I have some major pressing life issues that I have to deal with at this time, so all I can offer is an Open Thread. Feel free to discuss topics within our normal range. Anyone who wants to submit a guest post will be welcomed, provided it is factual and on topic. Use the “submit story” from the pulldown menu if you wish to contribute. If it is a technical essay with embedded graphs, please see the instructions on the submit story page. Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How Green Thy Expo?
By John Boles
Rochester, Michigan held an Earth Day Celebration Expo, on April 18 to 20. (www.earthdayexpo.org) The web site notes, “150+ covered exhibits of earth-friendly, healthy products & services.” and that, “Since its inception in 1970, Earth Day has grown into the world’s largest annual secular event, observed in 150 countries by over one billion people.” That is all fine with me, at face value I am all for it, but I sense something gone awry. This is the Rochester, Michigan where a million electric lights are hung on Main Street in the winter.
Some exhibitors use the words natural, earth-friendly, eco-friendly and herbal to describe their products or services. These words have no specific meaning and are vague marketing buzz words and cause warning lights to flash on the dashboard of my mind.
What caught my attention was the “Wellness Tent”. Whenever I see the words “wellness activities”, “holistic” or “well-being” I smell a scam. Be wary of the words “complimentary” and “alternative medicine”. Quacks who offer “treatments” that give a “sense of well-being” are by definition giving a placebo. You feel better for a few hours, but it is all in your head. Penicillin works even if the patient is in a coma, but with placebo treatments, the person must be awake and aware of receiving the treatment. Trick or treatment?
Three exhibitors, “Natural Awakenings”, “Healing Garden Journal” and “Mind Body Spirit Guide” publish free magazines chock full of nutty new age notions of every stripe; channeling, psychic readers, séances, magnet therapy, reflexology, reiki, energy balancing, ayurvedic, aromatherapy, naturopathic medicine, chi energy, spiritual healing, craniosacral therapy, chiropractic, quantum energy, therapeutic touch. All the popular quackery in one place. How does any of this rubbish connect to a “brighter, greener future” that the Expo touts?
One exhibitor, “The Biomat Company” (www.thebiomatcompany.com) has the most ridiculous claims for their electric heating pad products. The pads are claimed to offer “quantum healing energetics, negative ions, far infrared” and claim a connection to a Nobel prize awarded to Neher and Sakmann in cellular chemistry. The word “quantum” is a sure sign of a scam. When the pads can warm up without being plugged in is when they may use the word quantum. The organizers of the Earth Day Expo help legitimize quackery when they allow this kind of exhibitor to prey on people.
As a mechanical engineer, I know enough about energy, chemistry and technology to see past the hype. At least one electric car on display claimed “zero emissions”. That really insults my intelligence. To build a car makes emissions, and making electricity in the US means burning coal. I have nothing against making electricity, but here again the claims ring empty.
The expo should carry the notice “FOR ENTERTAINMENT ONLY”. A stellar example of this is the $19,000 Hammacher Schlemmer pedal car built for seven people, a nice gee-whiz gadget, but of no practical use. The Expo is a study in Greenwashing and irrational exuberance. Most, if not all offerings are placebos, ways to look and feel green, but without substance.
To be sure, people want a source for green products and services, where they can feel good about their purchases and think that they are making a difference. They want fast gratification without the work of digging past the claims. At the end of the day they get in their SUVs and return to their heated homes, air conditioning, electricity, plumbing, kids and dogs. I can’t blame them. As Americans, we are all oil addicts, no matter how “green” you think you are. One can do very little without giving up a comfy life style. It is virtually impossible to make anything or do anything in a meaningfully “green” manner; it will always use a resource and create carbon dioxide. You can not make an omelet without braking eggs. We can recycle some things, drive a smaller car, compost yard waste, but we don’t want to cause ourselves any pain. And it would take a whole lot of pain to make any difference.
If you really want to be green, live like the Amish. No phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury, like 1793, it’s as primitive as can be.
In truth they may as well all go and dance around Stonehenge John.
There was a protest somewhere in California and one poster had a sign “Who needs oil, we ride the bus” that explained the greens to me.
Classic.
“who needs oil”? the bus company.
LOL!
Well it might have been a bus powered by natural gas which, as we know, is just totes green and eco-friendly
Hilarious!
http://i.imgur.com/QPYtS.jpg
2 billion people on earth celebrate earth day each and every day of the year. they have no lights to turn off.
I went to the worlds first Environmental Expo worlds fair in 1974 held in Spokane Washington (state).
I love Spokane, capital of the saner half of the state. I found it so funny when I heard that this conservative/libertarian city was the site of such a “green” affair. Of course, it was back when the movement was actually about making the earth cleaner at a time when it was truly necessary, and the control afforded it now was only a glint in Erlich’s eye. Nice to see that Spokane didn’t keep taking the Kool-Aid, although, with most of the state’s population living in Seattle, it is having the tonic forcibly consumed via an IV of leftist domination. 😛
You forgot to advice people to stop breathing. Also pass no flatus…
“If you really want to be green, live like the Amish. No phone, . . . .”
Actually, they are big on cell phones, because they enhance community.
The Amish are just as hypocritical as anyone else. They arbitrarily choose which technology they will use.
If a box of granola on a store shelf can be called “100% Natural” then a nuclear reactor is also 100% natural. Both are made from all natural ingredients, and manipulated by humans.
“100% natural” means no transuranic elements.
But there ARE natural uranium reactors underground below the Congo jungles … Been bubbling away down there for millions of years.
RACCookPE1978
Actually Gabon. Oklo pit (now abandoned).
Visited site. Fascinating deposit.
IMO the last natural U fission reactors known existed under Gabon about 1.7 billion years ago.
Very good. I had a good laugh too as you see what you describe so often.
BTW…did you mean complementary?
Imagine where the Amish would be without the iron and steel parts of their tools, buggies and wagons. Even the Amish would have a tough time without some industry burning coal to produce the iron and steel.
Actually, real modern green technology for housing can be quite high tech.
1. Underfloor heating linked to solar panels and/or external heat pumps can make a house self-sufficient in heating. Yes there is some carbon usage in manufacturing solar panels and heat pumps, not to mention all the piping etc, but the house is designed to generate its own warmth.
2. Anaerobic digestion plants can generate gas for cooking and/or boilers if you want. For them to work well, you need a plant of sufficient size, which is why they are mainly located on farms, but rural communities can be self-reliant in domestic gas and water heating by simply reorganising farm activities to include an AD.
3. Modern glazing can also be linked to energy generation. Yes, making the glass is highly carbon utilising, but if the windows last 100 years, that’s better than building cheap gash that has to be knocked down in a decade, isn’t it?
4. Most modern eco-houses have advanced computer-based monitoring systems for air conditioning, temperature regulation etc etc. Quite the modern life, isn’t it?
Sensible green living combines modern comforts with an approach which doesn’t waste things for the sake of it or for narrow short-term profit of a small number of people.
Greg Laden shares his opinion about Judith Curry.
http://twitchy.com/2014/10/04/mark-steyn-offers-hilarious-theory-behind-favorited-tweet-that-made-agw-alarmist-hot/
and this
http://twitchy.com/2014/10/03/thinnest-skin-in-the-agw-cult-climate-change-alarmist-frets-over-favorited-mark-steyn-tweet/
Thanks for that link! I just went on a re-tweet-and-fave blitz over there.
That could be a top internet meme. Let’s try it.
https://imgflip.com/i/crc0q
urederra
October 5, 2014 at 2:47 am
” … UR dangerious to the future.
That could be a top internet meme. Let’s try it.”
Channels his inner Schwarzenegger.
Actually, this kind of behaviour supports the supposition that nazi pictures on skepticalscience were not just some guys playing around, but reflect the true nature and core values of climate alarmists.
HoHo! I went to the link and saw how Laden claimed that Curry was a denialist, ‘because, given the chance, she declined to say she wasn’t’. What wonderful logic; what a great intellect has Laden! It’s on a par with: ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ So pathetic.
On further reading of your second link to the ‘twit’ feed, Dirk: I realise I have a whole tranche of education missing in my life: The language – the dialogue – of twitting. It is extremely hard to follow and I often come to the conclusion that I shouldn’t bother. Life is already too short.
Well “twit” explains all. So you can converse without using any ASCII character more than once.
Whoopee ! Well that’s enough to report all that is in these twits brain.
If she weighs the same as a duck… she’s a witch. You mean that kind of logic?
Did you see this from Steyn to Laden – brilliant!
“Maybe she’s (Judith Curry) hiding the decline just to torment you?”
Greg Laden, Climate idiot of the week. No better fit; Climate creep of the week.
Global warming may be causing California to shrink!
Well that explains the ‘climate change affects gravity’ meme…..
One of the best laughs I’ve had on this
dismal abysmal science for a long time. CO2 reduces gravity AND increases levity 🙂One of the best laughs I’ve had on this
dismalabysmal science for a long time. CO2 reduces gravity AND increases levity 🙂Sorry screwed up the html
Who knew you could line out a dash?
Line out a dash?
Heck! I’m really impressed with how Robert of Ottawa managed to not only erase the extended dash, but didn’t even smudge ONE pixel of the letters he left un-dashed when he erased the line!
(Must be a Canadian thing. They know all about lines, being as they’re the only ones on earth who can understand the blue line theory behind the Hockey Stick. (Ahead of their hockey sticks?))
A twofer from today’s Drudge Report…
First, a fringe wing of the climate “science” community feels the need to “fasttrack” the link between extreme weather events and climate change.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-to-fasttrack-evidence-linking-global-warming-to-wild-weather-9773767.html
Then we have Joe Biden continuing to see how many shoes he can add to the two feet that are already in his mouth by vastly overstating the number of tornado deaths in Joplin, MO 3 years ago.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-overstates-deaths-joplin-missouri-tornado-160839_808538.html
Since the real numbers don’t matter anyway, it seems the answer for those “fasttrackers” is simple. Just call Joe, and he’ll instantaneously provide you with any number you want.
Hi John M,
The Guardian piece says
I notice that’s not very scientific. You go out to look to “prove” something rather than disprove it. They go on to assert…
I stopped reading at this point. Models don’t prove anything. They had failed to project the surface temperature standstill as well as the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. There failures have been kept track of here.
I’m glad they didn’t develop a new non-scientific, or maybe a ‘witchcraft’ based model.
“they can prove links between a heatwave or other extreme weather event and man-made changes to the atmosphere.”
Yeah I can prove I was abducted by aliens pretty quick too. It’s easy to provide “proof” when you are just making stuff up using stuff other people made up.
There is no conceivable way to link discreet regional weather events with man-made changes to the atmosphere. Climate scientists themselves claim that their dicipline is climate not weather. If man-made changes to the atmosphere cause extreme weather, it must also affect all weather which is as stupid as it sounds. It is not debatable that humanity like all other life makes “changes” to the atmosphere, to take that and jump 20 sharks to it’s humanity causing a rainy weekend in New Jersey or a hurricane (or lack of hurricane) in the Atlantic is rediculous.
This is good old Joe Goebbel type stuff.
Good spot there Jimbo.
They have reinvented Dogma.
Shame they are too thick to see their idiocy.
Exciting times ahead, I think, if my ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ discovery is how to move forward: :
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/tygerfound-whereas-1.html
I am Really hoping you have discovered a frictionless material.
… and you won’t get any click-throughs. 😉
o) that should have been down at … “cleanenergypundit October 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm”
Ya gotta give me a bit more information than that if you want me to click your link.
If people want us to click links you have to provide more information. I don’t click such empty links unless the url says something interesting in the absence of a description.
wouldn’t be a surpise, then 😉
Due to wind turbine unreliability, the light at the end of the tunnel is no longer used.. (We cant afford the coal fired plants to ensure its function.) /sarc
Perhaps the ‘streamers’ from the solar are really canaries escaped from the coal mine.
This talk by Robert Bryce really put the global use of coal and growth in perspective for me. Once you a grip on these numbers, it’s clear that a doubling of CO2 is unstoppable and anyone’s opinion about CAGW is moot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crefcQpwA5w#t=1521
Anthony, I hope “some major pressing life issues that I have to deal with at this time” is nothing too serious.
It’s epic.
Best wishes and I hope it all turns out good for you.
Well I hope we can help. You’re very important to us!
My thoughts are with you and your family.
Hi from Oz. Can somebody please tell me why, if the IPCC science states that only 3percent of atmospheric CO2 is caused by humans, and the other 97percent is due to natural causes such as ocean out gassing (about 60percent I think), that almost every “scientific” paper that appears ignores this fact and assumes (or pretends) that 100 percent of the increase in CO2 (and therefore Earth’s temperature) issue to this 3 percent? Is human-caused CO2 magically different from all the other CO2 on this planet, or Am I missing something?
The assumption is that all the sources and sinks were in equilibrium. Humans then added a new source which accounts for the increases. Yes, a pretty simplistic view but hard to argue against so I don’t even try. Added CO2 is actually a benefit to the environment so why shouldn’t humans take credit?
I could argue. If the oceans are warming as alarmists say – most of the increase is obviously offgassing of CO2 from the ocean.
Of course this presents a problem. Alarmists claim the PH of the ocean is going down. This can only happen if the oceans are cooling and therefore absobing CO2. If the oceans are warming at an alarming rate as they claim, the PH of the ocean should go up as it releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
The problem is that not all of the human emissions are showing up in the atmosphere. Only about half. This leaves some to be absorbed by the oceans. However, once again this is actually a boon to ocean life.
No I believe the sinks are greater, which is why CO2 reduced from probaly similar levels as on Venus and Mars to what we have now, most of our CO2 went to producing oxygen or making carbonates (zillions tons of limestone) what we are doing (accidentally) now is restoring levels to an amount where life can thrive.
Obviously the sources and sinks were in equilibrium because Michael Mann proved that things like Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period did not exist.
The argument is the atmosphere is dynamic but the outcome of all that natural dynamic activity is and has always been static. There are two irrational assumptions with this; our environments equilibrium is static while humanity is the only entity that could ever affect it, and that a methodology for establishing the baseline for the perfect atmospheric equilibrium baseline has been defined.
So yes, it is a hard argument since it is difficult to have a rational argument based on irrational assumptions.
Meanwhile I will ask climate alarmists where the CO2 in coal came from, was it pulled out of humanities posterior? If it was put there by equilibrium, where is the evidence that the equilibrium decided to keep it there forever?
Boyfromtottenham, the reasoning behind these claims of human “tampering” with the climate are truly bizarre. They say that “natural” (as if humans were un-natural!) sources of CO2 exactly balance the natural sinks of CO2 such as plant life. So if there were no Evil Humans, the natural planet would never change. No nasty heat, no fearful cold. It is an offshoot of the natural balance theory that says all would be beautiful and wonderful if there were no humans, as they used to say “We have met the enemy and they are us”. This completely ignores the ice core data, evidence everywhere on earth of ancient ice ages, the current Ice Age, evidence of the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age, all of it. You really have to have your head in the sand to believe such nonsense but people do, or at least pretend to when it suits their alarmist agenda. The funniest part is when you ask them: “where all this evil CO2 came from in the first place?” Factually the very early “wonderful natural planet” was lifeless and had many times the CO2 levels of today. Somehow it did not burn up like Venus. Then life came along and started sequestering the CO2 and producing oxygen. All that “carbon pollution” is the natural consequence of natural processes long ago that gave us the world we have today. It has changed in many dramatic and wonderful ways. It is not static and unchanging, never has been and never will be. To think that some humans can “stop climate change” by taking the bus is hubris of the highest order.
“To think that some humans can “stop climate change” by taking the bus is hubris of the highest order.”
I agree but go further. I think it is stepping into clinical madness or religious extremisim which are sometimes indistinguishable.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/muttjeff01.jpg
It does seem odd that CO2 remained in ‘perfect balance’ for millennia, with ‘the system’ somehow coping with and smoothing out any peaks or troughs… Yet when man comes along and adds a further few percent, ‘the system’ can suddenly continually deal with only half of his output, and the other half accumulates.
I guess that scenario is possible, but atmospheric CO2 levels being temperature driven seems more likely to me.
Yes, that scenario is possible as well as a dozen others. Maybe in a hundred years we will have better answers. The fact remains there is still alot we do not know, there is alot we cannot control.
There are things we can do like preventing factories from spewing toxins into our rivers or reducing smog in our cities with vehicle pollution controls, but climate scientist would have us believe that even though we can not prevent cancer or cure the common cold, we can manage the planets atmosphere.
Meanwhile I am still waiting for condos in our moon colonies to open up for sale.
Boyfromtottenham, you’re new here right? Hope this helps. Suggest you get your calculator and type in a million (1,000,000). Now divide it by 400 (CO2 is 400 ppm). Your answer gives you the fraction of all the total CO2 compared to every other gas up there in the sky. Answer = 1/2,500th. Not a lot then.
Now, if anthropogenic CO2 is only around 13 ppm (3.2%) compared to naturally occurring CO2 at around 387 ppm (96.8%), then you have sufficient evidence to question why so many mis-informed, hoodwinked and gullible people waste tera-nano-squillions of cash trying to make this incredibly microscopic amount of gas go away in order to save the planet from Armageddon.
Greg White – the “doubling of CO2” that you mention can only happen if the recent claimed increase in CO2 is actually caused by burning coal. See my post above – the IPCC says that only 3 percent of CO2 is due to human activity, so logically only 3 percent of any rise in CO2 is too. If the other 97 percent is natural, why all the fuss? Get on with your wonderful fossil- fuelled life.
Sigh … far too logical ! That’s why more people are becoming sceptical of the climate farce.
That makes perfect sense but their argument is that all of the increase is due to human activity not just 3%.
They are saying if you put a few drops of water into a glass and then put it out in the rain and it over flows, then those few drops are what caused the cup to overflow.
It is the delusional/irational assumption that atmospheric CO2 never changed before the industrial age came along.
I do hope the life pressing issues aren’t some sort of health issue or issue with well being of family.
hoping all is ok with you.
So, like, I’m trying to get a little crowd-sourced peer-review going for an interesting bit of scholarly research that has the potential to settle, once-and-for-all, any question as to the real worry, if any, in all that scare-mongering agit-prop the brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie eco-hustlers are always throwing in our faces, supposedly on behalf of the kids and the polar bears and the baby penguin-chicks and all that sort of good stuff.
In particular, I’ve become intrigued with the paradigm-busting proposal of a certain Professor Scott Napper, who maintains that boogers have a–and I quote–“sugary taste” which is Gaia’s way of enticing us to eat our boogers which are good for us (Goggle: “Gizmodo boogers”).
Unfortunately, I am unable to independently test the accuracy of Professor Napper’s claims since I’m a normal human being and a regular guy and, frankly, socially-competent mature-adults, like moi, just don’t do “snout-snacks”. And I’m further handicapped in my peer-review efforts by the unhappy fact that the denizens of the Deltoid blog–who can all speak authoritatively and from vast personal experience to the “sweet-tooth” delights of goobers and similar “finger-food” treats–are inaccessible to me, directly, because the Deltoids have classified me as a persona-non-grata pariah-dude, or something like that.
So I’m using WUWT as a platform from which to reach out to you denizens of Deltoid-land, to urge you to contribute to my critical scrutiny of Professor Napper’s revolutionary views regarding that “finger-lickin’ good” nose-candy you creep-out Deltoids so seem to enjoy. Can copy!
“Gizmodo boogers.”
Mike you need to involve the U.N in this because clearly a global effort is required. But more important ; the theme music.
i respectfully submit for your consideration . . .
United Nations stomp from the album – Booger Bear
As you know I’m a multimodal scientist focused on political science, psychology and their link to global warming. I’ve just finished a new paper, “Qualitative Analysis of President Obama´s Speech at the UN”, which I plan to publish in Nature Psychodynamics. The paper includes a strictly statistical analysis using a word frequency count, supplemented by a subjective deformation using the Cook-Oreskes-Lewandowski technique. The paper leads to two possible outcomes, with a reality branch pathway chosen according to the reader’s cognitive dissonance and political belief structures.
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/10/qualitative-analysis-of-president.html
Men in black are knocking on your door.
I went underground right after Kennedy threatened to send me to The Hague.
Interesting the word war had the highest incident. I guess we know where Americas focus is.
I started the word analysis to spoof Norgaard, Oreskes and the othe psychologist types who think I´m nuts. However, I did find the word count to be really interesting (I had expected more babble about climate change). So I decided to make Obama into a neo imperialist using his own words.
What´s really funny is that qualitative analysis does allow you to create your focus group, interview them, and then write a paper about their opinions (in my case I used a single person: Obama).
There´s no set methodology to control your interview/study subject selection, nor do you have to be unbiased. They do warn you not to claim you can extend the analysis beyond the group you interview or investigate. This is why I turned Obama around, made him a war like creature, used my own anti war bias (let´s face it, I´m opposed to most wars).
So I used what I wanted to use to the fullest extent, with no qualms about being realistic or anything like that. In the end I decided the solution was to give him a psychiatric treatment with mood altering drugs. It´s all science, I even used references and everything.
Here is one of the best videos I have seen, puts things in perspective. Very funny too!
I wonder how old this is? And I wonder what would happen to any comic who tried to do a version of this in front of a modern University crowd?
Peter, according to his discography it’s from Jammin’ in New York released in 1992
Wow, I had forgotten how close to reality Carlin always was. Thanks for sharing! This should be the mantra and “in your face” video, we post!
I miss his realism, absolutely loved this gentleman! Had not seen this clip for awhile but boy was he ever on the mark.
this one and his football vs baseball routine are true classics
Like all great comics, he had great insight into the human condition.
Which BTW is what I believe Climate Science is, more about the human condition and psychology than the atmosphere.
I feel worried. I hope all is well. Will pray and so will many. (:
+1
I am worried also.
John
On the plus side, “epic” can mean “really good.”
I never know about these things. By the time I learn about a new meme, it is 10 years old.
Lot’s of possibilities.
(Maybe Kenji is going to be a Dad? 😎
Good or bad, prayer never hurts.
Ah, good thought! Future concerned scientists.
I have a question, so the sun heats up the planet and the theory is that extra heat is then trapped by the excess C02 in the atmosphere and not allowed to escape back in to space. This then heats up the oceans and causes all sorts of problems due to there being extra energy in the system. So my question is, would the extra heat energy in the ocean not be canceled out by increased evaporation levels and the increased levels of cloud then reflect more sunlight back in to space?
Simplistic I know but my understanding is that evaporation cools things down!
Yes I know this sounds reasonable, but it is wrong because it would mean global warming wasn’t a serious problem.
Letelemarker October 4, 2014 at 2:43 pm
I have a question, so the sun heats up the planet and the theory is that extra heat is then trapped by the excess C02 in the atmosphere and not allowed to escape back in to space.
This is not the theory. It is how it gets expressed in the MSM though, and it aggravates me to no end that the proponents of the theory, the warmist climatologists themselves, don’t correct it. Changes in CO2 concentration do cause some energy to be “trapped” but it is an amount that is so small that it can be effectively rounded off to zero, and it would only exist in between equilibrium states. At equilibrium, the amount of energy escaping into space is exactly the same after CO2 doubles as it is before. What changes is the temperature profile from earth surface to top of atmosphere. The average altitude (Mean Radiating Level) at which any given photon escapes from earth to space becomes a little bit higher. The temps above the MRL go down a bit, the temps below the MRL go up a bit. Think of it like a teeter totter. Push one end down, the other end goes up, but if you measure the average height of the teeter totter from one end to the other, it doesn’t change.
davidmhoffer, a very nice description everyone can understand. When the MRL goes up a bit, the result is to cause more radiation into space so the overall effect is muted by something a bit like a negative feedback as it should.
davidmhoffer “Changes in CO2 concentration do cause some energy to be “trapped” but it is an amount that is so small that it can be effectively rounded off to zero, and it would only exist in between equilibrium states. At equilibrium, the amount of energy escaping into space is exactly the same after CO2 doubles as it is before.”
Three problems with your ‘explanation’, 3.6 watts is not zero and the system never reaches equilibrium. Most importantly though the ‘greenhouse’ effect primarily takes place in the ocean which absorbs SW radiation and emits LW radiation. Most of the atmospheric LW radiation is reflected, like the internals of a LASERs gain medium.
The heating and lapse rate of the atmosphere is primarily from LW surface radiation.
Genghis, One big problem with your three problems regarding davidmhoffer’s explanation. The global average temperature is not supporting your hypothesis. You state your view as if it is fact. I suggest you give it another 20 yrs and then re-evaluate.
Average Joe, The average temperature of the ocean is around 5.5˚C exactly what the S-B equation predicts. It isn’t going to change.
Ancient bit of wisdom.
He who knows that he knows is a leader, follow him.
He who knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him.
Sometimes you have to look closely to tell the difference.
But there is always a difference.
The sun doesn’t heat up the planet. The planet heats itself up , by simply wasting the good quality solar radiant energy, we get, in very inefficient processes. If we covered the earth in solar cells, then we could turn the solar energy into electricity to power all your hand twiddling toys, that many of you folks seem to prefer to actually doing some useful work.
But we wouldn’t get any food if we stopped all of the solar energy in our solar cells, to make electricity.
So we simply waste what we get for free, which is the good socialist way of living anyway.
And the heat the planet makes for itself, can’t escape to space, because space is empty space, and heat doesn’t travel through empty space.
So the heat has to be converted back to good quality electro-magnetic radiation, which can escape to space. At night, from space, you can see some of that energy escaping, in the form of visible EM radiation that we make out of our electricity, and sometimes heat.
But mostly we have to run a heat engine to convert the heat back into radiation. The so-called black body radiator is the most efficient machine for turning heat into radiation, but no such thing exists, so various pseudo black body radiators do a half pie job of converting waste heat into radiation so it can escape. We call those thermal radiators. They make radiation depending only on their temperature.
But it is impossible to convert 100% of heat into radiation, so we can never get rid of all the heat we make on earth.
But the earth likes to sit around a comfortable temperature range, at which the hot materials on earth (anything above zero K), can turn heat into radiation fast enough to stop us from overheating.
North Korea is not pulling its weight in its failure to turn waste heat, into visible EM radiation to help keep the planet cool.
But we are energy wastrels anyhow. The vast majority of all our energy sources on earth, are first converted to waste heat, before we finally use it for something beneficial. So it’s like dumpster diving. We live off the energy crap that we make out of our original valuable energy sources.
And if you think I have some sarc tag around here somewhere, you don’t know me.
Heh !
george e. smith you forgot the sarc tag.
Yes, search this site for articles by Willis Eisenbach
I’d like those here who are usually serious about science and the climate, to participate in a thread to decide the best name to describe our “opposition” (those serious about using a climate scare to gain political objectives).
.
It may seem juvenile to many here that we are called names such as “climate deniers”, told “the science is settled”, by people who refuse to debate with us and make up statistics such as 97% of scientists agree with them.
.
The truth is the name calling and slogans are not juvenile — they are political tools used to ridicule opponents and used to avoid debates with them.
.
If you want to understand how useful they are, read both of Saul Alinsky’s books and his Playboy interview. I have.
.
The best, and perhaps only, way to fight these tools is to go on the offensive in a consistent way.
.
We need good names for our opposition and what they do in the name of climate science.
.
My own proposal is “climate astrologers” — and they are “science deniers”..
.
And these climate astrologers play computer games (climate model simulations) for a living because games are more fun than real science!
.
Do you have any better names than mine:
(“climate astrologers”, and science deniers” who play “computer games”)
to describe our opposition?
.
Name calling is a bad plan;
Play the ball, not the man.
I refer to proponents of the busted CAGW conjecture as alarmists., but maybe false alarmists is better?
I prefer to call them CAGWHA (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hysterical alarmists). It has a nice alliterative feel to the word.
Proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (POCAGWs) is polite.
I have put [off] a person or two by referring to them as warmists or alarmists. The aim is to get people thinking not alienate or antagonise them.
Off not of oops
“thermorrhoids” and “doom-butt phonies” (hive-bozos never practice what they preach) would be my suggestions. But, then, my objective is to take arrogant, bumptious, puffed-up lefty-parasites and their rip-off, power-and-control stratagems down a notch. Ditto for their carbon-spew brazen-hypocrisies.
It depends on who you are dealing with. If it is an obvious religious follower type then nothing you say will change their opinion. I often refer to them as clientologists (a play on Scientology). Otherwise, I also suggest avoiding name calling.
“Climatologists” rather than “clientologists”? Catastrophysists?
Up thread commenters in a Twichy link use the name “hoaxers”. I like it because thats what they are.
Words are my business, there is but one that will do: Allegorist. A teller of tall tales and fables. May be spelled Allegorist, Al Gorest or Al Goreist
Climate fabulists.
No, Climate Trolls.
NOT as an insult, but to exactly characterize their behaviour.
Remember how Gavin Schmidt always pointed out that Climate Models “work from first principles”? Consciously HIDING the fact that they have 100+ fudge factor parameters in there?
This is TROLLING. Has nothing to do with science or with reason or with logic, it is TROLLING, because the explicit intent is to stop the debate.
So we have reached a point where THE TROLLS HAVE CAPTURED THE SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS. Somehow they managed to slip through university, get degrees, and get a job at GISS, and elsewhere, and are now running the place; and all our taxpayer money feeds not scientists but trolls, who will never deliver a scientific discovery, BTW, have you noticed, no climate modeler has ever delivered a scientific discovery nor would we ever expect that – nor would the media ever expect that! It has become perfectly acceptable to the public to tolerate a super expensive field of study that doesn’t even pretend to deliver any results beyond an uncertain “The End Is Nigh”! It’s sociology all over again, only with supercomputers!
Does that mean I’ll have to stop using “Al Bore”?
.
He took two science courses in college, you should know.
.
Didn’t get an A or B in either one of them,
but went on to make a lot of money telling tall tales.
.
Just goes to show you don’t have to know anything about science
to give slide presentations about the (dum da dumb dumb)
coming climate catastrophe.
.
Knowing how clever Al Bore is, I bet he’s already obtained a license
to open a row boat and canoe rental company in Manhattan
(after it is underwater, and Canal Street is really a canal!)
I use climate zombies when I write in jest. But I´m not a fully qualified skeptic either. I think CO2 does warm the planet, but it does it less than claimed by the IPCC and the climate bwanas. I guess I´m a zombie like creature?
I’m rather fond of “Climateer.” I get the mental picture of a bunch of teen aged know-it-alls wearing funny hats, all brought together in the service of a fictional construct… but instead of a cartoon mouse it’s man made climate change or disaster or disruption or whatever buzzword is “in” on this week’s episode being filmed at the clubhouse.
Playing the man is a weak weapon. It alienates neutrals.
But you are right about the power of words to frame the debate. So I propose renaming (or clarifying) the belief of our opposition.
It is newsworthy Anthropogenic Global Warming. If they want Climate Change – OK. So long as they accept newsworthy . It has to be newsworthy for the Precautionary Principle to be applied. But there is no 97% consensus that it is newsworthy. Indeed anything that takes 18 years out is a mere scientific curiosity, not news at all.
And politicians care about the news.
In politics potential is nothing, it’s the current that kills.
IPCC clearly states that their mandate is man caused climate change. You take the king’s shilling, you do the king’s bidding.
Anthony, well wishes to you and the family. I miss you already! Do what you must do… we will be here!
Shhh… Alarmists are not interested in negative feedbacks, only positive feedback.
I am looking to help my niece with a required science project and I want to poke a little fun at her
“save the Earth” teacher. I would like to build a three chambered terrarium to grow plants.
One chamber would have a normal level of CO2 “pollutant”, one would have double and
one would have a much of that dastardly CO2 removed as possible.
Quick questions:
1) Ideas for appropriate plants?
2) Will soda lime be sufficient to keep the CO2 low if I force the air over it?
3) Any other ideas?
Many thanks.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Lot’s of excellent information regarding the growth response of various plants to different levels of CO2.
Don’t make trouble for your niece so that you can have some fun.
I completely agree.
It would be done as a pure experiment. No PC words, no links to politics,
just data and results. I have never talked to her (or her teacher) about AGW
or my position.
I am not sure it will work as intended. The soda lime may not absorb enough
CO2 to make a difference.
Todd, your experiment is too hard and the results won’t ‘prove’ anything, there are just too many variables. The plants are likely to all die.
May I suggest that you carefully weigh the dry soil and then plant a fast growing plant like grass, then extract the grass from the soil, dry and weigh both the soil and the grass. The soil will be ~exactly the same weight and the dry grass weight will entirely have come from the atmosphere, carbon.
It won’t be as much ‘fun’ but you can essentially make the same point, just not as cleanly.
I think you will find that it is mainly cellulose- (C6H10O5)n. So it won’t be just carbon.
He didn’t say he was out “prove” anything. I suspect he’s only out demonstrate or illustrate. Despite computer generated illustrations and fantasies, real life still leaves an impression.
To add to what I said below, additional CO2 can be added with a CO2 cartridge for a BB gun. Add it then seal it.
Remove the CO2 as I suggested if no one gives a better suggestion then unplug the air pump (no added heat) and seal it.
Hopefully the difference will be obvious.
You didn’t mention the age group. That would make a difference in the detail you’d need to go into. You’re not out to deceive like “An Inconvenient Truth” but to illustrate that CO2 is not toxic.
Assuming you have the apparatus to do this, for 2 I would suggest bubbling the air through a solution. Add a drop or two of phenolphthalein to give you an idea when it’s time to change the solution.
( Phenolphthalein will give a reddish color in a solution above 8.3 pH. It is clear below that.)
Depending on how big they are and how you the terrariums are set up, to lower the CO2 in one you could put a cheap aquarium air pump or a battery powered air pump for bait in it then loop the discharge back into it.
For skeptics who hold public presentations or produce content, there is a new tool for presentations that Microsoft is developing called Sway that may be an enhanced alternative to power point slides. I’ve only briefly looked at a quick video of this, but it looks like it has potential:
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-adds-new-sway-presentation-application-to-the-office-family-7000034249/
“The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” ~ George Orwell
For some reason, the thought of the CO2 alarmism of the last 3 decades reminds me of that Orwell quote.
Dear Mr. Watts,
I too am concerned and hope your pressing major life issues are happily resolved. We all so value you and all you’ve done.
I second that totally. I prayed for you in church this morning. You and your work are very special. Annie.
I do not care if a person is a lefty or a righty, but what bothers me is warmists who are hypocritical, by that I mean that they have kids, drive cars, heat and cool their homes, use electricity, etc. just as much as us skeptics. They seem to take an elitist position and want the dirty masses to make sacrifices, but not themselves. AND IT DRIVES ME NUTS! That is what we should have been asking people at the NYC climate march, do you have kids, how did you get to the march (fly?), do you heat your home (if from the north) or cool it (if from the south), do you drive a car. Make them see their own hypocrisy.
It is a mental illness john Boles. They project onto others (us) all of their failings and guilt. “We are oil funded shills. We are too wealthy and consume too much. We are greedy, evil people. Etc. Etc.” While in reality, they are protesting themselves, their cognitive dissonance is extremely painful. That is why they are so angry.
A better approach would be to cordon a section of the country off and let them live there, naked in their garden of Eden. Think Burning Man without any vehicles.
The whole climate farce is the ideal home of the Leftists: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftism2.html
A George Orwell quote I have always liked: “Only an expert would say such a thing, no ordinary man would be such a fool.” I read it many years ago and the quote may not be word perfect. If such is the case my apology to Mr Orwell
He didn’t say “expert,” he said “intellectual.”
“Head on the clouds, feet on the earth” is a phrase that explains an approach to living. Unfortunately intelluctuals often have an issue with the feet on the ground part.