Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.
Judging from his reaction at the end of the hearing, it really got to him.
UPDATE: The entire session is here:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=399064
Click on:
•Watch the Archived Hearing Webcast
Dr. Michael’s written statement is here;
Click to access michaelstestimony.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well done and thank you.
My Kudos to Dr Pat as well. His session is in stark contrast with one I saw on CSPAN just two days a go, in which a retired (I think) US Navy admiral talked about the potential difficulty there might be in going in and out of the Straights of Hormuz with his aircraft carrier due to climate change (and presumably sea level rise.)
Um why are you going in there with an aircraft carrier ??
He described his difficulty in bringing home his carrier (izzat the Enterprise ?) during tropical storm Sandy. Not a great idea trying to come ashore with a boat during a storm; even a large boat in a large storm.
Other panelists included a woman Union of concerned scientists top science expert; who suggested that it was time to end the fossil fuels subsidies.
Hey ! Earth to UOCS; and especially on chief science expert; what does an economics statement have to do with sea level rise ?
The single greatest beneficiary of fossil fuels subsidies is the US of A Federal Treasury, who are subsidized by the fossil fuel industry even ahead of the owners and shareholders of that industry.
Eradicating the fossil fuels industry, would be a crippling financial blow to the US Treasury, from which the US economy, might never recover.
And how would they start up the Tonopah or Ivanpah free clean green renewable solar energy plants without any fossil fuels for kindling wood ??
Compared to the raving drivel I heard on CSPAN, whether from the UOCS or an admiral trying his damndest to make a case for sea level rise interfering with aircraft carriers; Dr Pat Michaels short and to the point presentation; is a breath of fresh air.
And as it turns out, on average, tropical storm Sandy didn’t do much during its life. You have to cherry pick some data when it was near the USA to find it doing anything at all.
The admiral said that water came up over the carrier deck 70 feet off the surface.
glad I don’t suffer TV
Yes George. I have seen and experienced storm waves big enough to break over the deck of a super carrier in the North Pacific in winter. (Talk about explosive vomiting…The only time I ever got sea sick). That was in the early ’80s, so waves that big were around back then before all this “global warming” really began to be a problem at sea… /s. So I don’t see a problem with waves that big these days.
You don’t state what his point was, but if he is saying that waves are getting bigger due to global warming, he is riding in the same idiot boat of warmunistas as one of the new Democratic Presidential candidates is riding on…The one who claims that ISIS formed due to global warming. (The same spineless one who retracted his statement that “all lives matter” in favor of “only black lives matter” because of a few boos from the crowd).
It is becoming very obvious now that the warmunistas are ratcheting up the rhetoric and idiotic claims before the Paris global warming circus this coming December.
George
Ps. They’re called “ships”, not boats.
And what of the Destroyers and Frigates that sailed with the Carrier??
Macusn
He must have mistaken a carrier for a submarine.
I’m the first to admit I’m not a scientist, just a curious individual who peruses this informative blog on a daily basis, so maybe I’m missing something here. How can sea level make any difference to wave height on a ship? Using my admittedly limited common sense this is how I see things: A ship floats on top of the water, no matter what the sea level is the ship is always ON TOP of the water. So if a ship’s deck is 70 feet high from the water’s surface, won’t a 72 foot wave crest over the ship’s deck no matter WHAT the sea level is? If I’m wrong about this, please let me know in easy to understand layman’s terms because I really want to know.
Ok, couldn’t resist: If sea level rises, shouldn’t it make it easier to get through the Straight of Hormuz?
Our knowledge of the true extent of natural variability, whether on land or the ocean is still in its early stages.
‘Once dismissed as a nautical myth, freakish ocean waves that rise as tall as ten-storey apartment blocks have been accepted as a leading cause of large ship sinkings. Results from the European Space Agency’s ERS satellites helped establish the widespread existence of these ‘rogue’ waves and are now being used to study their origins.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/040721_wavefrm.htm
the link continues
‘Severe weather has sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 200 metres in length during the last two decades. Rogue waves are believed to be the major cause in many such cases
Mariners who survived similar encounters have had remarkable stories to tell. In February 1995 the cruiser liner Queen Elizabeth II met a 29-metre high rogue wave during a hurricane in the North Atlantic that Captain Ronald Warwick described as “a great wall of water… it looked as if we were going into the White Cliffs of Dover.
And within the week between February and March 2001 two hardened tourist cruisers – the Bremen and the Caledonian Star – had their bridge windows smashed by 30-metre rogue waves in the South Atlantic, the former ship left drifting without navigation or propulsion for a period of two hours.’
tonyb
Trevor, ships don’t float, they displace water.
Dahlquist
Ps. They are called targets.
Proud ex-sumariner
Case in point confirming your statement that “eradicating the fossil fuel industry would be a crippling blow to the US Treasury”. Here in Canada, just a drop in the price of crude oil (never mind eradication) has been enough to drive our economy into a recession. I’d hate to think of what eradication would do to us.
That Admirals testimony was pure politics, they don’t allow anyone that “exhibits” that level of operational ignorance to have control of even a liberty launch.
Wil said:
“Ships don’t float, they displace water”
So I guess your point is that due to rising sea levels, if you float a ship you’re more likely to drown some low lying climate refugees? Is that what makes it harder to get through the straights of hormuz? Just the psychological difficulty of all the climate refugees you’re murdering when you do it? #millimetersmurder
I think this is the link to the hearing you saw on C-span: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/?q=hearing/democratic-field-forum-entitled-climate-change-at-the-water-s-edge-full-committee-july-17-20
Just-an-Engineer,
Sadly officers are now promoted by how well they can maintain the political party line rather than any competence in leading troops or operating in a military environment. So he was very likely in command of a flat top at some point.
tonyb
Big waves exist. I’ve had a wave break over the Bridge of the Emergency Support Vessel I was watchkeeping on – 1984, North Sea. bridge was at least 75 feet [ say 23 metres – not like the QE2’s one] out of the water – and we had a greenie come over us.
Three storms following one another west to east across the northern North sea, each with its own wavefield, creating say eight or ten metre waves. Then, when two wave trains collide, you get two peaks – and two troughs – come together – and a 50 or 60 foot wave exists briefly. We were hit by a peak of all three wavefields, having fallen into a trough of three, immediately before. Literally fallen, as we slid/fell into the hole in the water.
A stamp – http://www.bfdc.co.uk/1983/engineering_achievements/emergency_support_vessel_iolair.html – issued in 1983 shows the vessel. She is under a different name now, possibly in the Gulf of Mexico.
But the link – http://www.world-science.net/othernews/040721_wavefrm.htm – is simply wrong; there has not been anything like that number of VLCCs [supertankers, say >200,000 tons deadweight] or big box boats lost – ever.
Many that have been lost – Mactra, Marpessa and Kong Haakon [Kong Haakon VI – I think] for example, by explosion before the general protection of cargo tanks with inert gas. Venpet and Venoil collided [but may not both have been lost]; the Olympic Bravery ran aground.
Big bulkers have been lost.
I’m not a bulkie man – but a lot have been literally hammered whilst loading at indefensible rates, time after time, at terminals around the world; and then shed large areas of hull plating – weeks, months, even years later. 200? Well, yes, possibly – if over 20,000 tons say – and most with loss of life, sometimes the whole crew died. On Wikipedia – and we all know not to rely implicitly or explicitly on a site that I can edit, even after a glass of dandelion wine – quotes “99 were lost between 1990 and 1997 alone” and “Lloyd’s Register of Shipping added that the hull sides could not withstand “the combination of local corrosion, fatigue cracking and operational damage.”
Operational damage = generally – abuse whilst loading (largely due to commercial pressures).
IMO is, slowly, doing more, has been since the 1980s, but the commercial pressures at some terminals are still – literally – lethal; load quick – or get off the berth [there is always a lower-safety ship that will load quickly: it won’t always complete the voyage].
Auto – with no dandelion wine in sight.
Fascinating, Auto. Thanks.
Will said: ships don’t float, they displace water
To a commoner like me that called floating. But let’s call it water displacement if you prefer. If sea level rises, does this mean the exact same ship displaces more water? Does the exact same ship sit lower in the water? And back to my original query how would a sea level rise make a difference based on a 72 foot wave cresting over a ship’s deck 70 feet above the water line?
Hi Trevor,
I guess we’re supposed to worry about more and larger rogue waves with sea level rise. 72 foot waves today will be 80 feet in the future or some such nonsense.
As far as floating/displacement goes…how much water a ship displaces depends on the density of the sea water. Rising sea levels due to thermal expansion would seemingly lower the density and therefore require a ship to displace more water. But you’re talking about an almost immeasurable amount. When it comes to sea ice or ice caps melting…it depends on the salt content in them, I guess, as to whether they dilute the sea or make it denser. But again, you’re talking almost nothing. It’s not like we’re going from the Dead Sea to freshwater or vice versa.
Thanks Michael. So basically it’s as I thought, just more warmist talking out of a body part other than their mouth.
Straights of Hormuz is how you get into the gulf, been in and out of there plenty of times on board the USS Nimitz. Typically an aircraft carrier crawls through there to ensure they stay in the safe channel, go to fast and well, keel meet rock. A rise in sea level would make it easier, not harder. Makes you wonder where that admiral keeps his head stashed.
I served aboard the Big E in the 60’s when going through the Sea of Japan, the waves were so strong that they dented the bow! (sarc on) That extra CO2 packs a wallop (sarc off).
And that is weather; not climate.
Well Dahlquist I mentioned the wave height only because the admiral mentioned it. And yes I thought ho hum as he said it. He also mentioned that his boat’s eight nuclear reactors all came through intact.
A sadly now gone, WW-II US navy pilot I knew for a too brief period , did 137 carrier take offs and landings in seven months out in the Pacific, on the carrier Wasp presumably in whatever the Pacific dished up in the vicinity of the Philipines and surrounding areas, and he never ever bent anything, (of ours). Somehow, I don’t think it is quite the same on a modern octo-nuclear powered super carrier. I’m sure it can get uncomfortable; and no I don’t belittle what those Navy personnel put up with to go to sea on our behalf.
I was on the final voyage of a Dutch boat coming over to the USA over a half century ago.
We got hit by a tidal wave doing 400 mph out in the middle of the Pacific from an undersea earthquake somewhere. The skipper sounded the ships horn as the wave was approaching so we could all grab something to stop being swept overboard.
I was hanging on to the ships port railing when the wave hit us going at that speed. The wavelength was 50 nautical miles, and the peak wave height was one foot. I didn’t guess the peak timing as well as some other folks did. Nobody was swept overboard as far as I can recall.
And for 30 days at sea, it sure looked like a boat to me.
g
george e. smith commented: “…And for 30 days at sea, it sure looked like a boat to me.”
🙂
Make that wavelength150 nautical miles.
Well I dunno how in hell you guys find this stuff, but gcapologist put his finger on it.
That was indeed the show I saw, with all of the miscreants named. Notice that this panel made the sound of one hand clapping. There was NO minority report.
Seems like the oysters in the Chesapeake bay, were the principal audience.
G
Perhaps the naval man meant that if sea levels rise, the ocean basins will be larger, increasing the fetch of the winds, and thus wave size.
Yes sarc.
For the culture Marxism lo
Very well done. Is there a video link to the whole session?
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=399064
Click on:
•Watch the Archived Hearing Webcast
Dr Michaels written statement is here;
http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/michaelstestimony.pdf
Brilliant effort.
Can’t get the video to work.
Me neither
Me neither.
“Me too,” I was about to say.
No video stream….
But I just found a workaround:
right-click this, save the file to disc. (57mb)
then play it.
“….the huge disparity between the midtropospheric observed and modeled data,…”
Gotta love the chart that slammed the dagger into the heart of CONgressman Lowenthal.
Thanks for everything Dr. Michaels- voices that acknowledge reality are priceless in these times. Your congressional testimonies represent the benchmark for lucid discussion of the subject that is a debilitating leach to global economies and a bane for the most vulnerable humans.
Thanks Dr. M for pointing out the vacuity (typical) of our government “leaders”!
Ray
as a very despondent Aussie I can only say ‘ to be a Government Leader you must be a Vacuous Douche bag in the first place. There are simply no other jobs you are suitable for’
regards
Don’t despond, Oz. You lead the way – flack is part of the job. Kiwi
excellent – consensus on low sensitivity and CO2 trillions of dollars agriculture benefits to boot
not the policy piece Lowenthal wanted to hear, I imagine
The voice of reason. Rare indeed, on this topic.
Dr. Michaels submitted written (extended) testimony:
http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/analysis-obama-administrations-social-cost-carbon
Well that was a rock solid presentation. It really gets to the heart of the “No, THIS is science” matter. Solid and well documented, and forceful without being preachy.
Since it isn’t in the video, can someone describe what the “reaction” was? Disbelief? Anger? Open mouthed confusion? What?
The video didn’t show the congressman…Only Dr. Michaels testimony. The video was really hard to get working. Had to keep re-starting it where it got stuck at.
Below are the Congressman Lowenthal’s remarks as written:
I’m Congressman Alan Lowenthal, and I want to work with you all to wake-up my climate change-denying colleagues in Congress.
Denying climate change is not representing a legitimate scientific debate, it is public disinformation;
Denying climate change is not just ignorant; it is recklessly playing Russian Roulette with our earth’s future;
Denying climate change is not just affecting far-off places, it is affecting us right here at home;
Denying climate change is not just changing habitat and ecosystems, it is effecting our ports and infrastructure that drive our economy; and
Denying climate change is not just another political position, it is a denial of reality.
Wake up! Open your eyes Congress – climate change is here.
And we need all of you to force our elected officials to take action.
Thank you.
Congress.GOV
Alan S. Lowenthal, D. Calif., 47th District (Long Beach area) in Congress 2013-Present.
Has Ph.D in psychology. Foreign Affairs & Natural Resources.
http://www.congress.gov/member/alan-lowenthal/L000579
I think the men in the white jackets need to take the shrink away to a nice, quiet place, where he can pick flowers all day.
Yeesh.
How do you get a PhD degree in psychology foreign affairs and natural resources ? I once thought about getting a PhD in ice cream making. Didn’t think anyone would hire me to make ice cream.
Dr Laura has a PhD in psychology, and she doesn’t know beans about climate either.
To George Smith: Dr. Laura does not have a PhD in Psychology. She has a doctoral degree in physiology, plus “advanced training’ (makes no sense) in, I think, couples counseling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Schlessinger#Early_life_and_education
I wonder how much he paid for it.
Shrinks are infamous for being a bubble off themselves. It used to be said that the number one reason they got involved in the profession was because of their own problems, but they’ve learned that doesn’t sell very well so it’s not PC to say anymore.
george e. smith
July 22, 2015 at 8:55 pm
“How do you get a PhD degree in psychology foreign affairs and natural resources ?”
He has a PhD in psychology. He sits on the foreign affairs and natural resources committees. No degrees in either.
And why doesn’t anyone say “Ok…let’s take just one part of that. Please show us actual data regarding how climate change is “effecting our ports”. This is one of my favs to discuss with liberals/warmenistas. I ask them what the total sea level rise is on the waterfront here in St. Pete’s.
And of course, they have no idea.
Climate Change Deniers versus Science Deniers.
How could one possibly argue with a skilful orator such as congressman Alan Lowenthal?
Lowenthal went bat-shit crazy at the end of the hearing. Trying to find a link to the whole thing for all to see. He also claimed that one year destroyed the pause and induced a significant warming trend, and then he brought in Karl’s paper. I took Tom’s name in vain–seriously–in previous questioning from the Majority.
I was talking about the 2000 Assessment and that I had found that the models they used were worse than random numbers, and that Karl emailed me that indeed they (he was the science head for the report) had found the same. The congressman was a doctor so I pointed out that this would be like prescribing medication he knew did not work or would harm the patient. The other side was not pleased..
Heresy will not be tolerated. Wait for it, the damage control arising out of this will be the utterly predictable standard-issue “Michaels-izza-paid-industry-shill” trash (I’ve become familiar enough with all of it that I could write it myself). Such character assassination has never done a thing to disprove any scientific assessment Dr Michaels has offered over the last two decades, of course.
Dr. Michaels; thank you for confidently speaking clearly, succinctly and very directly to our legislators. You were not condescending and you did not treat them as children. Instead you spoke intelligently and respectfully as I am sure you do with your peers.
I was trying to find a picture of Congressman Lowenthal going apoplectic from hearing genuine science; but, I’ll settle for your description.
I especially enjoyed the way you hammered the science home each time, whereupon you then pointed out that denying the copious intensive research and consensus behind your information and graphics was denying science.
So Dr M, are you confirming for us then, that the consensus is confirmed; climate really does change. One can learn wondrous things at WUWT.
I wonder if the climate changes in between the north pole and the south pole; some people talk about the climate as if it is something you can put in a sack and take home.
So California has at least one more idiot that I didn’t know about before.
g
George – the consensus he confirmed relates to a low climate sensitivity thermal response to dreaded atmospheric CO2 doubling.
Doubling, I understand, was imagined by some Catholic Pope adviser’s random selection.
Seems arbitrary to me.
Doubling is the basis of any logarithmic increase. It’s an arbitrary basis, but it’s an arbitrary whole number that’s reasonable to anticipate actually happening (compared to the other standard arbitrary scale: base 10, or the non-arbitrary scale of base e). If you want, you could use anything. However, this is the simplest and most accessible basis to use.
In short, as a basic principle, absorption is logarithmic. This means that going from one concentration to another means a division to get the impact. So warming caused by going from 250 ppm to 500 ppm CO2 is the same as going from 500 ppm to 1000 ppm.
Well I guess that extra idiot is a New Yorker. Dunno how I got California out of that.
Well the good lawyers say, when you are grilling a witness, you should never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to. And if they take you by the hand and lead you towards a precipice they don’t even realize is there, of course you just hang on to their hand tightly, and walk right off the edge with them.
After all you are the one wearing the parachute.
Nice work there Dr. M
g
Thanks Dr. Michaels. It’s been a long slow slog against well-organized propagandists, but progress is being made. I’m very grateful for your efforts, although I still mourn the AGWers’ effect on the scientific enterprise. It will never be the same. (UVa CLAS 1978, Bio/Chem, Echols scholar. Clark Hall misses you).
Thankyou Dr Michaels – great, direct presentation. I noticed someone behind you smile when you were pointing out who the real deniers are. Unfortunately you cannot be called a leading climate scientist anymore. Only alarmists can hold that rank, at least in the short term.
Hmm, I wonder how much if any “green contributions make their way into the good Congressman’s re-election coffers?
Oops I meant congressman Lowenthal.
Thank you for spelling “oops” correctly.
The link to a video archive of the hearing, and all the witness testimonies is
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=399064
-Chip
Chip
Thanks for the link. There was nothing but a large black rectangle in the post on my screen. Guess it’s my browsers fault. Without your link I would not have been able to see Dr. Michael’s excellent testimony.
Dr. Michaels.
Thank you for a succinct and understandable testimony. Even I can understand therefore the democratic members Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) of Committee of Natural Resources should be able to clearly see what is fact and what is fiction.
BUT I WON’T HOLD MY BREATH!!!!!
In Washington knuckle dragging is a progressives pastime that hurts and affects all our well being and truth be damned.
Excellent presentation! Thank you!
He explains climate sensitivity to CO2, but I think eyes glaze over to the term sensitivity. I wonder if there is a better definition or way to describe sensitivity to CO2 for the laymen congress people. He did a good job testifying. He states 2 degrees C or doubling of CO2 but the alarmists are talking about 3-6 degrees C increase by 2100. (and meters of sea level rise, rather than 6-7 inches).
I suggest just working backwards from the projected temp rise via the co2 / temperature rise relationship, to show how much co2 it would take – maybe way north of 1000 ppm? Then show how much increase in co2 emissions globally would be needed to cause 1000 ppm. But this assumes that the audience is interested in facts…
Marvelous! Concise! Clear! And Right ON!
I am standing up and cheering!!!!! Now that is how it is done!!!!!!
Eugene WR Gallun
A primary tenet of the greenhouse effect is that rising co2 levels should cause an increase in temperature in the lower troposphere. This is not currently occurring as measured by two independent satellite data sets. Further, three actual surface data sets currently show a warming trend. This should increase the L.W. (heat) radiation emitted into the lower troposphere and yet as above there is no measurable temperature increase just above the earths surface! Dose this not strongly suggest a negative real-earth feedback to increasing co2 levels?
That or someone has been doctoring their data…. But that would never happen when your trying to use CO2 to tax the hell out of everyone and keep them from being independent.
“…actual surface data sets…”?? The actual data sets aren’t used for anything. The ADJUSTED data sets are the hot ticket. (pun intended).
“…adjusted data sets currently show a warming trend, UNLIKE actual data sets”
Fixed it for ya.
Thank you Dr. Michaels, A great summary of the state of the science. Let’s hope it doesn’t fall on politically deafened ears.
Hey Anthony/moderators,
I can’t get the video to play or to expand to full screen. You know, I posted in the tips/notes thread weeks ago that there were problems with the adds being generated in the articles that were usurping the bandwith or something, making it impossible to read the articles. No one ever emailed a reply saying it was fixed or suggesting trying something else. Meanwhile, at present I would like and enjoy seeing Dr. Michaels’ testimony (apparently Ben “Dickhead’ Santer hasn’t beaten the crap out of him yet) but it won’t play, nor will the icon to expand to full screen operate. Do you have any help ? Sorry for not being one of Bill Gates offspring and being able to resolve such trivialities myself or being able to afford the latest/greatest PC hardwaresoftware every 6 months.
GW, not knowing anything at all about your setup (you’ve said nothing about it) I can’t help you.
If you want to experience the Internet today, you have to have the right tools, that’s an immutable truth.
GW and AW;
One could always use a flavor of Linux and avoid many of the hassles of the internet today. I have a 7 year old portable that works great to this day. (a Thinkpad)
One could also buy a cheap Chromebook for 200 or so dollars as I did and find that the Internet is just fine even though the computer does not do everything a general computer will do.
One could use a 6 year old Macbook (I have a little extra memory I installed) but I do block ads on that machine which may help it.
And finally, one can easily use a Windows 8 computer (cheap portable by Dell) as long as one blocks the ads. Jesus, Joseph and Mary one should try the Drudge Report without ad blocking.
~ Mark
I had had an issue for the last few days where the screen would jerk back up to the video ad just before the comments section every time a new ad would start.
When I tried to play the video of the testimony, it would constantly pause as if the buffer was full.
A few hours ago I installed an available Firefox add-on to block unwanted ads. I just played the testimony and there were no pauses at all (after I rebooted).
Maybe WordPress changed something to with ads recently?
I hope that info helps.
(I run Windows 7pro with Firefox as my default browser.)
OOPS!
I forgot to mention that because of my issues I didn’t comment on Dr. Michael’s testimony.
I’m not sure who said it first, but, “I’m glad that man’s on our side.”
Knowledge + understanding + honesty + quick wit = An CAGW’er in meltdown.
GW
Try firefox browser and choose their adblock options.
works great and kills all of the ads
I still we have to wait a while for the “science” to get down to the real sensitivity of CO2 increase on temperatures …
… ie NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER !!
…. yep, even after a half-doubling of the effect, it has never been shown to be indistinguishable from 0.0 degrees, and that’s Fahrenheit or Celsius !!!!
Come now, there is a clear effect on the absorption spectrum which by definition will cause warming. You can argue quite strongly that it is drowned out by other factors, but trying to say that there isn’t an effect is just nonsense. That kind of statement undermines everything that we are trying to do here.
will cause warming
===============
what about the conservation of energy. CO2 is not an energy source. thus, warming can only occur if something else cools. you cannot create energy from a vacuum.
what is the thing that CO2 cools as it warms the surface?
One of the better explanations of how CO2 affects the absorption spectrum is here:
http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
From the article:
When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The way heat moves toward the outer atmosphere is either through convectional currents or long wave infrared radiation which is not affected by greenhouse gasses.
…
Another ill-informed assumption is that radiation absorbed by CO2 must be re-emitted by CO2 in exactly the same way it was absorbed, because electrons jump to a higher orbit when absorbing and must fall back to a lower orbit when emitting.
Electrons changing orbit does not apply to global warming. Electron orbit shift only applies to things like fluorescence or lasing. Global warming is about so-called finger print radiation being absorbed. This is due to covalent bonds stretching and bending during vibrations, where no electrons shift orbits.
Ferd, you are misunderstanding this situation on a fundamental level.
The conservation of energy is maintained because of absorption and re-emittance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The radiation coming off the grounnd is absorbed and then randomly reemitted through standard blackbody radiation. As an abstraction, this blackbody radiation sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down. If it goes up, then it procedes as if nothing happened. If it goes down, then it hits and warms the Earth. It’s equilibrium dynamics. It’s not direct warming, but instead is a slowing of heat loss,
A good, comparable mental picture is a blanket . (ignore convection effects, which are another matter entirely). This cold piece of cloth absorbs and re-emits heat in effectively the same way, warming your body. Even my Kindergardener could successfully argue that this doens’t violate any natural laws. Don’t be a sophomore and argue things you don’t fully understand.
(Finally, ignore Yirgach’s nonsense. It goes on so long about irrelevant claptrap that it’s not worth the read).
“A good, comparable mental picture is a blanket . (ignore convection effects, which are another matter entirely).”
Ignore convection? Hell, ignore atmospheric pressure, conduction, convection, h20, winds, clouds, and everything else. Yes indeed, use the bogus blanket thing. Did you kindergarten kid teach you physics?
Definitions don’t cause warming. Only physical factors do. Increases in CO2 do cause warming in vitro, that is, in boxed containers. That much can be, and has been, demonstrated by schoolchildren. Let the CO2 out into the real world, however, and you have all kinds of interactive effects. The most convincing evidence I have seen comes from geology, where the evidence is that planetary temperature sensitivity to carbon dioxide doubling is zero.
@benofhouston
Nonsense? Claptrap?
Well, please be a bit more specific (ala Willis E) and maybe then we can talk about it.
Does the fkin idiot know that the phrase “climate change” as he uses it, is a bogus construct, or is he too thick to get that even. I never know when these idiots are just monumentally retarded or just lying.
…. and well done Dr. Michaels. Who are the D-worders now?
These unethical progressives are always attempting to conflate the meaning of things. Who in the world doesn’t believe in climate change, meaning that the climate always changes? And look what they do with the issue of illegal immigration conflating its meaning with the generic “immigration.” They are all about disregarding true reality and using their “framing” to try and create an alternate reality which is where they all reside.