Why we do what we do – ‘It changes people.’

Jonathan Abbot writes in comments on 2013/07/23 at 12:59 pm

My 10 year old daughter just read an article in National Geographic Kids about global warming. ‘The world is getting warmer, daddy! See?’ She wouldn’t believe me when I said it wasn’t.

I told her that data is more important than written words, and showed her this page as an explanation.

We discussed how temperatures had increased but were now flat, and so when the article made the usual claims about the hottest temperatures being all in the last 10 years, we agreed it could be true but it still didn’t mean the world was still getting warmer.

She had no idea she could go online to see the actual numbers for herself, they don’t mention that sort of thing at school.

I don’t know if you ever find time to read these comments Anthony, but thank you and all at WUWT for being there and doing the work you do. It changes people.

Thanks Jonathan, that made my day, as well as lifting the spirits of those who have contributed to the many reference pages that WUWT offers.

 

 

About these ads

99 thoughts on “Why we do what we do – ‘It changes people.’

  1. Besides which, the hottest temperatures have not all been in the last 10 years, not in nature, that is, whatever the cooked books from GISS, et al, say.

    If climate be the average of weather over thirty years or more, then 1984-2013 may well have been warmer than 1954-1983, but probably not than 1924-1953, using unadjusted data. To say nothing of 964-993, 994-1023 & 1024-1053.

  2. R. Smalls at 1:16 p.m.: Do you find it depressing when a young person learns that nothing one reads should be taken at face value and that such person learns that you can go gather data and do critical thinking for herself? I found this post incredibly uplifting. It reminded me of when my son realized he could look through the box scores each day and gather more information than if he read the stories of the baseball games. He stopped reading the stories and began assessing the significance of contributions and timing by closely studying the data collected on the game. From that moment on, he never was anyone’s fool; if he wanted to know anything, he knew he had merely to look for the underlying data and perform his own analytics.

  3. I fondly recall the old “schoolhouse rock” PSA fillers from 1980s Saturday morning cartoons, so looked them up on Netflix. I wanted to play “Conjunction juunction whats your function” and “Still just a bill” for my kid. The whole collection has been updated, and the first one served up was a cartoony planet with a fever. Followed by several other green themed musicals. I sadly turned it off and said “nevermind”.

    I’ve also been repeatedly disappointed that my favorite childhood Nature/National Geo shows from PBS have been remixed without the parts where anything larger than a bug gets graphically eaten by another creature. Apparently, the land dries up, and everybody converges at the waterhole. Lions roar a little, aligators look out of the water, then it rains and everyone leaves fat and refreshed.

    They totally wiped out the scene where a gator grabs a baby elephant, then its mother grabs the gator with her trunk, swings it over her head a few times and stomps it to red-green pulp.

    This comment has wandered from AGW, but it fits the theme. Truth that does not fit a specific narrative is discarded for the greater good.

  4. I didn’t find it particularly depressing. What’s depressing about figuring at (fortunately, at a young age) that people who refuse to use their own powers of observation and mental faculties are easily played for a fool by those who can spin a flashy yarn?

    Don’t kids still like to learn a “secret”? We parents still have the freedom to share wise “secrets” with our young’uns.

  5. I have had Fellows of the Royal Society in my kitchen who are not as willing to look at the data as Jonathan Abbot’s ten year old daughter. That is what I find depressing.

  6. I think the depression felt by D.Smalls is perhaps because of the indoctrination of this guys daughters teacher? Also, please bear in mind that many ordinary parents have neither the actual capacity or time to spend ‘helping’ with their childrens more ‘complete’ education.
    I am the first to call out bad parents – but this guy (Jonathan Abbot) needs some congrats for taking the extra effort. All too often (and I’ve done it myself) it’s too easy for a parent (who knows more information/truths) will simply say ‘You will find out when you’re older!’, etc. Kudos for catching the miseducation early!

  7. I have 4 grand kids in Australia oldest 18 she is going to uni youngest 7 our school system is controlled by left wing unions and a lot of teachers are greenies so they are brain washing students in global warming it is sad but I keep telling them the truth, what you are being told is not true . every parent must try and stop this brain washing

  8. I recently had a conversation with a colleague of mine who works as a very senior scientist at a mid-size pharmaceutical company. He is a very accomplished man of great intelligence; hard-working, disciplined, yet open-minded — you name it, he’s got it. During our conversation, he needed an example of how people fail to accept the most basic and self-evident facts of life and science, and he came up with—you guessed it—global warming. I struggled a bit for composure, as did he when I outed myself as a d….r; he did admit that he had spent little time on reviewing the evidence himself but had, like so many others, simply taken it all in good faith on the authority of the specialists.

    The brain-washing campaign of the warmists has been staggeringly successful.

    Just saw Mariwarcwm’s comment above, which resembles my experience. I have even had a senior colleague (a different one; very knowledgeable, but not much of an original thinker) mindlessly use the “d…alist” word. That really shocked me.

  9. She had no idea she could go online to see the actual numbers for herself, they don’t mention that sort of thing at school.</blockquote
    Yes, that is depressing.

    But thank God, our good host and the team here that she can see the actual numbers for herself.

    The facts are our greatest weapon. They will be a decisive weapon.
    And if the facts desert us we deserve to lose.

  10. Sorry, I should have gone and asked WordPress for the preview option.
    It seems the internet isn’t perfect, after all.

  11. My biggest mistake as a parent was letting my children attend public schools. They can all read, write, add and subtract (of course I taught them that). In fact two are post-graduate engineers and one is a molecular biologist The problem is that they are members of the Church of Ecodruidism. They harbor guilt and are depressed for being normal humans with normal human desires.

    Public education is child abuse. Save your kids! Get them out of public schools!

  12. My little girl is 3.

    Since they can’t convince enough thinking adults to believe their cr@p, plan B is to brainwash the kids.

    Its going to be a battle – I’ve got to not only teach my little girl the truth, I’ve got to teach her to lie to her teachers, so she isn’t discriminated against.

  13. D. Smalls says:
    July 23, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    This post is one of the most depressing things I’ve ever read.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Try reading anything about econominic news regarding Obama.
    That will take this post of the list

  14. Dennis York says:
    July 23, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    My biggest mistake as a parent was I taught them that). Inletting my children attend public schools. They can all read, write, add and subtract (of course fact two are post-graduate engineers and one is a molecular biologist The problem is that they are members of the Church of Ecodruidism. They harbor guilt and are depressed for being normal humans with normal human desires.
    Public education is child abuse. Save your kids! Get them out of public schools!
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I can’t afford to send my daughter to a non government school, but I am lucky that the grade school she is in is NOT flaming leftist.

  15. To Jonathan Abbot :
    the best thing you can do for your children is to purchase a few different kinds of thermometers, calibrate them, and have them record temperatures for a few days/weeks and see what the data looks like.

    Explain the concepts of instrumental limits of observability, instrument error, variance, mean, standard deviation, observation error, and some introductory statistics.

    Then have them go back to WUWT temp page, see the actual data from your local weather station, and see just how bogus the historical data is and how arbitrary the “global temperature” anomaly really is.

    Actually, this would benefit the scientists blowing smoke up our collective butts too !!

  16. [snip - wildly off topic, plus denigrating - Jai I'm not going to let you threadjack again. - Anthony]

  17. @KevinM –
    The old ones are still around & can be found. Just skip anything made since ~2000.

    @Matthew W –
    Please give serious consideration to homeschooling. That’s what we do. Yes, it’s tough, but it’s worth it. And there are some good homeschool programs around that aren’t very expensive if you need a more formal curriculum.

  18. I think the first comment I ever made on WUWT had to do with kids. (Anthony had seen something in a textbook at a parent-teacher conference or something like that.)
    PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE BEING TAUGHT!!!!
    (Were the exclamation points superfluous?)
    They are YOUR kids. Not the School System’s. Let the school teach them the facts. You teach them how to think and evaluate.
    You know what your values are. Do your kids?

  19. Here you GO, Kevin M. (re: 1:27PM). ENJOY!

    “Oh, I’m just a bill… .”

    “In 1787 I’m told… ” [U.S. Constitution Preamble]

    “Conjunction Junction, what’s your function?”

  20. Gunga Din says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    July 23, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    I think the first comment I ever made on WUWT had to do with kids. (Anthony had seen something in a textbook at a parent-teacher conference or something like that.)

    =============================================================================
    MODS! I was using my real first name then. My real first name is not “Gunga”.

  21. “He alone who controls the youth controls the future.” – Adolf Hitler. I would love someone to sue the education department, Teachers Federation and some teachers personally for using public education(paid for with our taxes) to plug personal agendas and not the educational curriculum. Perhaps a “class” action.

  22. I take every opportunity to tell people they can go look at the data themselves. I don’t even particularly mention this site, I just tell them to go look at the data sets at NOAA, HadCRUT, UAH, etc. Then I mention that they’re all gathered at one site (here) so that one can see them more easily.

    Most of the people I talk with about this have never looked at the real data, and have just taken the media’s word for granted. I’ll mention my degree in geology, and what we know about the Earth’s ancient climates from the geologic record, and usually have them nodding in agreement about the natural swings in temperature long before there were humans.

    If that implants even a seed of doubt in the average Joe’s mind, I’ll take that as a success. I haven’t run into any hard-core CAGW’ers yet, but most of them haven’t looked at the data either. I did have one Facebook commenter handwave Bob Tisdale away as being a “known denier,” which was easily countered by pointing out the ad hominem fallacy. Data is data, regardless of who points it out.

  23. [snip - for the record, I don't give a rats butt what you think I should or should not do - Anthony]

  24. jai mitchell says:

    “…how one can use the information present here to indoctrinate their child to the fringe scientific view that global warming is a) not happening or b) stopped.”

    Folks, observe a classic example of jai mitchell’s ‘strawman fallacy’.

    To the best of my knowledge, NO ONE here ‘denies’ global warming [or cooling], or climate change in general.

    One can select a short time frame in order to show anything. But in fact, the planet has been warming at the same rate since the end of the Little Ice Age. Yes, that warming halted a decade and a half ago — that is a scientific fact — but it has done so repeatedly. And between 1880 and 1910, the planet cooled.

    The important point is this: during prior warming episodes the warming has been at the same rate. There has been no acceleration in global warming, despite the recent 40% rise in CO2.

    Conclusion: CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming. QED

    jai mitchell ignores that central fact in his impotent quest to show that human activity is the cause of global warming: the fact that warming has not accelerated, no matter if CO2 was low, or high. The rate of warming is the same. Thus, mitchell is arguing directly contrary to established scientific facts and observations, making his True Belief into a religion, not science.

  25. Jai Mitchell’s problem is that Jai Mitchell believes what the “Climate Scientists” say, except some of them such as Lindzen and Curry, who, for some reason, Jai Mitchell does not believe, probably because these two do not say what all the others say. Blind faith is the ugliest side of the human character, responsible for most if not all genocide, and Jai is ready for the first book burning…

  26. “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

    – Vladimir Lenin

  27. Re: my 2:48 video link posting, sigh. I apologize for the second video link running the first video (again!) before the second video (the one about the U.S. Constitution) begins. I didn’t realize the second link was to a train of videos all linked by an “AND.” #[|o] “D’oh!”

    Wish I could go edit my post to take out the first video…. BUT OH WELL.

    ****************************************
    WAY TO GO, A-th-y! So glad Jonathan Abbot took the time to write that. Sometime, go out in the woods and find a fir (or pine) cone, pick it up and look at it lying in your hand. You see a fir cone; God sees a forest.

    Keep up the GREAT work!

  28. Yes, homeschool your children – get them out of the public school system. It is the toughest job you’ll ever love. That way you can indoctrinate your children how you see best. Yes, I purposely chose the word “indoctrinate” because that is what ALL education does.

    Teach your children to ask, “What do you mean by [insert scientific term here]?” “How do you know that to be true?” “What difference does that make?” and “What if you are wrong?”

    Yes, Anthony’s site makes the difference in many peoples’ lives, including mine and my childrens’ lives. Thanks for all your work Anthony.

  29. >> Matthew W says:
    >> Save your kids! Get them out of public schools!

    I don’t think private schools here are any better. I do wonder what I’m going to do when my toddler reaches school age and teachers start serving him left wing, government sponsored, alarmist rubbish.

  30. Jai:

    Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) did not live hundreds of years before Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882). “Hundreds” means two hundred or more.

    Nor did Darwin & Wallace immediately carry all before them everywhere. The French in particular resisted the “Anglo-Saxon” concept of evolution until finally persuaded of its reality by the half-American Monad.

  31. Fortunately, the seeds of LIES, such as those told by that monster, V. I. Lenin, wither under the blazing light of the TRUTH.

    Evil has its day, but truth stands the test

    of

    time.

    *****************************************
    Human CO2-caused global climate change is SO OVER. That’s why its priests and priest-wannabes scream so shrilly these days.

    Screamer: B-b-b-b-ut human-caused climate change is REAL!!!!!

    WUWT Scientist: The data say otherwise.

    S: [flinging self to floor, prostrate, kicking and pounding fists] It’s real, it’s real, it’s real!! LOOK AT THE ARCTIC PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!

    WS: The Arctic People, I assume you mean by that polar bears, are doing just fine. Why don’t YOU look at the ANTarctic, S.

    S: Snakes!!! Creationists!!! ggggrelllaes;oafshsghhggssdkkevnanknvbwehbvjdddllllllllllllllllghffffffmmmpplplplplplprrr…. [frothing at mouth, becomes inarticulate]

    WS: [as calmly as ever] S, you need to chill, man.

    S: HOW CAN I THEPLANETISWARMINGEVERYSECOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    WS: S, go throw a fit on someone else’s site for awhile. You are starting to bore me. Plus, that talkative Janice Moore will write all this up and take up too much space again and THAT is a pain.

    S: [SNIP]
    S: [SNIP]
    S: [SNIP]

    End of transcript.

  32. dbstealey says:
    July 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    To the best of my knowledge, NO ONE here ‘denies’ global warming [or cooling], or climate change in general.
    ————————————————————————–
    I deny that the supposed point 8 degree C temperature increase / anomaly in the last hundred years can be statistically separated from the instrument error, observation error, statistical variability and actual temperature variability. There is so much noise in the system that using the data we have to discern ANYTHING is bull.

    The data is crap. The averages / means are crap. The reported standard error of the mean is TOTAL crap. The data does not meet the statistical requirements for anything. The variance of N=1 equals infinity and that fact remains that over 90% of the data has a non-random, non-replicated single maximum and a single minimum per day and the average or mean of these two values does not equal the average or mean temperature of that day.

    “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get” is how the saying goes. But climate is a function of the artificial temporal and geographical boundaries applied. There is no question that everything changes, but we have serious problems measuring that change, defining the change, and understanding what reasons there are for the change.

  33. jai mitchell says:

    “I have seen…”; I have … witnessed…”, and so on.

    In addition to his Strawman Fallacy, mitchell relies upon his contrary [and bseless] assertions. That is True Belief. Religion. But it certainly is not scientific evidence.

    But assertions do not make statements true. Mitchell needs to quote those folks making his putative statements. Also, mitchell fails to note that I have made my position consistent, and clear: Since the LIA, the planet has warmed — and it has warmed at the same rate whether CO2 was low, or high. I posted charts showing that fact, proving that CO2 has no measurable effect on global warming.

    Nothing in jai mitchell’s response addresses those facts. Further, I posted charts, based on empirical observations, proving that global warming since the LIA has not accelerated, while mitchell, on the other hand, has only made assertions; beliefs, saying: “Your criticism of the rate in warming is similarly not true…”. Note that I posted verifiable scientific evidence showing that the rate of global warming has remained within the same parameters, no matter what the CO2 concentration was. jai mitchell needs to review the links I posted, and argue with the Wood For Trees database if he disagrees. As I pointed out, mitchell operates based on Belief, not on science.

    And mitchell continues on with his Strawman Fallacy: “To claim that CO2 doesn’t cause warming is to deny the most basic tenants [sic] of science developed by Svante Arrhenius…blah, blah, &etc.”

    Mitchell needs to quote [ie: to cut and paste my statements, verbatim] where he claims that I stated CO2 does not cause global warming. Better yet, mitchell needs to admit that his reading comprehension is no better than his scientific understanding, which is nil.

    In fact, I have always pointed out that CO2 causes no measurable warming at current concentrations. I even posted a chart showing that fact. At current concentrations, simply adding more CO2 to the atmosphere makes no measurable difference to global warming. None. The effect of CO2 at current concentrations is so minuscule that it cannot be separated from natural background noise; it so small that it is not independently measurable.

    But a True Believer reads whatever he wants to read, which is often very different than what was written.

  34. milodonharlani says:
    “Besides which, the hottest temperatures have not all been in the last 10 years, not in nature, that is, whatever the cooked books from GISS, etc”

    What is really depressing is that WUWT and many other scientific sites still uses GISS, HadCrud etc as some sort of data which is in some way relevant to reality, when they KNOW that is not the case. :-(

  35. Jai Mitchell,

    “I have also witnessed daily assertions that global warming has stopped. This is, of course a complete fallacy as the ocean heat content and sea level (as well as land-based glacial melt) evidence has shown”

    Once again, blind faith. Trenberth’s missing heat, found in the deep oceans! We have no data of the temperature of the deep oceans from before the ARGO floats began sending data in 2004. The first three years of the ARGO project clearly showed cooling oceans before the operators decided that their calibrations had been imperfect. ARGO floats only descend to 2000 meters anyway, not actually the deep oceans at all. which of course have many areas deeper than 8000 meters.

    I wish you would look at the data you cite with a critical mind, wondering, “Is it really true?” Since you merely recite the meme from the CAGW “Climate Scientists,” you reveal yourself to all here as NOT Having Thought This Through…

  36. I love how “still just a bill” features a hands-together prayer gesture. And one of the bills in committee is armed with a shotgun. There was no political slant implied, it was just not a big deal to include mainstream cultural artifacts.

    Thanks for the movie links, i just showed them to my amused kids.

    • But did you notice that in “I’m just a bill”, the entire underlying premise is that it’s GOOD to pass new laws? You’re HAPPY for the bill when he passes. You root for him to pass. Never is it suggested that perhaps it would be better for poor bill to die.

      Now THAT was an interesting conversation with my son…

  37. jai mitchell says:
    July 23, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Anthony,

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    The point of this thread is how one can use the information present here to indoctrinate their child to the fringe scientific view that global warming is a) not happening or b) stopped.

    This is a fringe scientific view — not anywhere near the consensus of over 100 years of a scientific body of work performed by tens of thousands of accomplished scientists, over several millions of person-hours of work in the last 45 years.

    ======================================================================
    You forgot to mention the millions and millions of dollars paid to reach certain conclusion.
    One tree ring makes a 100 year consensus? I’m sure Dr. Lamb would have agreed.
    Folks, Jai’s comment is a perfect example of the indoctrination you need to teach your kids to see through.

  38. The alarmists are impervious to reason; impervious to empirical evidence that proves them wrong; impervious to the stink of Climategate. They simply don’t care how much evidence you throw at them, or how many times you prove them to be liars in blogs, newspapers and journals. They don’t care because the point of the exercise is to get this poisonous dogma drummed into the minds of children who, through innocence and naivety, are not equipped to challenge it, let alone ask important and searching questions.

  39. Why does anyone even respond to Jai. Let him comment and let it lie. He is wasting your time that you could spend positively. Time spent analyzing and responding is lost.

  40. Jonathan,
    Given your 10 year old daughters recent understanding of available data sources that provide adequate refutation of the popular ‘man made global warming’ meme, do you think she could help Jai Mitchell to a similar epiphany?

    dbstealey and others have tried extensively to help Jai break the grip of fervent indoctrination, to little avail. Perhaps a child’s simplicity might effect the deprogramming break through with Jai, where adult reason has not?

    Thanks for your touching vignette,
    MtK

  41. Wayne,

    It is always good to examine your arguments to make sure you are not just going through the motions and keeping the same old memes. This is what I enjoy in the rebuttals to folks like Jai Mitchell, those rebutting put forth arguments backed by data and we are all able to look and see that the misdirection and subterfuge used by CAGW believers is just that: misdirection and subterfuge. One day, we may have someone put the charts together to make a rebuttal and we all go “hmm, that doesn’t look right” and something new may come of it. Of course I understand your point about time wasting, life is short.

  42. Well, Jai has come here to comment, and done so politely. Howver, Jai’s response reminds me of Heidi Cullen’s to the Senate committee, when the question was put to the floor as to whether anyone would defend the President’s statement that warming was “accelerating.”

    No one responded for at least ten seconds, until Dr. Cullen dived off-topic and started talking about “extreme weather,” and other such topics. I was disappointed that she wasn’t brought up short on her remarks and made to answer the question that was actually asked, instead of allowing her to go on about “deep ocean temperatures” and other poorly-measured metrics.

    What mechanism allows heat to be transferred from the atmosphere to the deep oceans without heating anything between? Plate tectonics wallowed for four decades in geologic conversation because there was no mechanism to explain it; why should CO2 warming get a pass on the same issue?

  43. Anthony, I appreciate you and the others who put this site together. The resources of explanation and reference that you have made available have redirected and clarified my understanding. I have in turn used these resources to help other people do the same. The criticism that you take for your effort is personal, but the positive change that you effect doesn’t always get back to you. Thanks to you!

  44. AndyG55 says:
    July 23, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Unfortunately, no alternative surface data sets purporting to show average global temperature exist to compete with these repeatedly stepped-upon, adulterated, corrupted series.

    Satellite & balloon data are available from the atmosphere (showing implied T), but they have their own problems & in any case only go back to 1979.

    So we’re stuck with the Crew spew. All science can do is point out the problems & go with them. In a way they’re useful, since you can say that even accepting obviously cooked books, there still has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (or whenever, depending upon set), & cooling since 2005, or whenever.

    • Robert of Ottawa says:
      May I suggest home schooling, if you have the ability and time?

      Ability is irrelevant, as there are plenty of resources available to anyone who wants to homeschool that require nothing more than the ability to follow instructions. As for time? Well, do you have the time to care for your kids properly?

      I was about to apologize for offending anyone but I realized, I’m not sorry. Do you really care about your kids? Then teach them right – don’t rely on the state to do so. So what if it’s a sacrifice? What’s more important?

      If anyone wants help on it, I’m happy to offer. Perhaps the mods would be kind enough to forward contact info on request?

  45. milodonharlani ,

    The charts that show successive changes to the temperature “record” is very useful, as the changes are all in the same direction, reducing earlier temperatures.

    Rejoice! A Prince Is Born! (Sorry, couldn’t resist :-)

  46. I had the conversation many years ago with my daughters about what they will hear at school and need to repeat to get good grades. That in science class and history class, what they hear may not be true or factual but answer as the teacher presented the information. The green agenda and the political correct agenda has taken over the schools. The green agenda is pushed in science, social studies and even subjects such as reading and vocabulary. As was stated above discuss with your kids what they are learning in school and skim their text books so you can point out the lies. Now my kids now 13 and 11 come home and tell me the bs that the teachers are saying.

  47. Jai Mitchell,
    Male or female? Not that it matters, but I would prefer to be able to address you with the proper pronoun:—
    “information present here”

    Information present here. That is a strong strong endorsement of this website. Maybe you meant, “Information presented here?” This suggests that you are a non-native English speaker, and maybe some more kindness on my part about grammar.

    That being said:

    The word “Information,” not so scientific, Information usually is not questionable. “Data,” a much more scientific word, is ALWAYS questionable, taken properly, recorded properly, analyzed properly, reported properly?

    This is what happens when a mind with no rigorous training, a big mind admittedly but with no urge to be able to back up one’s comments with what we so lightly call, in the serious scientific/engineering world, “PROOF,” enters this fray.

    If you do not know the definition of PROOF then you will not recognize the event know as “Licked.” You have been licked here, many times, but apparently cannot recognize this.

    If you have an employer, never let on that you post here, disastrous professionally,,,,,,

  48. Great post by a thoughtful and caring father.

    As for contemporary teachers, I had lunch yesterday with an old friend who has done a lot of work in urban planning. We were both bemoaning the universal mantra of getting rid of cars, which has turned many vibrant areas into windswept, boarded-up muggers’ paradises.

    He commented that young to mid 40s urban planners all went through the same education system, which has at its core assumptions like public transport = good, private transport = bad; public space = good, private space = bad; and so on. We sat there wondering how this essentially Marxist view of the world had so permeated something like urban planning, chock full of unsubstantiated and unquestioned assumptions.

    Teaching is much the same in most (perhaps all) Western countries.

  49. Janice: I and my beloved Libby and my pet spider have created a monster. I said something to the effect you ought to write a play, and obviously you are practicing here at WUWT to my personal and, I suspect, to the great delight of the general commenting population.

  50. Recommend reviewing the great humanist scholar Jacques Barzun, 1907 – 2012, especially his magisterial work of Western intellectual history “From Dawn to to Decadence, AD 1500 – 2000″. We live in Alexandrine times.

  51. Got some fresh raspberries from our garden today, tasted the same as the ones we froze a year ago and ate last night :-)

  52. Jonathan,
    in case you’d taken this graph instaed the “until May”, you’d had a harder time discussing the issue with your daughter.

  53. Stan: Janice, you should write a play.
    J: Thanks, Stan, I’d love to!
    WUWT Regulars: Nooooooo, please, stop. We don’t say anything, but YOUR LITTLE PLAYS REALLY ANNOY US.
    J: LOL, Stan, you are SO COOL — your warm and friendly greeting to me awhile back will stay in my memory forever. Heh, heh, I can’t resist doing a little scriptwriting now and then. THANK YOU SO MUCH for your kind encouragement. Say, I’ve missed you (and several others — I’ll let them know when I see them appear). Hope you’ve been okay.
    S: When one has a lovely girlfriend like Libby, WUWT isn’t exactly one’s FIRST priority.
    J: [chuckle] Glad to hear you two have been enjoying each other’s company. Please tell Libby “Hello.” Bye for now.

    [Well, Mr. Stendera, ARE you doing okay? Hope so.]

    *****************************
    @Anon and Kevin M. — glad you and your kids enjoyed the videos. It brought back happy memories of Saturday morning cartoons and bowls of Lucky Charms.
    ****************************
    Andy G — (he always ignores me, now, but I’ll try again) At about 11:15AM your time (7/24), I prayed that you would have a pleasant lunch break. Did you?

  54. When I first became acquainted with libertarians , I thought their plank of Separation of School and State was too radical .

    Now with the Web , Government School seems downright anachronistic .

  55. Without the homeschool resources of WUWT, millions of children might forget the billions Big Caloric spent to discredit phlogiston and shut down Tesla research with telluric current damping chemtrails from HARP.

  56. Wow. I had no idea that my comment would even get read, let alone splashed up front and centre like this. You made my day, too. I’m sorry I didn’t take a bit more time to polish the prose a bit more.

    Thanks for all the positive comments from everyone else. A few points I’d like to make:
    1. Jai Mitchell and the like: I have no idea what conversation you think I had with my daughter in your head, but the real conversation was brief, and touched mainly on the uncertainty of our knowledge about the climate, past present and future. We didn’t even mention CO2. The point I made was about the importance of checking data and thinking for yourself. The data I showed her was the UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies, which when it was still rising every CAGW alarmist on the planet was shaking under our noses. Now suddenly it’s the wrong data to look at. You’re more sad than funny.
    2. I would never, ever attempt to indoctrinate my child or anyone else’s. My children know the positions I hold on all sorts of scientific, political and philosophical issues but all I will say is ‘Here’s what I think, and here’s why. No go and think it out for yourself.’ The best possible way to turn any child away from a particular stance is to try to ram it down their throat.
    3. I wouldn’t say that my children are ‘indoctrinated’ at school, it’s just that CAGW is still taken as the scientific mainstream position at the moment. What else are the teachers to say? It’s up to the scientific community to clean their own mess up first. I have yet to see either of my children bring home any assignments that suggest that CAGW is anything more than a very minor part of their science lessons. I am actually quite impressed with the science they do, and it is a very good (state funded) school in many other ways.
    4. I was taught that a new ice age was impending when I was at school, but I got over it.

  57. Commenters here and in other climate discussions are wasting their efforts because they miss the point. Criticising teachers for what they are doing in the climate area is wrong. The teachers, correctly, are following advice from peak scientific authorities such as the APS, Royal Society and CSIRO,,,in their various nations. I certainly would be upset if my children were being taught on the basis of thoughts from some bloggers on the internet rather than serious, considered, positions of bodies like the APS. If the commenters dont like what the teachers are teaching they should try and influence the APS and its peers, not some sincere teacher at the local grade school. Fix the peak bodies and the teachers will follow. Many of the commenters are members of such organisations or similar. Or, they would have contacts with members. Do they know what the peak body of their profession is saying on their behalf? If they dont like it, instead of wasting time rattling on on theis blog, act at the point where effort would pay off.

  58. Dihydrogen Monoxide

    Dihydrogen monoxide comprises 95% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

  59. I’ve said it before, the only thing that the AGW crowd (or Homocentric Global Warming as I satirically call it.) are good at is their parody of activism – educating the kids or in reality, darkening their futures, putting fear into innocence in a horrid mockery of concern and teaching them to despise human advancement and enlightenment.
    Child abusers.

  60. I believe it is all our duty to educate the younger generation about the facts on global warming/climate change/whatever, as well as where they can find this information.

    There is really nothing more to be said, other than we should all be aware that teachers in the public sector tend to have a strong left wing bias, which seems to be one of the pre-conditions for a blind belief in the pseudo-science of CAGW theory.

  61. ” I do wonder what I’m going to do when my toddler reaches school age and teachers start serving him left wing, government sponsored, alarmist rubbish.”

    Negotiate (and if that fails demand) that you be permitted to give a talk to the school – inc its teachers in all relevant disciplines – on the alternative view. If you are refused, then hire the ‘village hall’ or your local eqivalent to give such a talk. Start preparing it now, with slides, so you can refine as the data is updated.

    Meanwhile, as soon as yuour child starts school proper, become active in the school’s Parent/ Teacher Association, so that you develop links with other parents, and have some relationship with the teachers there. This will give you some platform from which you might be given a public voice; and at the very least will help you to know what is going on at the school. And it will enable you to marshall an audience if you give a talk inside or outside the school.

    Above all, get yourself onto the Board of Governers, if in the UK. I’m not sure how this works elsewhere, but in our country only the Governers can call the Head Teacher to account, and their voice does carry clout. If you can carry the other Governers with you, it should be impossible for the Head to refuse your offer of a talk to present the alternaive pov.

  62. It still doesn’t fail to sadden me how must leftists have corrupted once great, non political institutions. My NG subscription came to a hard stop in December 2007, and even that was probably a couple of years past the sell by date. I do still miss what it once was.

  63. I was told by a professor in law school, the one teaching the environmental law classes, that she had neither the ability nor the training to look at and evaluate the data herself, so she chose to believe the news reports and the climate scientists. Now that’s depressing.

  64. What will kids think of their teachers IF global mean temperatures start heading south? What will they think of climate scientists when they leave school in a cooling world? The good news is that they will become ultra sceptics. :) Just like me when I remember the 1970s global cooling scare.

  65. @Ox AO July 24, 2013 at 1:20 am

    The case is worse than you can imagine. Last night a barman offered me some dihydrogen monoxide to put into my whisky – IN GLASGOW…!!!

    ‘No!” I cried. ‘It’s made with the stuff!’

  66. Mr. Watts,
    I cannot express how much I am in your debt for all that you have done to counter the forces of ignorance and hysteria that came horrifyingly close to stampeding the U.S. into ill-considered, harmful actions. If I may say so, the country owes you a hearty THANK YOU!

  67. Truth is truth, data is data, no matter how many times the blindly loyal believers in man made warming scream, “ALL THE SCIENTISTS AGREE!!!” I say, so what? The data itself doesn’t and if they want to deny the actual data, then they are the deniers. Not me!

    All the scientists have been wrong before on some issues and they will be again on others. The raw data clearly shows that this current century has NOT warmed at all. Last century did, a bit and within the error bars of measurement and within natural variations as have happened in the distant past.

    I am yet to see any proof, outside of an incomplete computer model, of global warming being exclusively of human cause. I do not deny climate change, nor do I deny that the earth has warmed a little less than 1 degree since the end of the Little Ice Age. I do not deny that there may be some human cause in the uncertain amount of warming, but I have not seen proof of the alarmist’s claim of human induced global warming in the data in the public domain.

    Neither is there certainty that the earth will continue to warm faster and faster. Nor even certainty that it will continue to warm at all. The future could be colder or warmer, for me? The jury is out on that one.

    Models based on all variants of the warmist theory of CO2 driven warming have been scientifically falsified, if not politically.

    Outside of those, there is no proof of man made catastrophic warming because the data says otherwise.

  68. I’m sure you gave equal weight to the views of most climate scientists on the matter, yes? Certainly you told her that most of them tell us that warming continues within predicted rates, just not at a significant rate in one section of the biosphere for a short period of time. Wouldn’t want to lie to your own kids, right?

  69. Amen, John Garrett. I couldn’t say it better myself. Anthony Watts is Nobel worthy except accepting a Nobel ( as it’s presently awarded) would be stooping for a penny.

  70. Deserved particularly from those of us who rarely comment when it isn’t a criticism: thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you, Mr. Watts.

    And another thank you for the above reminder of your data pages.

  71. What never fails to amaze me is that the True Believers in the Cult of AGW somehow seem to think that warming since 1850 is somehow BAD!

    Seriously??? As I recall, 1850 was still the tail end of the Little Ice Age. I suspect we would all be quite miserable with disease, famine, and all sorts of other problems if the world had NOT WARMED since then.

    So, warmistas, please explain to me why warming, compared to a Little Ice Age, is supposedly a BAD THING, because I simply don’t get it.

    Also, as an aside, something I have always wondered about (and yes, this question probably belongs on the tips and notes page, but what the heck, I am already typing here!) The question goes as follows:

    1. The Mauna Loa “official” CO2 site is located geographically very close to Kilauea.
    2. Kilauea has been erupting pretty much non-stop since 1986.
    3. I assume that the continuous eruption of Kilauea produces large amounts of CO2 (among other things).

    So finally the question:

    Does the continuous eruption of Kilauea for the past 27 years “contaminate” the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and if so, how is this accounted for and corrected?

    I have never seen an actual answer to this question, but it seems to me when you have a highly localized, continuous source of CO2 emissions geographically VERY close to the “world standard” CO2 monitoring station, there had better be significant (downward) correction of the data being done. Has anyone even studied this?

    I also assume that there are other CO2 monitors around the world which give similar readings to Mauna Loa, and therefore Mauna Loa is still assumed to be correct, but I haven’t seen corroborative data from other stations, so I don’t know that either.

  72. Jimbo,
    If temperatures start cooling the same people will have the same reactions. I remember some old “earth crisis” movie in which global warming shut down the gulf stream sending Europe into an ice age (I believe it was overnight). The radical environmentalists will take the view that any negative event is necessarily caused by human action. Never mind the scarcity of people dying from floods or hurricanes, if there was a hurricane it was necessarily the fault of polluters – and we are all polluters. Planet warmer? It is bad and it is our fault. Planet cooler? It is bad and it is our fault. More rain (i.e. flooding)? It is bad and is our fault. Less rain (drought)? It is bad and our fault. More wild fires? It is bad and is our fault. The piney bush preserve advances into a stable full growth forest due to fire suppression? It is bad and is our fault.
    “Why can’t we live in balance with the world like traditional hunters and gatherers?”

    Response – you first. You start weaving your own cloth for clothes using what you can find around you. Good luck if you poke yourself with a needle and get an infection – better go down to the river to wash it and hope the water is clean. If I cut myself with a cheap knife made in Brazil while cutting tomatoes grown in Mexico on my countertop produced in China and mounted on cabinets using wood cut in Canada I will use my purified tap water to clean it out. Bam, 10 seconds and I don’t have to amputate my hand and cauterize the wound.

  73. Dear Ryan the Facetious,

    “Wouldn’t want to lie to your own kids, right?”

    The whole point I was making was to encourage her to look at data herself and try to make her own mind up. If she now chooses to go off and find out more, and comes back and tells me she’s a committed CAGW alarmist, I’ll politely listen to her explanation about why, and look forward to some interesting discussions on the topic. Maybe she’ll find something I missed and convince me. Maybe I’ll talk her round based on what I have learnt. Who knows where such an intellectual journey could take us?

    Obviously I have no idea if you already have kids, or may have them one day, or help in the upbringing of other peoples kids. If you do, would you say the same about a belief you hold dear? I hope so, but based on your snide reply, very much doubt it.

  74. Ryan the Facetious,

    Perfect screen name, by the way. My own personal answer to your question is:

    “I would rather lie to my own kids than have someone else do it for me!” That way, at least I know that the lies my kids are hearing are the ones I WANT THEM TO HEAR and not something else that I would rather they not hear!

    However, the most important skills we can teach our children are independent thought and critical thinking. I went to one of the most Liberal of Liberal Arts schools in the world, but I was very lucky in that they highly valued independent thought, critical thinking, and honest debate and disagreement, and thought that these were an absolutely critical part of the learning process, and as such were taught to us and were highly encouraged. I could completely, utterly, and totally disagree with a Political Science professor, and as long as I could back up my points properly, I would still be awarded an “A” on a paper.

    Far too many places now will simply give a bad grade to a paper which disagrees with “orthodoxy” even if the disagreement is backed up cogently, logically, and concisely, and that is a tragedy.

  75. Again for Ryan,

    “I’m sure you gave equal weight to the views of most climate scientists on the matter, yes?”

    First of all, I would have to explain to my child that under the actual definition of “science”, so-called climate science ISN’T ACTUALLY A SCIENCE since it fails to follow the scientific method the vast majority of the time. Then, I would have to explain why it isn’t necessary to give equal weight to something which isn’t actually valid.

    Most adults don’t understand the scientific method enough to recognize that is isn’t being properly applied in a particular scientific discipline, so most adults default to the position of “trusting the opinion of the experts”. Hopefully we can educate our children well enough to understand and properly apply such things, so that at least THEY can learn to recognize when the “experts” are full of #@^$#.

  76. John Garret, may I expand your statement to include the (English-speaking?) world owing the WUWT volunteers a debt of gratitude for aggregating so much data and resources. From Anthony to RGBatDuke, Ric Werme to Willis, Bob Tisdale to Roy S., Leif S. to Vukovick(sp?). Even Mosher, if he’ll take the time to explain his thoughts (same for Leif).

  77. I was reading a book a friend loaned me, which had a section discussing what convinces people. You can make emotional appeals, or use data and reason, or both. Emotional appeals convince most people most often, and using both is barely more effective than using data alone. Chances are that even after you’ve explained it to her and showed her the data, the graphs, the images…, the warmists will change her mind again and again.

    Persistence is victory. And, as the ancient said: God is great, beer is good, people are crazy.

  78. This crap about global warming is part of the “common core” propaganda now being “taught” (i.e., indoctrinated) in US schools as part of the “sustainability” meme, which additionally tells kids they will have to give up their civil liberties so that the world can be made safe.

    The people purveying this obscenity ought to all be locked up for abusing kids by scaring them with lies.

  79. mib8 says:

    “Persistence is victory.”

    That is why many of us probably bore some folks to tears with constant posting of charts and graphs. But they tell the true story, and the general public needs to hear/see a fact several times before it begins to sink in. But with emotional scares, once is often enough to make up the public’s minds. One of the great benefits of science is to overcome emotion.

    So: tell ‘em what you’re going to tell them, then tell them, then tell ‘em what you told them. Eventually it sinks in: there is nothing unusual or unprecedenbted happening with the climate. Nothing. Everything we observe now has happened before, and to much greater extremes.

    Why are people so concerned about the latest hurricane or drought? Those things always happen, naturally. There is no need to open your wallets to the government, or forfeit your freedom as a result. And the media is just a mindless organism that only cares about selling newspapers and TV ads. The truth is not important to them. If a false alarm sells more ads, then that is what is important. It is our job to look for the opinions of those who do not repeat the prevailing ‘wisdom’.

    Convincing folks requires telling people,, more than once, that we are fortunate to have been living in an unusually benign global climate over the past century. A total fluctuation of only 0.7ºC is almost unheard of! If we measured temperatures in degrees instead of tenths and hudredths of a degree, global temperatures would appear completely flat.

    The entire global warming scare is nothing but a massive head-fake. Absolutely nothing unusual is happening. But when the government / media / education triumvirate can label every local weather event as “climate change”, then thank God for the internet. It is the only place where the truth can be found. But you still have to look for it.

  80. Brian D Finch
    Thanks

    Dihydrogen Monoxide is a perfect example on a small scale of what the CAGW cult is doing.

    When I was looking up Dihydrogen Monoxide I found a couple of radio announcers John and Scott Fish were suspended this year and face felony charges for advertising the Dihydrogen Monoxide prank against the uneducated.

    In other words you can get felony charge slapped against you for making a prank solely directed at our uneducated society. CAGW cult is much worse. They are in it for a profit and doing a very good job at it.

  81. The question that remains is whether or not you tell/ask your daughter to keep her scientific mind to herself at school. In US government schools, AGW is religion, not to be questioned, and those who do question it are labelled, marginalized, and in some cases humiliated. Tough decision.
    We home-school, for exactly these reasons (not religious).

  82. Power Grab says:
    July 23, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    I didn’t find it particularly depressing. What’s depressing about figuring at (fortunately, at a young age) that people who refuse to use their own powers of observation and mental faculties are easily played for a fool by those who can spin a flashy yarn?

    Totally. Like telling people that some guy a long time ago, without any corroborating evidence, walked on water, turned loaves into fishes, water into wine, and cured the sick just by touching them.

  83. Jonathan Abbott says: July 24, 2013 at 7:26 am

    The whole point I was making was to encourage her to look at data herself and try to make her own mind up.

    Yes, once someone looks at the data and makes up their own mind, no amount of Warmist rhetoric and propaganda can make them forget the facts. The Warmists don’t like the facts because it is easier to trick the uninformed.

    Cross-posted on the WUWT Global Temperature Page:

    “Thank you for your comment, it makes me think that it might be beneficial to craft some of our reference pages and articles to be more accessible to younger and less knowledgeable audiences. Any suggestions on how we might do so? ”

    It is going to be really hard to compete with the EPA’s cool “Calculate Your Emissions” app…:)

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Click the pic to view at source

  84. It is insanity to call carbon dioxide pollution, it is the building block of all Carbon Life.

    We are Carbon Life forms, comprising 20% carbon and the rest mostly water, and we get our carbon from plants and from the critters which eat those plants.

    Without carbon dioxide there would be no life on Earth as we know it.

    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas which is practically all hole in the atmosphere. It is physically incapable of raising the temperature of the Earth. There is no sense of scale or understanding of heat energy and heat capacity in the AGW Greenhouse Effect.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect is an illusion, there is no “33°C warming by greenhouse gases without which the temperature would be minus 18°C”.

    Traditional science contradicts this and comparison shows the AGW GHE to be exactly what it is, built on sleights of hand manipulation of real physics changing properties and processes and producing a nonsense through the looking glass with Al world, where any number of impossible things can be thought before breakfast..

    From traditional physics:

    Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen, 15°C

    Temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, minus 18°C

    Compare with the Moon without atmosphere, minus 23°C

    Temperature of the Earth with atmosphere, but without water, 67°C

    That is the temperature of the Earth without the main “greenhouse gas” water – 67°C – think deserts.

    Where is the AGW Greenhouse Effect claim of minus 18°C without its “greenhouse gases”?

    It does not exist. That 33°C “warming by greenhouse gases” is a science fraud.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect has excised the Water Cycle, and it has no rain in its Carbon Cycle. The residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10days, carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle.

    The real thermal blanket is the heavy volume under gravity of the real gases nitrogen and oxygen.

    These also help regulate temperature from the extremes of cold and heat of the Moon.

    In heat transfer by convection as their individual volumes expand when heated and so less dense and lighter than air they rise taking away heat from the surface, where they cool and condense and now heavier than air sink back to the surface flowing into the less dense hotter low pressure area, in convection currents, winds.

    Hot air rises, cold air sinks & Winds flow from high to low. Basic real world meteorology.

    Then the fake fisics of the AGW Greenhouse Effect gets even more absurd in the claim that we get no direct radiant heat energy, longwave infrared, from the Sun.

    Claiming thermal infrared is either stopped by some invisible unknown to traditional science barrier “like the glass of a greenhouse at Top of Atmosphere (TOA)” and/or, “the Sun gives off insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and we get insignificant of insignificant”.

    The last from the claimed temperature for the Sun of 6000°C, calculated by some planckian sleight of hand on the thin 300 mile wide atmosphere of visible light around the millions of degrees hot surface of the real Sun.

    Absurdity piled on absurdities. In place of the direct radiant heat we actually physically feel from the Sun, which is longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared which in traditional physics is simply called Heat to differentiate from Light from the Sun, AGW Greenhouse Effect fake fisics claims shortwave, mainly visible light, heats the Earth’s surface of land and water. This is a physical impossibility in real physics.

    Visible light from the Sun is not a thermal energy, it impacts matter on the much smaller electronic transition level which does not heat matter.

    The electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen bounce visible light around the atmosphere, for example, hence our blue sky, and, water is a transparent medium for visible light, it does not get absorbed at all, not even on the electron level but is transmitted through unchanged.

    We would have no life if the ocean was heated by visible light from the Sun.

    It takes the bigger energy of longwave infrared heat to move whole molecules of matter into vibration, which is heat.

    How is it that so many “climate scientists” have not seen the absurdity of these claims? How come they are all, apparently, ignorant of the basics of real gases with mass therefore weight under gravity, and volume and attraction? How can so many calling themselves scientists claim our great, blazing millions of degrees hot Star which we call the Sun, is a cold 6000°C, – roughly the temperature of the Earth’s innards?

    Whatever they are, these people claiming to be climate scientists while pushing these fake fisics basics, are not scientists.

    Who created the fake fisics for the KT97 and ilk to claim we get no direct radiant longwave heat from our millions of degrees hot Sun and so attribute real world measurements of this to “backradiation by greenhouse gases downwelling from the atmosphere under TOA?

    The Solar Constant is the real world physics measurement of how much heat energy, longwave infrared, heats the Earth at the surface.

    AGWScienceFiction fisics in its comic cartoon energy budget has attributed this to shortwave from the Sun at TOA. This is science fraud.

    Why has the AGW Greenhouse Effect claimed this? Because, it is a scam. I repeat, AGWScienceFiction uses real world physics measurements of the direct longwave infrared heat we get from the Sun to claim this comes from “backradiation by greenhouse gases downwelling from the atmosphere under TOA”.

    Look at these comic cartoon energy budgets – notice how KT have more heat radiation upwelling from the Earth then they have shortwave entering at the surface..

    How many examples of the science frauds in the AGW Greenhouse Effect do you require to see the con for what it is?

    What you have is the creation of a ridiculous fantasy world of a fictional Earth and its cold 6000°C star with no heavy voluminous real fluid gas atmosphere, but instead, empty space populated by the imaginary ‘hard dots of massless not subject to gravity ideal gas travelling at great speeds under their own molecular momentum miles apart from each other bouncing off each other and the sides of an invisible container to thoroughly mix’.

    And yet another imaginary “invisible container” around this pretend Earth. Maybe its the same invisible one preventing the heat from the real Sun entering, this time to keep these fictional ideal gas molecules from diffusing at great speeds to the ends of the universe.. This imaginary “well known radiation physics” from AGW GHE goes straight from the Earth’s surface to empty space.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect has excised the whole of our heavy ocean of real gas atmosphere around the Earth.

    And apparently, none of those calling themselves climate scientists have noticed they do not have sound in their world – can you hear this?

    You have been had.

    If that does not make you angry as scientists then you are not scientists.

  85. TheRealCarbonDioxide: It takes the bigger energy of longwave infrared heat to move whole molecules of matter into vibration, which is heat.

    The formula for the energy of a photon is E=hv. Or energy equals planks constant times the frequency of the photon. This mean that a high frequency photon, like X-ray or UV has much more energy than low frequency longwave radiation.

  86. Tilo Reber says:
    “The formula for the energy of a photon is E=hv. Or energy equals planks constant times the frequency of the photon. This mean that a high frequency photon, like X-ray or UV has much more energy than low frequency longwave radiation.”

    What does this E=hv really mean, what is it saying? To the majority of the people reading such blogs these formulae are meaningless, they convey no pictures to the mind about what is happening physically.

    Can you explain this simply?:

    http://www.expertsmind.com/course-help/?p=heat-transfer-laws-assignment-help-98734287858

    “Planck’s law Planck assumed that electromagnetic radiations are not emitted or absorbed continuously but in energy associated with each photon is

    E = hv

    Where h is Planck’s constant (= 6.625 x 10-34 j – s). On the basis of quantum theory Planck showed that

    ER(λ) = 2πhc2 / λ5 /1 [ehc / λKT – 1] ”

    “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.” Einstein http://www.phnet.fi/public/mamaa1/einstein.htm

    Imagine I am your grandmother..

    So your: “This mean that a high frequency photon, like X-ray or UV has much more energy than low frequency longwave radiation”

    What do you mean by “more energy”?

    Heat and light are distinct categories in traditional physics, heat is not light and light is not heat. They are different wavelengths, they impact on matter in different ways.

    Light from the Sun impacts matter on the electronic transition level, heat impacts matter on the whole molecular vibrational level.

    Why when all the different wavelengths are travelling at the same speed, heat and light from our millions of degrees hot Sun reaches us at the same time, in around 8 minutes?

    Because there is a great difference in size. Visible light from the Sun is not big enough to impact on the whole molecular vibrational level, it does not have the power to move the whole molecule into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter.

    Rub your hands together, that is mechnical energy moving the molecules of your skin into vibration, heating them up, you can feel the heat. Heat is invisible.

    Stand in front of a fire, the invisible heat you feel radiating out from the fire is longwave infrared, called thermal infrared because it is the wavelength of heat. Near infrared, shortwave infrared is not called thermal, it is classed in with light.

    There is a huge difference in size between the wavelengths of gamma and radio waves, for example, radio wave can be as big as a house and several football fields long. The smaller visible light wavelength impacts matter on the smaller electron level. It is much tinier than the wavelength of heat because it is moving more rapidly within the same linear speed. So what does “more energy” mean? Are are rapid series of microscopic pin pricks to your skin carrying more energy than one impact by a dagger?

    All these references to “more energy” and complicated, meaningless to most people mathematical formulae are for one reason only, to confuse the difference between the bigger heat waves and the much, much tinier light waves.

    The difference in size between the invisible thermal infrared, longwave infrared which is heat energy, and the invisible shortwave infrared is great – heat energy is around the size of a pin head and bigger, if it was not invisible it would be big enough to see, near infrared is microscopic, even if it was not invisible it would be too small to see.

    Visible light is even smaller than near infrared.

    So what does more energy mean between these?

    This meme from the AGW version of ‘physics’ is to make you think that visible light from the Sun is powerful enough to heat matter, because it has taken out the real heat energy direct from the Sun and claims shortwave light heats matter so that you do not notice the real heat energy is missing.

    This is in order to pretend that there is such a thing as “backradiation heat from greenhouse gases downwelling from the atmosphere under TOA”, it uses real world measurements of the direct longwave infrared downwelling from the Sun to pretend these are from “greenhouse gases backradiating longwave infrared heat which is upwelling from the heated Earth’s surface of land and water”.

    Visible light from the Sun cannot heat land and water, because it is much tinier it impacts matter on the electronic transition level, the level of tiny electrons of the bigger whole molecule.

    Because AGW claims “shortwave in longwave out” it does not explain what impact visible light from the Sun actually has on meeting matter, as it makes the false claim that it heat matter in its meme “all energy is the same and all heats matter on being absorbed”.

    In the atmosphere which is mainly the real gases nitrogen and oxygen, visible light is reflected/scattered by the electrons of these molecules. The electrons absorb visible light and are briefly energised by this and move in their orbit, always wanting to return to ground state they do and emit the same energy they absorbed, blue being more energetic than the longer wavelengths of light, tinier moving more quickly than the bigger slower wavelengths of visible, gets reflected/scattered more – think more nervy pin ball – so we get our blue sky as blue light has more encounters with the electrons. This does not convert to heat energy, it is non-heat energy in and non-heat energy out.

    In sight visible light converts to electrical energy, in nerve impulses, this again is not converting to heat energy. In photosynthesis in which plants create carbon matter out of sunlight, water and the building block food of all carbon life forms, carbon dioxide, visible light in mainly blue and red is converted to chemical energy, in the creation of sugars. Again, this is not converting matter to heat energy. Our eyes and photosynthesis are using visible energy for quite distinctly different processes to that required to heat matter.

    The AGW meme “all electromagnetic energy from the Sun is the same and all create heat on being absorbed” is clearly seen to be a science fraud. Visible light does not heat matter, it cannot because that electronic transition level is too small to impact on the the bigger whole molecule. It takes bigger energy to move whole molecules into vibration. Vibration, internal kinetic energy, which is movement of the whole molecule, is heat.

    Further, AGW claims that “visible light from the Sun heats the ocean”, but here from traditional physics which has already understood the way visible light impacts matter, it classes water as a transparent medium for visible light. Which means it is not absorbed at all by the electrons and is therefore transmitted through unchanged.

    If visible light from the Sun heated the water in the ocean, if its energy was being used to heat up the water, there would not be any photosynthesis.., there would not be carbon life as we know it.

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect and its energy budget is trickery.

    If you can see why they have needed to take out the real direct wavelength of heat energy from the Sun and so needed to put in its place the physically impossible claim that visible light heats matter on being absorbed, for its fake “backradiation by greenhouses gases downwelling from the atmosphere under TOA”, then you will be able to see the other sleights of hand they use for this – like attributing the Solar Constant to shortwave at TOA, when it is actually the measurement of how much direct thermal infrared heats matter at the surface, how much the Sun’s great thermal energy transferred by longwave infrared radiation actually is, by how much it heats the surface matter.

    C.O.D. physics n. Science dealing with properties and interactions of matter and energy.

    An x-ray is not the same as a radio wave, they are distinctly different. Light from the Sun is distincly different from Heat from the Sun.

    Visible light from the Sun is benign, it is non-ionising which means it does not move the electrons which absorb it out of their orbit, it is too weak to do this – uv is in both sets, some is ionising and some not. Bear in mind the difference in scale.. Ionising uv scoring a direct hit on an electron will send it out of its orbit, this is destructive to the molecule.., which is why our bodies produce melanin to absorb it, to stop it destroying our skin molecules, which is how we get our tans. Uv is also non-ionising, our outer layer of skin uses it much like plants use visible light, but to convert to vitamin D, essential for our good health.

    This science fraud of the AGW Greenhouse Effect effectively hides the wonders of our natural world of which we are fully part. The real physics is now very well known, we have come a long way since Herschel’s first amazing discovery that the great heat from the Sun was invisible…, and is still taught traditionally. Alhough now you will have to got to the different science disciplines to discover what these different energies are like, their different properties like size and so on, and what happens when they impact matter. And no doubt we still have more to discover.. If you want to learn about radiant heat, longwave infrared, go to Thermodynamics not Optics or, as we have now advanced in knowledge even further, Biology.

    And note, AGW tries to hide there is a difference in the actual wavelengths by their meme “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all create heat on being absorbed” is further bolstered by the “meme” that “thermal means the source, the Sun”. Deliberately lying to hide that in real traditional physics thermal, meaning of heat, is a description of the actual wavelength. So shortwave infrared is not called thermal. See the NASA traditional physics which used to taught through general education because the difference between invisible heat and visible light was expected to understood at primary/ young secondary level: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature

    “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    Note the difference in size.. Remember this, this is traditional physics teaching and still taught to some and importantly – it directly contradicts the claim from AGW’s Greenhouse Effect that “there is an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing the direct longwave infrared heat from the Sun entering the Earth’s atmosphere”. Such an “invisible barrier” is not known in traditional physics.

    NASA’s traditional physics is saying here that the Heat we feel from the Sun which reaches us at the surface is the invisible longwave infrared, which is why it is caleed thermal, and that it is different from shortwave infrared which is not thermal, which we cannot feel as heat (because it is too small to impact us on the whole molecular vibrational level) – you decide which makes logical, physical sense.

    The memes of “formulae” and “more energy” are simply magicians’ distractions to stop us seeing the trick.

Comments are closed.