Can We Actually Even Tell if Humans Are Affecting the Climate? What if we did nothing at all?

Essay by Charlie Martin

We know, with great certainty, that the overall average temperature of the Earth has warmed by several degreees in the last 400 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Before that was a period called the Medieval Warm Period; before that was another cold period, and back at the time of the Romans there was a long period that was significantly warmer — Southern Britain was a wine-growing region. What we’re a lot less certain about is why?

Of course, the “why?” here has been, shall we say, pretty controversial. It’s worth wondering about the controversy and about the social mechanisms through which science is done — I wrote about them during the Climategate controversy as the “social contract of science” — but that’s not what I want to talk about today. Instead, let’s talk about how a scientist thinks about these sorts of questions and arrives at new answers. Back in grad school we called that “doing science”, and it was something everyone liked doing and wished they could be doing instead of whatever they actually were doing, like faculty meetings and refereeing papers.

The process of “doing science” is something you usually learn more or less by osmosis, but there are some good hints around. One of the best is a paper from the 16 October 1964 issue of Science, “Strong Inference” by John R Platt. Let’s say we have some phenomenon of interest, like global warming, or high blood sugar, or that damned yellow patch in my lawn. We want to know why it happens. Platt’s strong inference describes the process we should use when “doing science” as:

  1. We generate a number of alternate explanations, hypotheses, that might explain the phenomenon.
  2. For each hypothesis, we come up with an experiment which will prove the hypothesis wrong. That is, not one that “proves the hypothesis”, but one which, if successful, would disprove or falsify the hypothesis. (Sir Karl Popper argued in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery that this falsification was the core of scientific knowledge.)
  3. We do the experiments. If an experiment falsifies a hypothesis, we discard it ruthlessly. Then we go back to (1) and try again.

A lot of times, the rub — and the really creative thinking — comes in from finding the right experiment. Richard Feynmann was known for an ability to see right through a problem to a simple and elegant experiment that would disprove a hypothesis. He demonstrated this during the review following the Challenger disaster. You may remember that the launch happened on a very cold morning in January; less than two minutes after launch the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up, killing all seven astronauts.

The question, as always, was “why?”

Read the complete essay here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Science and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Can We Actually Even Tell if Humans Are Affecting the Climate? What if we did nothing at all?

  1. Stuart Elliot says:

    But it would be really inconvenient and embarrassing to climb down from the pulpit of this new church, so Mr. Martin’s fine words are unfortunately going to be ignored for as long as the preachers can get away with it.

  2. A.D. Everard says:

    Asking such questions and searching for ways to disprove or falsify a theory sorts the scientists from the pseudo-scientists. That such questioning is “doing science” is not something the alarmists want the general public to know – they’ve already been told it’s done by consensus, and those alarmists are fighting tooth and claw to keep it that way. If it wasn’t so horrendous, I’d say it was sad.

  3. SBT says:

    It would take some one with immense integrity, gravitas and respect from the entire scientific community to stand up and say that the pro side could be wrong about cAGW. Finding such a person who would be looked on as both a leader and visionary from both sides of the debate just isn’t possible in my opinion..

  4. KevinK says:

    “We generate a number of alternate explanations, hypotheses (, sic) that might explain the phenomenon.”

    Ok; the much touted “Greenhouse Effect” simply delays the flow of energy (alternating as IR light, thermal energy, IR light, thermal energy, etc. etc.) through the complex Sun/Earth/Atmosphere/Universe system by a few tens of milliseconds (speed of light times a few miles of atmosphere). Since the period of the cyclic energy input (one day) contains about 86 million milliseconds the “Greenhouse Effect” does NOT “trap” any energy and has NO EFFECT on the average temperature of the Earth.

    Furthermore, this delay (caused by energy making multiple trips through the system at very nearly the speed of light) is not the same as how a thermal insulator functions by slowing the velocity of heat though a system.

    This delay simply causes the gases in the atmosphere to warm up slightly faster after sunrise (or the dissipation of clouds), alternatively this delay causes the gases in the atmosphere to cool down slightly slower after sunset (or the accumulation of clouds). The signature of the “greenhouse effect” is in the “response time” of the climate. This signature cannot be observed with “steady state” instruments like FLIR cameras or satellites, and it is not contained in the historical temperature records.

    How’s that for an alternate hypothesis ?

    Cheers, Kevin

  5. sirboabtree says:

    Too many people with too many agendas of the pro cAGW side for them to admit that they where wrong.
    Besides without a world wide scam/emergency what will the world be scared of next? Cold war – done and dusted, Climate Change – almost done and dusted, so what’s next – Zombie apocalypse, rouge meteors, falling space junk, alien invasions, asteroid mining will pull the solar system apart?

  6. Chuck Nolan says:

    I still don’t get the CO2 making it warm thing.
    We’re told atmospheric CO2 is increasing and that it’s a well mixed gas that gets warmer when it gets hit by the LWR bouncing off the earth. O K
    If it’s true that it’s well mixed and the CO2 gets warmer, shouldn’t the temperature have increased everywhere by the same amount in unison?
    Did a bunch of those CO2 molecules decide to leave Europe and meet up in NW US instead?
    If the molecules are warmer and they’re everywhere, what happened?
    cn

  7. geronimo says:

    Charlie is using Ed Hawkins chart, which gives the impression that the models were doing pretty well until recently. I suspect that what we’re looking at is hindcasts, with lots of aerosols included to get models down to the actual temperatures.

  8. Chris Schoneveld says:

    Temperatures don’t warm, water or air does.

  9. Janice Moore says:

    Nice essay, Mr. Martin. Excellent Feynmann anecdote!

    The Climatology Cult Leaders play on two (at least) basic human weaknesses:

    1) The Gambling Mentality

    The odds of winning the Wash. State lottery are so small, that it is a foolish waste of money to spend even $1.00 on a lottery ticket. But, people do it. There are an awful lot of fools out there who think gambling, er, “gaming,” is a lot of fun. “Whoo, hoo! Look at me! I’m throoooowin’ my money away.”

    The Humans-Can-Cause-Climate-Catastrophy peddlers play on this gambling mentality. There are just enough fools to make it a winning game for the peddlers. “Oh, yes,” they hiss greasily, “the odds of a global catastrophe may not be all that great, but you just never know, do you? The ‘payoff’ is ENORMOUS. And you just-might-’win.’ ” If the victim, er, voter, hesitates, they scream, “Do it to save your children!”

    And the “I’ll-bet-on-that-even-though-the-odds-are-tiny-because-the-payoff-would-be-so-HUGE-if-I-won” mentality wins the day for those who want to control the citizens and to steal their wealth.

    The citizens will bet the farm. And they will lose unless more rational minds save them from their folly.

    2) The Human Desire to be IN CONTROL

    When some people are robbed, they get more angry at themselves than at the perpetrator. Why? Because the victim would rather feel stupid than helpless. They want to maintain the illusion that, if they just concentrated harder, they can control what happens to them. Thus, the thought that they can, by a few acts, control the climate of the PLANET, is irresistibly enticing.

    3) The Human Need for a Religious Belief

    Some of the Climatology Cult Members have no religion, so, the self-sacrifice (no barbecued burgers for you) and acts of holiness (like driving a Holy Car) fill this need.

    YOU ARE SO RIGHT, Mr. Martin:

    Doing nothing is the wisest thing one can do when one has no REASON to act.

  10. KevinK says:

    Oh, and the cause of the Challenger disaster was well known at the time. We (the USA) where limited in our ability to launch rockets in cold temperatures due to an over reliance on segmented solid fueled rockets. This was considered a critical weakness in our national defense system. We did not want our enemies to know that we could not launch satellites when it was too cold. So this “secret” information was carefully “leaked” to Dr. Feynmann so he could “discover” the cause of the disaster without revealing national secrets.

    The cause of the disaster was management that launched a rocket outside of its clearly defined performance envelope. Same as if you plug a 9 volt dc electrical part into a 120 volt ac system. Not going to work for long. You may get “lucky” a few times, but GOOD is always more dependable than LUCKY.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  11. Mike Jonas says:

    Chuck Nolan – The warming from CO2 is not uniform, because IR from the surface is not unitform. The highest rate of IR is from the tropics, and the major part of the interception by CO2 occurs in the mid-troposphere, so most of the warming caused by CO2 occurs in the mid-troposphere over the tropics. It is better to look there than globally, for ‘doing science’. The place to look for the hypothesis is the IPCC report AR4 is Figure 9.1(c) and (f).

    Roy Spencer of UAH has done the looking, comparing the models’ tropical mid-troposphere temperature forecasts with actuals:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/#more-87735
    As Roy Spencer puts it : “Epic Fail”.

  12. Janice Moore says:

    Charlie is using Ed Hawkins chart… .” [Geronimo! 9:52PM today]

    Say, I’m glad you mentioned that. I thought that chart was a bit off. All the graphs I’ve seen of the climate models’ poor performance show a much more significant error margin. Mr. Martin needs to replace his graph with a more accurate one. He is actually helping the fantasy scientists a bit with that inaccurate visual aid.

    ***************
    Re: my too-long post above, correction: “… Cult Leaders play on [three] (at least) basic human weaknesses… .”

  13. gbaikie says:

    “Aside: Now, just to try to forestall one of the usual threads of argument, there really is very little question the greenhouse effect actually exists — the natural temperature of a rock in orbit around the Sun at the same distance as the Earth is nearly -40°. So let’s not have the “but there’s no such thing” argument, okay?”

    Where is your evidence that a rock at Earth distance is nearly -40° C {or F or K].
    99942 Apophis is a rock and we have measured it’s temperature when it has passed Earth.
    “Rotation period 30.4 h [hours]
    Albedo 0.23
    Temperature 270 K”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

    So this space rock average temperature is about -3 C.

    Second. The Earth is not a rock.
    [Neither is the Moon, btw.]
    Earth surface is mostly water.
    Down to a depth in which one starts having geothermal heat affecting the temperature more than sunlight. So say to a 1 mile depth, the Earth is largely water.
    So Earth in terms of any heating from the Sun is about 70% sea water, not rock.
    Though the mass of earth could said be 99.9 % “rock”, it’s covered with thick enough layer of water, that “this rock” is not effected by the radiate heat of the Sun and is therefore irrelevant.
    And it is the large and warm surface area of Earth’s ocean which largely affect global temperature.
    And in terms masses which warmed from the sun, ocean is what is warmed- atmosphere on average is not very warm, nor massive in comparison to ocean. Rock [or air] has little to do with what is actually warmed by the Sun.

    [[And whereas the lunar surface is made of rock, the lunar is mostly covered with powdery fluffy substance which is called regolith [uncompacted regolith] which thermally doesn’t act at all like a normal rock, it more similar the house insulation- except this regolith [particularly in a vacuum] insulates more effectively.

  14. Stuart Elliot said:
    June 25, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    But it would be really inconvenient and embarrassing to climb down from the pulpit of this new church, so Mr. Martin’s fine words are unfortunately going to be ignored for as long as the preachers can get away with it.
    ——————————————–
    You are so right Sir. And the preachers and the politicians are getting away with it.

    obama’s speech today in which he claimed that 2012 was the warmest year on record and that “In a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by the warming planet”, and his statement that the XL pipeline will not be built until it can be made to be carbon-neutral (which means never) are indicators of how right you are.

    The warmunists are winning, I am afraid.

    or to put it another way…

    The warmunists are winning. I am afraid!

  15. Mike McMillan says:

    gbaikie says: June 25, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    Where is your evidence that a rock at Earth distance is nearly -40° C {or F or K].

    F, yes. K, no.

  16. pat says:

    your Admiral Blair is in Australia tomorrow (27th June) for another CAGW fest, and the political opposition – who will/should win the Federal Election in September & remove the carbon tax – are well-represented by their Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage, Greg Hunt, the party’s former leader, John Hewson, & the party’s former Defence and Environment Minister, Robert Hill!

    27 June 2013: National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development
    Venue: Main Committee Room, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia
    Keynotes: Admiral Dennis Cutler Blair, former United States Director of National Intelligence, retired United States Navy Admiral.
    ‘The Future Global Security Agenda’…
    SESSION 3: Security in a Warming Century – from Havana to New Delhi to Townsville (Australia): how do we build adaptive and resilient business models?
    In a world that is 4 to 6 degrees warmer, heat waves, sea level rise and more intense severe weather events will threaten the security of our communities…
    To mitigate future warming risks, we will need to adopt low carbon technologies as we adapt to our changing climate and create opportunities for future prosperity…
    SESSION 5: Unlocking Sustainable Investing: security for the future…
    http://www.nblf.com.au/2013-forum/program

    it’s all about the money.

  17. richard verney says:

    Chuck Nolan says:

    June 25, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    //////////////////
    Weather patterns,

    Ocean currents, jet streams and the like influence how the ‘heat’ is distributed.

    Then, of course, there is the feedbacks (if any).

    Still it is surprising that large areas have not warmed, at all, and may even have cooled. For example, is the US cooler than it was in the 1930s/40s? We could answer that if only the records had not been so basterdised by continued adjustments and if we had a proper handle on UHI.

    Most of the claimed warming appears in areas where we have little historical data and where quality control may not be that rigid.

  18. richard verney says:

    gbaikie says:

    June 25, 2013 at 10:22 pm
    //////////////////
    Do we have a false perception of our own planet’s temperature?

    We are in the middle of an inter glacial period. If glacial/inter glacial periods are not the result of fluctuations in GHCs, but instead orbital swings etc coupled with deep ocean temperature, then to measure the Earth’s temperature today gives a false impression.

    Don’t forget that the deep ocean is only about 3degC. This is the largest internal heat source, and it is this heat source that comes back to bite in glacial periods.

  19. tango says:

    Prof Bob Carter no longer at James Cook uni in Queensland behttp://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/jcu-caves-in-to-badgering-and-groupthink-blackballs-politically-incorrect-bob-carter/ cause he will not change is stance on global warming fraud

  20. vukcevic says:

    Just a quick reminder
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AGT.htm
    that there is more to natural climate change than input from CO2.if any.

  21. Allan M says:

    I seem to recall that, in the Roman warm period, far from grapes being grown only in southern England, they were grown near Hadrian’s Wall in the far north. The main fort + town on the wall was called Vindolanda. The climate there today is usually cold, windy and wet.

    Grapes are grown in southern England today, but the vintners have lately been going more for sparkling wines because of the acidity.

  22. rogerknights says:

    obama’s speech today in which he claimed that 2012 was the warmest year on record

    Did he really say that without the qualification, “in the contiguous US”? It was only the 10th warmest globally.

  23. telescoper says:

    Reblogged this on In the Dark and commented:
    A post about the doctrine of falsifiablity and its relevance to Climate Change….following on from yesterday’s post…

  24. J. Murphy says:

    With regard to wine production in Britain, things are not as simple as some would like to believe :

    “It is generally agreed that the Romans introduced the vine to Britain. It has also been inferred that the climate in Britain at that time was warmer. At the end of the first century AD, however, the writer Tacitus declared that our climate was “objectionable”, and not at all suitable for growing vines, which could suggest that someone had at least tried to establish vines, even if they had been unsuccessful.
    Recent archaeological investigations in Northamptonshire have uncovered evidence to suggest that vineyards were established on a commercial scale during the Roman occupation.
    By the time the Romans began to leave at the end of the fourth century, Christianity became more widespread and wine drinking, playing as it did an important part in Christian ceremonies, was more accepted. Whether this was of local or imported wine, it is hard to say. If there were vineyards, then they were undoubtedly attached to religious institutions such as monasteries.”

    http://www.englishwineproducers.com/background/history/history-pre-roman-to-roman-britain/

    As for Vindolanda, its name has nothing to do with wine :

    http://www.proto-english.org/l9.html

  25. J. Murphy says:

    There are now over 500 vineyards in the UK :

    http://www.englishwineproducers.com/vineyards/vineyard-search/

  26. It may be of interest to readers of WUWT to learn of a University of Kentucky forum on climate change with three excellent speakers who were all self-described conservatives. Liberals reported how they better understand that there are thoughtful conservative perspectives on, and solutions to, climate change, thus allowing for a broadened public discussion. In turn, conservatives in attendance learned the same thing. You can watch the recording of this event at http://bit.ly/135gvNa. The starting time for each speaker is noted at this page, so you can listen to the speakers of greatest interest to you.

  27. BarryW says:

    Your definition of science is 180 degrees from what is actually happening with grant driven science. Can you imagine the chance of the Large Hadron collider being built if the proposal read: ” to prove that the Higgs Boson doesn’t exist”? The people and organizations that provide the money want results and negatives aren’t considered results but failures. I would love to see an analysis of the number of papers that are published in major journals that adhere to your “doing science” approach. Sadly, I would think they would be a small minority.

  28. Doug Huffman says:

    Thanks for the citation to Karl Popper’s ‘Logic’. So early as Part I, Chapter 1, Section 6, Falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation, does he note that “it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing [i]ad hoc[/i] an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing [i]ad hoc[/i] a definition.”

    di Finetti and Jaynes condemn piling on auxiliary hypotheses as mere adhockery – that now passes as ‘science’.

  29. Bill Illis says:

    To answer the question of how much are we impacting the climate, one has to be able to answer the questions of what are the natural cycles in the climate and how they have varied in the past and what caused them.

    Climate science defaults to the claim that the natural cycles are very small and can almost be ignored.

    Well, the simple fact is that noone really knows what the natural cycles are, how much they can vary and what caused them. There really should a whole sub-science focussed on this and there have been a few fits and starts of one at various times. But the other climate scientists shut them down.

    I put the ENSO, the AMO, continental drift and solar in here but there are obviously many more natural drivers.

  30. fhhaynie says:

    My analysis strongly indicates that “climate change” is nearly all natural and that trying to control the burning of fossil fuels to slow “climate change” is like spitting into the wind. Click on my name for an example.

  31. JohnWho says:

    “What if we did nothing at all?”

    That would mean giving up control, something that the Obama Administration and the UN is very much against.

    “Time for some new hypotheses.”

    You mean a hypotheses that follows proper science? Won’t happen while the Eco-fanatics are allowed to dominate.

    BTW – I believe the CAGW by CO2 concept doesn’t just fail when judged by the models. It fails at all levels of falsification.

    Let us not forget that none of these are proof that anthropogenic CO2 is causing, or may cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption in the Earth’s climate:

    -Arctic Ice disappearing
    -Glaciers retreating
    -Coral reef bleaching
    -Mt Kilimanjaro losing snow
    -Polar bears doing anything anywhere
    -Some creature or plant facing extinction
    -A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
    -Droughts
    -Floods
    -Dry rivers
    -Computer models or simulations
    -A “consensus”
    -Al Gore’s movie
    -Etc. causing etc. by etc. reported by etc., etc.

  32. george e. smith says:

    “””””……gbaikie says:

    June 25, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    “Aside: Now, just to try to forestall one of the usual threads of argument, there really is very little question the greenhouse effect actually exists — the natural temperature of a rock in orbit around the Sun at the same distance as the Earth is nearly -40°. So let’s not have the “but there’s no such thing” argument, okay?”……”””””””

    Well there’s a problem with your assertion.

    A rock circling the sun at earth’s mean distance, presumably receives the same mean insolation that the earth does; 1362 W/m^2 per a recent NASA / NOAA assertion.

    Assuming that this rock is close to spherical, it intercepts the same energy as a flat circular disk at the same place , with its normal pointing at the sun.

    The rock presumably has no atmosphere, so it has no clouds, and no “cloud albedo”.

    If the rock was a black body (there’s no such thing), it would absorb the total incident solar energy and warm up above zero K.

    What Temperature it reaches depends on several other factors.

    What is the thermal conductivity of the rock, and does the rock rotate on its axis, so it is not locked to the sun.

    If the thermal conductivity is infinite, it doesn’t matter whether it rotates or not, it will be at a uniform Temperature, and will be radiating a BB spectrum uniformly, at that Temperature, so it is radiating 340.5 W/m^2, so the Temperature will be 278.4 K based on 390 W/m^2 giving 288 K or 15 deg. C

    So the Temp would be about 5 deg. C.

    If the conductivity is not infinite, the sun side will be hotter than the dark side, so it will be radiating faster than the dark side, and. heat energy will be flowing from sun side to dark side, because of the Temperature gradient.

    With a non BB absorption, then it will be something else again.

  33. Thanks for the kind words, guys. On the chart, Anthony pointed that out too, and I mentioned it in a comment. I was interested in the part with actual predictions and didn’t think about what people might infer from the hindcast part. On the thing about the black body temperature, you can compute what the black-body temperature would be thermodynamically; it’s an abstraction and doesn’t require a real black body. The computation I saw was much lower that 5°C, but 5°C is still a lot lower than what we have *with* an atmosphere, so my basic point still stands.

    By the way, this is the first of a regular Thursday science and technology column at PJM, pushed up because of Obama’s speech. Tomorrow’s regular column is about intelligence collection and NSA. I’d love to have you guys come back.

  34. RichardLH says:

    The area I see that progress is most likely to improve the understanding of climate is to identify and account for any short term natural cycles that we have already measured in the Global and other temperature data.

    Ones in the 1 year to 15 year in length are the ones I think will be most useful.

    We all understand how we can measure day, weather, season and, to a certain extent, climate. We also see individual irregular patterns (El Nino, etc) that are longer than a year but then again I have found little if any research into the regular natural patterns that will have occurred that are longer than a year in duration.

    I believe that there is at least a 4 year natural cycle hidden in the existing temperature data. That is, there is a pattern to the 1461 day full solar ‘year’. Not really surprising given that 365 is only a human approximation anyway.

    I think that we are destroying all that 4 year information in the data by chopping it into 365 day segments. We should instead use the 1461 day ones of a ‘full solar year’. This reveals things that we may have accidentally ignored otherwise.

    If we use a 1461 day ‘full solar year’ segment, then curious regular patterns emerge from long term series like CET.

    http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/73127

    We also can find similar patterns in the UAH satellite data series.

    http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/70051

    The same 4 year periods occurring in both temperature series, one a whole area view from satellite of 34 years in length and the other a single geographical point but of 241 years in length seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

    Perhaps the 37 month, 4 year, 7 year and 12 year signal from the satellite data is also visible in other temperature records as well?

  35. JRP says:

    Martin’s paper it seems to me is more important than many of your comments seem to appreciate. I can’t understand why they seem to miss or ignore the important point in his piece. That is, the point in the title?

    Admittedly Martin doesn’t make the leap from his excellent sources (Platt and Feynman) to say something really useful about climate change but nevertheless the issue is presented fair and square and it is a real issue. How can we tell if humans are having the effect on climate that is claimed?

    The argument and example he uses (Hawkin’s graph of model results against calculations of global mean temperatures from empirical data , note it is not actual observations and that ignores another problem about which a great deal has been written on this blog) show that he is in fact drifting significantly off the point.

    The main reason is that the models he wants to use to make the point do not provide crucial experiments. The reason why Feynamn could provide a simple rebuttal of a hypothesis about O rings on the Shuttle is that the hypothesis had been stated so precisely. It was highly testable. Designing an experiment that refuted the hypothesis was relatively easy.

    With climate models this is not the case by a long stretch. Refutation involves deducing the consequences of the hypothesis, then deducing the evidence that would show if an effect is taking place and then designing an experiment that will reveal whether or not the hypothesis is wrong. With systems such as we are dealing with, this deduction and design are complex and fraught with difficulties arising from issues of definition, metrics, data and complex systems behaviour.

    Inevitably, with such complex models, failure of a model to agree with actual observation is not sufficient reason to reject the model completely, as seems to have been done on this and other blogs recently. There are many reasons why there is no fit and there are many aspects of models that can cause differences in output and therefore cause the model not to fit. Such models do not provide opportunities to test hypotheses about the underlying scientific reasoning of models or even of their structuring.

    The point about models of these sorts of system vis a vis Platt (1964)is that the models come nowhere near being able to provide ‘clean experiments‘. But this cuts both ways. By the same token that the models are not testable they cannot also be rejected out of hand. As an aside, it is worth noting that in comparing the various models, as in Hawkin’s graph, there is no clear statement about what the key elements of the models are. So there is no easy way to understand just what sort of failure is taking place and how to interpret the discrepancies between model output and observation.

    As Martin says, “the rub…comes in finding the right experiment”. Unfortunately his example isn’t it.

    So, and this is the important corollary in respect to Martin’s argument, this is precisely not where to look for the crucial discriminating evidence by which we can eliminate competing hypotheses or reject models outright. We have to look elsewhere. OK, the graph looks convincing and is good for PR, but simply taking the diverging trend and then arguing that the models are useless is inadequate in a skeptical scientific context. The argument has to be built on a surer foundation.

    The sort of argument that meets these criteria is that presented recently by Dr Murry Salby, see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html who argues on the basis of the time series relations of CO2 and temperature that it is temperature that drives CO2 and not the other way around, and on different time scales. This goes a long way to making the argument but still is not fully ‘clean’.

    Salby deals with ‘black boxes’ in a classic and well-constructed approach that provides a lot of evidence that supports his thesis. But it is not a crunch argument. That has to come from empirical observations of Carbon in the various components of the earth-atmosphere-ocean system in experimental set ups designed to test any hypotheses to the limit.

  36. gymnosperm says:

    The short answer is no. We have no way to know if our 100ppm (or anything else we are doing) is affecting the climate or not.

  37. george e. smith says:

    Let’s suppose we have come up with a physical theory, about the universe. Well why not call it “the theory of everything”.

    By some remarkable happenstance, our theory of everything turns out to be absolutely correct about everything . (we should be so lucky.)

    It follows, that our new theory, can and will exactly predict the outcome of EVERY experiment we could perform. BUT WE DON’T KNOW THAT ; we only just came up with it.

    So we can start doing experiments. Since it’s a theory of everything, there are a lot of different experiments we can do. Every time we do one, a different one, we find it agrees with what we predicted from our theory. But no matter how many experiments we do, there are always plenty of ones we have not done, and we still don’t know that we will get the predicted result, for the next experiment we do, no matter how many we have done.

    One day, we may do an experiment and get a result that is different from what our theory predicted. And that result can be corroborated by anyone who repeats that experiment.

    So our theory of everything is false, as it does not correctly predict the outcome in all cases, no matter how many cases we have run.

    Well we don’t have a theory of everything. We have theories which apply to experiments which conform to some specific set of rules, that separate those experiments from “everything”.

    Same rule applies; a single contrary result falsifies the theory, no matter how many cases came out correctly.

    We can further restrict the class of conditions that our theory applies to, if we can identify the rogue parameter that gives us the misses. Or we can modify the theory, so it now includes the previous misses in its successes, without losing any we already had covered.

    It’s amazing, how many without science training, demand “a proof” of some conjecture; but never offer a contrary case that falsifies the conjecture. They are the ultimate trolls, who simply want to muddy the water.

    I hope when they go home at night, that their mother does not run out from under the verandah, and bite them on the ankle.

    In some branches of mathematics (fictional), it is possible to prove that some postulate is true. or maybe that it cannot be proven to be true, or that a solution exists, even though we cannot (or have not yet) found that answer.

    Fermat’s last theorem, is a case in point. x^n + y^n = a^n has NO integer solutions (for x,y,a) for n >2. I suspect that it holds for |n| >2, because there are a gazillion cases for n = -1.

    Off hand, I can’t give one for n = -2, but I suspect they exist.

    The conjecture was proven, for n = 3,4,5….. but not for every integral n, until a long, bizarre, but apparently rigorous proof was given a few years back.

    One thing is certain. Nobody has discovered Fermat’s proof of Fermat’s last theorem. (if indeed he had one).

  38. feet2thefire says:

    Oy vey…

    He starts off with this:

    “We know, with great certainty, that the overall average temperature of the Earth has warmed by several degreees [sic] in the last 400 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. ”

    What a beeeginning.

    Either this guy failed math or history – or something.

    400 years ago was the end of the Little Ice Age?

    Need I read any further?

    Steve Garcia

  39. feet2thefire says:

    Oh, and the “several degrees”? Two factites this guy missed on, in his first sentence.

    Round file!

    With great certainty.

    Steve Garcia

    p.s. Anthony, this is a pretty bad thing to post. I give you credit for letting him have this forum. All he did with it was make himself look ignorant.

  40. feet2thefire says:

    @george e. smith:

    “One thing is certain. Nobody has discovered Fermat’s proof of Fermat’s last theorem. (if indeed he had one).”

    Actually, you must have been out of the loop. Andrew Wiles solved it in 1994.

    Look it up. It took me 12 seconds to re-find it.

    Steve Garcia

  41. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..feet2thefire says:

    June 26, 2013 at 11:08 am

    @george e. smith:

    “One thing is certain. Nobody has discovered Fermat’s proof of Fermat’s last theorem. (if indeed he had one).”

    Actually, you must have been out of the loop. Andrew Wiles solved it in 1994.

    Look it up. It took me 12 seconds to re-find it.

    Steve Garcia…..”””””

    I’ve not been out of any loop.

    I’ll repeat the pertinent part of my statement, for those who are ESL challenged.

    “””””…… Nobody has discovered FERMAT’S PROOF of Fermat’s last theorem…….””””””

  42. george e. smith says:

    And for extra credit, try READING, and WRITING DOWN Andrew Wile’s proof, in 12 seconds / minutes / hours / whatever.

  43. Rabe says:

    Mr. Garcia, please… you didn’t read what Fermat wrote. Do it, read it aloud. Then look at the amount of paper Mr. Wiles’ proof would have needed in Fermat’s time, if the mathematical proofs and methods used by Wiles would have been known back then. Do you find Fermat’s description to be appropriate? So I think what Mr. Smith wrote is correct.

  44. JP says:

    I hate to break it to the author, but the LIA ended not 400 years ago, but 150 years ago. Perhaps what he meant was that the coldest decades of the LIA (circa 1315-1850) occurred approximately 400 years ago. Not a good start to an essay.

  45. daddyjames says:

    A wonderful explanation of how science operates in the lab.

    Would anyone care to propose how we could or would set up this “experiment” on a planetary scale?

    This argument would be applicable if we had another earth to manipulate the level of atmospheric gases, and then see what happens. Well, we don’t.

  46. dbstealey says:

    “I hate to break it to the author, but the LIA ended not 400 years ago, but 150 years ago.”

    IMHO, the LIA is still in the process of ending. The planet is still naturally warming. It is recovering from one of the very coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene. That takes time.

  47. Chris R. says:

    To feet2thefire:

    With respect to the proof of Fermat’s theorem presented in 1994–at the
    time, popular press accounts all mentioned that Wiles’ proof ran to
    many, many pages. Fermat’s statement simply said that the
    margin was not large enough to contain his proof, which thereby implies
    it was much more compact. George e. smith
    states the commonly-held viewpoint that Fermat’s never-seen proof
    was probably wrong. You owe george e. smith
    a word of apology, for jumping to conclusions.

  48. gbaikie says:

    “Charlie Martin says:
    June 26, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Thanks for the kind words, guys. On the chart, Anthony pointed that out too, and I mentioned it in a comment. I was interested in the part with actual predictions and didn’t think about what people might infer from the hindcast part. On the thing about the black body temperature, you can compute what the black-body temperature would be thermodynamically; it’s an abstraction and doesn’t require a real black body. The computation I saw was much lower that 5°C, but 5°C is still a lot lower than what we have *with* an atmosphere, so my basic point still stands.”

    The normal greenhouse theory [which is wrong] states Earth would be around -18 C without greenhouse effect.
    And you said a rock would -40 C [F is same]. Proving a rock wouldn’t be -40 C was easy- as we have rocks and sometimes they are measured.
    Proving assertion that a blackbody would be 5 C at Earth distance is difficult as there is not anything which is a ideal blackbody- it’s mathematical construct as you say.
    I don’t choose to argue whether ideal blackbody would be 5 C or not.
    I will argue about whether a ideal blackbody is warmest non greenhouse object. If the contention is a greenhouse effect only refers to greenhouse gases and not liquids. Which is what is argued
    in the greenhouse theory.
    So I think it’s important whether a airless earth would be -18 C or as you claimed -40 C.
    Quote from wiki:
    “If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. ”
    So not going to argue with this. It could be wrong, particular when they claim the precise of 5.3 C,
    rather then saying around 5 C.
    It’s this part:
    “However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.”
    and this part:
    “The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.”
    Which I believe is wrong.
    The premise of greenhouse theory is atmosphere gases are responsible for precisely 33 C
    of warming. No more and no less. If was instead of -40 C rather than -18 C then greenhouse theory would be incorrect.
    I think greenhouse theory is incorrect, but not because earth would colder than -18 C without
    greenhouse gases, but rather it would be warmer than -18 C without greenhouse gases.

    So if greenhouse gases add 30 C instead of 33 C to -18 C, the greenhouse theory is wrong-
    as it also for wrong if greenhouse gases add 54 C to -40 C.
    In other words there is certainty [ill founded] on the idea that greenhouse gases and only greenhouse gases can rise the average global temperature from -18 C [without the greenhouse gases] to 14 C with greenhouse gases [adding precisely 33 C of warming].
    Now there is a huge uncertainly in the amount of each component of entire greenhouse mixture, but there is no apparent uncertainly about the 33 C added from greenhouse gases.
    Nor is it disputed [according to this crazy theory] that water vapor is a major factor in this 33 C of warming. As indicated later in wiki article:
    “By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:

    water vapor, 36–70%
    carbon dioxide, 9–26%
    methane, 4–9%
    ozone, 3–7%”

    So how warm rock in space would be is important.
    But I think is more important is what would a can of water be at Earth distance.
    Or the theoretical global sphere is just H20, would be. What we missing is other planets or
    bodies which are covered in water.

  49. Frank says:

    @JRP. I understand the distinction you are making between the models and the real hypothesis of AGW. But it is perfectly valid to treat each model, or ensemble thereof, as an hypothesis stating, “this is a good approximation of how earth’s climate works and positive feedback from CO2 is the most important determinant.” Why is this important? Because that is how AGW theorists and the popular press treat them. From those models, they draw the conclusion that manmade CO2 will have catastrophic effects and gird it in the rainments of something equivalent to Einstein’s theory of relativity. While a simulation is not really a test of the underlying hypothesis, reality is a test of the hypotheses embedded in the models. The models as hypotheses and as skillful predictors are by and large falsified (both by temperature divergence from predictions, the missing predicted equatorial hotspot, and other tests).

    I don’t buy your statement to the effect that the models still deserve respect and attention because it is complicated and there are good reasons the models might have failed. Of course there are–they have failed. But as hypotheses, the models are falsified to a high degree of statistical significance. The proponents job now is to come up with models that actually have some predictive skill about the future, not about the past–It’s too easy to tune a model without even intending to if you know the answer in advance, especially when further grant money depends on the results. When the models do better than a ruler laid on a graph of recent temperatures in a statistically significant way, then they are worth paying attention to. Until then, they aren’t worth much time or effort except as negative results, that is, we now know that the particular set of climate relationships, forcings, and feedbacks represented by the models are probably not good approximations of how earth’s climate works. That would be useful if the scientific and political communities could accept that and move on to other and more rigorous ways of examining the AGW hypothesis.

    The only reason anyone would pay attention to these models is that politicians and the press have made careers of embracing them–either out of ignorance or mendacity. So regrettably, it is important to make sure the public and scientific community understands that the models themselves are probably falsified as hypotheses. That is an uphill climb against a hostile press and political establishment.

    Obama’s speech today is a little like a hedge fund manager who just lost billions by trading on a predictive market model that he paid someone $500,000 to develop. Does he double down and hope it works next time or does he trash the model and fire the analyst? The president doubled down. So regrettably, we will have to continue to address the falsification of the models over and over.

  50. george .e. smith says:

    “””””…..Rabe says:

    June 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Mr. Garcia, please… you didn’t read what Fermat wrote. Do it, read it aloud. Then look at the amount of paper Mr. Wiles’ proof would have needed in Fermat’s time, if the mathematical proofs and methods used by Wiles would have been known back then. Do you find Fermat’s description to be appropriate? So I think what Mr. Smith wrote is correct……”””””

    It’s always nice to know that some people actually read what I write; instead of what they think I meant. Unless I make a typo, I always mean exactly what I write.

    But Rabe, have you ever considered another intriguing possibility, about the brief note Fermat wrote in his margin. On my first reading of that “tweet”, the message I got, was much more dramatic, than the fact his proof was less that 250 close spaced typed pages.

    I believe Fermat’s proof was so simple, that he simply didn’t bother to write it down, thinking any 4-H clubber would figure it out for himself, after simply being made aware of the theorem.

    That’s what rattles my cage thinking of Fermat’s theorem. He did say he had a remarkable / wonderful / whatever proof of the conjecture. He was not known for telling falsehoods.

    The thought that nobody has ever stumbled over whatever proof he had, and then discovered a flaw in it.

    I’m not aware of ANY history of simple “proofs”, subsequently dismissed. How many known “proofs” later discredited, exist in the math literature, before Wiles gargantuan tome.

    I once developed my own version of Cardan’s solution for the roots of a cubic polynomial, which is purely algebraic, as distinct from the trigonometrical solution. If I recall how I did it, Cardan’s solution only gives the roots in terms of complex numbers, so you can’t get the numerical value of them. The trig solution yields at least the one real root, which, you can divide out, and then solve the quadratic, for the real or complex pair.

    As for quardics, I studied Ferrari’s solution till all my hair fell out, and never did get the gist of it.

  51. Phil. says:

    george .e. smith says:
    June 27, 2013 at 12:40 am
    “””””…..Rabe says:

    June 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Mr. Garcia, please… you didn’t read what Fermat wrote. Do it, read it aloud. Then look at the amount of paper Mr. Wiles’ proof would have needed in Fermat’s time, if the mathematical proofs and methods used by Wiles would have been known back then. Do you find Fermat’s description to be appropriate? So I think what Mr. Smith wrote is correct……”””””

    It’s always nice to know that some people actually read what I write; instead of what they think I meant. Unless I make a typo, I always mean exactly what I write.

    But Rabe, have you ever considered another intriguing possibility, about the brief note Fermat wrote in his margin. On my first reading of that “tweet”, the message I got, was much more dramatic, than the fact his proof was less that 250 close spaced typed pages.

    I believe Fermat’s proof was so simple, that he simply didn’t bother to write it down, thinking any 4-H clubber would figure it out for himself, after simply being made aware of the theorem.

    That’s what rattles my cage thinking of Fermat’s theorem. He did say he had a remarkable / wonderful / whatever proof of the conjecture. He was not known for telling falsehoods.

    Andrew believes that Fermat had fooled himself into thinking that he had a proof. He says that the proof is much too long (150 pages) and uses many modern mathematical techniques which weren’t known in Fermat’s time. It took Andrew about 7 years to develop the proof!

  52. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Phil. says:

    June 27, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    george .e. smith says:
    June 27, 2013 at 12:40 am
    “””””…..Rabe says:

    June 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Mr. Garcia, please… you didn’t read what Fermat wrote.
    ……………………..

    ……………………..

    …..”””””

    Well Phil, I take nothing at all away from Andrew Wiles, and his proof.

    Actually, if my memory serves me, Andrew’s paper does not directly prove Fermat’s theorem. Instead it proves some other exotic mathematical theorem, which if true, then leads to Fermat’s theorem.

    And I’m just taking a WAG, but I suspect, that, in Fermat’s day, that other esoteric theorem, was entirely unknown to mathematics..

    So if that conjecture, whose name escapes me was known in Fermat’s day to be (if true), a direct path to the solution of Fermat’s theorem; then presumably, Fermat can only be faulted, for failing to find Mr Wile’s 150 page proof of that other conjecture.

    But I think it is presumptuous to simply dismiss Fermat, as having “fooled himself”.

    So I would repeat my question. How many “Proofs” of Fermat’s last theorem, are known, that were later discarded, as having “simply fooled” their authors; prior to Andrew Wile’s proof of the associated conjecture. (about which, I plead total ignorance; well beyond my pay grade.).

    I have a similar queezy feeling about an entirely unrelated historical matter.

    When some years ago, the well preserved body of George Lee Mallory, was discovered, where he fell, (to), on Mt Everest, it started a whole new detective story, about whether, Mallory and Irvine made it to the top, in 1924, or whether they fell, before reaching the top, or even, were they going up or down when they fell.

    So eventually Sir Edmund Hilary, was asked what he thought about the question. He is reported to have said, it doesn’t matter whether they made it or not. The aim was to make it back alive, as well as make it to the top. True enough, RF Scott, is often criticized for his fateful, and fatal, and poorly planned South Pole failure, while deservedly Amundsen is lauded for his success.

    So I was somewhat disappointed in Hillary’s answer. He could have said: ‘Well a lot of romantics secretly hoped that they made it.’ which in no way would have diminished his, and Tenzing’s success.

    So all praise for Andrew Wile for his solution that simply was not in any way available in Fermat’s day. But what if someone else, stumbles over Fermat’s proof that was too simple to bother writing down.

  53. The Roman Warm Period was not the most recent time when England grew grapes and made wine. That was done in some fairly recent years.

    Also, the linked article has a graph that does not support its claim of lack of warming for 17 years. It merely shows warming largely stagnant for the past ~11-12 years, and pushing the bottom edge of the 95% confidence range of the model consensus.

    Also, that article claims that temperatures during the Little Ice Age were several degrees cooler than now. The variation appears to me about 1.8 degrees C according to a Loehle study published in Energy and Environment. That study is favored by Dr. Roy Spencer, who is somewhat on the skeptical side, and a climate scientist.

  54. Of course we are affecting. If we are continuing urbanization, deforestations and desert expanding global warming / climate change will be more and more eminent. Moisture contents on the surface of the earth controls our climate. We have changed the soil surface into concrete surface thus reduced the evaporation and water absorption system of nature. For details please click on my name.

  55. indrdev200 says:

    Of course we are affecting. If we are continuing urbanization, deforestations and desert expanding global warming / climate change will be more and more eminent. Moisture contents on the surface of the earth control our climate. We have changed the soil surface into concrete surface thus reduced the evaporation and water absorption system of nature. For details please click on my name.

    ________________________________

  56. Phil. says:

    george e. smith says:
    June 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm
    “””””…..Phil. says:

    June 27, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    george .e. smith says:
    June 27, 2013 at 12:40 am
    “””””…..Rabe says:

    June 26, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Mr. Garcia, please… you didn’t read what Fermat wrote.
    ……………………..

    ……………………..

    …..”””””

    Well Phil, I take nothing at all away from Andrew Wiles, and his proof.

    Actually, if my memory serves me, Andrew’s paper does not directly prove Fermat’s theorem. Instead it proves some other exotic mathematical theorem, which if true, then leads to Fermat’s theorem.

    Yes George, the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture (theory). It was the link between this and Fermat that inspired Andrew to take up the proof again, he realized that if he proved T-S he also proved Fermat.

    And I’m just taking a WAG, but I suspect, that, in Fermat’s day, that other esoteric theorem, was entirely unknown to mathematics..

    Yes T-S originated in the 50′s I think.

    So if that conjecture, whose name escapes me was known in Fermat’s day to be (if true), a direct path to the solution of Fermat’s theorem; then presumably, Fermat can only be faulted, for failing to find Mr Wile’s 150 page proof of that other conjecture.

    But I think it is presumptuous to simply dismiss Fermat, as having “fooled himself”.

    I think given the work that Andrew did on Fermat (not just on the T-S approach) he’s probably the best qualified to make that judgement, and that’s certainly what he said.

    So I would repeat my question. How many “Proofs” of Fermat’s last theorem, are known, that were later discarded, as having “simply fooled” their authors; prior to Andrew Wile’s proof of the associated conjecture. (about which, I plead total ignorance; well beyond my pay grade.).

    At least one, Andrew’s first proof turned out the have a flaw which took another year to fix, so he knows about being fooled!

  57. george e. smith says:

    @ Phil”
    “”””…..I think given the work that Andrew did on Fermat (not just on the T-S approach) he’s probably the best qualified to make that judgement, and that’s certainly what he said……”””””

    Well Phil, I’m presuming that you know the chap, so that you have some idea of the extent to which he studied Fermat; pre and post T-S.

    So that leads me to make the following conjecture; aka WAG.

    Given that Fermat knew nothing of the (non) existence of the T-S conjecture, and how it would come to relate to his last theorem. And given that Fermat BELIEVED that he had a proof of his theorem (that was not a 150 page proof of T-S). And given that Andrew Wile extensively studied Fermat’s theorem, prior to T-S, so can be regarded as an (if not the) expert.

    Then it is reasonable to assume that in his studies, he must have also discovered Fermat’s simple but fallacious proof..

    So for me; while congratulating T-S and Andrew Wile, on their combined success; the big outstanding problem is :

    NOBODY HAS DISCOVERED FERMAT’S “PROOF” OF FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM.

    I think that is every bit as important as proving the theorem, and would surely have been found by anyone, knowledgeable enough to believe Fermat fooled himself.

    PS My formal mathematics studies, only went to MSc (in Physics & Maths) level, and I did not take the finals.

    So T-S is quite beyond my horizon of understanding. So I am quite certain, that I could read Andrew Wiles 150 page solution, along with T-S; and have not the foggiest idea what they were talking about.

  58. cormac says:

    Good question on falsification Charile!
    One way of testing the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the size of the effect is the following:
    Since the 1970s, satellites have been measuring the heat emerging from our atmosphere into space. If no reduction is observed in heat emitted at wavelengths associated with absorption by GHGs , the theory would be nicely falsified. In fact, a pronounced dip in energy at just those wavelengths is clearly observable, a dip that has been growing steadily in tandem with the rise in atmospheric GHG concentration…I don’t know why we don’t hear more about these experiments, there is a good overview at
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

  59. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..cormac says:

    June 28, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Good question on falsification Charile!
    One way of testing the greenhouse gas hypothesis and the size of the effect is the following:
    Since the 1970s, satellites have been measuring the heat emerging from our atmosphere into space. If no reduction is observed in heat emitted at wavelengths associated with absorption by GHGs , the theory would be nicely falsified. In fact, a pronounced dip in energy at just those wavelengths is clearly observable, a dip that has been growing steadily in tandem with the rise in atmospheric GHG concentration……..”””””

    Did you read, what you just wrote Cormac ?

    First off, from a ‘satellite in outer space’, it is not possible to observe ANY HEAT emerging from earth for essentially none is.

    What is being emitted, is LWIR EM radiation energy, which is NOT “heat”.

    According to Kevin Trenberth’s cartoon budget, ONLY 40 W/m^2 out of the 390 W/m^2 emitted from earth surface, escapes to outer space. The rest is captured by the atmosphere, including GHGs.

    Also according to the overwhelming consensus (maybe 97%) of all scientists believe that ordinary atmospheric gases (N2, O2, Ar) do not emit LWIR thermal EM radiation; only GHGs can do that.

    So the earth spectrum from outer space is supposed to consist of a weak (40 W/m^2) surface emitted thermal spectrum, plus a whopping great GHG band spectrum, because the atmosphere can only cool by GHG resonance emissions.

    So when you talk of “a pronounced dip in energy at just those wavelengths”, that is an observation (presumably), that flies in the face of assertions that only GHG spectra are emitted by the atmosphere. An increase in GHGs, would necessarily result in an INCREASE in the GHG bands peaks, NOT a decrease.

    So there must be something wrong with the assertion that the atmosphere can ONLY emit GHG band spectra emissions, and NOT broad thermal radiation spectra. Apparently the overwhelming consensus of 97% of all scientists is in error, ant the atmospheric gases, must be able to radiate broad thermal spectra..

  60. How can you tell it is the gas causing that effect. Can you make GH out of gases? If yes show me how? Gases are freely moving molecules; they are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission. Heat is absorbed by the concrete jungles we are creating to cover the soil surface of the earth. The soil surface holds water, allows water to recharge ground water (thus reducing draining water to the sea), evaporation of water is most effective cooling system in Nature (concrete is dry so this effect is reducing thereby increasing temperature of the Earth, the GW); convection method of heat transmission is not enough to cool the earth as what we think of – so transmission of heat to the space is less than we expect, since heat is held by the concrete jungles. Thus, of course, human is affecting but not due to gases but by urbanization – homes, roads, pavements, deforestations, deserts expansion etc. I suppose you know what is a Green House? No gases can be ‘green house gases’ – they are SOLID AND TRANSPARENT LIKE PLASTICS AND Glasses. For details on CC and GW please click on my name.

Comments are closed.