at around 60 degrees of latitude, whereas there is still some at the same altittude over the equator.
    And yes, there is a north south asymmetry because of the production in the N.H. Which you would think that it would lead to a larger destruction of ozone in the N.H. That is not what happens.

    “None of the mentioned reactions involve CFCs or O3 . ”
    You are missing the point. CFC (chloro, fluoro carbons) decompose in the stratosphere to form Cl atoms by far UV photolysis. So the CFCs enter the story as the source of the Cl atoms. They are for sure there.
    CFC = hv –> nCl + other stuff

    You are missing my arguments. I repeat one last time. The speed of a chemical reaction depends on the concentration of the reactants and temperature. (see wiki or elsewhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics ) The higher the concentration, the faster the reaction will happen, and also the higher the temperature, the higher the speed of the reaction. And in this particular case also depends on the amount of hv (UV radiation)
    Over the equator, the three variables, CFC concentration, temperature and hv are high. Over the poles during winter, the CFC concentration is lower and even 0 at hight altittudes, temperatures are much lower, and hv is very low (it is dark) The three variables that control reaction rates favor higher reaction rates over the equator, and lower to none over the poles. (no hv = no reaction) If not enough Cl radicals are formed over the equator to produce significant ozone destruction over the equator, they cannot be formed over the poles. It is the photodissociation of CFC over the poles what is not compatible with empirical data. Eli may know that, that is why he does not mention that reaction in the portion you copied and pasted.

    These reactions are very well measured in the lab and in vivo.

    Really? In vivo? Somebody injected CFCs into mice and place them under a UV lamp? LOL.

  128. Agile Aspect says:
    March 11, 2012 at 3:39 pm
    Urederra says:
    March 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    Arguing that there is no ozone hole is a “straw man” argument.
    What you call the “ozone hole” is the known as the vortex – and I as far as I know, I don’t think anyone is arguing there is no vortex or “ozone hole” at the South pole.

    Nope, I said “so-called ozone hole” because I disagree with the terminology. A total amount of 800 DU of ozone is called “layer” and a total amount of 100 DU or even 400 DU of ozone is called “hole”. That is political scare tactics, since people who doesn’t know the terminology would think that the ozone hole is a zone with absolutely no ozone on it. Check ozone readings and you will see it.

    It’s the extreme cold of the vortex which destroys the ozone – did you notice the ozone piled up next to the vortex?

    So, no CFC involved? Just the cold?
    Check this:

    http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm

    Ozone decomposes faster at higher temperatures, not at lower temperatures, half life = 3 months at – 50 C and 8 days at – 25 C. Just like everything else. We store food in the frigde, not in the oven.

    The argument is about where the ozone comes from.
    If you had actually look beyond the first image, you might have noticed the other images support my claim, namely, that there is very little ozone in the polar regions at the onset of winter and the ozone flows longitudinally into the South pole during the winter.
    Scroll down on the page and there images from May and July – very little ozone.
    Q.E.D.
    Note most of the other images on the URL you posted are from

    http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/selectMap

    If you use this interface, it’s trivial to show the ozone is longitudinally flowing into the polar regions during the winter since you can choose any date you like – and any pole you like (use the polar projections for clarity.)

    I just don’t like that page because the color codes are upside down. The orange blob over the north pole reads 500 DU acording to the legend, and the green band over Europe reads 300, the one over Saudi Arabia reads 250 DU. The figure just shows double amount of O3 over the pole than over Saudi Arabia.

    here is another graph showing the hole forming during winter-spring.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747

  129. Theo – You are babbling.

    I suggest you actually re-read that section since you’ve taken it out of context.

    OK then. Put it in context to show me where I misunderstood.

    the AGW kool-aid drinkers [. . .] would try to insult the intelligence of all people by claiming the Earth is really flat, not round, does not rotate and is isolated with a Sun that has little if really any forcing on the earth at all.

    Don’t be silly.

    The prime mover of these laws which rule our system you have seen every day of your life – it is called THE SUN.

    So you consider the sun to be the prime mover of the laws? Is the sun your God? Think before you write.

    I prefer global warming because it is good for the earth

    Physics does not care what you prefer. Earth does not care what temperature it is. Rapid change is stressful for most living things and will be particularly difficult for human agriculture.

    Also I do not know what you mean by saying “essentially all climatologists.” Gerlich and Tscheuschner are far from the only scientists to know and state without equivocation that AGW is impossible on Earth.

    You are avoiding the question, which was “what is your reason for accepting the claims of Gerlich and Tscheuschner over those of essentially all climatologists?” (over 95% of climatologists disagree with them).

    As for your mention of ‘additional radiation returning from the atmosphere,” can you clarify just how this has anything to do with the second law?

    Remarkably little, which is why I do not understand why you keep banging away about the Second Law.

    Again, where is the perpetual machine that allows the impossible to happen?

    Nowhere.

    It is impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse, forever with warming temperatures into ad infinitum

    I know of nobody making this claim.

    Theo: Instead of just blasting away with your usual harangue, you need to slow down and actually think about what I am writing and what you are writing. In my first comment I said you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out and I think that is still your major problem. Once you figure this out, I’m sure you will realize that, in the context of the basics of the greenhouse effect (yes, I have known for 40 years that a real greenhouse works differently), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent.

  130. “The higher the concentration, the faster the reaction will happen, and also the higher the temperature, the higher the speed of the reaction.”

    True in General Chemistry, but not true of atmospheric reactions that depend on the formation of intermediate complexes and for sure not true in situations where there are multiple possible product channels. Look up what a negative activation energy means.

    For example, ClO + ClO to form the dimer is about twenty times faster at 200 K than at 300 K to chose only one example from the mechanism Eli discussed.

    Wanna try for more, or are you going to study a bit?

  131. duster
    “allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?

    whatchou talkin bout, willis? you saying a triple point for CO2 doesnt exist????

  132. Urederra says:
    March 12, 2012 at 4:16 am

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747

    ;——————————————————–

    Do you really get your climate information from Richard Black at the BBC?

    Did you follow up on the references?

    It’s not clear if you realize the URL contains a composite image of the ozone for late winter and early spring in the Northern Hemisphere – and without any units or date information.

    Once again, the issue at hand is the ozone levels at the poles in the late fall and early winter – high levels of ozone in the late winter and early spring are to be expected.

    Oh wait, that’s right – since you’re ignoring the ozone data for late fall and early winter, “straw man” arguments are the only ones you have left.

  133. @Richard Simons, who says – “Theo: Instead of just blasting away with your usual harangue, you need to slow down and actually think about what I am writing and what you are writing. In my first comment I said you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out and I think that is still your major problem. Once you figure this out, I’m sure you will realize that, in the context of the basics of the greenhouse effect (yes, I have known for 40 years that a real greenhouse works differently), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent.”
    __________________

    All I can say to that Richard, is that you clearly do not know how the Earth’s climate functions from the content of your own comments. I know the difference between heat and energy quite well, but suggest you learn the difference because again, your comments do not show that you do.

    Moreover, the Earth’s highly-variable climate is always in flux, always changing and humanity cannot cause global warming – only the Sun does that.

    I suggest that YOU figure it out because after 40 years, if you actually believe that the second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant, as you say, then you surely do not have both oars in the water.

  134. Urederra says:
    March 12, 2012 at 4:16 am

    So, no CFC involved? Just the cold?
    Check this:

    http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm

    Ozone decomposes faster at higher temperatures, not at lower temperatures, half life = 3 months at – 50 C and 8 days at – 25 C. Just like everything else. We store food in the frigde, not in the oven.

    ;—————————————————————————–

    Incidentally, the frigid temperatures in the vortex create ice particles in the stratosphere which dramatically speeds up the break down of the ozone .

    Also, I can predict the strength of the polar vortex by looking at the snow pack in Siberia.

    What do your CFCs tell you about the vortex next winter?

  135. Supercritical CO2 is an excellent solvent (fluid state) and liquid CO2 exists in every bar on earth (you need a high pressure to liquify the stuff, just what you have in a gas cylinder) for pumping the been and soda. As Eli recalls it is about 900 psi (divide by about 14 to get atmospheres) in those cylinders, which is the equilibrium point between gas and liquid at room temperature for CO2

  136. Theodore White says:
    March 12, 2012 at 11:03 am
    @Richard Simons, who says – “Theo: Instead of just blasting away with your usual harangue, you need to slow down and actually think about what I am writing and what you are writing. In my first comment I said you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out and I think that is still your major problem. Once you figure this out, I’m sure you will realize that, in the context of the basics of the greenhouse effect (yes, I have known for 40 years that a real greenhouse works differently), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent.”
    __________________

    All I can say to that Richard, is that you clearly do not know how the Earth’s climate functions from the content of your own comments. I know the difference between heat and energy quite well, but suggest you learn the difference because again, your comments do not show that you do.

    Moreover, the Earth’s highly-variable climate is always in flux, always changing and humanity cannot cause global warming – only the Sun does that.
    ============

    The problem is that the fictional fisics created in support of AGW has deemed all energy the same and all creating heat – there is no longer any understanding of what thermal energy means, because they think visible light can heat land and oceans…

    They really need to get the difference between heat and light sorted.

    *******

    http://thermalenergy.org/

    Thermal Energy Explained

    “What is thermal energy ?
    Thermal Energy: A specialized term that refers to the part of the internal energy of a system which is the total present kinetic energy resulting from the random movements of atoms and molecules.
    The ultimate source of thermal energy available to mankind is the sun, the huge thermo-nuclear furnace that supplies the earth with the heat and light that are essential to life. The nuclear fusion in the sun increases the sun’s thermal energy. Once the thermal energy leaves the sun (in the form of radiation) it is called heat. Heat is thermal energy in transfer. Thermal energy is part of the overall internal energy of a system.
    At a more basic level, thermal energy comes form the movement of atoms and molecules in matter. It is a form of kinetic energy produced from the random movements of those molecules. Thermal energy of a system can be increased or decreased.
    When you put your hand over a hot stove you can feel the heat. You are feeling thermal energy in transfer. The atoms and molecules in the metal of the burner are moving very rapidly because the electrical energy from the wall outlet has increased the thermal energy in the burner. We all know what happens when we rub our hands together. Our mechanical energy increases the thermal energy content of the atoms in our hands and skin. We then feel the consequence of this – heat.”

    &

    http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php

    ********

    Visible light is not thermal energy, it is not heat, it is not thermal infrared, it cannot heat land land oceans.

    All energy is not the same. A gamma ray is not a radio wave… These are distinctly different and each has its own properties and effects on meeting matter.

    For example, water is a transparent medium for visible light and visible light is transmitted through it without being absorbed, but, water absorbs the invisible thermal infrared, heat which is the thermal energy of the Sun on the move to us, and is heated by it.

  137. Urederra says:
    March 12, 2012 at 4:16 am

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747

    ;————————————————————————————————-

    The reason you won’t find large concentration of ozone at poles during the summer time is because oxygen absorbs UV radiation (wavelength < 240 nm) which destroys oxygen to create ozone, and ozone absorbs UV radiation (wavelength < 290 nm) which destroys ozone to create oxygen.

    There's also the process of two ozone structures colliding and producing oxygen.

    The ozone level in the summertime at the poles is the equilibrium level between the production and the destruction of ozone by UV radiation.

    And ozone is doing it's job – it's absorbing harmful high energy UV radiation and releasing energy shifted to longer wavelengths.

  138. Myrrh says:
    March 12, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    All energy is not the same. A gamma ray is not a radio wave…

    ;——————————————————————————–

    But yet all energies have the same units – why is that?

    Gamma ray and the radio wave are both electromagnetic radiation – the difference between them is the frequency.

    As George Smith once observed, you can’t be helped…

  139. Hi, Myrrh! I see you are back. Are you now ready to explain why you think that “Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C. “?

    The problem is that the fictional fisics created in support of AGW has deemed all energy the same and all creating heat

    Can you give an example of a wavelength of radiant energy that does not create heat when it is absorbed?

    Theo: Even in your last comment you have been unable to explain why you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the global greenhouse effect, or why you have faith in the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, so there is obviously no point in my continuing.

  140. It’s lengthy, but gives the view of a person who was there on the ground, covering climate science and global warming in the late 1980s – years before the AGW mania took off.

    Well having been in on it here in the late 1950s what irritates me is that many of the issues raised at the time suggested that many of them believed that removing the SO2 to remove acid rain would cause a significant one or possibly two degree rise in temperatures. Take that away from the rises we have experienced and they do not look anywhere near as significant. The rises are in reality not worth a jot but it is the assumption not just that the rises would continue but that they would increase based on the wildly over facile computer models they have used which so far have proved 95% inaccurate creates the problem. Since SO2 is a greenhouse negative gas just ignoring the massive changes in the late fifties and sixties is highly questionable like so many other methods used and assumptions made.

    To those who say AGW is a proven fact I would say that since the climate scientists have refused external examiners in favour of crony approval it is conjecture of the lowest order and utterly worthless. If you choose to believe them it is merely a personal preference akin to classical music versus pop and no more. These are not experts in any one of the critical skills involved in assessing the question merely the jobbing tradesmen with a broad low level skill base.

  141. myrhh wrote:

    http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php

    “Take a small piece of ice out of your fridge and hold it in your hand. The thermal energy content of your hand is higher then the thermal energy content of the ice cube.”

    Garbage. It’s the temperature that’s higher, not the heat content.

  142. Jeremy says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Good article. However it is undermined by statements like this…”man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. ”

    I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.

    We see this in UHI in all urban areas. We know that sulphur emissions (mainly from coal burning) can cause smog and clouds that change climate locally. We also know that CO2 is an infra-red absorber

    Horse pucky. Every word.
    Urban heat islands are trivial in the global heat budget, and may well be offset by some indirect feedback; a few hundredths of a percent change in cloud cover would do it.
    Sulphur, if anything, increases cloudiness. Cools, not warms.
    CO2 is equally an IR emitter; probably/possibly it simply expedites the net cooling of the high atmosphere by radiating into space. NO climate “warming” has been shown to follow from CO2 increases, ever.

  143. P.S. When the jets stopped flying for a few days after 9/11, upper level cloud and haze cleared. And the ground warmed. Then the jets started flying again and cooled us back down.

  144. AnotherPhilC says:
    March 13, 2012 at 8:35 am

    myrhh wrote:

    http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php

    “Take a small piece of ice out of your fridge and hold it in your hand. The thermal energy content of your hand is higher then the thermal energy content of the ice cube.”

    Garbage. It’s the temperature that’s higher, not the heat content.

    And if you tourniquet the hand to stop heat influx from the circulation, your hand will be verrah chilly by the time the last of the cube drips away! And a loverly painful purple-black, too.
    :D

  145. David Cage says:
    March 13, 2012 at 8:33 am

    These are not experts in any one of the critical skills involved in assessing the question merely the jobbing tradesmen with a broad low level skill base.

    I recommend to you my label for them:
    Jackasses of All Sciences, Masters of None.
    >:)

  146. @Richard Simons, who says –

    Theo: Even in your last comment you have been unable to explain why you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the global greenhouse effect, or why you have faith in the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, so there is obviously no point in my continuing.”
    ———————

    Richard, the laws of thermodynamics make a global greenhouse an impossibility on Earth. That is all you need to know. Do you understand? The laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate makes it mathematically impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse – no matter how much any AGW goober wants those physical laws not to be true.

    There is no how it “applies to the global greenhouse effect,” as you put it, because there is no man-made global greenhouse effect on Earth. Accept the laws of physics that rule your own planet and then you will have come to the truth of the matter; thus freeing your mind from the prison and lies of man-made global warming.

  147. Agile Aspect says:
    March 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm
    Myrrh says:
    March 12, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    All energy is not the same. A gamma ray is not a radio wave…

    ;——————————————————————————–

    But yet all energies have the same units – why is that?

    They don’t. It would be ridiculous to measure radio waves which can be hundreds of feet long by the same units as visible light, which is tiny, actually measure in angstroms, thermal infrared is bigger than visible, bigger than the light waves which include near infrared. Near infrared is microscopic, thermal infrared the size of a pin head – it is radiated heat which is capable of packing a physical punch to get molecules into vibration. Heat heats things up.

    I can only imagine that you’ve never cooked anything in your life, and when you watch someone else prepare your meals you think it the magic visible light you might see, put your head in a dark oven sometime, feel the heat ..

    ..that’s the invisible thermal infrared, just as we get from the Sun. Thermal energy is heat, that’s why it’s called thermal, duh.

    The Sun’s thermal energy, the great heat radiating out and reaching us on the surface of the Earth, is the invisible thermal infrared, heat.

    Visible light is not only even tinier than near infrared, it is only a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    The AGW meme “they are all the same energy” is designed to confuse. By not appreciating the differences between them, that a gamma ray is not the same as a radio wave, you lose intellectual touch with our history of scientific discovery. That, to me, is that saddest part about all this. If you could get back basic understanding of the difference between Light and Heat you could put them back into the categories to which they belong.

    For light, go look at Optics. That’s where you learn what light’s properties can and can’t do, for example they work on electronic transition level – as in our atmosphere where visible is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen and then bounced back out, called reflection/scattering, why we have our blue sky, and, in water which is a transparent medium for visible light, visible doesn’t get absorbed, it doesn’t even get to play with electrons of the molecules of water, but can’t get in and is transmitted through without being absorbed at all.

    For heat, go to Thermodynamics, where you will learn of the three methods of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation. When you open the door, the great heat coming from your dark oven which someone has put on to cook a meal for you, is heat travelling by radiation direct to you. Your body absorbs it because of the water content in you, it heats up the water molecules in you just as the invisible heat direct from the Sun heats up our ocean and lands. It moves the whole molecule in vibrational resonance – visible light can’t do this, it ain’t big enough for a start.. It takes the vibration of whole molecules to heat something up, to raise it’s temperature, which is the average kinetic energy (kinetic meaning movement). Water here is interesting because it takes a lot of thermal energy to heat it up, in other words, it will take in a lot of heat before you see a temperature change, this means too that it will give up its heat, the thermal energy it contains, more slowly, called heat capacity. The lower something’s heat capacity the quicker it will absorb heat, thermal energy, and the quicker it will release it. Carbon dioxide for example has a lower heat capacity than oxgen and nitrogen, so it will absorb heat more quickly and will release it more quickly, actually pretty much instantaneously. Carbon dioxide doesn’t have the capacity to store, trap, heat, as water does.

    Gamma ray and the radio wave are both electromagnetic radiation – the difference between them is the frequency.

    As George Smith once observed, you can’t be helped…

    ================================

    You mean the George Smith who claims that heat can’t be transferred by radiation?!

    Not only have y’all, generic warmists who believe this made up fisics, no idea any more of traditional definitions and the differences by categories and properties and effects of the electromagnetic spectrum, you have created your own fisics built on not having these, like the nonsense from Werner that gases aren’t buoyant in air! George Smith looked up in his text book and told me that they gave heat tranfer by radiation, but that they were wrong..! Heck, you were there..

    I was interested to explore his thinking, because I’ve heard your version often enough, ‘that all energy is the same’, but I hadn’t heard his variation:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-908178

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-909693

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-911627

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-911940

    And my final post, which I note in going back to look for this is still being avoided by strawmen arguments.. :http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-914539

    And, the rest of you who’ve commented on my previous post – if you can’t provide what I have asked for then it proves you have no answers
    ENOUGH OF THE PREVARICATION

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-914539

  148. But yet all energies have the same units – why is that?

    Cause we like James Joule??

    Frequency is measure in Hz, because we like Heinrich Hertz

    Wavelengths are measured in the SI unit of length, as in nm, pm, mm, m, etc. same unit different fractions.

    Do try and not look foolish

  149. Come on, Myrrh! Let’s be having your explanation of why “Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C. “ There’s no need to be shy. I can virtually guarantee that it’s something I will treasure for a long time! Although to be fair, I’ve also enjoyed your defence of why all energy is not the same.

    Theo:

    Richard, the laws of thermodynamics make a global greenhouse an impossibility on Earth. That is all you need to know.

    I find this an interesting statement as it tells me that you are an authoritarian – you choose an authority and accept their views without question and you expect me to do likewise. I am curious as to how you decided that Gerlich and Tscheuschner would become your authorities despite them making claims which run counter to the opinions of about 95% of the world’s climatologists. You write that “The laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate makes it mathematically impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse”, but I am now convinced that you are incapable of taking me through the mathematics, step by step (I am not a mathematician, but I do have a degree in maths so don’t use the ‘Oh, you could not possibly understand’ excuse).

  150. Richard Simons says:
    March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm
    Come on, Myrrh! Let’s be having your explanation of why “Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C. “ There’s no need to be shy. I can virtually guarantee that it’s something I will treasure for a long time! Although to be fair, I’ve also enjoyed your defence of why all energy is not the same.

    Because it stands to reason..
    Have you ever been in a desert?
    Seen pictures?
    Notice anything missing?
    Can you remember/imagine how hot it gets with the Sun’s thermal energy, heat, invisible thermal infrared boiling you up inside?

    What’s missing is the whole of the water cycle, which standard industry figure from this side of the mirror has 67°C without it. The main greenhouse gas cools the Earth by 52°C to get what would be a very overheated Earth down to 15°C allowing life to flourish. That, our real atmosphere including the Water Cycle, is what was originally thought of as Earth’s greenhouse, a real greenhouse, with windows enabling the cooling cycle – the wonder of our real voluminous greenhouse atmosphere with gravity just right and water where other planets didn’t have this. Instead of a thing of wonder AGW has turned this into a nightmare, where the very food of all our carbon life forms is called a poison… What’s toxic is this AGW fictional fisics world.

    No oceans, no lakes, no rivers, no rain, no fog, no dew, no plants, no us, no life which began in the oceans – without the Water Cycle.

    Which why it is obvious to anyone able to connect the dots, that the whole AGW fisics is based on a fiction – it is describing a different world. With the Water Cycle there is no ‘greenhouse gases warm the Earth from -18°C to 15°C – is there?

    Do you see the sleight of hand? Like all such it’s deceptively simply, happens practically before you can ‘register’ that something is amiss because it then immediately distracts from it by misdirection, builds a whole scenario on the displacement.

    Which is why there is no atmosphere at all in the fictional AGW world – why there is only radiation and no convection – why gases aren’t buoyant in air – why the gases are ideal and not real, having no weight or volume (gravity), no attraction, etc. – why carbon dioxide is thoroughly mixed – why carbon dioxide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years – why StefanBolzmann is used …. – why there is no sound, so warmists can’t hear this..

    Put back the Water Cycle and you put back the real heavy volume of the fluid gas ocean above us weighing down on our shoulders a ton weight, no ideal gas diffusion in empty space in that is there? Put back the Water Cycle and you put back attraction of real gases not the, quite frankly, idiotic ideal gas molecules without attraction zipping at great speeds bouncing off each other and thoroughly mixing while zipping around empty space without any gravity to keep them here because they have no volume… :) – put back the Water Cycle and get back gravity, weight, volume, and you get back that gases have weight relative to each other, carbon dioxide is one and half times heavier than air, it can’t spontaneously rise and thoroughly mix by ideal gas diffusion in an empty space vacuum scenario but will always sink displacing air without work being done to alter this – put back gravity of our real atmosphere and you put back buoyancy of real gases because you put back evaporation of water vapour being lighter than air and so you get clouds which in the AGW fictional fisics appear magically in the ideal gas empty space – put back attraction of real gases and you get carbon dioxide and water vapour spontaneously attracted to each other, joining together to make carbonic acid, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, where’s carbon dioxide accumulating in that? – put back the Water Cycle and you get volume of real gases so you get back sound – put back the Water Cycle and you get back real life not the fictional fisics of AGW created through the looking glass with Alice where you can think any number of impossible things before breakfast including giving the properties of heat to light and saying heat direct from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface… – put back the Water Cycle and you get evaporation of the real fluid gas water vapour which has a much higher heat capacity relative to the other gases and absorbs much more heat which as it rises lighter than air takes this heat into the colder heights of the atmosphere cooling the Earth and releasing that heat in condensing out into fluid liquid water or ice, bringing the temp 52°C..

    ..and as a bonus as it forms it cleans the atmosphere, forming as it does around dust and such, and irresistably attracted it brings carbon dioxide back to Earth where the plants and us are reliant on it. Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, it helps cool the Earth.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect is fiction, created by the AGWScience Fiction fisics meme creating department, very cleverly by tweaking real physics a bit here, a bit there, taking out properties and processes and laws out of context and so on – don’t look for internal coherence, this isn’t real physics, so ideal gas empty space atmosphere will not only have ideal gas diffusion of volumeless weightless molecules without attraction bouncing off each at at great speeds to explain ‘thoroughly mixed carbon dioxide’, but will claim Brownian motion which is only applicable to fluid volumes and on nanometre scale at that and anyway carbon dioxide as a gas would be part of the fluid gas volume and not a particle being moved by it and AGW has taken volume out, or, by ‘winds mixing everything up thoroughly, even though winds are real volumes of air on the move from differences in temperature, pressure, which doesn’t exist in empty ideal gas vacuum without gravity, and anyway they stay in their own hemisphere and don’t cross over to provide the ‘turbulent constant mixing’..

    Introduced into the education system to dumb down the general population to sell the AGW scare scenario, for various vested interests and ideologies who’ve built the bankwagon. Harsh reality.

    Reclaim real science for yourselves, don’t let the b*gg*rs get you.

  151. Richard, G&T Gerlich and Tscheuschners’ claims run counter to 99.99% of the opinions of the world’s climatologists. You have to differentiate between the log(crazy) categories. For example, log (Lindzen) might be 1, but then log (G&T) = 6

  152. M-

    Put back the Water Cycle and you put back the real heavy volume of the fluid gas ocean above us weighing down on our shoulders a ton weight, no ideal gas diffusion in empty space in that is there?
    ———————————–
    FYI water vapor (molecular mass 18) is lighter than nitrogen (molecular mass 28) and oxygen (molecular mass 32). Are you referring to the small water drops up there? Even with that, ever wonder WHY they are up there? What is holding them up there?

    You are one confused puppy.

  153. categories. For example, log (Lindzen) might be 1, but then log (G&T) = 6

    Eli Rabett says:
    March 14, 2012 at 6:58 am
    M-
    FYI water vapor (molecular mass 18) is lighter than nitrogen (molecular mass 28) and oxygen (molecular mass 32). Are you referring to the small water drops up there?

    See, no concept of our heavy fluid real gas atmosphere.

    Even with that, ever wonder WHY they are up there? What is holding them up there?

    You are one confused puppy.

    Magic, according to AGWSF fisics. Do tell.

    ==========

    Missed out the word “down” in 7th para –

    – put back the Water Cycle and you get evaporation of the real fluid gas water vapour which has a much higher heat capacity relative to the other gases and absorbs much more heat which as it rises lighter than air takes this heat into the colder heights of the atmosphere cooling the Earth and releasing that heat in condensing out into fluid liquid water or ice, bringing the temp down 52°C..

  154. Richard Simons says:
    March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm
    Come on, Myrrh! Let’s be having your explanation of why “Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C. “ There’s no need to be shy. I can virtually guarantee that it’s something I will treasure for a long time! Although to be fair, I’ve also enjoyed your defence of why all energy is not the same.

    Theo:
    I find this an interesting statement as it tells me that you are an authoritarian – you choose an authority and accept their views without question and you expect me to do likewise. I am curious as to how you decided that Gerlich and Tscheuschner would become your authorities despite them making claims which run counter to the opinions of about 95% of the world’s climatologists. You write that “The laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate makes it mathematically impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse”, but I am now convinced that you are incapable of taking me through the mathematics, step by step (I am not a mathematician, but I do have a degree in maths so don’t use the ‘Oh, you could not possibly understand’ excuse).
    _____________________________

    Richard, this is another problem people who claim humanity is the reason for global warming have, and that is that they love to believe that anything that counters that AGW lie is somehow ‘authoritarian’ – as if anyone tells you the truth is an ‘authority?’

    The principals of the physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate are quite clear. Open your eyes. Do the math yourself. However, physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner and many others have provided enough to easily show you what should already be self-evident to anyone who has consumed the AGW kool-aid.

    The laws of thermodynamics are quite clear but if you did not allow your ego and false belief to get in the way you would already know this rather than to continue to allow the lies of AGW propaganda to rule over your own mind.

    That is a problem you must solve yourself. No one can do that for you. You must do that on your own. The math has already been set – by Mother Nature. Open your eyes and see the truth as it has always been since the origin of the Earth.

    Moreover, opinions are like ass***** – everyone has one Richard. Talk is cheap and there is no way whatsoever that you can claim that 95% of the world’s climatologists are in denial about the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, any so-called ‘climatologist’ who denies these physical laws is not a climatologist, but a careerist ideological fake, because the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by opinion. You should know that.

    I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them. I apply these laws in my climate and weather forecasts and they function as they should.

    Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws.

    For you (or anyone else) to claim that it can means you are smoking AGW crack and need to get off the AGW drugs because it has spoiled your mind to the real world all around you – ruled and governed by the laws of physics.

    Once more, it is the SUN that is the cause of all climate change on Earth.

  155. “Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws. ”

    Saying so isn’t a demonstration – show your math. You’ve been asked to do so above yet you ignored the request. Hint: it’s a little more demanding than working out a horoscope. For one thing, your numbers and figures have to correspond to reality. If you fail to show your math in your response, we’ll know why.

    “I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them.”

    For someone who claims Nostradamus as one of his heroes and who calls himself “Clairvoyant” to invoke physical laws is pure chutzpah. Bravo!

    BTW, greenhouse gas theory is not an “AGW” theory. It was understood and accepted before AGW was widely accepted. It’s an observation; satellites can detect it happening. Scientists who don’t accept AGW still accept the greenhouse effect.

  156. Robert Murphy says:
    March 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    “Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws. ”

    Saying so isn’t a demonstration – show your math. You’ve been asked to do so above yet you ignored the request. Hint: it’s a little more demanding than working out a horoscope. For one thing, your numbers and figures have to correspond to reality. If you fail to show your math in your response, we’ll know why.

    “I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them.”

    For someone who claims Nostradamus as one of his heroes and who calls himself “Clairvoyant” to invoke physical laws is pure chutzpah. Bravo!

    BTW, greenhouse gas theory is not an “AGW” theory. It was understood and accepted before AGW was widely accepted. It’s an observation; satellites can detect it happening. Scientists who don’t accept AGW still accept the greenhouse effect.
    ________________________________________

    Robert, The laws of physics do not change – and the mathematics have been provided on this thread but you did not bother to read them. These laws that regulate and rule over the Earth’s climate does not change for ‘clairvoyants’ neither for ‘Nostradamus’ or for you Robert.

    Moreover, do not insult the intelligence of others by now playing games with ‘greenhouse theory’ (another AGW attempt to obscure) and AGW. How can you accept something that is an impossibility to ever occur to the Earth?

    We are not talking about greenhouse theory. We are talking about man-made global warming which includes greenhouse effects used to force a square through a round hole.

    The physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate cannot be violated – neither by greenhouse theory or AGW bullshit or your problem with ‘clairvoyants’ and ‘Nostradamus.’

    As for my heroes: that has little to do with this discussion or the physical laws that rule the Earth. You come onto this forum with a skull full of mush but if you open your own and clearly see the physical laws that exist and govern our climate you will leave here with a higher IQ than when you entered.

    Another thing quite common with AGW proponents is that not only are they rude but anti-social, anti-science and stupid. To think that you have the right to diss anything that does not fit into your small view of the world is beyond laughable – it’s sad. That high-school childish behavior is part and parcel of those who do not have both oars in the water. You have a lot to learn and should listen more than you speak.

    The only thing that is ‘pure chutzpah’ is your lack of knowledge of that which you speak. Grow up and use the remaining 90% of the power of your own brain. Have a nice day.

  157. Robert Murphy says:
    March 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    “Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws. ”

    Saying so isn’t a demonstration – show your math. You’ve been asked to do so above yet you ignored the request. Hint: it’s a little more demanding than working out a horoscope. For one thing, your numbers and figures have to correspond to reality. If you fail to show your math in your response, we’ll know why.

    “I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them.”

    For someone who claims Nostradamus as one of his heroes and who calls himself “Clairvoyant” to invoke physical laws is pure chutzpah. Bravo!

    BTW, greenhouse gas theory is not an “AGW” theory. It was understood and accepted before AGW was widely accepted. It’s an observation; satellites can detect it happening. Scientists who don’t accept AGW still accept the greenhouse effect.
    ________________________________________

    Robert, The laws of physics do not change – and the mathematics have been provided on this thread but you did not bother to read them. These laws that regulate and rule over the Earth’s climate does not change for ‘clairvoyants’ neither for ‘Nostradamus’ or for you Robert.

    Moreover, do not insult the intelligence of others by now playing games with ‘greenhouse theory’ (another AGW attempt to obscure) and AGW. How can you accept something that is an impossibility to ever occur to the Earth?

    We are not talking about greenhouse theory. We are talking about man-made global warming which includes greenhouse effects used to force a square through a round hole.

    The physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate cannot be violated – neither by greenhouse theory or AGW bullshit or your problem with ‘clairvoyants’ and ‘Nostradamus.’

    As for my heroes: that has little to do with this discussion or the physical laws that rule the Earth. You come onto this forum with a skull full of mush but if you open your own mind and clearly see the physical laws that exist and which govern our planet’s climate you will leave here with a much higher IQ than when you entered.

    Another thing quite common with AGW proponents is that not only are they rude but anti-social, anti-science and stupid. To think that you have the right to diss and mock anything that does not fit into your ideological small world is beyond laughable – it’s too tired and much too sad. That high-school childish behavior is part and parcel of those who do not have both oars in the water. You have a lot to learn and should listen more than you speak. The world and the universe is very big and much more complex than your current small mind will allow, that much is certain.

    Give up on the pop culture mindset and come correct kiddo. The only thing that is ‘pure chutzpah’ is your lack of knowledge of that which you speak. Grow up and use the remaining 90% of the power of your own brain. Have a nice day.

  158. “Robert, The laws of physics do not change – and the mathematics have been provided on this thread but you did not bother to read them.”

    No they haven’t. You haven’t provided a single equation on this page. That’s a fact. As expected, you refused yet again to provide any math.

    “Another thing quite common with AGW proponents is that not only are they rude but anti-social, anti-science and stupid.”

    Do astrologers know what irony is? lol

    “To think that you have the right to diss anything that does not fit into your small view of the world is beyond laughable – it’s sad”

    I don’t have the right to call astrology a load of horse crap? Really? Says who, you?

    “Moreover, do not insult the intelligence of others by now playing games with ‘greenhouse theory’ (another AGW attempt to obscure) and AGW.”

    The greenhouse effect is an observation. Satellites measure it. Not only is it not an impossibility, it’s a fact. It’s truth is independent of whether AGW is correct.

    “As for my heroes: that has little to do with this discussion or the physical laws that rule the Earth.”

    I agree that Nostradamus and his ideas have nothing to do with the physical laws that rule the Earth.

    Look, all you have done is make wild claims that somehow the greenhouse effect violates physical laws, but you can’t demonstrate it because you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s like what you wrote way above when you said, “I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved.” Everybody else also refused to write that too, since *nobody* has ever claimed CFC’s were more than a minor player in the GHE. How could someone who claims to be so in tune with what was going on at the time make such an elementary blunder? The concern was with CO2, not CFC’s (at least as far as warming was concerned). And the idea was already over 100 years old. Your claim to have been a reporter “on the ground” and “at the beginning” (which you falsely think was the late 80’s) seems highly unlikely. What papers did you write for? What articles did you write concerning climate issues? The only thing you seem qualified to write is the daily horoscope.

  159. I don’t do pop astrology nor daily horoscopes Robert, wrong guy. I practice it as a science in the same tradition as Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, Ptolemy, Newton and Galileo – all of them astrologers and astrometeorologists. You can no more lump all ‘astrologers’ into one monolithic group as you can all climatologists. Grow up and evolve already why don’t you?

    If you were paying attention int he 1980s, CFCs were being touted as one of the causes of worldwide warming – and the concern back then was not with CO2 but with CFCs and I wrote about it many times. Whether you want to believe it or not is your problem, not mine. I don’t care if you do or not as your comments recently are simply full of hot air and stupid to say the least.

    Moreover, I have made no ‘wild claims’ but stated the facts and the truth as I know them to be – and not in ‘theory’ but in practice, which is something I can say I’ve done and you have not. There is a huge difference between talking the talk and walking your talk.

    The Earth cannot become a man-made greenhouse – ever. Humanity is not responsible for global warming. It was never was and never will be either. The Sun is the cause of all climate change and your opinion doesn’t matter one bit because the Sun does not give a [snip] what you believe.

    The Earth’s climate is ruled, governed and regulated by physical laws. You and others of the AGW cloth are the ones in total denial and all of you need not only to shut up but to seek serious mental health therapy and stay with it until you get all 52 cards back into your decks.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

  160. Eli Rabett says:

    Richard, G&T Gerlich and Tscheuschners’ claims run counter to 99.99% of the opinions of the world’s climatologists.

    Yes – I tend to forget that those who do not accept the reality of global climate change are busily running off in a hundred directions all at once.

    Myrrh says:

    Have you ever been in a desert?

    Yes. It was cold at night as you’d expect. The rest of your comment was a huge, garbled mess that could be immeasurably improved by understanding the Grade 9 Science course (in our local syllabus).

    Theodore White says

    Richard, this is another problem people who claim humanity is the reason for global warming have, and that is that they love to believe that anything that counters that AGW lie is somehow ‘authoritarian’ – as if anyone tells you the truth is an ‘authority?’

    But you failed to counter AGW. You wrote “That is all you need to know.” (i.e. that the laws of thermodynamics make a global greenhouse an impossibility on Earth.) This is the ultimate authoritarian statement – “Because I say so!’ I have been repeatedly asking for evidence but you have consistently failed to provide it. All you have done is to give a link to Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s rambling monograph (over 100 pages) then, when I point out an error they make, you just harrumph that it does too violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it’s obvious, so there! Show me the maths. BTW: For the third (?) time, why do you accept G&T as your authority when their views run counter to those of most climatologists?

    Talk is cheap and there is no way whatsoever that you can claim that 95% of the world’s climatologists are in denial about the laws of thermodynamics.

    I don’t. Thay are not. None-the-less, they accept that Earth is warming. Why do you think that is?

    Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws.

    Show me the maths! Or, alternatively, show me that the commonly-accepted explanation for global warming is wrong (again, by using some maths with real figures).

    If you were paying attention int he 1980s, CFCs were being touted as one of the causes of worldwide warming

    Reference, please, to the contemporary scientific literature. Yes, I understand that some of the less-reputable popular press got CFCs, CO2, ozone depletion and global warming thoroughly confused, but I don’t for one moment believe that your statement correctly describes scientific opinion of the day.

  161. You do your own referencing. That is THE major problem with those who push the lie of AGW on the world, and here on climate forums. I posted a paper with 250 references, but you cannot find the time to read them yourself?

    Please, I do not babysit adults which translates to – do your own HOMEWORK Robert.

    And to clarify – no, the ‘popular’ press (whatever THAT means) did not get CFCS, CO2, ozone depletion or global warming ‘thoroughly confused’ as you say. That did not happen. The so-called ‘man-made global warming’ mania did not really start until the careerists saw the federal dollars rolling in and many of them (who rolled their eyes at the Earth’s warming climate in the mid-1980s) by the 1990s were singing a wholly different tune falling all over themselves to get to all that money. That is what happened. That is the truth and you can’t handle the truth it seems Robert.

    You ask why the Earth has been warming?

    Easy answer – it’s the Sun.

    Try that on for size and quit writing to me with strawman silly arguments.. That insults my intelligence and wastes my valuable time. You want to know more?

    Then use your free library card and read up on the laws of physics that state that it is impossible for man-made global warming to exist on Earth and stop asking other people to think FOR you.

    AGW is countered by the physical laws that govern Earth’s climate. And it is the SUN that is the cause of global warming and global cooling and all things in between. You have a problem with that? Then take it up with the Sun kiddo.

    I just work here.

  162. Eli Rabett says:

    “…Gerlich and Tscheuschners’ [sic] claims run counter to 99.99% of the opinions of the world’s climatologists.”

    Oh. OK. Just like Einstein’s claims ran counter to the consensus of his day?

    Bunnyboi, you just keep parroting your old ‘n’ tired ‘consensus’ line. Me, I’m watching the planet falsify your belief system. Tell me, who should I believe? You? Or Planet Earth?

  163. No Smokey, Einsteins special relativity theory was quickly accepted by scientists, it was the politicians and theologians who had problems with it and were the reason that his Nobel Prize was for the other things (Brownian motion, heat capacity of solids at low temperatures) that he discovered in his miraculous year.

  164. Bunbun,

    I’m too busy to look up the exact quote, but the rest of us remember the 100 scientists who signed the open letter to Einstein trying to discredit Relativity. Einstein replied that it didn’t take a hundred scientists to discredit him, it just took one fact.

    That was the “consensus” of the day, just like ‘catastrophic AGW’ is the current ‘consensus’. And it is just as wrong as Einstein’s detractors were wrong. There is no empirical, testable evidence for CAGW. There is only the $billions in annual grant money, which is the only reason that CAGW is even being discussed. Because CAGW is as scientific as Scientology.

  165. So, Theodore, you are unable to:
    1. show me the maths to support your claim that the Greenhouse Effect would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    2. provide any reasoned argument against my claim that the Greenhouse Effect does not violate the Second Law. In fact, I think you just dismissed it without a moment’s thought.
    3. provide any justification for using G&T as your authorities.
    4. provide any references to support your claim that CFCs were being touted as one of the causes of worldwide warming in the 1980s.

    I posted a paper with 250 references, but you cannot find the time to read them yourself?

    You claim that amongst these 250 references there may be one that supports your argument. Why can’t you tell us which one it is, or put the argument concisely in your own words? Do you in fact understand it yourself? The nearest science library is a 4-hour drive from where I live and I don’t think I could reasonably ask the local library to get 250 research publications for me. Do you?

    You ask why the Earth has been warming?

    Easy answer – it’s the Sun.

    Easy, but wrong. Check out a graph of global temperature compared with solar activity.

    BTW: On a cold day, I wear a parka. The parka is colder than I am, yet it keeps me warmer. Why does that not violate the Second Law? Because it slows down energy loss, just as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slow down energy loss.

  166. Theodore White, you have mentioned once or twice that the so-called greenhouse effect violates the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It’s interesting because both ideas were formulated around the same time, in the mid-1800s.

    The second law and the greenhouse effect are both theories created by humans to explain observations they were making at the time. So I’m curious why you think one is superior to the other? Or rather, if they do contradict, how do you choose which one to believe?

  167. @anonymoushoward, who says: “Theodore White, you have mentioned once or twice that the so-called greenhouse effect violates the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It’s interesting because both ideas were formulated around the same time, in the mid-1800s.

    The second law and the greenhouse effect are both theories created by humans to explain observations they were making at the time. So I’m curious why you think one is superior to the other? Or rather, if they do contradict, how do you choose which one to believe?”
    ———————————————

    Since human beings are the ones who have the logic to see how the laws of physics work on their world and that the observational method is the scientific method – what one chooses to ‘believe’ is a matter of personal choice. However, that does not change the laws that govern the Earth’s climate system.

    What you need to understand is that the baby boomer generation has been a great negative to Science and the world in general. But ideology and careerism do not trump common sense no more than it can the laws of thermodynamics.

    There is no contradiction since the Earth can never become a man-made greenhouse according to the laws of physics. Again, anyone who chooses to believe otherwise is not playing with a full deck. Period.

    Believe whatever you want, but the Sun is and always has been the cause of all climate change on Earth – global warming and global cooling. That is not going to change because of ideology or anyone’s belief.

  168. Let the bunbun take a look. Einstein submitted his doctoral thesis in 1905 and published papers on special relativity, the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion.

    In 1908 he was appointed lecturer at Bern. The next year he became docent at Zurich. and in 1911 he was appointed full Professor at the University of Prague. Those places ain’t chopped liver, but in 1914 he was appointed director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin (now the Max Planck Institute) and at the same time full professor (in those days there were only one or two in a department) in maybe the most important university in Germany, the Humbolt.

    Then, of course, showing how much the scientists Hated, Yes Hated Einstein he was elected president of the German Physical Society (1914-1918)

    Oh yes, they really hated ol Al

  169. Smokey says:

    There is no empirical, testable evidence for CAGW.

    What evidence would you accept that does not require a second, identical planet to experiment on?

  170. Theodore White says: (March 16, 2012 at 11:19 am)

    @anonymoushoward:

    … The second law and the greenhouse effect are both theories created by humans to explain observations they were making at the time. So I’m curious why you think one is superior to the other? Or rather, if they do contradict, how do you choose which one to believe?

    … There is no contradiction since the Earth can never become a man-made greenhouse according to the laws of physics. Again, anyone who chooses to believe otherwise is not playing with a full deck. Period…

    Glad to know your copy and paste keys are working, but you haven’t answered my question. The greenhouse effect and the second law of thermo have equal claim to the phrase “the laws of physics,” as both are man-made descriptions of physical observations. Indeed many of the same observations informed both theories.

    So given that you think they contradict each other, why do you choose to side with Carnot, Clausius and Boltzmann, rather than Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius?

  171. I side with the laws of thermodynamics. They always have the last word. The Earth can never become a man-made greenhouse. That would be impossible according to the physical laws that rule the Earth’s climate.

  172. Anonymous Howard :

    Glad to know your copy and paste keys are working, but you haven’t answered my question.

    Your question is similar in concept to one I asked (about G&T) thatt he never attempted to answer. I suspect he genuinely does not understand what is being asked.

  173. Rather, Richard, we can suspect that you do not want to genuinely hear the answer. That is the problem you have.

    Again, I strongly suggest that it is you who clearly needs to familiarize himself with the laws of thermodynamics that say that man-made global warming is an impossibility on Earth. That is not going to change. Stop asking other people to convince you of something that should be already self-evident.

  174. At Earth’s surface (neglecting a small amount from radioactive decay, etc):
    With no ‘greenhouse effect’, energy from Sun = energy lost from surface, therefore no change in temperature.
    With ‘greenhouse effect’, energy from Sun + back radiation from atmosphere /= energy lost from surface, therefore Earth’s surface warms.
    The back radiation would take place even if the atmosphere were at -100 C.

    Rather, Richard, we can suspect that you do not want to genuinely hear the answer.

    Repeating ad nauseam the same claims is no kind of answer. I will rephrase:
    Show me how the above violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    On what basis did you decide that G&T were reliable authorities?
    And to back up Anonymous Howard’s question: “if they [SLOT, Greenhouse Effect] do contradict, how do you choose which one to believe?” Do you choose on the basis that one is called a Law and the other isn’t? Remember, at the time people were more inclined to call things Laws than they are now. Mendel’s Laws, for example, should more properly be called ‘Mendel’s Postulates’.

  175. The laws of thermodynamics and physics do not require your ‘belief’ Richard – just your respect because the Sun does not need your ‘belief’ to rise, culminate, or to set. Rather wasting your time here with snarly comments does not get you a single millimeter closer to getting that which you obviously are dense about. Pay attention to the laws of mother nature, i.e., physics and you will then see what should have been long self-evident to you.

  176. More content-free bluster and insults to avoid answering the questions.

    Another question for you. Do you feel that the vast majority of the world’s climatologists who say that anthropogenic CO2 production is a major contributor to global warming are 1) less well-informed on physics that you are or 2) lying as part of a massive global conspiracy that has been going on since at least the time of Arrhenius?

    BTW: Have you seen the historical data on solar irradiance? No increase over the past 50 years and only a 0.1% increase in the previous 50 years.Where’s the maths to demonstrate that this is enough to cause global warming on the scale seen?

  177. Richard Simons says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    “What evidence would you accept that does not require a second, identical planet to experiment on?”

    I would accept testable, verifiable evidence showing that global warming is accelerating. But that is not the case. The temperature trend line has remained the same since the LIA. CO2 has no bearing on it.

    Since the rising trend line is the same whether CO2 is 280 ppm, or 392 ppm, then obviously the effect of CO2, if any, is too small to measure. The “carbon” scare is being falsified by the planet itself. I’ll believe what the planet is saying, over the deceptive alarmist crowd.

    Wake me if and when global temperatures exceed their long term parameters.

  178. I would accept testable, verifiable evidence

    What do you mean by testable? What do you mean by verifiable? You do realise that the Central England Temperature Record that you link to is very unreliable (thermometers were not as trustworthy as now, some of the measurements were taken inside buildings or extrapolated from a different country, etc) and the area it covers is a small part of a small country, less than 0.05% of the world as a whole. I hope that this is not typical of the standard of evidence you accept.

    Since the rising trend line is the same whether CO2 is 280 ppm, or 392 ppm, then obviously the effect of CO2, if any, is too small to measure.

    Or CO2 is not the only thing to be involved. Solar irradiance, aerosols, etc all have an impact.
    Check out this for a less simplistic view.

  179. We all are aware that co2 is a lagging indicator of temperature, not a leader. It also makes up an tiny fraction of the atmospheric gas on earth. Also, water vapor is more likely a warming agent than co2, however it is the sun and not man which causes water vapor from ocean evaporation.

    Thus, trolls like Simmons are probably operatives for the left or for those who are getting rich from demanding we change our economy to fit their model designed to save us from ourselves (like the shift from chloroflourolcarbons was going to save the ozone layer) Look up the name Rauhauser, Neil and see the thread of how democrat operatives are tasked with “social media disruption”. Rauhauser was such an operative who was outed after being paid by several democratic congressional campaigns to do exactly what Simmons was doing: cast doubts, stir up attacks and cause trouble. He was a rabid warming accolyte who even attacked people in local news papers who dared to write against global warming lies.

    Global warming = religion. You are branded a heretic if you don’t have faith in their idea.
    Man made global warming is the modern-day Henny Penny story about the sky falling.
    The moral of Henny Penny was to teach children not to believe fantastic lies or risk being eaten
    by the foxes in our world.

    But then the adult children running things today never really learned to read or do simple math.
    And 1+1 can always equal 3 if the group says so.

  180. A WILD THOUGHT about the EPA thinking Carbon is bad:
    Ever considered that the true MASTERS of the USGOV’T,
    those INVISIBLY PRESENT MASTERS, may be some Silicon –
    NOT Carbon – Based “Artificial” Intelligences from far
    away (maybe even The Future of some alternative Time
    Line of “Our” Earth)? Such BEASTS might see their
    CARBON progenitors as An Embarressment, which they
    destroyed long ago, and all other Intelligent Carbon
    LIFE FORMS then are as “the Enemy” (to be destroyed)!

  181. Complications arise partly due to polar magnetic shift towards Russia.Another item is clouds appear to be 30 meter lower in last 10 years.This is likely due to co2 being heavy with carbon content tends to rest on ocean where it can be absorbed by waves.This reduces the atmosphere s o clouds will naturally follow the lower atmosphere downwards. I never measured the height of atmosphere but when leaving San Jose Costa Rica I looked down toward the lights and I was looking through clouds.San Jose must be in a valley

  182. Uh oh! The loonies are coming to support the vacuous.There’s no defence against such idiocy so I’ll revert to my usual role of watching from the outside.

Comments are closed.