"Dangerous Carbon Pollution" – an example of Climatism

This is a "best seller" at mysafetysign.com - No wonder why - click

Guest post by Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America

In an address to Green Mountain College on May 15, Carol Browner, Director of Energy and Climate Change Policy, stated “The sooner the U.S. puts a cap on our dangerous carbon pollution, the sooner we can create a new generation of clean energy jobs here in America…” In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”

Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.

The phrase “dangerous carbon pollution” has become standard propaganda from environmental groups.

An example is a May, 2010 press release from the World Wildlife Fund that called for “a science-based limit on dangerous carbon pollution that will send a strong signal to the private sector.” Environmentalists have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere. This misconception is being used to drive efforts for Cap & Trade legislation, renewable energy, and every sort of restriction on our light bulbs, vehicles, and houses—all in the misguided attempt to stop climate change.

Carbon is integral to our skin, our muscles, our bones, and throughout the body of each person. Carbon forms more than 20% of the human body by weight. We are full of this “dangerous carbon pollution” by natural metabolic processes.

It’s true that incomplete combustion emits carbon particles that can cause smoke and smog. But this particulate carbon pollution is well controlled by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and many other federal and state statutes.

According to Environmental Protection Agency data, U.S. air quality today is significantly better than it was in 1980. Since 1980, airborne concentration of carbon monoxide is down 79%, lead is down 92%, nitrogen dioxide is down 46%, ozone is down 25%, and sulfur dioxide is down 71%. Carbon particulates have been tracked for fewer years, but PM10 particulates are down 31% since 1990 and PM2.5 particulates are down 19% since 2000. Over the same period, electricity consumption from coal-fired power plants rose 72% and vehicle miles driven are up 91%. We do not need Cap & Trade, Renewable Portfolio Standards, or the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), to reduce carbon particulates.

Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, Figure 78, data from EPA, 2006Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, Figure 78, data from EPA, 2006

The target of “dirty carbon pollution” propaganda is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in, created as our body uses sugars. But since it’s tough to call an invisible gas “dirty,” Climatists use “carbon” instead. It’s as wrong as calling water “hydrogen” or salt “chlorine.” Compounds have totally different properties than their composing elements.

Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant, it’s essential for life. As pointed out by geologist Leighton Steward, carbon dioxide is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes plants and trees to grow faster and larger, increase their root systems, and improve their resistance to drought, as documented by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Carbon dioxide is the best compound that mankind could put into the atmosphere to grow the biosphere.

This “carbon pollution” nonsense is driven by Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. In a debate at the Global Warming Forum at Purdue University on September 27, Dr. Susan Avery, President of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, was asked “What is the strongest empirical evidence that global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions rather than natural causes?” Neither Dr. Avery nor Dr. Robert Socolow of Princeton, who also presented, could provide an answer, except the ambiguous “There is lots of evidence.” In fact, Climatism is based largely on computer model projections. There is no empirical evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. According to Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

As Joanne Nova, Australian author, points out: “Everything on your dinner table—the meat, cheese, salad, bread, and soft drink—requires carbon dioxide to be there. For those of you who believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we have a special diet: water and salt.” So the next time you drink a beer or eat a meal, beware of that “dangerous carbon pollution.”

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.

Advertisements

162 thoughts on “"Dangerous Carbon Pollution" – an example of Climatism

  1. For millions of years our climate has been subject to change. The fatal flaw in the AGW hypothesis is that we have no way of knowing how the climate would have behaved without human intervention. The CO2 effects are not quantifiable with any degree of precision. Clearly there will be significant regional effects due to land use changes such as urbanisation, deforestation, irrigation etc. It is hardly scientific to say that we can’t think of anything else so it must be anthropogenic.

  2. The misuse of language for propaganda and to further a political cause is straight out of 1984.

  3. One commenter in a prior post made the observation that “CO2 is biodegradable”. Actually, it is just the reverse–“CO2 is bioconstructable”.

  4. Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.

    I disagree. I believe he is WELL informed. He knows very well this is all crap.

  5. An excerpt from the FDA’s portion of the Code of Federal Regulations listing chemicals which are GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe):
    http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1240
    If greentards don’t like CO2, let them not eat anything which feeds on carbon dioxide, nor even drink soft drinks, which are bubbly owing to being carbonated using carbonic acid (H2C03) which is the dissolved-in-water sate of carbon dioxide. Let them go fly their CO2-filled Hindenbergs held airborne solely by their lofty Splattergate genocidal convictions off into the sunset of oblivion and ignominy.

  6. “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    Even the “giving consumers a break” part is backwards. Unless paying consumers with their own money they have yet to earn constitutes a break. The entire statement is magic thinking.

  7. Joanne Nova points out: “Everything on your dinner table—the meat, cheese, salad, bread, and soft drink—requires carbon dioxide to be there.
    Joanne Nova fails to point out that these agricultural benefits only occur at higher latitudes and that carbon dioxide still is a greenhouse gas. A little bit of common sense will tell you that we just can’t continue putting that stuff (30 billions tons a year!) in our atmosphere without messing things up.
    Just look at the carbon dioxide levels measured in Taylor Dome, Law Dome and Mauna Loa. This measured (not modeled) increase in CO2 is unprecedented.

  8. Why not ban chickens, goats, drinking water, oxygen etc.?

    EPA
    “Some studies have suggested that inorganic arsenic is an essential dietary nutrient in goats, chicks, and rats. However, no comparable data are available for humans. EPA has concluded that essentiality, although not rigorously established, is plausible.”

    ———

    FASEB Journal
    “Even though oxygen is necessary for aerobic life, it can also participate in potentially toxic reactions involving oxygen free radicals and transition metals such as Fe that damage membranes, proteins, and nucleic acids.

    Co2 is not a pollutant! C02 is an essential plant nutrient!

  9. Flavio says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
    One person’s “common sense” may be another’s “non sense”. How commonsensical is quantum physics or the behavior of complex, chaotic systems? So let’s stick to science and scientific observation and eschew to subjective “common sense”.

  10. Our children have been taught that CO2 is “dangerous” since pre-school. They actually believe it as a matter of course. Anyone attempting to say it isn’t “dangerous” is seen by them as someone who is uneducated or some kind of “hick”.
    The school library has several “climate change” or “global warming” or “save the planet” books on display at any given time. The kids are being indoctrinated in this drivel from the time they are old enough to read.

  11. Flavio says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
    …………………………………
    Joanne Nova fails to point out that these agricultural benefits only occur at higher latitudes and that carbon dioxide still is a greenhouse gas.
    …………………………………
    Just look at the carbon dioxide levels measured in Taylor Dome, Law Dome and Mauna Loa. This measured (not modeled) increase in CO2 is unprecedented.

    REPLY:

    “higher latitudes”

    Evidence please Flavio

    “increase in CO2 is unprecedented.”

    See this Flavio

    “…atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
    Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.”

  12. Not to be an industrial carbon dioxide bore, but it might do to have a gander at the Compressed Gas Association’s website at http://www.cganet.com/ At present, the US industrial community manufactures approximately 200 million metric tonnes (yes, that is tonnes) of high-grade carbon dioxide for such applications outside the food business for shielded arc welding, fire extinguishers, low-temperature chilling to make antiobiotics and for general medical and process refrigeration, plastics and fertilizer manufacture, lubricants manufacture, and even (surprise, surprise) biofuels manufacture.
    CO2 is routinely recycled to make fuel in iron-reducing, steelmaking and steel recycling plants through directing steam-propelled and steam-mixed CO2 at the 2800 degree Celsius molten surface of metal in the sealed crucibles. It breaks down into CO and H2, which are then drawn off and fed back into the crucible burners themselves along with the natural gas. The Midrex and HYL IV processes are variations on this 150 year old steel mill trick for promoting competitive fuel economy.
    From the 1800’s to the 1920’s, water gas or producer gas, the forerunner to today’s mined natural gas, used for city lighting was produced by this method, if not by partial combustion of municipal waste mixed with coal in coal gasifiers as manufactured by Allis Chalmers, by Case, and by McCormick of hydroturbine, tractor and wheat reaper fame respectively.
    Lastly, hydrocarbon engineering processes as practiced today in large part derive from the application of such things as the Fischer-Tropsch and Claus and other methods. Any edition of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook provides dozens of examples of the manifold uses in past and modern life for CO2. You might like to have a look at what is on offer at http://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com
    My site at http://www.transactionsmagazine.com is devoted to the recycling of CO2 and its associated processes and economics, not because I am concerned about CO2 as a source of AGW, but because as long as so much money and energy have been devoted to this folly, someone needs to come up with a graceful exit strategy which pays for itself and does not result in massive global conflict over, literally, hot air. Seen war, been there, done that, and am therefore only looking after my own interests. See especially the “Tools” page.

  13. From the article:

    Carol Browner, Director of Energy and Climate Change Policy, stated “The sooner the U.S. puts a cap on our dangerous carbon pollution, the sooner we can create a new generation of clean energy jobs here in America…”

    Here is Carol Browner.

  14. The stock and trade of propaganda and sophistry has always been the half truth, loaded words and phrases combined with the distortion of language. It is an ancient and venerable tradition that is practiced with varying degrees of success by all sides in every controversy I have ever investigated. These things are invariably driven by ideology and faith. It is the stock and trade of political polarization and the politics of fear. Simply this type of activity is grounded on the philosophically bankrupt, political science concept, of the end justifying the means.
    This also brings to mind the aphorisms, about living in glass houses and throwing stones and shoes fitting.

  15. “increase in CO2 is unprecedented.” Oh here we go!
    I could have so much fun with this, think I will leave the troll feeding to others for now.

  16. Reminds me of that Star Trek film where a machine has been programmed to get rid of the dangerous carbon units infestation (us!!!).

  17. I’ve learned to hate the word science. “We were trying to perform science with this mission. The science we learned from the probe crashing into the planet, will advance science.”
    Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”)”
    During the Plague era, the science was settled. Before the invention of the microscope, the science was settled. Many people became sick because of bad air (“malaria”). The science was settled. Milk maids never became sick from small pox, because the science was settled.
    Water was safe to drink, even though no one ever drank it, because the science was settled. Immunology never existed because the science was settled.
    The science (knowledge) was never settled.
    It was always questioned.
    I hate science now, because it is never questioned. It is a fact. Just like the fact the the earth is the center of the universe. I hate science now because it has turned into “I am a scientist, and you’re not. Phhhtttt.” Unfortunately, I can imagine a world where Dr. Shinobu Ihsihara never discovered color vision deficiency. After all, the science was settled.
    When everything is known, what is the reason to explore, to expand the boundaries of science? To doubt, and try to prove why you are right?
    Science has never been about consensus. It has never been about performing the same experiment to the letter, as published in a journal. It is about results, and falsification.
    Science proves nothing, but it disproves much.
    Science. No pressure.

  18. Flavio says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
    “latitudes and that carbon dioxide still is a greenhouse gas. A little bit of common sense will tell you that we just can’t continue putting that stuff (30 billions tons a year!) in our atmosphere without messing things up.”
    and a little knowledge of mathematics, especially the nature of a logarithmic function, should tell you that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is already near saturation.
    Re-calibrate your common sense accordingly.

  19. The average concentration (of CO2) in a person’s home is 1000ppm, and the concentration in a conference room can be easily as high as 3000ppm. We have not had a problem with these conditions for the last 60 years, and can probably continue on in good health. Now VOCs, on the other hand?

  20. This entire business of over the top, shove it down our throats, environmentalism smacks of “incremental gradualism”, a’la the Fabian Society (look them up), and it’s offspring American Progressiveism (sp).
    I know that Anthony and many other posters here wish to keep these conversations non-political, but there is no escaping the fact that it IS political. To ignore that, is to surrender everything you value and become slaves to the State.

  21. Jimbo says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:41 am
    “…atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm — comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

    Apart from the fact that it is ridiculous to compare the current world and climate to that of the Carboniferous, I didn’t point out that CO2 levels were very high. I was referring to the rate at which CO2 it is increasing… That rate is very high and unprecedented.

  22. Flavio says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
    ……………………..
    Joanne Nova fails to point out that these agricultural benefits only occur at higher latitudes and that carbon dioxide still is a greenhouse gas.

    Does that include rice?

    Growth and yield responses of rice to carbon dioxide concentration
    Doubling the CO2 concentration from 330 to 660 μmol CO2/mol air resulted in a 32 % increase in grain yield. These results suggest that important changes in the growth and yield of rice may be expected in the future as the CO2 concentration of the earth’s atmosphere continues to rise.
    The Journal of Agricultural Science
    doi: 10.1017/S0021859600075729

    Does that include non-agricultural tropical plants?

    Growth and photosynthetic response of nine tropical species with long-term exposure to elevated carbon dioxide
    Abstract
    Seedlings of nine tropical species varying in growth and carbon metabolism were exposed to twice the current atmospheric level of CO2 for a 3 month period on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. A doubling of the CO2 concentration resulted in increases in photosynthesis and greater water use efficiency (WUE) for all species possessing C3 metabolism, when compared to the ambient condition.
    L. H. Ziska et. al

  23. Flavio fails to point out that while carbon dioxide is admittedly a greenhouse gas, a little bit of common sense will tell you that water is a more effective greenhouse gas. And a little research will show that the amount of water used for irrigation world-wide is 40,000 km3. With 1,000,000,000 tonnes of water in a cubic km, that equates to 40,000,000,000,000 (40 trillion) tonnes of water every year. Now if we assume 10% of that (a highly conservative amount) is transpired by plants into the atmosphere, that’s 4,000,000,000,000 (trillion) tonnes of water anually spewed into the atmosphere.
    We just can’t continue putting that stuff (133 times the amount of CO2 per year!) in our atmosphere without messing things up.
    Oh, wait… Methinks CO2 isn’t such a big culprit after all.
    🙂

  24. Mark says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:58 am
    “I’ve learned to hate the word science. […] I hate science now, because it is never questioned. ”
    Mark, there have been many, many controversies in history where a new theory was suppressed for a generation or so by the old dogma before becoming the new prevailing opinion… Nothing new; normal scientific conflicts. Not always pretty to watch. Evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, Galilei, Newton, string theorists vs non-string theorists…
    No reason to hate science as such.

  25. Earlier this year, Bill Clinton called carbon dioxide “Plant Food”. I thought it was the opening round of the Hillary/Obama Deathmatch, but it may have just been a shot across the bow. He’s certainly been kowtowing to ‘Big Green’ ever since.
    ==============

  26. What really, REALLY cranks me is this statement:
    In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”
    “Foreign oil?”
    I wonder: How many people haven’t yet figured out the lie in that statement?
    Think about this: Once the oil companies get their hands on whatever oil, no matter from whence it arrives, it is THEIR oil, and NOT foreign oil.
    Oil extracted from these (U.S.) shores is PRICED EXACTLY as is the ‘foreign’ oil.
    Hell, there might well be several countries which sell their oil below cost in order to make ends meet, but once that oil reaches these shores? That doesn’t make a bit of difference, because those oil companies will charge exactly what they figure they might get away with.
    And let’s face it: The board members of one oil company also sit on the boards of OTHER oil companies, so the prices are pretty much fixed, one way or the other.
    So then, the whole argument about ‘foreign oil’ is but a crass deception, because were the U.S. to declare that ONLY U.S. oil be used, the oil companies would reap one hellacious profit!
    And that’s really what they are after, isn’t it?
    Ergo, the whole argument regarding ‘foreign oil’ stinks to high blue heaven!
    REMEMBER: Create a problem, and then offer a solution.

  27. Flavio, a few things to keep in mind:
    Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.
    The planet is currently starved of CO2.
    There is not a consensus on the issue of CO2 residence times. The IPCC is especially confused about this.
    And we cannot know the short term rising slope of CO2 millions of ybp. Therefore it is wrong to state that the current rise is “unprecedented.” How would you know that?
    CO2 is beneficial for the biosphere:
    click1
    click2 [note “Key Findings”]
    click3
    CO2 is harmless and beneficial. It has an effect on temperature, but that effect is minuscule and can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. Further, additional CO2 has a diminishing effect — which is already so tiny that it can not be measured.
    Thus, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is again falsified, and wasting more $billions on it is a misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

  28. The EPA enforces increasing real pollution (particulates) to reduce CO2. The EPA stated: “The increased use of renewable fuels will also impact emissions … Overall the emission changes are projected to lead to increases in population-weighted annual average ambient PM [particulate matter] and ozone concentrations, which in turn are anticipated to lead to up to 245 cases of adult premature mortality”
    See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Biofuels.htm

  29. Couldn’t it be shown that cutting CO2 output is potentially dangerous to endangered plant species which have a better chance of survival with a higher CO2 level? Or an animal species which depends on said endangered plant species? Couldn’t we then sue the EPA for any attempt to cap CO2 output?
    I’m serious. Global Warming Alarmists twist and turn both the law and the English language to their advantage. There must be some way to turn this on its head and sue them for damaging a species which needs higher CO2 levels to insure its survival.

  30. My thanks to Steve Goreham for a very clear, straight-forward explanation.
    It is interesting how the language morphs. It wasn’t long ago that “skeptic”, as applied to those questioning AGW, was a somewhat insulting term, but now skeptics happily identify with the word. Similarly, many skeptics have now fallen into line with referring to carbon dioxide as carbon, referring to anthropogenic climate change as climate change, and so on.

  31. Just a follow-up on irrigation, which land produces 40% of all foodstuffs while comprising just 16% of the total agricultural area world-wide (plus crops grown on irrigated land have a higer market value). Water for growing crops is competing increasingly with other municipal uses, but with approximately 30% less water required by plants due to increased atmospheric CO2, what water is available will go 30% further.
    CO2 is mankind’s friend, not our enemy!

  32. I object to the claim that carbon dioxide is harmless. It is beneficial, not only to primary production (plants), but to animals as well. I just looked up chicken eggs growth carbon dioxide in an academic search engine and got two refs for you:
    Buys, N. , Dewil, E. , Gonzales, E. and Decuypere, E.(1998) ‘Different CO2 levels during incubation interact with hatching time and ascites susceptibility in two broiler lines selected for different growth rate’, Avian
    Pathology, 27: 6, 605 — 612
    found that High CO2 (10X atmosphere) improved growth and hatchability in one line of broiler chicken eggs over “normal” carbon dioxide (only 5X atmosphere), while another strain was unaffected.
    Willemsen, H (03/01/2008). “Effects of high CO2 level during early incubation and late incubation in ovo dexamethasone injection on perinatal embryonic parameters and post-hatch growth of broilers”. British poultry science (0007-1668), 49 (2), p. 222.
    Found that sealing the air over chicken egg incubators caused a gradual rise in CO2 to 1% (25 times atm), which resulted in faster hatching and better growth post-hatch.
    It is a good thing you folks were not around when I searched 12 000 mouse and rat citations on carbon dioxide looking for the effects of varied CO2 levels between about 300 ppm and 1000 ppm or so. When I did not find a single one, I was screaming mad!
    I did find out that the normal burrow concentrations for such creatures is about 1 to 4%, about 25 to 100 times atmospheric concentrations of CO2. And that 7% is used in incubators for human preemies to help their lungs mature faster.
    The science is suppressed, as in “settled” per NSF, meaning settled in its grave, as they will not tolerate results counter to global warming hysteria. The tiny tiny bit of science that does exist indicates that more carbon dioxide is very beneficial indeed to terrestrial vertebrates, both indirectly ( more food) and directly, and that this includes people.
    The first study also found higher T3 (thyroid) hormone levels in the embryos. Ernest Sternglass (Low-level Fallout) found in his studies of human embryos and atomic test fallout, that fallout reduced this hormone in human fetuses and that this effect reduced human IQ 18 years later. These two studies together suggest that increasing CO2 levels may raise human intelligence. Maybe some day, they’ll be smart enough to see past all the econazi screaming.

  33. Carbon dioxide is a very valuable commodity chemical, uses include:
    a) Substitute solvent for dry cleaning vs. perchlorethylene, a known carcinogen:
    http://www.us.lindegas.com/international/web/lg/us/likelgus30.nsf/docbyalias/ind_chemrein
    b) Your soft drinks have been carbonated with carbon dioxide harvested from ethanol fermentation processes.
    c) Flooding played-out oilfields with carbon dioxide boosts hydrocarbon recovery by dissolving the oils in the geologic structures….this is very important for domestic oil production.
    d) We increasingly use carbon dioxide for pH control in wastewater plants, replacing very dangerous, concentrated sulfuric acid.
    The greens are opposed to any industrialization or economic development, and carbon dioxide is merely a proxy.

  34. So Lady Life, are you saying we should all get pets and put the houseplants outdoors? How interesting…

  35. Although it is true the young have been indoctrinated with AGW pseudo-science, the same internet that brought us climategate is showing the young how they have been fed a load of BS. They watch and learn and the coming cold is a very good teacher.
    Each day the house of cards loses a few more cards. Facts are on the side of real climate science not the AGW ooops Climate change ooops Climate disruption BS.

  36. You’ve never heard that there can be too much of a good thing?
    Water is good, but drowning is bad. 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.
    And climate change is about more than temperature. Droughts have pushed down global plant growth despite CO2 being plant food. Turns out plants gota’ drink too!
    http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/plant-growth-decline-drought-0459/
    One dimensional thinking is always a bad for the planet.

  37. “Environmentalists have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere.” I would venture that “Environmentalists have successfully PLANTED a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere.” Also Squidly says: October 9, 2010 at 9:54 am
    “Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.”
    “I disagree. I believe he is WELL informed. He knows very well this is all crap.”
    Spot on, as do the rest of his counterparts.

  38. Flavio says: October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am

    A little bit of common sense will tell you that we just can’t continue putting that stuff (30 billions tons a year!) in our atmosphere without messing things up.
    Just look at the carbon dioxide levels measured in Taylor Dome, Law Dome and Mauna Loa. This measured (not modeled) increase in CO2 is unprecedented.

    A little bit of commonsense is a dangerous thing. You need a hefty chunk of the stuff, enough to think outside the box of city-dwellers who forget about the oceans’ power to outgas CO2. Oceans cover 2/3 of the Earth’s surface. They are not just surface, their depth has far greater potential to hold or release CO2 than the biosphere. But due to slow moving depth currents, their rate of release is slow. 800 years’ delay after temperature changes right through the last four Ice Ages, is what has been measured.
    As to the CO2 measured in ice cores. Top experts Jaworowski and Segalstad paid the price for speaking up about the travesty of science going on here, that has produced Lonnie Thompson’s CO2 Hockey Stick that even sceptics don’t often mention.
    Major on commonsense, and discover just how little good science there is in official Climate Science.

  39. Mike claimed that:
    “Water is good, but drowning is bad. 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet And climate change is about more than temperature. Droughts have pushed down global plant growth despite CO2 being plant food. Turns out plants gota’ drink too!”
    Why is 500 ppm CO2 bad for the planet exactly Mike? We know more CO2 equals more biomass and warmer temperatures assist biomass expansion so what is the problem?
    Droughts have not actually pushed down plant growth at all and precipitation has increased worldwide and warmer temperatures guarantee more rainfall anyway so your points come across as a little confused and mixed up. In fact there has been lots of rain everywhere, Spain and Australia and south America and the USA and the UK and Europe and many other places.
    Warmth alone does not cause droughts, geographical location is key to cyclic drought affected areas because if warmth alone was the cause of drought then south America and Asia would be one great desert wouldnt it?
    As far as I am aware, no study has found any link between CO2 levels and drought but perhaps you have a link?

  40. RockyRoad says:
    So Lady Life, are you saying we should all get pets and put the houseplants outdoors? How interesting…
    Research shows that pets do enhance human well-being in way ways, but CO2 has never before been proposed as the mechanism. It was always thought to be the cmpanionship and loyalty. Indoor plants benefit fromour CO2, and they clean the air of many pollutants.
    Mike says: 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.
    That is exactly the AGW hysteria and it is false. 280 pm is too low and harms most living things, including foodstuffs, birds, mammals and people by being too low. 500 ppm is provably better and what few studies we have suggest that 5000 ppm would be much better yet.
    I have killed research animals with CO2; it is a popular way to do it, and some of the CO2 research I found deals with that (how to make it more humane). It takes about 40% CO2 for a rodent to lose conciousness, and 70% to kill him. We are not remotely talking about such concentrations with Crap and Tax or other proposals–we are talking about reducing CO2 well below ideal levels, with almost zero research on what those levels might actually be.

  41. Cassandra,
    I was just preparing a response to Mike’s peculiar comment, and then I saw yours. And you said it better than I could have anyway. Thanks.

  42. Water is good, but drowning is bad. 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.

    On what evidence is that assertion based? Why would 500ppm be bad? In what way would it be bad? Can you explain your reasoning for that comment?
    Academic studies show that doubling CO2 content in a pine forest doubles the growth rate of the trees and results in 10x the viable seed production. Modern sea life such as corals and most mollusks that live today evolved when atmospheric CO2 as about five times today’s levels.
    I am willing to say that halving CO2 levels would be much more dangerous than doubling them.

  43. @ 899 says:
    October 9, 2010 at 11:50 am
    What really, REALLY cranks me is this statement:
    In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”
    “Foreign oil?”
    I wonder: How many people haven’t yet figured out the lie in that statement?
    Think about this: Once the oil companies get their hands on whatever oil, no matter from whence it arrives, it is THEIR oil, and NOT foreign oil.
    Oil extracted from these (U.S.) shores is PRICED EXACTLY as is the ‘foreign’ oil.

    True. Oil ( and many other products ) are “fungible” commodities. Many people do not understand this. Methane is another example, as is CO2. An explanation follows:
    Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. Examples of highly fungible commodities are crude oil, wheat, orange juice, precious metals, and currencies.
    It refers only to the equivalence of each unit of a commodity with other units of the same commodity. Fungibility has nothing to do with the ability to exchange one commodity for another different commodity. It refers only to the ease of exchanging one unit of a commodity with another unit of the same commodity.
    * Cash is fungible: one US$10 bank note is interchangeable with another.
    * Crude oil is fungible: a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil is fungible (direct exchange) with another barrel of the same type and grade of crude oil.
    * Different issues of a government bond (maybe issued at different times) are fungible with one another if they carry precisely the same rights and any of them is equally acceptable in settlement of a trade.
    * Diamonds are not fungible because diamonds’ varying cuts, colors, and sizes make it difficult to judge the value of one diamond against the value of another.
    Fungibility does not imply liquidity, and liquidity does not imply fungibility. Diamonds can be readily bought and sold (the trade is liquid) but individual diamonds, being unique, are not interchangeable (diamonds are not fungible). Indian rupee bank notes are mutually interchangeable in London (they are fungible there) but they are not easily traded there (they cannot be spent in London). In contrast to diamonds, gold coins of the same grade and weight are fungible, as well as liquid.

    This is the central (financial ) problem with the various carbon trading schemes. They artificially create “liquidity” in an attempt to value one unit of CO2 higher than another. For example: CO2 generated in country A being worth more ( of some other commodity, such as money or gold ) than CO2 generated in country B. This is why such schemes will ultimately fail – the bubble pops.

  44. At a symposium Oct 2. In Tucson, Jonathan Overpeck, IPCC lead author repeated several times that he has high confidence that human carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the global warming we are experiencing. In the Q&A after the talk, I asked him to cite some specific physical evidence that human carbon dioxide emissions have produced significant warming. He could not do so. Instead he said that climate models work best when carbon dioxide is added in. He also made what I thought was an extraordinary statement. He said that most climate scientists (of his group) believe that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming “because they can’t think of anything else” that would cause such warming.

  45. There is a great bumper sticker, available from the Climate Realists in New Zealand, saying “CO2 is Good for You”, over a picture of some flowers. Nice. I’ve got one on my car.

  46. I copied the comment from Mark October 9, 2010 at 10:58 am and posted it to my blog. It might be the best articulation of how skeptics are beginning to see “science” (or maybe it’s just me) that I have read. Science has become so tainted by the politics of whatever administration or bureaucracy is providing funding that is is rapidly becoming meaningless.

  47. “500 ppm is bad for planet”
    Bad for the planet ? … LOL
    The planet is just a chunk of wet rock, nothing can be bad or good for a chunk of rock.
    What about Venus ? … is 960,000 ppm CO2 good or bad for Venus ?
    You think that 500ppm is bad. But the planet doesn’t care about what you think. The planet it will follow its ‘destiny’, to be burned by the Sun, with or without 500ppm.
    The planet already had 500ppm for MILLIONS of years in the past. In that ‘bad’ scenario evolved the living forms what our actual … bad ? … biochemistry is based on.

  48. As for the “Danger, Carbon Dioxide” sign, I recall a sign in our electrical engineering lab, no doubt posted by a creative student: “Danger – 50,000 Ohms.”

  49. 3,……2,………1,……….. Cue crickets chirping in place of Flavio’s response, ………. Sad what tunnel vision will do to a person.

  50. mike says:
    October 9, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    can someone tell me how the heck co2 gets high into the atmosphere, & then acts as a greenhouse gas, when its fundamentally heavier than air?
    Up to a point, CO2 dissolves in air (yes, “dissolve” is the right word).

  51. Flavio says on October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am:
    “Just look at the carbon dioxide levels measured in Taylor Dome, Law Dome and Mauna Loa. This measured (not modeled) increase in CO2 is unprecedented.”
    These data only apply to dry air and not to everday real air whose temperature, pressure, humidity, and presence of clouds vary considerably from day to day as shown by weather maps from the various regions of the earth.
    In fact the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is much less than is indicated by these data. In particular clouds will contain CO2. H0w much CO2 is in clouds at any given moment is presently unknown. Rain removes CO2 and the fixed gases from the atmosphere and deposits these into the oceans , lakes , rivers and onto the land. If the land is porous the gases will stay temporarly in the soil.

  52. “can someone tell me how the heck co2 gets high into the atmosphere, & then acts as a greenhouse gas, when its fundamentally heavier than air?” – Mike
    “Up to a point, CO2 dissolves in air (yes, “dissolve” is the right word).” – Beale
    If you would, references or links please.

  53. The sign you show at the top is of the sort used where workers sometimes have to enter confined spaces. Facilities for the production of wine have such signs. I sincerely hope everyone knows the difference between “dangerous carbon pollution” and CO2 produced by yeast in the fermentation of grape sugar. It seems fitting to make fun of the former. The CO2 generated in confined spaces is a serious issue.

  54. mike says: October 9, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    can someone tell me how the heck co2 gets high into the atmosphere, & then acts as a greenhouse gas, when its fundamentally heavier than air? …
    polyester (density 1.4) sinks in water (density 1.0) so how the hell does CO2 rise?

    Oxygen is also heavier than air. It, like CO2, is just part of the mix.

  55. How does CO2 get high into the atmosphere?
    Holy cow? Come on, folks! One of the trace gases of the atmosphere is CO2. The atmosphere is in motion. Take the time to do this – use a search engine such as Google; use the two words ‘weather’ and ‘convection’ ; use the “images” tab. I just got 126,000 results doing this. The first one is a photo of a massive cloud. Follow the links to a few of these images and investigate how the atmosphere keeps rearranging itself. All the gases of the atmosphere are involved, not just selected ones.

  56. Steve Gorham writes:
    “In fact, Climatism is based largely on computer model projections. There is no empirical evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. According to Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful.”
    This is true beyond the shadow of a doubt. We must constantly challenge Climatists with this truth. Let us add another. Climatists have produced no hypotheses that are reasonably well-confirmed and can be used to explain the various phenomena that they call “global warming/climate disruption.” In other words, they have contributed nothing to the scientific understanding of climate. All they have are computer models and hunches. They have hunches that are no doubt brilliant, but no number of hunches add up to one scientific hypothesis. There is no science of AGW-AGCD and this truth is what critics of Climatists must drive home in all debates. The public knows this and sceptics should lead them.

  57. John F. Hultquist writes:
    “The sign you show at the top is of the sort used where workers sometimes have to enter confined spaces. Facilities for the production of wine have such signs. I sincerely hope everyone knows the difference between “dangerous carbon pollution” and CO2 produced by yeast in the fermentation of grape sugar. It seems fitting to make fun of the former. The CO2 generated in confined spaces is a serious issue.”
    I am one who has confined space training.
    It is true that the sign in question is indeed designed to warn about confined spaces.Where CO2 can accumulate to dangerous levels to prevent sufficient oxygen intake.
    To enter such places FIRST requires the use of a air sampling device designed to read out several gases and learn what the concentration of suspected gases are.Depending on the read out of the device determines whether bottled oxygen and masks are needed.
    Sometimes simply pumping oxygen down into the confines space is sufficient to make the area at least temporarily safe to enter.I have done this numerous times,while continually using a gas sampling device while I worked underground on Irrigation equipment.
    But I think it was used here as part of mocking the overblown dangers of atmosphere CO2 gas levels we walk around in everyday.There is a group who idiotically think 350 ppmv is the maximum safe level to live in for humans.A level that was passed way back in … he he… 1988.
    Many existing plants that grow today evolved originally in much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 levels.Sycamore,Ginkgo are two that have been around for more than 100 million years,yet they survived far larger CO2 level range changes.
    I wish the absurd idea that a naturally occurring gas is a pollution danger,despite being lower in concentration NOW,as compared to the last 500+ million years.Go away and get back to rational science thinking.

  58. >> can someone tell me how the heck co2 gets high into the atmosphere, & then acts as a greenhouse gas, when its fundamentally heavier than air?
    >> Up to a point, CO2 dissolves in air (yes, “dissolve” is the right wor
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it is able to absorb certain bandwidths of IR radiation and converts that energy into heat.
    The sun releases high frequency light radiation, which goes to the earth’s surface and then the group reflects it back as a lower radiation… infrared.
    The CO2 near the group absorbs the IR reflecting from the ground converts it to heat. This, is my understanding, is _FACT_. It’s simply a very proven mechanics behind how CO2 contributes to ‘global warming’.
    So the more CO2 you have the more radiation it absorbs. The more human activity that generates CO2 the more CO2 is in the atmosphere. So it’s very simply: _A_FACT_ that human activity increases the density of CO2 so humans have increased the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.
    This is indisputable. Nobody in this blog or anybody can argue against these facts and retain any shred of creditability. (If I am right, which I believe I am)
    HOWEVER….
    What your not told by the ‘AGW’ crowd is that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. That is: The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere the less effect adding more CO2 has. Since it heats up the atmosphere by absorbing very certain bands of IR you can think of CO2 like a filter. It’s a similar mechanic as to why the sky is blue and it changes colors towards dusk.
    Imagine a tinted window:
    Going from 0% tinting to 50% tinting you get a very big difference. Doubling the amount of tinting in the glass only gets you 75% darkness which is still a big difference, but not a huge one. Doubling it again gets you 87.5% darkness. Doubling it again gets you 93.75%, and so on and so forth. So eventually you get to the point were doubling or quadrupling the amount of tint only nets you tiny, almost imperceptible differences.
    Right now, if my understanding is correct, then just about 100% of the energy converted into IR and reflected back into space that can be adsorbed by CO2 is absorbed at about 10 feet from the ground.
    Even if we went into total freak-out mode and did everything we could to generate as much CO2 as possible and doubled the amount of CO2 all that would change is that instead of converting all the possible IR to heat by 10 feet it would convert it by 5 feet.
    The debate between AGW should be between human activity making a almost imperceptible difference versus a imperceptible difference.
    Not “nothing is happening at all” versus “OMG WE ARE GOING TO DIE FROM SUV POISONING!!!!”
    It would be nice for this blog to go through the mechanics of how CO2 is really a greenhouse gas. How it works, how it absorbs the radiation, and what effect it really has.
    Then it would be much easier to show why people flipping out over CO2 concentrations are nutzos.

  59. pwl says:
    October 9, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    Begin quote:
    “can someone tell me how the heck co2 gets high into the atmosphere, & then acts as a greenhouse gas, when its fundamentally heavier than air?” – Mike
    “Up to a point, CO2 dissolves in air (yes, “dissolve” is the right word).” – Beale
    If you would, references or links please.
    End quote.
    Proponents of AGW-AGCD assume that CO2 is randomly distributed throughout the atmosphere all the way up into the stratosphere. They have performed no experiments to evaluate this assumption. There is a CO2 measurement station at Mauna Loa on Hawaii and others at a few other locations. No one working on climate has been willing to ask how the CO2 gets to Mauna Loa. After all, most of the manmade CO2 is created in the United States. I guess the CO2 flies to Mauna Loa on American Airlines. Otherwise, there would be some detectable phenomenon such as a flow of CO2 from the USA to the vast open spaces that do not manufacture it but suffer from it. Does it flow up? Does it flow to oceans? After all, everyone agrees that oceans store most of it. But ask this question of any climate scientist and you will be treated as a member of the great unwashed, as someone who should be exploded with a red button. Climate Science, such as it is, is more averse to experimentation and all forms of empirical research than the old Soviet Kommissars who planned production quotas for factories. Climate scientists have not added one reasonably confirmed hypothesis to our understanding of the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  60. Flavio says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
    “Just look at the carbon dioxide levels measured in Taylor Dome, Law Dome and Mauna Loa. This measured (not modeled) increase in CO2 is unprecedented.”
    Flavio, do you know how the manmade CO2 gets from its main locations of manufacture, the USA and the Shanghai region of China, to Mauna Loa? Would you please tell us? If you do not know, then why do you believe that Mauna Loa measures manmade CO2?

  61. can someone tell me how the heck co2 gets high into the atmosphere, & then acts as a greenhouse gas, when its fundamentally heavier than air? …
    The troposphere is like a series of side-by-side conveyor belts. That which is at the surface gets circulated to the upper troposphere and vice-versa. Round and round and round.

  62. Theo Goodwin says:
    October 9, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    Theo, you can do this experiment at home. Pour yourself a nice drink first and turn on the Chemical Brothers doing “Where Do I Begin?” to add to the fun.
    1. Get some dry ice from a quality caterer or fish market;
    2. Get an empty Coca Cola bottle, the 32 ouncer is best, about a foot of string, and a party balloon;
    3. Fill the bottle full with warm water;
    4. Plonk in particles of the dry ice (frozen CO2);
    5. Pull the flattened balloon over the bottle mouth so that it fills with CO2;
    6. Tie it off when inflated with CO2 with the string;
    7. Separate the balloon from the Coca Cola bottle;
    8. Release the balloon and then tell me which direction the balloon goes: up or down.
    CO2 doesn’t go anywhere. It falls flat to the earth. There would be no need for stacks on power plants if it went straight up like helium or hydrogen.
    You can also consult with your utility local power plant through their PR division and ask them for a thermographic Schlieren type photo or digital simulation which you need to show your friends on line to illustrate just how combustion emissions migrate from stacks. They will be happy to oblige. Utilities know all about stack plumes and emissions migration, as they havfe to file this type data empirically derived from field measurements to get their air permits renewed with EPA and the state air pollution control boards. They’ve been filing them FOR OVER 70 YEARS.
    All stacks for coal, natural gas or biomass are either forced draft or induced draft. Both types involve huge fans to force the products of combustion up the stack, or exploit the temporary advantage of thermal convection to draw the products of combustion skyward to the stack’s rim and out into the air. From there it disperses, generally downward or at best upward slightly at an angle.
    As the gases cool, they go downward but you can’t see that part, usually. You shouldn’t be able to see any of the CO2 at all with the naked eye; that’s why you need the Schlieren thermograph. It arcs down.
    Steam rises, however. The white billowing clouds you see going off into space from cooling towers is ambient air moisture temporarily partially condensing then rising to disperse back whence it came. The white “smoke” out of stacks is excess air (15%-20% of optimally tuned stacks) which also contains water, which therefore produces a visible steam plume and about which bloody morons complain at all hours. They think it is toxic smoke LOL!
    It is so annoying to utilities to get all these calls and having to explain the above in detail that a firm called Croll-Reynolds who have made pollution control equipment for decades sells a gizmo called a plume diffuser, which acts to prevent this harmless steam from becoming visible. Here it is described as it is used at a waste-to-energy plant on Long Island to please the tonier element of the tourist industry who when their kids see steam, they scream “Look, Mommy! Pollution!”
    http://www.poweronline.com/article.mvc/Steam-Ejector-Reduces-Exhaust-plume-at-a-Wast-0003?VNETCOOKIE=NO
    And, yes, I am a “shill” for the big utilities and power plant contracting companies who knows WTF I am talking about because I have kept working between 40 and 50 men and women welders, fitters, riggers, boilermakers and millwrights and their families fed with my power plant construction and retrofit cost estimates and bids for over 30 years. The day a CO2 filled Hindenburg docks at the Empire State Building will be the day the earth stands still and jelly gumdrops rain from the sky.

  63. Mike says:
    October 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    You’ve never heard that there can be too much of a good thing?
    Water is good, but drowning is bad. 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.
    And climate change is about more than temperature. Droughts have pushed down global plant growth despite CO2 being plant food. Turns out plants gota’ drink too!
    http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/plant-growth-decline-drought-0459/
    One dimensional thinking is always a bad for the planet.

    Mike, reciting Kindergarten-lite CO2CAGW “tenets” and mantras is always bad for your brain. Climate Science is provenly not real science, and therefore its unbalanced disasterizing of “Global Warming” has not proven that GW of an extent its “tenets” envision as their worst will even bring about a net “Environmental” disease or afflict a net disease upon Humanity.
    But if you can’t stop reciting Climate Science’s quasi -Religious CO2CAGW Mantras, it might be you who brings about such an affliction.

  64. “280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.” – JPeden
    Please site references that provide evidence, hard evidence, for your claims that (1) “280 ppm CO2 is good” and (2) “500 ppm is bad”.
    We know that you “believe” that but belief is not good enough anymore and never was in science. Prove with hard evidence, preferably an experiment, to make your case. Also please be specific about what you mean by your assessments “good” and “bad”.
    While you’re at it JPeden check out this hard evidence that proves your claims (well certainly claim 2) false:
    http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-abundant-life

  65. 899 10/9 11:50 AM
    Cash For Clunkers certainly didn’t reduce dependence on foreign oil, but your argument is misguided. You suppose that the purpose of reducing dependence on foreign oil is to lower the price. That’s not true, except to the degree that increasing the world supply by drilling American oil might lower the price. So there is no “lie” that the price would decline.
    I know people who think it would decline, based on the idea that American oil would be cheaper for being ours, but they dreamed this up or heard it from friends or acquaintances who dreamed it up. It’s a natural idea for someone who knows nothing about economics.
    Besides, Obama certainly isn’t recommending more drilling in the United States, but your argument assumes that he is.

  66. Do warmists not realise that everytime they shower with a bar of soap and a sponge they are polluting themselves?

  67. Zombie Drowned Polar Bear 10/9 9:32 PM
    By your argument, oxygen would fall straight down. (It’s heavier than air.)
    Balloons have nothing to do with the matter. The reason why a balloon filled with a light gas rises is that atmospheric pressure (exterior to the balloon) at the top of the balloon is less than atmospheric pressure at the bottom, so the motion of gas molecules inside the balloon exerts a net upward force. The reason why a balloon filled with a heavier-than-air gas won’t rise is that the pressure difference is not enough to overcome its weight.
    That has nothing to do with what happens to gases outside a balloon. They rise because convection drives them upward. Some gases are so heavy that this doesn’t work very well, but CO2 is not one of them. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is pretty constant up to some tens of kilometers, then it declines. Your argument is like saying that an updraft won’t lift anything heavier than air, except that you try to prove it by talking about the behavior of balloons, which is irrelevant.
    Secondly, if CO2 concentrated at a low altitude, the greenhouse effect would be greater, not smaller.

  68. Zombie Drowned Polar Bear 10/9 9:32 PM
    Let me add that if CO2 fell straight to the ground, the global warming alarmists could not possibly suppress this information. They don’t have magical powers. The error would be just too glaring. Hasn’t it occurred to you to see whether CO2 concentration has been measured at various altitudes? It has!

  69. JPeden 10/9 11:03 PM
    Climate Science is provenly not real science, …
    That’s not true. For example, Prof. Lindzen (MIT) is a climate scientist of long standing, and he does not even accept the name “skeptic.” He calls himself a “denier” or a “realist.”

  70. The name ‘greenhouse gas’ is incorrect, because greenhouses work by trapping warm air and not by trapping infra red radiation.
    CO2 is the stuff of life. I can find no proof that CO2 is driving, or ever has driven, the global climate. Very likely the increase in atmospheric CO2 is one reason why global food production per head of population is now higher than at any time in history.
    Therefore I think this statement is almost certainly true:
    Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. It is a green gas.
    Chris

  71. The best counter sign that I can think of would be “PLANTS [large green heart symbol] Carbon Dioxide”

  72. DirkH says:
    October 9, 2010 at 11:39 am
    I don’t hate science, really. I just hate that so many people use it in phrases like “I do science”, or “The science we are performing…”
    That’s like a sociologist saying “I know how America thinks, because I’ve watched ‘Beavis and Butthead Do America.'”
    Being bad at getting my point across, I know people doubted the accepted theories, and tried to prove them incorrect. Then they tried to supply an alternative theory. Then Occam got his razor involved. “The simplest explanation that fits the observations may be the correct one.”
    Being bad at writing, I know this is fragmented. I am sorry about that.
    Substitute “knowledge” for “science” and see if the sentence still makes makes sense.
    Science is not a car or a bus. It is not something that you take.
    Science, knowledge, is a destination, not an activity.
    Knowledge, science, is to be questioned and doubted and proven to be unfalsifiable, by current methods.
    It still must be questioned and doubted, though. That is what science means to me.
    Even if it takes a lifetime.

  73. “The sooner the U.S. puts a cap on our dangerous carbon pollution, the sooner we can create a new generation of clean energy jobs here in America…”
    … and exactly how is the US going to manage to not repeat the “Spanish experience” with “green jobs” ? .. or make “green jobs” the new “Tammany Hall” ?

  74. Flavio says:
    October 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
    “Just look at the carbon dioxide levels measured in Taylor Dome, Law Dome and Mauna Loa. This measured (not modeled) increase in CO2 is unprecedented.”
    Here we go again …..(Sigh). This is where you guys always fall off your horse – drawing conclusions that end with terms like “unprecedented”, “incontrovertible” and so on that make you sound, well, “incompetent”.

  75. Zombie Drowned Polar Bear says:
    October 9, 2010 at 9:32 pm
    No need to call yourself a shill. What you say is very interesting because it is based on genuine experimentation that can tell us something about how CO2 moves in the atmosphere. You will not find one climate scientist who is willing to discuss such matters. For them, the “science is settled” on the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere; that is, they simply rely on their assumption that CO2 is randomly distributed throughout the atmosphere. Can you address my questions about how CO2 travels in the atmosphere? How does it get from Detroit, Shanghai, and Berlin to Mauna Loa? How much sense does it make to use Mauna Loa to measure CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? How much sense does it make to use a satellite or two? Where is the manmade CO2 in the atmosphere? Isn’t it mostly in the USA, Shanghai, and Berlin?

  76. Bruce A. Kershaw says:
    October 10, 2010 at 5:50 am
    Please go to co2u.info
    Thank you
    Bruce A. Kershaw
    This site has no information that cannot be deduced from the properties of the CO2 molecule and the assumption that CO2 is randomly distributed throughout the atmosphere. How about a site where folks have actually created a physical hypothesis about the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere and done experiments to confirm it? Also, if you want to participate in the conversation, please explain these matters in your words.

  77. Smoking Frog says:
    October 10, 2010 at 3:17 am
    Lindzen most emphatically denies that there is climate science beyond what has been deduced from the characteristics of the CO2 molecule, characteristics well known in 1860. He has written that a climate science based on tenths of a degree changes in temperature is nonsense.

  78. I wish I would have been able to get to this one earlier, but here I go.
    You are spot on with the analysis on pollution. There is vast confusion about the difference between pollution and CO2 emissions. I have an article how many of the “solutions” to reduce CO2 actually cause more real pollution. That is the wrong way to do.
    Ethanol is the WORST possible solution. It increases ozone pollution and WASTES far more energy. Ethanol is…. sorry, proper language usage forbids what it is… I have an article on how bad it is for you gas tank and your pocket book.
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/the-difference-between-pollution-and-co2-emissions/
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/ethanol-i-like-it-in-my-glass/
    John Kehr
    The Inconvenient Skeptic

  79. Smoking Frog writes:
    “The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is pretty constant up to some tens of kilometers, then it declines.”
    So, the CO2 from Detroit first goes up, through convection, and then some other convection takes it to Mauna Loa? So, because of seasonal change, there is a clear and detectable difference in flows, right? In summer, CO2 is blasting up from Detroit really fast and in winter it might not be moving upward at all, right? And I am sure that our excellent climate scientists have done the work to confirm their physical hypotheses which explain this behavior; using new physical hypotheses that are not merely deducible from the characteristics of the CO2 molecule.

  80. Smoking Frog writes:
    “Hasn’t it occurred to you to see whether CO2 concentration has been measured at various altitudes? It has!”
    Measurement is not hypothesis. Measurement, if undertaken rigorously, can be used to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses. If you have measurements and no hypotheses, you have no science; that is, you are in the same boat as Mann, Jones, and friends.

  81. These signs are used where there is a danger of suffocation from carbon dioxide, including, large tanks where beer has beenis brewed and places where there are tanks of CO2, for carbonated beverages and …..beer taps!
    To borrow a joke from the first link

    You’ve probably heard the one about the brewer who drowned in a vat of his own beer. On the solemn occasion of the announcement of the tragedy to his colleagues, one of them inquired as to whether the brewer had died quickly. ‘No’, the brewery manager replied. ‘He got out three times to pee.’

    The thing about industrial accidents is that large numbers of people die from what appears to be innocuous stuff
    REPLY: I don’t see the point of your comment, you act as if we are too stupid to know such things. But then again, being condescending is your style. Yes and they have signs for CO, NH3, High Voltage, Natural Gas (Methane CH4), H2S, and even Nitrogen N2. Anything in excess/high quantity can be dangerous, even rabbits. – Anthony

  82. “Mike says:
    October 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    You’ve never heard that there can be too much of a good thing?
    Water is good, but drowning is bad. 280 ppm CO2 is good, but 500 ppm is bad for planet.
    And climate change is about more than temperature. Droughts have pushed down global plant growth despite CO2 being plant food. Turns out plants gota’ drink too!
    http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/plant-growth-decline-drought-0459/
    One dimensional thinking is always a bad for the planet.”
    ==========================================================
    You OPINED that 500 ppm is bad for the … he he ….. planet.
    LOLOLOLOLOL
    Do you realize that for about 95% of the last 6 hundred million years,it was ABOVE the 500 ppmv level?
    Here is a chart at my charts forum,that is based on “peer reviewed” science research:
    http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-4671.html#pid4671
    Maybe you should change 500 to 5000,as you might have left off a zero by mistake?

  83. Theo Goodwin says:
    October 10, 2010 at 7:19 am
    Much work was done on tracking the patterns of dispersal of gases throughout the atmosphere by the US military and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the folks at Sandia in the 1950’s for several reasons: to track how lethal isotopes generated by nuke blasts migrate and also to prevent a recreation of the most successful air raid on North American industrial resources in history: the Japanese fire balloon campaign against Canada which prompted the Doolittle B-25 raids (the Japanese Army released thousands of balloons from a launch site in Japan loaded with thermite bombs which entered the jet stream and came down into Canada’s forests, starting over 600 major forest fires).
    I would therefore start with the Sandia Labs website and also the US Army Military History Institute websites. All their work is based on empirical studies with large enough statistical population samplings to validate or disprove a hypothesis, which all the greentard models demonstrably lack to the extent they can define trending.
    Whomever is in charge of doing air permit applications in engineering with your local electric utility can also provide you with truckloads of empirical studies, Schlieren imagery, and the like.
    It’s goofy to think there is much gaseous migration over 4-5 miles up. Where and when you have to don a breathing apparatus when flying is at around 5 to 6 miles, folks, unless you fancy the idea of a stroke or other side effect of anoxia. Eight miles and you’re dead with your blood boiling and exploded eyeballs.

  84. Theo, it’s very much worth our while to chase this down. I will ask my licenced engineer affiliates in the “criminal world-destroying” thermal power plant business, then come back here.
    It’s odd not many practicing engineers from my industry check into these sites. I asked a registered PE why they aren’t blogging on this issue, and she laughed and said she had a life, and that all this idiocy would blow away of its own accord.

  85. BTW, I hope I am not the only person who thinks it is a bit thick the country which ignited the largest forest fires in known history for the sake of global military conquest would be where the Kyoto Protocl originated. It’s like a drunk lecturing non-drinking people to give up drinking.

  86. After reading these posts, I can only wonder if there once was living beings on the “greenhouse planet” Venus and if there was, could these folks be their direct descendents?

  87. Zombie Drowned Polar Bear says:
    October 10, 2010 at 10:06 am
    “It’s goofy to think there is much gaseous migration over 4-5 miles up. Where and when you have to don a breathing apparatus when flying is at around 5 to 6 miles, folks, unless you fancy the idea of a stroke or other side effect of anoxia. Eight miles and you’re dead with your blood boiling and exploded eyeballs.”
    I know. But the proponents of AGW assume that CO2 is randomly distributed all the way up into the stratosphere. I always wondered how the CO2 got up there when the O cannot get up there. According to Smoking Frog, there are these conveyor belts that conveniently distribute CO2 randomly in the atmosphere. I guess we can call this the “Conveyor Belts in the Sky” theory of CO2 distribution. My own guess is that everyone in climate science, even the good guys, are just relying on the randomness assumption when they calculate CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Climate science is truly in its infancy and every claim made by climate scienctists, except from what can be deduced from the characteristics of the CO2 molecule, go far beyond anything that is in the evidence. For example, at in recent times some climate scientists have argued that the oceans are absorbing a lot of CO2 and keeping us cool while other climate scientists have argued that the oceans are releasing CO2. In other words, they don’t have an experimental means to determine at the ocean surface which way the CO2 is flowing. How non-experimental can you be? This science is truly in its infancy and should not be used for any policy decision whatsoever.

  88. Engineering policy is best dictated by engineers, not theoreticians who are not paying for any form of omissions and errors insurance whatsoever. Engineers are licenced and have to pay insurance much lie malpractice insurance for doctors so if they make a mistake and people get hurt they pay, and hard. Their rep and cred is on the line each and every working day in one of the most hard-ball professions in the world. If an engineer lies, he or she gets disbarred and goes to jail. If a scientist screws up or tells a whopper, he or she prevaricates and dithers and then goes back to the drawing board. Why Michael Mann and others can’t be nailed to the wall is they aren’t really licenced to do anything except provide theoretical scenarios which have no penalties for error attached whatsoever. They have no ante at the table of Life. They are kibitzers whose work may or may not be of immediate use or value except in and of itself. That once was the beauty of science: its total dispassion and freedom from vile economically preconceived resultant.
    If anyone conclusively proves the climate scientists thus far to be wrong, they will just shrug and say, “Well. good. Let’s try this theory on, then.”
    One of the first posters to this blog mentioned as climate research has no control benchmark, i.e., what would the world’s climate be like without humanity, there is therefore no way to validate anyone’s climate theory. Excellent point. Game over. :>p
    Hal Lewis is right to do as he did. Watch what the next few weeks bring.

  89. CO2 can without exaggeration be viewed as the material that gave rise to us all and keeps sustaining us. Our fundamental Progenitor and our permanent provider, you could say. Calling it a pollutant is a sign we have reached levels of blasphemy and desecration unthinkable only a few decades ago.
    Primo Levi, a chemist, wrote a very readable “story of a carbon atom,” while detained in Auschwitz during WW2.
    This is a brief excerpt from the part of the story when the atom whose “life” is being described becomes part of a CO2 molecule. (Before that, it had spent hundreds of millions of years in the form of limestone, from which it was finally freed in 1840 in a lime kiln, and then, “still firmly clinging to two of its three former oxygen companions,” went out the chimmney and began a new “tumultous existence.”) Levi makes a small aside at this point to comment on what he finds remarkable about CO2, and says the foollowing:
    […] “But there is more and worse, to our shame and that of our art. Carbon dioxide, that is, the aerial form of the carbon of which we have up till now spoken: this gas which constitutes the raw material of life, the permanent store upon which all that grows draws, and the ultimate destiny of all flesh, is not one of the principal components of air but rather a ridiculous remnant, an “impurity” thirty times less abundant than argon, which nobody even notices. The air contains 0.03 percent; if Italy was air, the only Italians fit to build life would be, for example, the fifteen thousand inhabitants of Milazzo in the province of Messina. This, on the human scale, is ironic acrobatics, a juggler’s trick, an incomprehensible display of omnipotence-arrogance, since from this ever renewed impurity of the air we come, we animals and we plants, and we the human species, with our four billion discordant opinions, our milleniums of history, our wars and shames, nobility and pride. In any event, our very presence on the planet becomes laughable in geometric terms: if all of humanity, about 250 million tons, were distributed in a layer of homogeneous thickness on all the emergent lands, the ‘stature of man’ would not be visible to the naked eye; the thickness one would obtain would be around sixteen thousandths of a millimeter.” […]

  90. If anyone is interested in how real pollution looks like, watch this:
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfX6Eo5lsI&fs=1&hl=hu_HU]
    Mars on Earth: Eco disaster in Hungary after red aluminum toxic sludge
    In an industrial disaster 700,000 m3 of highly alkaline (pH 13, powerful lye) heavy metal laden red mud (waste product of aluminum manufacturing) flooded several towns, rivers and the countryside, seven killed, hundreds injured with next to lethal burns. Takes a year to clean up, for plant life if ever, several decades to recover, townships destroyed can never be rebuilt at the same place.
    Liability insurance of the company responsible for it covers $50,000 in damages, its capital is also negligible compared to losses and expenses in life, health and property (up to a hundred million dollars). Therefore it will be payed for by taxpayers’ money, what else?
    As soon as the stuff dries up, it turns into wind-blown fine powder, difficult not to inhale.
    The problem with calling CO2 a pollutant just like any immediately dangerous stuff is it makes impossible to enact compulsory liability insurance policies covering all possible damages for corporations trading in potential pollutants.
    This is why blurring the legal notion of “pollutant” by including harmless substances by sweeping generalizations is prime interest of corporate lobby groups.
    Here, in Hungary we have 50,000,000 tons more of this mud stored in aging repositories, declared safe for the time being, nevertheless property prices in those areas are plummeting like stone.
    Relief donations can be sent to:
    National Saving Bank, Budapest
    IBAN: HU7511702036-20707637-00000000
    SWIFT: OTPVHUHB

  91. Good grief, it’s really difficult to believe that those claiming measurements of CO2 are that is because the readings at Mauna Loa says they are..
    Why would any scientists go to the worlds largest active volcano to measure man-made CO2? Not on that, but together with one of its neighbours, two of the worlds largest active volcanoes. Not only that, but on a volcano over a tremendously active hot spot, still creating the Hawaiian islands. N.o.t, but with a third volcano these three are all sitting on top of the same hot spot. N.o.t., but with all the accompanying vents and earthquakes, hundreds a year. N.o.t., but in a warm sea which dissolves CO2 and boosts it into the atmosphere to be blown about by winds. So why would a scientist go there to measure man-made CO2?
    Why did this scientist go there? Because, most people were ignorant about Hawaii and after taking measurements for [i]less than two years [/i]he proclaimed he had found incontrovertible proof of a trend that atmospheric CO2 was increasing and, sadly, the rest is our miserable history where we are now teaching our children it is a poison and something to be feared. And AGW continues to promote that station as a pristine spot for measuring CO2.
    This is an extremely active CO2 producing area, above and below sea level. Mauna Loa has erupted some 33 times since the mid 1800’s, it last erupted in 1984 and is still going, on average it has lava flow once every four years. From memory, I think the station is at around eleven thousand feet, below all the activity from the volcano, and, Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, 1.5 times heavier, it sinks through air, displacing it. (*)
    What on earth are they measuring? It can’t be anything meaningful as ‘general background atmospheric CO2’, it simply can’t. The background CO2 is volcanic.
    And now Keeling’s son oversees Mauna Loa and has global monopoly of providing CO2 data.
    What has really begun to irk me in all this, is the loss of all sense of carbon dioxide as the essential food in the Carbon Life Cycle. We are Carbon Life Forms, we evolved from it, without it we would die. It feeds the plants for growth in photosynthesis, and in extracting this the plants put oxygen into our air (which they also breathe in at night as we do). We need to continue breathing in oxygen, to deliver oxygen to our blood we need some 6% of carbon dioxide in our lungs. We need it where the plants and animal life evolved in reponse to it being available (this isn’t going to be a statement on any evolution theory..), but, plants are ‘designed or evolved’ to take it in from the underside of their leaves, much good it would do them or us to have it out of reach miles up in the atmosphere..
    Only those who have never been taught the Carbon Life Cycle can ask the question, ‘why aren’t we standing knee deep in it, if gases separate by weight?’
    (*)Which is why carbon dioxide is dangerous in breweries, because it displaces oxygen and pools invisibly from the floor up, and also dangerous for those cleaning out the vats, also in mines and pits; it can suffocate. It is heavier than air, it can’t then rise up and diffuse into the air unless another force comes to move it, ventilation, fan.

  92. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/charles-david-keeling-496637.html
    Monday, 27 June 2005
    “There seems little doubt now that the so-called “Keeling curve”, plotting his data from the observatory on the top of Mauna Loa, an 11,000ft extinct volcano in Hawaii, will be one of the key images in human history, as recognisable and as full of instant meaning as the crucifix or the swastika.”
    Hmm. I wonder why it wasn’t promoted with the energy of the Hockey Stick?

  93. Scrolling through the comments above I see appeals to common sense, but nothing that goes back to the fundamentals. To me these are:
    Coal is fossilsed vegetation
    All the carbon that vegetation sequested must have been in atmospheric CO2 beforehand.
    Growing conditions must then have been ideal or there would now be no coal.
    Putting that carbon back where it came from can only result in better climatic conditions, not worse.
    Or am I missing something?

  94. Please be fair, this sign is not an eco scare. It’s apparently a warning sign for industrial environments. CO2 can be dangerous in high concentrations.

  95. Myrrh says:
    October 10, 2010 at 6:58 pm
    Good grief, it’s really difficult to believe that those claiming measurements of CO2 are that is because the readings at Mauna Loa says they are..
    Why would any scientists go to the worlds largest active volcano to measure man-made CO2? Not on that, but together with one of its neighbours, two of the worlds largest active volcanoes. Not only that, but on a volcano over a tremendously active hot spot, still creating the Hawaiian islands. N.o.t, but with a third volcano these three are all sitting on top of the same hot spot. N.o.t., but with all the accompanying vents and earthquakes, hundreds a year. N.o.t., but in a warm sea which dissolves CO2 and boosts it into the atmosphere to be blown about by winds. So why would a scientist go there to measure man-made CO2?
    Why did this scientist go there? Because, most people were ignorant about Hawaii and after taking measurements for [i]less than two years [/i]he proclaimed he had found incontrovertible proof of a trend that atmospheric CO2 was increasing and, sadly, the rest is our miserable history where we are now teaching our children it is a poison and something to be feared. And AGW continues to promote that station as a pristine spot for measuring CO2.
    This is an extremely active CO2 producing area, above and below sea level. Mauna Loa has erupted some 33 times since the mid 1800′s, it last erupted in 1984 and is still going, on average it has lava flow once every four years. From memory, I think the station is at around eleven thousand feet, below all the activity from the volcano, and, Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, 1.5 times heavier, it sinks through air, displacing it. (*)

    @Myrrh: Even here at WUWT it is acknowledged that the measurements at Mauna Loa are ok. Please read this guest post by Willis Eschenbach first, it will tell you exactly why they chose Mauna Loa as location to measure CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/

  96. Mike says: October 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm . . .“And climate change is about more than temperature. Droughts have pushed down global plant growth despite CO2 being plant food. Turns out plants gota’ drink too!
    http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/plant-growth-decline-drought-0459/”
    Mike, do you read and think through the articles you post. The article conceded that the analysis points to a mere 1% decline over ten years – due to droughts – while the previous gain was 6%. So no overall decline. Also, farmers would be amazed to learn that their crop yields are down in the last ten years – all that production increase must be imaginary bushels! In addition, please remember that in the ten years of a 1% decline, estimates of global mean temperatures actually declined a little. Finally, it doesn’t take much metrological study to see that the regional droughts are driven by decadal oscillations which have not been blamed on CO2.

  97. Flavio, this the view I agree with as to why the location was chosen. This is an extremely active volcanic CO2 producing area, what one can guarantee by sticking a flask amongst such immense volcanic activity is abundant capture of CO2. That anyone can claim they have eliminated all volcanic activity from their samples is, I think, bordering on the miraculous. But Keeling obviously had miraculous scientific powers, it takes normal scientists years and years of measurements to establish trends, he did it in around 18 months. To choose this site to measure ‘man-made atmospheric’ CO2 is absurd, to continue promoting this as a pristine site to measure atmospheric man-made CO2 is disingenous.
    http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/kilauea/
    for map and info
    Keeling began by cherry picking to get his base, claiming that he was picking for unpolluted by surroundings figures. By going to Hawaii and parking himself on the most active volcanic island there was one thing he was guaranteed to have, lots of CO2 to choose from. I don’t see any scientific integrity with his measurements, all they show is they could be made to fit his agenda to find rising amounts.
    http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2007/03/becks-138-year-long-record-of.html
    That these kept rising regardless of the cold decades last century is the reason you’ll get such explanations of the curve as here: http://openlearn.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397988&section=1.3.3
    “The story of atmospheric CO2 in the last 50 years is a relentless rise derived from human use of hydrocarbons.. When Keeling first collected his CO2 data he travelled around making the measurements at widely spaced locations – but he saw that apart from the daily and seasonal variation caused by local plant photosynthesis and respiration the concentration was virtually the same wherever he measured it. Keeling quickly realised that this meant it was possible to measure the CO2 in one location, such as Mauna Loa, and it would be a reference point for the whole planet.”
    And the best bit:
    “After a few years of measurement Keeling must have been astonished to see CO2 levels rising so rapidly.”
    Really? He was astonished? So am I. Marvellous really, how the ingenuity of man got these volcanoes to keep producing more and more CO2 every year. Or isn’t that what is meant here by man-made?
    That’s from the Open University site.
    I doubt that in the current academic climate they’d give you a degree if disagreeing with the above..

  98. Theo Goodwin says:
    October 10, 2010 at 7:26 am
    Lindzen most emphatically denies that there is climate science beyond what has been deduced from the characteristics of the CO2 molecule, characteristics well known in 1860. He has written that a climate science based on tenths of a degree changes in temperature is nonsense.
    No, you’re wrong. Climate science and “climate science based on tenths of a degree” are different things. Lindzen is certainly not denying that there is climate science.
    Climate science is not only about “what has been deduced from the characteristics of the CO2 molecule.” Far from it!
    Not even climate science and climate science based on the effects of CO2 are the same, but if they were, “based on tenths of a degree” would be wrong, because the greenhouse effect is supposed to be responsible for a difference of about 33 degrees C.
    The relevant characteristics of “the CO2 molecule” were not “well known in 1860.” Spectrometry was too coarse to support a good estimate of how much of the greenhouse effect was due to CO2, and how much to water vapor, and there was no quantum theory on which to base a theoretical estimate.

  99. Anthony,
    Thank you for writing this article, you have documented my concerns about so called ‘carbon’ pollution accurately. I continually make this point in our local newspapers in Australia. The other point I try to make is that the very existence of the White Cliffs of Dover is visible evidence of millions of tonnes of CO2 locked up as calcium carbonate over millions of years as a result of skeletal remains of coccoliths, corals, sponges and other small creatures, all tax free, no expensive carbon sequestration needed. There is absolutely no need to tax Australians or anyone else to remove a pin point of CO2 from a room, a house, a city or a planet.

  100. Theo Goodwin 10/10 7:32 AM
    Smoking Frog writes:
    “The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is pretty constant up to some tens of kilometers, then it declines.”
    So, the CO2 from Detroit first goes up, through convection, and then some other convection takes it to Mauna Loa? So, because of seasonal change, there is a clear and detectable difference in flows, right? In summer, CO2 is blasting up from Detroit really fast and in winter it might not be moving upward at all, right? And I am sure that our excellent climate scientists have done the work to confirm their physical hypotheses which explain this behavior; using new physical hypotheses that are not merely deducible from the characteristics of the CO2 molecule.

    That has nothing to do with what I said. I was answering Zombie Drowned Polar Bear, who claims that CO2 “falls flat to the ground.” You’re talking about “horizontal” distribution (latitudinal and longitudinal), not vertical distribution.
    I was not even talking about the increase of concentration over time, nor about anthropogenic CO2 in particular, but you are.
    The “Detroit” theory which you impute to me is nonsense, because natural emissions are more than 20 times anthropogenic emissions, so the seasonal variation is overwhelmingly due to vegetation.

  101. Theo Goodwin 10/10 8:03 AM
    Smoking Frog writes:
    “Hasn’t it occurred to you to see whether CO2 concentration has been measured at various altitudes? It has!”
    Measurement is not hypothesis. Measurement, if undertaken rigorously, can be used to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses. If you have measurements and no hypotheses, you have no science; that is, you are in the same boat as Mann, Jones, and friends.

    Again, I was answering Zombie Drowned Polar Bear, who claims that CO2 “falls flat to the ground” and supports this by pointing out that a CO2-filled balloon falls to the ground. Elementary physics shows that to be nonsense, but measurements of the CO2 concentration at various altitudes would kill it completely. It is beyond believing that such measurements have not been performed. Your remarks above have absolutely nothing to do with this. Obviously, no hypothesis is needed to measure the concentration of CO2 at various altitudes.

  102. Theo Goodwin 10/10 11:07 AM
    Zombie Drowned Polar Bear says:
    October 10, 2010 at 10:06 am
    “It’s goofy to think there is much gaseous migration over 4-5 miles up. Where and when you have to don a breathing apparatus when flying is at around 5 to 6 miles, folks, unless you fancy the idea of a stroke or other side effect of anoxia. Eight miles and you’re dead with your blood boiling and exploded eyeballs.”
    I know. But the proponents of AGW assume that CO2 is randomly distributed all the way up into the stratosphere. I always wondered how the CO2 got up there when the O cannot get up there. According to Smoking Frog, there are these conveyor belts that conveniently distribute CO2 randomly in the atmosphere.

    I see that you answer Zombie Drowned Polar Bear as irrelevantly as you answer me. Why aren’t you telling him that the concentration of a gas, and the amount of that gas, are entirely different things? His remarks clearly show that he does not know it. Oh, wait, maybe you don’t know it, either. I don’t know why else you’d say that oxygen “cannot get up there.”
    As for what you say about me, I certainly do not claim that CO2 is vertically randomly distributed in the atmosphere, except, approximately so to a pretty high altitude. With the horizontal distribution, you are missing the fact that the increase over pre-industrial times is what matters for the question of CO2-caused AGW. The fact that there are higher concentrations in cities and some other places is immaterial for this.
    You and Zombie are both missing the fact that if CO2 were strongly concentrated at a low altitude, the greenhouse effect would be stronger, not weaker. In effect, you both are arguing against your own position.
    I resent being made to look like a non-skeptic, but I think it’s necessary to rebut absurd “skeptic” arguments, because they make the skeptics look bad.

  103. Re height – I looked at the page Flavio linked to and wrote a post on it, my connection wonky and I lost it.
    Gist of it, the paragraph describing the collection doesn’t show any logic in collection. They assume that CO2 above a certain level is volcanic and adjust their figures to suit. The difference in collection height between that which is deemed to be volcanic because on the ground and the highest collection point is only 27 metres.
    It says that the ground is considered to be the volcanic because this shows higher amounts than 380 ppm and is more variable, and so they take measurements from the two heights above, 7 and 27 metres and if they match and if not more than 380 ppm they call it man-made – that CO2 is considerably heavier than air an sinks is not included in their explanation. They say that having come thousands of miles over pristine ocean and falling thousands of feet from the sky the measurements at the two heights as above show ‘global CO2’. The station is well below the top of the volcano (and increased air traffic doesn’t appear to have been included). How can that possibly differentiate between ‘global CO2’ and volcanic in less than a 30 metre span?
    The explanation then links to a page with a week in Wisconsin forest in July 99. The difference in height of collection points is far greater, from 11 metres to 396. And that shows a definite lessening of CO2 the higher up the collection point, July is quite active, and the bottom collection points go off the graph on some days. Must be a volcano tucked away near the collection point. This too must include ‘global CO2’ but not mentioned.
    If anyone can explain to me how ‘global CO2’ can be differentiated from volcanic at Mauna Loa, please do. I can’t see even a smidgin of scientific rationality in the method of collection, but then I’m not a scientist so maybe I’m missing something.

  104. Myrrh 10/12 5:57 AM
    It says that the ground is considered to be the volcanic because this shows higher amounts than 380 ppm and is more variable, and so they take measurements from the two heights above, 7 and 27 metres and if they match and if not more than 380 ppm they call it man-made – that CO2 is considerably heavier than air an sinks is not included in their explanation. They say that having come thousands of miles over pristine ocean and falling thousands of feet from the sky the measurements at the two heights as above show ‘global CO2′. The station is well below the top of the volcano (and increased air traffic doesn’t appear to have been included). How can that possibly differentiate between ‘global CO2′ and volcanic in less than a 30 metre span?
    It’s not supposed to. The article doesn’t say it’s supposed to. The important thing is that the elevation of the observatory is about 11,000 feet. Despite that, there are, at times, and at times of day, variations due to local CO2, and they are removed by statistical methods. This works if local CO2 is significantly less steady than “background CO2,” and that appears to be true.

  105. Smoking Frog, what the article says is this in answering objections:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/
    “1. – As you can imagine from Fig.2, the CO2 measurements are taken only at night. Thus they are measuring descending air that is coming from thousands of feet aloft. This air has traveled across half of the Pacific Ocean, so it is far from any man-made CO2 sources. And as a result, it is very representative of the global background CO2 levels. That’s why Keeling chose the site.”
    OK, I don’t know if that is how the wind works on that mountain, but if it is then: Firstly, all the CO2 produced lower down, from the ocean, the thousands of earthquakes a year, the hot spot, the vegetation, the traffic, the people, the barbeques, the whatever, have all spent the day rising with the wind up the mountain, and, that doesn’t yet include the active volcanoes on the island higher, around 2.5 thousand feet, than the station also adding their CO2 thousands of feet up in the atmosphere. Mauna Loa around 2.5 thousand ft higher than the station. So all this, from one of the main dramatic volcanic spots on earth is going up into the atmosphere with the warm air and water vapour, lighter than air, and winds rising thousands of feet above the station, Fig 2.
    Secondly, what airplane traffic there was when Keeling began his experiments I don’t know, but from figures I saw somewhere that has risen steeply from 1984, there is CO2 coming down from those planes that is indistinguisable from this so called ‘global CO2’.
    Thirdly, CO2 is heavier than air, unless that ‘pristine wind which has traveled across half of the Pacific Ocean actually decides to stop and let the CO2 sink over the measuring station, any CO2 it is carrying will continue to be carried right past it, without unloading. Does it stop at night when they’re measuring? It still can’t be distinguished from that produced on Hawaii alone and that doesn’t include that produced by all the islands’ activities in the warm waters and land.
    “2. This seems like an insuperable objection. I mean, Mauna Loa is in fact an active volcan that is outgassing CO2. How do they avoid that?
    the answer lies in the fact that the volcanic gasses are very rich in CO2. At night, they are trapped in a thin layer near the ground by a temperature inversion.
    To detect the difference between volcanic and background CO2, the measurements are taken simultaneously from tall towers and from near the ground, at intervals throughout the night. Background CO2 levels will be around 380 ppmv (these days), will be steady, and will identical at the top and bottom of the towers. Volcanic gasses, on the other hand, will be well above 380 ppmv, will be variable, and will be greater near the ground than at the top of the towers.
    this allows the scientists to distinguish reliably between volcanic and background CO2 levels. Here is a description of the process:
    Air samples at Mauna Loa are collected continuously from air intakes at the top of four 7-m towers and one 27-m tower.”
    So, these volcanic gasses are trapped in a thin layer on the ground… Whatever that means. And so, they recognise this because it is heavy in CO2, and variable, and therefore they can discount it because it is deemed volcanic. Instead they take measurements from a scant 21ft and 81 ft above this concentrated layer.
    There is no logical way they can differentiate the volcanic production of CO2 from this ‘global CO2’, let alone all that produced by life on the island including from planes. All they are showing through their night of measuring, is how much CO2 is displacing air to come down from the atmosphere and pool on the ground around the station.
    To posit that they can differentiate between volcanic CO2 and this ‘global CO2’ is nonsense. That they posit they can do it in a span of 60ft is irrational.
    So how do they do it? As described, they first decide what ppm is volcanic, and then take readings and exclude any that don’t fit in with their predetermined idea of what ‘background global CO2’ should be.
    This is simply not rational scientific method, is it?
    This confirms why Keeling went there, he had plenty of CO2 to play with. And if you explore the background to his choosing this ‘global CO2 level’, you’ll see he first cherry picks to establish it. This is how he came to conclude after only 18 months that he’d established there was a global trend.
    And to top it all, the article says in answering 4 re Beck’s measurements. “I do believe them.. with a caveat. I think that the Beck date is accurate, but that it is not measuring the background CO2. CO2 measurements need to be done very carefully, in selected locations, to avoid contamination from a host of natural CO2 sources. These sources include industry, automobiles, fires, soil, plants, the list is long.”
    But all these also exist on Hawaii and yet he excludes from his host of contaminations the much greater contamination of the atmosphere which is drenched in CO2 production from the vast activity on this hot spot creating volcanic islands!
    There’s a link from the page when talking about plant production of CO2, a week in the life of a forest in Wisconsin, ah, can’t find it, I thought it was on the page linked ‘description’. I recall it being a much longer page, but I could be wrong. But anyway, the CO2 levels in a week July 99 showed dramatic off the graph levels of CO2 on a couple of days on the lowest measurement point, 11 metres, over 500 ppm and a lot of variability, and the highest point, 386 metres, around 335-340 ppm on, I think, four of the days. Winter week in January the measurements all points were more or less the same, I can’t recall exactly, I think around 345-350. How does this not include ‘global CO2’? Do we have to deduct ‘global CO2’ to get the levels the forest is producing on its own?
    I’m sorry, I can’t take this Mauna Loa data seriously as scientific method. That the article then says this is confirmed by the other data from their stations is also then meaningless, and, that these are in the control of his son makes the whole system suspect anyway.
    And re your comment in an earlier post. That Carbon Dioxide being heavier than air will be in greater amounts lower down in our atmosphere does not mean that it will therefore trap more heat and so proving that it is ‘well-mixed’ in higher levels. Carbon Dioxide as many explantions already in the system show, has no ability to keep warming up beyond a certain point, in concentrated amounts it might add a degree or so, but, it also has no practical ability to retain ‘heat’. With a co-efficient of less than 1 it immediately releases any IR it has, and in normal thermodynamics this is from higher to lower temperatures, and heat rises. This is not about a test tube measurement, of concentrated CO2, this is about atmospheric CO2, and that is a trace gas subject to the variety of interactions in air.
    If doubling CO2 meant rising temperatures to the degree claimed for it in the atmosphere where it is mere trace would it then keep a body warm in a cold room from all the air expelled in breathing where it is much more highly concentrated?

  106. Found it again. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html#variations
    So correction, tower 396 metres and ‘off the chart’ 400+ Lovely graph, but still. If there is no ‘base background global CO2 well-mixed’ included, these show that even a typical forest produces high and variable levels of CO in active summer and still consistently higher than the assumed ‘level of CO2 before the Industrial Revolution’ in winter.
    If the ‘background global CO2’ is removed from the graph, this forest is starving to death, actually, dead.

  107. Myrrh
    I don’t think it’s true that measurements are “taken only at night”:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
    That text says that both the upslope and the downslope winds can be contaminated by local CO2. Also look at Fig 3.
    You say that the wind would have to stop to allow CO2 to fall thousands of feet onto the station. Well, it doesn’t have to fall. No one is claiming that the concentration of CO2 is higher at high altitude. You talk about “unloading,” as if there were one or a series of shipments of CO2 at high altitude that would have to be unloaded onto the station. That’s not true. There’s a continuous stream of the stuff, and it’s continually getting mixed up with the air below, no matter where you are. If there were individual shipments, and they were unloaded onto the station, this would make the CO2 concentration at the station greater than background concentration (or what you call “global CO2”).
    You are talking as if “global CO2” were something like an exotic imported good that looked different from local CO2. It’s not. It doesn’t matter whether any given molecule is “local” or “global.” No one could tell the difference. What matters is that the CO2 concentration varies with local CO2. The text says that they don’t count measurements that are not steady within less than one part per million over a period of several hours.
    You quote the Eschenbach article (WattsUpWithThat) as saying that, at night, volcanic gases are trapped in a very thin layer near the ground. That doesn’t completely gibe with what the NOAA document (URL above) says. It says that the downslope wind (which occurs at night) is sometimes contaminated with CO2 from the volcanic crater above the station, and it says that this is exhibited by “high variability” of the concentration measured at the station.
    The NOAA document does not say anything about relying on towers at different heights to distinguish “local” from “background.” It mentions only one tower, and it says the purpose is to eliminate influence from CO2 generated at the station.
    I’m very reluctant to say that Mr. Eschenbach got things wrong, but it does look that way to me.
    And re your comment in an earlier post. That Carbon Dioxide being heavier than air will be in greater amounts lower down in our atmosphere does not mean that it will therefore trap more heat and so proving that it is ‘well-mixed’ in higher levels. Carbon Dioxide as many explantions already in the system show, has no ability to keep warming up beyond a certain point, in concentrated amounts it might add a degree or so, but, it also has no practical ability to retain ‘heat’. With a co-efficient of less than 1 it immediately releases any IR it has, and in normal thermodynamics this is from higher to lower temperatures, and heat rises. This is not about a test tube measurement, of concentrated CO2, this is about atmospheric CO2, and that is a trace gas subject to the variety of interactions in air.
    Your sentence beginning “That carbon dioxide being heavier…” is not true. Global warming is a matter of heating some lower altitudes and cooling some higher altitudes. If the CO2 were more concentrated at a lower altitude, this would make the difference greater.
    The specific heat of CO2 is irrelevant. We’re talking about radiation, not conduction, and the CO2 doesn’t have to get especially warm to cause the greenhouse effect. The air at altitude, including the CO2, is cooler than the air at the surface, not warmer.
    It’s not true that CO2 has “no ability to keep warming up beyond a certain point.” (Put it in an oven and see what it does.) You seems to be confused about the fact that it has no ability to increase the greenhouse effect beyond a certain point. That’s because there’s only so much outgoing infrared radiation for it to intercept.
    If doubling CO2 meant rising temperatures to the degree claimed for it in the atmosphere where it is mere trace would it then keep a body warm in a cold room from all the air expelled in breathing where it is much more highly concentrated?
    No, that’s nonsense. There might be a tiny “greenhouse effect,” but it would not be due to the specific heat of CO2. Anyway, what do you have in mind with “the degree claimed for it”?
    “Normal thermodynamics” has to do with conduction. A cooler object can’t heat up a warmer object by conduction. That has nothing to do with whether a cooler object can “re-radiate” infrared that the warmer object radiates.
    How do you explain the fact that there are no AGW-skeptic scientists, or virtually none, who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect? For example, Lindzen and Spencer. Do you think they’re dupes?

  108. Smoking Frog
    “The NOAA document does not say anything about relying on towers at different heights ..” It doesn’t give the details on that page, I took his report to be from first hand observation.
    “I don’t think it’s true that measurements are taken only at night”
    I think he’s right, measurements are taken throughout the day, but the measurements for ‘background CO2’ are taken at night, which is when they have the downslope winds supposedly carrying this. “The selection to minimize this potential non-backround [upwind] bias takes place as part of step 4. At night the flow is often downslope, bringing background air. However, that air is sometimes contaminated by CO2 emissions from the crater of Mauna Loa. As the air meanders down the slope that situation is charcterized by high variability of the CO2 mole fraction. …
    4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds.”
    “Well, it doesn’t have to fall. No one is claiming that the concentration of CO2 is higher at high altitude.”
    Not what I was saying. This station is supposed to measure ‘global CO2’ which it claims comes in from pristine winds thousands of feet up which have come half way across the Pacific. This is how it’s sold to us to prove what a wonderful place this is for measuring CO2, we’re told that it’s because of this and the station’s position high on a ‘mountain’, that accurate measurements of ‘global CO2’ are possible. This wind is thus imagined to be from the description to not be the same as that which goes up the mountain in the morning and comes down at night, which is local. What they are actually measuring is the latter, the local wind, as they describe it, and picture on that page. So, what we’re told is that this spot was chosen for its pristine ‘global wind’ travelling across half the Pacific ocean before it reaches the station. What we’re seeing explained is how they measure the local wind, which spent a considerable amount of time going up the mountain first.
    To imagine that one can separate that local upwind from itself coming back down the mountain is absurd. What they are saying is that what comes down the mountain is all ‘this background global from thousands of feet high pristine winds from across the Pacific’ and not the local wind anymore.
    They say the only possible ‘contamination’ then in this comes from the Mauna Loa crater above the station, which they discount whenever they have variable and high measurements of CO2. They look for a consistent measurement below what they have already decided is an amount indicative of this volcanic imput.
    So, oh, and when they do refer to the upwind the mention it gets as a description is that it has CO2 extracted already by the vegetation further down and they’re on a lava field with no vegetation. But, what they are actually measuring is the local wind coming back down the mountain and that local wind is in warm CO2 releasing waters among volcanic islands with thousands of earthquakes a year, etc.
    There is no way they can tell the source of CO2 in what the wind is bringing down at night in this supposed ‘background only downwind/trade wind’, it’s only masquerading as that.
    Which, as you say, of course gets all mixed up with the local wind. By ‘unloading’ I was being a bit sarky, from the picture they give of this ‘pristine wind’ downloading its CO2 into their measuring pots as if they could really tell where the CO2 came from. It isn’t possible that they can tell where their ‘steady CO2’ comes from. It’s a sleight of hand.
    All that this ‘steady CO2’ is, is the figure they have decided is not the ‘variable volcanic CO2’ in the down-mountain wind.
    This is not science. This is, pick a number and exclude the numbers you don’t like and adjust to show an ever increasing amount year on year.
    The explanation of how they do this and their reasoning is really complete and utter nonsense. Don’t you agree?
    Page on Hawaii weather system http://www.hawaiiweathertoday.com/?page_id=20
    “Your sentence beginning “That carbon dioxide being heavier..” is not true. Global warming is a matter of heating some lower altitudes and cooling some higher altitudes. If the CO2 were more concentrated at a lower altitude, this would make the difference greater.”
    Yep, according to AGW’s falsified hypothesis that carbon dioxide raises global temperatures and more carbon dioxide raises it more. Which is why I put it like that, that since it is a real scientific fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than air and so more apt to be concentrated at lower levels and there isn’t a greater temperature difference..
    But please, it is actually true that CO2 is heavier than air, one and a half times heavier than air. It displaces air and sinks. In real physical science. Blow up a balloon, it sinks. Fill a balloon with helium, it floats up. Real gases have real weight.
    “The specific heat of CO2 is irrelevant. We’re talking about radiation, not conduction, and the CO2 doesn’t have to get especially warm to cause the greenhouse effect. The air at latitude, including the CO2, is cooler than the air at the surface, not warmer.
    ? Radiation is a way of transferring heat energy. Air isn’t always cooler higher up than at the surface, ‘hot air rises’. As air, a gas, heats up it becomes less dense than the colder air around it, and the colder air being thus now heavier sinks underneath the lighter hotter air, this is convection. And as it loses heat it cools and so sinks, the convection current in heated liquids and gases. Conduction relates to solids.
    So I think it is relevant. Radiation is just the means of transferring heat energy, a cold CO2 molecule has no heat to transfer and won’t be radiating. When it does pick up IR it doesn’t keep hold of it, because its capacity to hold heat is less than 1 it loses any it’s picked up practically instantly. And heat energy transfer from a hotter body to a colder applies. If you switch on an infrared heater you’ll feel the heat radiating from it, if you switch it off it stops radiating, cold it has no heat energy to radiate.
    I’m really not at all sure what you’re saying here. If “CO2 at latitude is cooler than at the surface” are you saying it is not radiating? So that applies at any level in the atmosphere, whenever the CO2 is cold.
    “It’s not true that CO2 has “no ability to keep warming up beyond a certain point”.” (Put it in an oven and see what it does.) You seem to be confused about the fact that it has no ability to increase the greenhouse effect beyond a certain point.”
    Yes, that was what I meant, I tend to use ‘warming’ as shorthand for the AGW global warming attributed to CO2. I should have marked it out as I’ve just done, or written the sentence better..
    Re my: “If doubling CO2 meant rising temperatures to the degree claimed for it etc.”
    You replied: “No, that’s nonsense. There might be a tiny “greenhouse effect,” but it would not be due to the specific heat of CO2. Anyway, what do you have in mind with “the degree claimed for it”?
    Why nonsense? AGW says that CO2 raises the temperature in the atmosphere, globally. The atmosphere in my room is cold, it’s -10 degrees C, it is 10′ cube. I am the only hot body in it. I am radiating IR quite well having stoked up on a bacon and banana butty and mug of hot sugared tea. I have the windows and doors closed, there is no external air coming in. I keep breathing out CO2 raising the ppm considerably. Which would come first – the extra CO2 I’m generating by breathing will raise the temperature in my room until I’m comfy or I die from suffocation and stop breathing? What happens if I die of cold first? Will the room full of CO2 continue to radiate raising the temperature although it will, alas, be too late for me?
    As for what I have in mind for ‘degree claimed for it’, that changes so often putting an actual figure on it is pointless. It’s like the claim, ‘CO2 stays up in the atmosphere for X years is well known’ – since there are no actual data corroborating any of the claims, for whatever length of time stated, I’ve been reduced to saying something along the lines, ‘for hundreds and thousands of years’. Made up figures have this elusive quality when arguing against AGW claims.. You tell me what you think it is and we’ll take it from there.
    “How do you explain the fact that there are no AGW-skeptic scientists, or virtually none, who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect? For example, Lindzen and Spencer. Do you think they’re dupes?
    Well, I have to say I don’t really know what they mean by it, I haven’t studied their views on this particular aspect. I know that there’s a general idea that CO2 has a ‘saturation point’ above which ‘doubling’ of CO2 does not mean ‘doubling of temperature’, and several times I’ve seen the figure given as doubling now would raise global temps around 1 degree and that’s its limit, but, that’s not my interest here. I can’t see how it can do that either in the scheme of our global atmosphere in our real physical world.
    Perhaps it would help if you gave an explanation of how you understand it?

  109. Myrrh:
    One tower, two towers, upslope wind, downslope wind – these are not as important as the basic idea that local variation is more irregular than global variation, but if the local CO2 infusions and “exfusions” are absent often enough and for long enough, the periods when it is absent can be identified by their lack of irregularity.
    By analogy, suppose that people are constantly circulating all over a large region by air, and we wish to measure the Bulgarian percentage of airline passengers in that region, over time. (I choose “Bulgarian” because they’re likely to be a tiny percentage of the passengers.) So we set up an ongoing survey at a major airport. Unfortunately, there’s a Bulgarian community near the airport, and people from that community travel in groups. but fortunately, they don’ t do this all the time. If we count the number of Bulgarians passing through in each hour, we will, at times, see increases as groups from the community pass through. If we discard the periods in which the increases occur, we’ll be measuring the “background level” of Bulgarians (the average over the whole region), provided that, if the community did not exist, the level would not vary nearly so much. This analogy does not have decreases due to the community, but it’s enough to illustrate the principle.
    Your argument that we’d be throwing away measurements that we “don’t like” sort of works if the background level variation is great enough relative to the variation that occurs when the local groups pass through. If it is, there won’t be anything to distinguish the periods in which the local groups pass through, and so we should not discard any measurement, but in that case, what we’d be seeing is that the background level varies a lot, so nothing will be wrong. If we’re honest, we’ll say that the background level varies a lot. However, a highly varying background level would be pretty amazing, so you’d have more reason to be suspicious, not less.
    I’m not absolutely claiming that they’re doing it right. I’m suggesting that you do not understand the basic idea.
    I’ll get back to the rest of your message later in the day or this evening.

  110. Why is it, I have yet to hear an explanation with creditably, of how carbon based oxygen causes Both Climate change and Global Warming?
    Climate change is both warming and cooling and Global Warming is only warming, maybe Al Gore will change the name of his unproven Theory again.
    This planet causes 37 time more CO2 than Mankind, all the Lungs on this planet produce more CO2 than Call the cars.
    Bruce A. Kershaw

  111. Why is it, I have yet to hear an explanation with creditably, of how carbon based oxygen causes Both Climate change and Global Warming?
    Climate change is both warming and cooling and Global Warming is only warming, maybe Al Gore will change the name of his unproven Theory again.
    This planet causes 37 time more CO2 than Mankind, all the Lungs on this planet produce more CO2 than all the cars, CO2 has been a proven Refrigerant at any temperature and pressure in the Industrial Science World for many years.
    CO2 is still Dry Ice at any Temperature, and is inert the same as Nitrogen.
    ~ CO2 ~ 00.03 %
    ~Nitrogen ~ 78.09 %
    Bruce A. Kershaw

  112. Smoking Frog.
    The analogy really doesn’t hold up, even in measuring the Bulgarians. Why should a greater influx of Bulgarians mean that it’s those who live near the airport? So no Bulgarians ever travel in large groups or gather in large groups at the airport unless they’re locals?
    Back to Mauna Loa. The idea that they are measuring ‘background global CO2’ the moment they discount, what they have set as a limit, ‘volcanic CO2’, is ridiculous. There is no way that they can tell where their ‘if less than their pre-determined volcanic and same at all measuring points’ actually comes from. Carbon Dioxide sinks, as they discount the greater and variable volumes coming from the volcano above them and reach a less voluminous amount this could be, more realistically be, the continuation of the volcanic and local. Just because it’s less than, probably more diffuse because it hasn’t come down in an initial bulk, doesn’t automatically make this their mythical ‘background global’. Rather from whatever has been taken up in local winds upslope during the heat of the day or coming from the volcano above them and those surrounding them. The upslope winds are some 6 times stronger than the downslope winds and the vocano disrupts the trade wind in the local flow which itself isn’t a constant, that this naturally mixes up the CO2 going up in the winds and heat and moisture and can’t be isolated from anything ‘global background’ as it comes down more slowly in the down winds and as it cools.
    Not that there’s any proof this ‘background well-mixed global CO2’ actually exists.
    You can’t say that Keeling has proved it, because all he’s proved is that he collected varying amounts of CO2 from the station beneath the worlds largest active volcanos which is producing ‘rich in CO2’ measurements on an island of active volcanoes on the world’s foremost hot spot producing volcanic islands area. There is no shortage of CO2 available …
    The statement above ‘that the volcanic CO2 will be above 380 ppm and variable and greater nearer the bottom of the towers than at the top’, is, heck, I’m really lost for words here.
    For them to claim that this is what makes them so sure that what they then measure is background because it’s not this, is simply absurd as scientific reasoning. They could have made it anything, because, they chose that number. It isn’t a number derived from any actual observation. It could as easily have been 300 ppm and variable. There is no way of establishing at that station that there is any such critter a ‘background global CO2’ from their method and place of measurement.
    It’s an emperor’s new clothes scenario, just because it keeps being repeated that this is what they’re measuring doesn’t make it true that it exists. It is simply not possible to extract the area’s own local huge volcanic CO2 production from anything measured that’s supposedly background because it’s all in the mix.

  113. Myrrh:
    The analogy really doesn’t hold up, even in measuring the Bulgarians. Why should a greater influx of Bulgarians mean that it’s those who live near the airport? So no Bulgarians ever travel in large groups or gather in large groups at the airport unless they’re locals?
    Sorry, I made the analogy wrong; I shouldn’t have said “travel in groups.” I meant to say that the local Bulgarians appear at our airport in groups, but each group scatters as the individuals’ journeys progress. Due to scattering, groups that are local to other airports are unlikely to appear as groups at our airport. If we apply steps (1-4) of the NOAA document to this situation, we’re very likely to get a result near to the regional percentage of Bulgarian travelers.
    You say, “even in measuring the Bulgarians,” as if the method should work better with the Bulgarians than with CO2. Actually it should not work as well, since the number of travelers (of all ethnic backgrounds) is many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of molecules in the atmosphere. (Maybe you wouldn’t have made that remark if I had created the right analogy in the first place.)
    There is no way that they can tell where their ‘if less than their pre-determined volcanic and same at all measuring points’ actually comes from.
    Where are you getting the quoted phrase? I can’t find it or anything like it in this page, the Eschenbach article page, or the NOAA page. I don’t even see what it’s supposed to mean. I can only guess that, in part, it implies that the Mauna Loa people are pre-determining the amount of CO2 that comes from the volcano, and using that in their method. Nothing in the NOAA page says or implies that they do so, and I don’t begin to see why they would, even if they were the frauds you claim they are, because if they did, the fraud would be obvious.
    As for “same at all measuring points,” I can’t even guess.
    You sound to me as though you know essentially nothing about probability and statistics, because if you did, you wouldn’t be imagining that pre-determined values would be needed.
    More later today.

  114. Myrrh:
    I posted a message to you a while ago, but it’s not showing up. Maybe it will show up later. I’ll try to repeat most of it more briefly here, but also add a little.
    My “Bulgarian” analogy was wrong. I meant to have it that the local group appears at our airport and then scatters as the individuals’ journeys progress. If local groups of Bulgarians originating at other airports do the same, we’ll be able to detect the irregularities caused by the groups originating at our airport and exclude them from our estimate of the Bulgarian percentage of travelers in the whole region.
    It sounds to me like you think “background CO2” carries an implication that the CO2 level is uniform (at a given altitude) across the world. It does not.
    There is no way that they can tell where their ‘if less than their pre-determined volcanic and same at all measuring points’ actually comes from.
    I can’t find the quoted phrase or anything like it on this page, the Eschenbach article page, or the NOAA page. I suspect you made it up, but more than that, I can’t even tell what it means. Do you think the method uses a pre-determined level of CO2 from the volcano? I see no reason to think so. Even if Mauna Loa is the fraud you say it is, using a pre-determined level would make the fraud obvious. Possibly, “same at all measuring points” refers to a claim that the CO2 level is uniform across the world, but there is no such claim – it’s a straw man.
    You sound to me like you have essentially no knowledge of probability and statistics, since otherwise your arguments would be different. However, I apologize for making the faulty analogy.
    As for radiation, you’re wrong. No one claims that the CO2 actually heats us up. The claim is that it keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be, something like the way that insulation works. So there’s another straw man.

  115. The explanation of how they [NOAA, Mauna Loa] do this and their reasoning is really complete and utter nonsense. Don’t you agree?
    No, as I’ve tried to explain.

  116. Myrrh:
    In my message of 10/18 4:46 AM, I said, “As for radiation, you’re wrong. No one claims that the CO2 actually heats us up. The claim is that it keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be, something like the way that insulation works. So there’s another straw man.”
    That’s not really clear. I should have said that no one claims that CO2 heats us up as a warmer object heats a cooler object by conduction. Scientists do claim that, ceteris paribus, an increase of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will heat us up; it will do this in the same way that adding insulation to your house will heat you up (if it’s colder outside), i.e., by “re-radiating.” This is fundamental. I’ve never even heard of a scientist who rejects it, and I’m a reasonably well read AGW skeptic. (Yes, I’ve heard of Miskolczi. He doesn’t reject it. He claims that the climate sensitivity is even much smaller than the other skeptics claim.)
    Do you know of Roy Spencer of UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville)? He’s a skeptic. I suggest that you read this article by him:
    “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
    Why nonsense? AGW says that CO2 raises the temperature in the atmosphere, globally. The atmosphere in my room is cold, it’s -10 degrees C, it is 10′ cube. I am the only hot body in it. I am radiating IR quite well… I have the windows and doors closed, there is no external air coming in. I keep breathing out CO2 raising the ppm considerably. Which would come first – the extra CO2 I’m generating by breathing will raise the temperature in my room until I’m comfy or I die from suffocation and stop breathing? What happens if I die of cold first? Will the room full of CO2 continue to radiate raising the temperature although it will, alas, be too late for me?
    You wouldn’t get comfy. The house is radiating, too. The CO2 would only make you slightly warmer than you would be without it, and I’m not even sure it would do that much.

  117. Smoking Frog –
    I’m getting to feel really bogged down with Bulgarians..
    You said, I shouldn’t have said “travel in groups”. I meant to say that the local Bulgarians appear at our airport in groups, but each group scatters as the individuals’ journeys progress. Due to scattering, groups that are local to other airports are unlikely to appear as groups at our airport.
    If the airport they’re going to is a prime holiday hub for example any such groups starting out from elsewhere are fairly certain to remain in the groups, and it’s still supposition that the majority local Bulgarians will arrive in groups at their airport.
    When I said “even in measuring the Bulgarians”, it was not as if the method should work better with the Bulgarians than with CO2, as above para, I don’t think it works any better for the Bulgarians.
    Perhaps I don’t understand statistics well enough but even with your clarified description of Bulgarian travellers the validity of Mauna Loa method doesn’t hold for me, because when alls said and done the figure for local volcanic v ‘background global’ is still arbitrarily decided, an assumption – as some of those travelling in from other regional airports may well stay clumped together in large groups, if say, some of the regional airports are prime hubs for holiday destinations then the greater groups would be those non-local and instead of being counted would be excluded, the local could well be stay at homes servicing the holiday trade of primarily Bulgarian nationals, and the regional airports then closed for lack of use…, Perhaps your example means something to statisticians, but it appears to me to have that ‘fallacy of the average’ feel to it, that of an average of a year’s rainfall say being taken to be mean that this is what happens on every day and in every place.
    At best the Mauna Loa figures might be useful to say something about local conditions, but to extrapolate this to global claims, and with such certainty to such fine detail claim this is representative of CO2 rising globally from man’s imput only etc., is to stretch its credibility because this method doesn’t show there are any visiting out of town CO2 molecules to begin with.
    So, I’ll stick with observation here. Observably, there is no way to tell apart what is local from anything which may be construed as ‘background global’ in such an area extremely high in local production of CO2, from the variety of local sources including the volcano the station sits below, in the mix of winds around the mountains.
    Together with its own volcano’s production this station’s measurements will include neighbour volcanic output and whatever else is producing CO2 unclumped and spread by the local conditions of turbulence, from the meeting of the often prevailing trade and daily daytime upslope winds in the warmth and the sun etc., in its ‘under the deemed volcanic cut-off point of plus 380 ppm’ and ‘not variable between the measuring points; it will not be able to exclude this purely local imput meeting its criteria. Even if it were true that there is such a thing as a ‘global background well-mixed’ as a constant because the AIRS satellite data concluded that there was no such thing, but rather that CO2 was clumpy and not well mixed. The dogmatic belief of AGW that such a thing as well-mixed exists on which they base their reasoning was here shown to be an assumption proved false.
    Your comments re: There is no way they can tell where their ‘if less than their pre-determined volcanic and same at all measuring points’ actually comes from.
    But that is what they are doing. They have decided that less than 380 ppm only is to be measured because anything above that is deemed to be volcanic, and if below that only if not variable between those points measured. The 380 ppm is still arbitrary based on an assumed figure for ‘global well-mixed background’ actually being in the mix. This is a highly volcanic area with CO2 from the oceans, the earthquakes, the constant volcanic activity plus the plant life (and here too they make an unproven assumption that in daylight the plants are lowering the CO2 in the atmosphere, other studies don’t show that), and whatever the population adds from the ground up or from planes above. All I’m saying is that they cannot tell that the CO2 they are measuring within their parameters is not volcanic and not locally produced (except what gets statistically included as a token added to the ‘assumed global well-mixed background’), it could be 100% , + or – a bit, wholly volcanic and local. I’m not saying anything here about fraud, but saying that it appears to me irrational scientific method to use unproven assumptions and already falsified by science claims for CO2 to establish a base line of ‘well-mixed’ and from that base line decide what is volcanic and what not at Mauna Loa.
    As this is about the ‘well-mixed global background’ figure, there are two views relevant here from the AGW explanations given to describe CO2 in the atmosphere, although these are not distinctly held, but used in overlap.
    The first description comes from using ideal gas laws to describe CO2 which is a real gas. So we have explanations such as ‘the molecules of gases are all moving around at great speeds in empty space between them, knocking into each other and and becoming very well mixed, as then does any CO2 entering into the atmosphere; diffusing into the atmosphere by this ideal gas description it too becomes thoroughly mixed and so in the same proportion everywhere. Even those admitting that CO2 is heavier than air will still argue the ideal gas concept actually describes real gases and ideal gas laws are how real gases act in the real physical world; they argue that a quantity of CO2 having pooled on the floor and with no change to the conditions which made the pooling possible, ventilation/wind, will diffuse into the atmosphere as per the the ideal gas idea and so become well-mixed in the atmosphere.
    The second explanation from AGW on well-mixed says that the air becomes this in the turbulence of winds acting on it, and any CO2 entering into the atmosphere will also be subject to the same turbulent mixing as the air is getting and so becomes well-mixed within it. I have asked for an explanation of this force, in the question ‘what is wind?’, of AGW’s, I have not yet received any… Hold on, just checked for the latest and, have still not got an answer, but yet another iteration of this claim, ‘that there is always a force moving CO2, and N2 and O2, along, which is why it’s always well mixed and that I’m incapable of comprehending this’.
    What I comprehend is that neither of these scenarios describe the real CO2 as a real gas in the real physical world, where real gases are subject to gravity and pressure, can become liquids and solids, interact with each other rather than bounce off each other, have weight, have volume, and most importantly, are the basic foodstuff of all life on earth in the cycle of carbon life form creations and not something that is dangerous and polluting and poisonous which has to be buried out of the way because this new religion loosely based on science for its doctrines, says so.
    But anyway, please, no more Bulgarians..

  118. Smoking Frog, I too seem to have mislaid a post in the system, a rather long one on Bulgarians, I’ll wait to see if it turns up before giving a gist of it.
    As for radiation, you’re wrong. No one claims that the CO2 actually heats us up. The claim is that it keeps us warmer than we otherwise would be, something like the way that insultation works. So there’s another straw man.
    Oh please, what straw man? The claim is that additional CO2 will warm up global temperatures, so much so that all the ice will melt and sea levels will rise and drown whole cities like New York and London and polar bears will drown. That because CO2 ‘accumulates in the atmosphere and radiates in all directions some of that will be directed back to earth making it hotter and hotter the more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere by man’s production of it.
    Ah, just seen your further post on this. I’ve never heard the claim that it ‘heats us up by conduction’, neither from AGW nor from antis saying this is what is claimed by AGW’s. This is the first I’ve heard this, all the arguments I’ve seen about it have been about IR. And I am not saying it’s by conduction. I am saying that the AGW claim is that it will heat us up, that is not a straw man.
    You wouldn’t get comfy. The house is radiating, too. The CO2 would only make you slightly warmer than you would be without it, and I’m not even sure it would do that much.
    If it can’t do that much even for me desperately trying to fill the confined space of my room with a thicker insulating blanket of it to get warm, how is it going to raise global temperatures to the degree the IPCC says it will? Would that it did for so little effort, we are coming to the butt end of our interglacial..
    I think this page is a good summary of the flaws in the IPCC case, particularly what is my main objection to this AGWScience claim in the five paragraphs beginning:
    “However, there are good grounds to doubt the IPCC’s current estimates of the effect of changes in CO2 concentration on temperature.”
    Re the “Disjointed and often mutually-contradictory particles of information are scattered about the IPCC’s documents” in the fifth paragraph of this chunk.
    This is something routinely encountered when discussing the subject with AGW’s in the variety of contradictory replies given back, because there is no actual central gathering of data and method for the hypothesis confirming it a working theory to which they themselves can refer.
    That’s why we get different explanations for ‘well-mixed’. Because clarity of explanation is detrimental to the hypothesis there can’t be an actual description of what this means, at least to my knowledge I’ve never seen one and no one’s ever managed to direct me to such, to show me proof. The actual explanations are therefore something transferred by AGW supporters by word of mouth only in the background to ‘the given claim’, which itself is all that is really officially repeated. Hence the strangeness of the explanations from those fully believing that a given claim is real science because it is said to be by this consensus science and therefore real, and this has now permeated the education system to the extent it is taught as scientific fact. 50 years ago it was common elementary science to know enough to appreciate what miners and such knew about the weight of various gases in air and why and how they layered and why this was important for them in their work, and to know enough to appreciate what every weatherman knew, what the wind actually was, even if we still doubted their ability to say for certain which way it would blow..
    In scientific reality, both these explanations are already falsified before they can even take a step in explaining the AGW hypothesis, because real science knows that the properties and workings of real gases aren’t to the imaginary concept of the ideal gas and/or that the atmosphere is not a load of nitrogen and oxygen molecules and other gases being stirred around by some imaginary force extraneous to it, for which they haven’t yet come up with an explanation.
    The AGW theory is an illusion created out of many unproven assumptions and already falsified parts and so very difficult to pin down. Some say there’s a critical level in information exchange, that when and if that particular point is reached the spread becomes exponential. There was an example of this a few days ago, I think it was from Facebook, that the hits the various ads got could be quite slow and intermittant for a long period and abruptly one would take off and be inundated with interest, suddenly becoming the most important with-it group thing in discussions. It took some 30 years for AGW to reach that, but this last decade has seen a rise in real science making a comeback…

  119. Smoking Frog, re your link to Dr Roy Spencer. I couldn’t quite get my head around it.., wasn’t the first plate getting hotter because it was still being heated? Don’t we end up with a sort of perpetual motion heating machine if the colder plate was heating the hotter?
    I came across his site not that long ago, and not long after I’d worked out from a discussion I was having (in trying to discover why such strange things were held to be true about CO2, such as that it could accumulate in the atmosphere for hundreds and even thousands of years even though it was heavier than air), that AGW was using ideal gas concepts to describe real gas CO2 in real gas context. So I had learned something about ideal gases which I didn’t know, and when I read Dr Roy describe the movement of molecules in the atmosphere as being at terrifically high speeds through lots of empty space between them I was able to spot immediately that he too was using ideal gas laws out of context of the real atmosphere. An engineer turned up to tell him that molecules may well be moving at such speeds, but they were going nowhere fast. Anyway, because of my previous brief encounter with his ideas I don’t accept him as an authority on the physics involved in this argument, and rather hoped that another such engineer or his ilk would turn up should I encounter something I didn’t already know to be false in reading him again.
    I find the IR discussions take an awful lot of effort to follow, unused as I am to the language, but a strange thing happens when a real engineer steps in to argue some point or other, my head begins to stop spinning.
    There are several such moments in another discussion on his site, and it can even be something simple like a reminder of something I had once learned, an example from the page relevant to our discussion: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/experiment-test-the-temperature-influence-of-infrared-sky-radiation/
    “The 2nd Law does not say that Radiation is excluded! What Physics textbook has EVER said that?”
    Now I know where your conductive objection comes from! Although strictly speaking conductive relates only to solids, not to liquids and gases, as far as I recall. Could be wrong, it’s been a while.

  120. Myrrh:
    Smoking Frog, re your link to Dr Roy Spencer. I couldn’t quite get my head around it.., wasn’t the first plate getting hotter because it was still being heated? Don’t we end up with a sort of perpetual motion heating machine if the colder plate was heating the hotter?
    Yes, the first plate was still being heated, just as the earth’s surface is still being heated by the sun. Spencer didn’t include an analogy to the sun, because it is not necessary for the explanation. A large part of the solar radiation at the earth’s surface is in the ultraviolet and visible parts of the spectrum, as opposed to the infrared. The earth responds to it by radiating infrared. (That’s a large part of why earth and atmosphere are warm, not because the sun heats them directly with infrared.) The atmosphere is mostly transparent to the UV and the visible, so Spencer would have had to include an object like the sun outside the container, and make the walls transparent to this radiation. That would be silly, since the explanation is about what happens to the infrared once it has been emitted, not how the first plate comes to be emitting it in the first place.
    that AGW was using ideal gas concepts to describe real gas CO2 in real gas context. So I had learned something about ideal gases which I didn’t know, and when I read Dr Roy describe the movement of molecules in the atmosphere as being at terrifically high speeds through lots of empty space between them I was able to spot immediately that he too was using ideal gas laws out of context of the real atmosphere. An engineer turned up to tell him that molecules may well be moving at such speeds, but they were going nowhere fast.
    No, that’s wrong. Ideal gas/not ideal gas has almost nothing to do with CO2 traveling/not traveling to Hawaii from a distant point. An ideal gas is a gas that obeys the ideal gas law: (pressure)(volume) = (amount)(constant)(temperature).
    There are several such moments in another discussion on his site, and it can even be something simple like a reminder of something I had once learned, an example from the page relevant to our discussion: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/experiment-test-the-temperature-influence-of-infrared-sky-radiation/
    “The 2nd Law does not say that Radiation is excluded! What Physics textbook has EVER said that?”
    Now I know where your conductive objection comes from! Although strictly speaking conductive relates only to solids, not to liquids and gases, as far as I recall. Could be wrong, it’s been a while.

    It’s true that radiation is not excluded, but when I said that “normal thermodynamics” (your words) is about conduction, I was talking about the usual elementary illustration of a warmer body in contact with a cooler body. You’re wrong to think that GHE theory requires a cooler body to heat a warmer body, but it’s easy to think so by hearing that atmospheric CO2 makes the earth warmer, and being familiar with the simple illustration. It only makes the earth warmer in the way that insulation makes your house warmer. Just because an object is cooler than some other object does not mean that the cooler object can’t irradiate the warm object. That’s how insulation works.

  121. Myrrh:
    I don’t have time right now to answer the rest of what you’ve said, but I want to tell you that your take on global warming is comically arrogant. You are rejecting things that not even the AGW-skeptic scientists reject. Those are not what’s wrong with the AGW idea. They’re right.
    Regarding Mauna Loa in particular, there might be something wrong, but there is nothing wrong with the idea that CO2 arriving from a distance will be less irregular than local CO2. You have criticized my (revised) “Bulgarians” analogy by saying that people who start out traveling in groups are likely to continue in groups. So what? It’s only an analogy. Bulgarians are not CO2 molecules. All analogies limp.

  122. Sorry, I wasn’t using it as a criticism, just thinking through out loud the idea of discounting large amounts as local re airports and travel, that it would have include site specific knowledge in such a case, because some of the airports could be holiday destinations, hubs, where large groups, any nationality, coming in would stay together.
    But anyway, the problem I have with Mauna Loa is that there is no way they can actually tell what is volcanic by the amount as they measure it, because of the winds etc. CO2 from these sources will be spread out and so also come down more diffusely meeting their parameters for measuring ‘background global’.
    Re insulation, as I understand it the principle is not of this heating another body, but of delaying heat loss. So for example a blanket around someone shivering with cold doesn’t really give the body heat, but delays the loss of the body’s heat, so the heat the body is producing doesn’t get dissipated faster than it can produce it. Insultation in the attic, cavity wall and double glazing works the same way, but once the source of heat is switched off the body/house will start to cool. The insulation can’t send IR back to heat it.
    The earth likewise, the sun heats the earth during the day and at night the earth begins to cool down. Cloud cover can sometimes act as insulation, slowing down the rate of heat loss, but, the earth is still losing heat. If that cloud cover persists to continue blocking out the source of the earth’s heat the earth will continue to cool, because the sun is to the earth as the heating system is to the house or food for the body.
    I tried to work out how big that insulating blanket of CO2 would be for a typical human body, 1.8 sq metres of skin, if it was actually “well-mixed”. For 400 ppm I got .00009 square metres, (bit rusty at maths, I think that’s what it is..). That can’t even be described as ‘insulating’ as I think insulating, and pretty much irrelevant to the energy loss of a typical night even if a bit of CO2 IR spectrum was directed back to earth and thought capable of heating this cooling night time body, so the idea of it adding heat to a warmer body is moot. (Moot as in law, having no practical significance, not as debatable, there’s really nothing to debate.)

  123. But anyway, the problem I have with Mauna Loa is that there is no way they can actually tell what is volcanic by the amount as they measure it, because of the winds etc. CO2 from these sources will be spread out and so also come down more diffusely meeting their parameters for measuring ‘background global’.
    Do you say, then, that CO2 can spread out, but not so far that amounts worth talking about can reach Mauna Loa from distant places? If that’s true, the large variations at Mauna Loa are due to local CO2, just as they claim, but so is the extremely stable CO2 level that persists for hours on end. So you’re implying that the stable level at Mauna Loa differs from the world average. The trouble is, there’s very good agreement between Mauna Loa and 10 other sites in the Scripps network. (It’s not perfect, of course. No one claims that the CO2 level is uniform throughout the world. For example, it’s lower in the Southern Hemisphere.) Here’s an ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratories) page from which you can access graphs and data from all of them.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
    You can’t say they’re all dominated by local CO2, because in that case you’ll have to say that local CO2 is very much the same in lots of places, and besides, you’ve made a big deal out of the fact that Mauna Loa is a volcano. So I don’t think you can maintain your position without alleging a conspiracy.
    I’m puzzled by your idea that background CO2 does not/might not exist; you’ve said that Mauna Loa is no evidence that it exists. How could it not exist? It’s the average over a large region. There would be an average even if local CO2 stayed entirely local.

  124. Re insulation, as I understand it the principle is not of this heating another body, but of delaying heat loss. So for example a blanket around someone shivering with cold doesn’t really give the body heat, but delays the loss of the body’s heat, so the heat the body is producing doesn’t get dissipated faster than it can produce it. Insultation in the attic, cavity wall and double glazing works the same way, but once the source of heat is switched off the body/house will start to cool. The insulation can’t send IR back to heat it.
    Yes, the principle of insulation is of delaying heat loss, but no, insulation can (and does) send IR back. It’s just that this is not an important reason why home insulation (except foil) works. It mainly works by reducing conduction and convection. An example of insulation in which sending back IR is significant (but not the whole story) is the insulation in a thermos bottle.
    If foil by itself would not work well as home insulation,this is probably because the sending back of IR is overwhelmed by the fact that foil is a good conductor.
    All bodies warmer than absolute zero (or something like that) emit IR.
    Sending IR back is an example of delaying heat loss. You are assuming that if a cooler body sends IR to a warmer body, this makes the warmer body even warmer, and since you know that’s wrong, you say that a cooler body does not send IR to a warmer body. You’re wrong, because the warmer body is emitting more IR than it gets back. The cooler body only adds heat to the warmer body in the sense that if I were sending you 10 potatoes a minute, and you were sending back 5 of them, you would be adding to what I would have if you were not sending them back.
    You’ve made remarks showing that you think AGW theory says that the increase of temperature is proportional to the CO2 increase. It does not. It says that, with other things equal, it’s logarithmic; each increase of CO2 raises the temperature by less than the previous increase of the same size.

  125. I tried to work out how big that insulating blanket of CO2 would be for a typical human body, 1.8 sq metres of skin, if it was actually “well-mixed”. For 400 ppm I got .00009 square metres, (bit rusty at maths, I think that’s what it is..). That can’t even be described as ‘insulating’ as I think insulating, and pretty much irrelevant to the energy loss of a typical night even if a bit of CO2 IR spectrum was directed back to earth and thought capable of heating this cooling night time body, so the idea of it adding heat to a warmer body is moot. (Moot as in law, having no practical significance, not as debatable, there’s really nothing to debate.)
    I don’t understand your calculation.
    As I’ve said, I do not claim that a cooler body can heat a warmer body, except in the sense of making the warmer body warmer than it would be if the cooler body were not sending back any IR. It adds heat to the warmer body, but it adds less than the warmer body is losing. I thought you’d get that from Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” article.
    I asked you how you explain the fact that the AGW-skeptic scientists do not deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. Here’s what you said:
    Well, I have to say I don’t really know what they mean by it, I haven’t studied their views on this particular aspect. I know that there’s a general idea that CO2 has a ‘saturation point’ above which ‘doubling’ of CO2 does not mean ‘doubling of temperature’, and several times I’ve seen the figure given as doubling now would raise global temps around 1 degree and that’s its limit, but, that’s not my interest here. I can’t see how it can do that either in the scheme of our global atmosphere in our real physical world.
    What the skeptics mean by “the greenhouse effect” is the same as what the warmists mean by it.
    Doubling of CO2 never means doubling of temperature. The only doubling of temperature concept that makes sense is a doubling of the temperature above absolute zero, but if that were to occur, the global mean temperature would be over 500 degrees Fahrenheit.

  126. Do you say, then, that CO2 can spread out, but not so far that amounts worth talking about can reach Mauna Loa from distant places?
    Whether it can, or does, or not, isn’t my gripe here. Their claim is that they can confidently exclude the volcanic to give them a pristine background from air coming in across half the Pacific. They can’t.
    ..So you’re implying that the stable level at Mauna Loa differs from the world average.
    Again, not the issue. All I’m saying is that their claims to provide pristine ‘global background’ is impossible. (The claim is that because CO2 is well-mixed all over the globe it doesn’t matter where it’s measured from as long as the point of measurement is free from anything local to contaminate their readings.)
    You need to bear in mind here that their continuing claim for Mauna Loa is that it is a perfect site for such a measurement, chosen by Keeling from the beginning, and that such measurements are taken at places free from local imput precisely to avoid so such problems in their quest to produce ‘background global’, to maintain pristine samples. It should also be borne in mind that most people take such information on trust, it is only those who begin to look into the claims that get to the point where they do a double-take…
    ..and then the whole thing unravels. From the Keeling/Callendar cherry picking and settling for particularly low series of readings from which to prove that man-made CO2 emissions were growing and would affect the climate. This was the intent, I think that’s a particularly important thing to take into consideration here to fit the jigsaw pieces together, because the intent since then has been clearly also to make it appear that this really was happening, by the constant re-editing of temperature records to fit Mauna Loa and the other stations and the need to get rid of the MWP and LIA. And then of course added to this scientific fraud is the constant barrage of abusive attacks against the integrity of any scientist who raised objections. There are links on the Obituary Ernst Georg Beck which expand on the initial cherry picking. Oh, and this point that Keeling’s intention was to deliberately prove this connection was from his strong environmentalism, Keeling was Gore’s guru, inspired him. Shortly before his death Keeling began to voice that he was wrong, Gore dismissed this as the onset of senility.
    This is a typical pro-AGW apologetic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunning-Kruger-effect-and-the-climate-debate.html
    I’m posting this for the graph which shows a Hockey stick with Mauna Loa data against ice core readings and the graph following. Firstly the first, there are lots of pages on the unreliability of ice-core data, most of which I find too technical to follow, but let’s look at the time line. From around the time of the big melt into our Holocene when sea levels rose over 300′ to now, shows a slight increase even in the ice core, to be expected as CO2 historically shows time lag behind rises in temperatures, but, actually since that beginning very steep rise in temperature which brought in the benign to life conditions in the northern hemisphere as the miles thick ice melted – the temperature has been decreasing, in fits and starts, but decreasing. Our Holocene is no different in general to the past 450,000 years of cycles as seen on the Vostok graph. This AGW on Mauna Loa graph is meaningless to real science without the inclusion of a real temperature line for a start, but, as propaganda it serves AGW purposes. Followed by another such deliberate sleight of hand, the cherry picking of the beginning of the second graph on that page makes it appear that there is lockstep of rising CO2 and rising temperatures, only those taking a closer look will see why this point was chosen..
    The trouble is, there’s very good agreement between Mauna Loa and 10 other sites in the Scripps network.
    Why shouldn’t there be? Keeling’s son has control of all them. I haven’t spent any time looking at the other sites in any great depth, but in passing I’ve come across several mentions of data not freely given, and there was something about sites going out of the loop. But anyway, same agenda. And, in that the gathering of temperature data in AGW is now well settled consensus amongst those taking this seriously, that these have been consistently manipulated to that agenda, I don’t see any reason to give any benefit of the doubt to the equal unreliablity of CO2 station data as these groups have been many working decades together.
    You can’t say they’re all dominated by local CO2, because in that case you’ll have to say that local CO2 is very much the same in lots of places,
    Well, I’m quite happy to say that. Historical (see Beck) analysis confirmed that…
    and besides, you’ve made a big deal out of the fact that Mauna Loa is a volcano.
    And my specific argument is as above. Against their specific claims for Mauna Loa, that it is a perfect place to measure ‘global background well-mixed in the atmosphere CO2 cleanly arriving across half the Pacific and free from local contamination of samples’. From which they claim ‘that this shows rising global background CO2 from their measurements pre-Industrial Revolution to rises in temperature in line with increased man-made CO2’.
    Again, a cherry picked beginning for temperature rises, the end of the LIA, but this is a many-headed monster.
    I’m puzzled by your idea that background CO2 does not/might not exist; you’ve said that Mauna Loa is no evidence that it exists. How could it not exist? It’s the average over a large region. There would be an average even if local CO2 stayed entirely local.
    This relates to the AGW claim that there is a ‘well-mixed background CO2 which stays up in the atmosphere accumulating’. From which all the dire predictions of catastrophe and frantic exploration of methods to bury carbon dioxide deep underground..
    They haven’t proved such a thing exists. That there is CO2 in the background is not the same thing. Carbon Dioxide is constantly in our atmosphere, our very lives depend on it being there..
    Also, its average is pretty much as historical measurement show, around 400 ppm.
    Remember, the AGW argument from Mauna Loa is that it has grown from an average of 280 ppm ‘before man’s imput of extra CO2 began leading to higher temperatures’.
    So I don’t think you can maintain your position without alleging a conspiracy.
    Hmm, conspiracy has certainly been proved in the email saga, but here there was definitely an agenda, Keeling made no secret of that so there’s no conspiracy there. It was the stated reason for choosing Mauna Loa in the first place.
    Now, this is very poorly remembered so it’s not the detail that’s my point here, but some time ago on this site there was a discussion about some readings from Mauna Loa, seems their computer had gone on the blink or something, or somehow large variations were not included, but someone made the comment that in analysing reems of data there’s a possibility of a kind of ‘blindness’ to anything that isn’t expected. My own personal view of Keeling is that his belief in the accuracy of his ideas had the same effect on him. This makes more sense to me of his much later attempts to retract from the accuracy of the conclusions in his own work. Over the years he must have been exposed to counter arguments, finally, I think, these raised doubts even in him as someone driven by his vision. I think this was a brave thing to do, it was his life’s work. Of course, by then the juggernaut was rolling and crushing all opposition, hence Gore’s uncharitable remarks.
    According to the Observatory website: “the undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2009.12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html
    While looking for information on the winds around Mauna Loa I found a discussion between helicopter pilots, the in-joke was that those learning to fly on Hawaii wouldn’t know how to deal with calm conditions when flying elsewhere..
    The real pattern here is the constant propaganda of descriptions at odds with the facts, it becomes rather pathetic really when it’s looked at in the detail as we’re doing here.
    I’ll have to leave it there for the moment, will come back to the rest of your post after the weekend.
    Enjoy yours.
    Here’s one of the pages looking at the earlier CO2 data and the cherry picking, http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2007/03/real-history-of-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

  127. Apologies, poor coding check, reposting:
    Do you say, then, that CO2 can spread out, but not so far that amounts worth talking about can reach Mauna Loa from distant places?
    Whether it can, or does, or not, isn’t my gripe here. Their claim is that they can confidently exclude the volcanic to give them a pristine background from air coming in across half the Pacific. They can’t.
    ..So you’re implying that the stable level at Mauna Loa differs from the world average.
    Again, not the issue. All I’m saying is that their claims to provide pristine ‘global background’ is impossible. (The claim is that because CO2 is well-mixed all over the globe it doesn’t matter where it’s measured from as long as the point of measurement is free from anything local to contaminate their readings.)
    You need to bear in mind here that their continuing claim for Mauna Loa is that it is a perfect site for such a measurement, chosen by Keeling from the beginning, and that such measurements are taken at places free from local imput precisely to avoid so such problems in their quest to produce ‘background global’, to maintain pristine samples. It should also be borne in mind that most people take such information on trust, it is only those who begin to look into the claims that get to the point where they do a double-take…
    ..and then the whole thing unravels. From the Keeling/Callendar cherry picking and settling for particularly low series of readings from which to prove that man-made CO2 emissions were growing and would affect the climate. This was the intent, I think that’s a particularly important thing to take into consideration here to fit the jigsaw pieces together, because the intent since then has been clearly also to make it appear that this really was happening, by the constant re-editing of temperature records to fit Mauna Loa and the other stations and the need to get rid of the MWP and LIA. And then of course added to this scientific fraud is the constant barrage of abusive attacks against the integrity of any scientist who raised objections. There are links on the Obituary Ernst Georg Beck which expand on the initial cherry picking. Oh, and this point that Keeling’s intention was to deliberately prove this connection was from his strong environmentalism, Keeling was Gore’s guru, inspired him. Shortly before his death Keeling began to voice that he was wrong, Gore dismissed this as the onset of senility.
    This is a typical pro-AGW apologetic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunning-Kruger-effect-and-the-climate-debate.html
    I’m posting this for the graph which shows a Hockey stick with Mauna Loa data against ice core readings and the graph following. Firstly the first, there are lots of pages on the unreliability of ice-core data, most of which I find too technical to follow, but let’s look at the time line. From around the time of the big melt into our Holocene when sea levels rose over 300′ to now, shows a slight increase even in the ice core, to be expected as CO2 historically shows time lag behind rises in temperatures, but, actually since that beginning very steep rise in temperature which brought in the benign to life conditions in the northern hemisphere as the miles thick ice melted – the temperature has been decreasing, in fits and starts, but decreasing. Our Holocene is no different in general to the past 450,000 years of cycles as seen on the Vostok graph. This AGW on Mauna Loa graph is meaningless to real science without the inclusion of a real temperature line for a start, but, as propaganda it serves AGW purposes. Followed by another such deliberate sleight of hand, the cherry picking of the beginning of the second graph on that page makes it appear that there is lockstep of rising CO2 and rising temperatures, only those taking a closer look will see why this point was chosen..
    The trouble is, there’s very good agreement between Mauna Loa and 10 other sites in the Scripps network.
    Why shouldn’t there be? Keeling’s son has control of all them. I haven’t spent any time looking at the other sites in any great depth, but in passing I’ve come across several mentions of data not freely given, and there was something about sites going out of the loop. But anyway, same agenda. And, in that the gathering of temperature data in AGW is now well settled consensus amongst those taking this seriously, that these have been consistently manipulated to that agenda, I don’t see any reason to give any benefit of the doubt to the equal unreliablity of CO2 station data as these groups have been many working decades together.
    You can’t say they’re all dominated by local CO2, because in that case you’ll have to say that local CO2 is very much the same in lots of places,
    Well, I’m quite happy to say that. Historical (see Beck) analysis confirmed that…
    and besides, you’ve made a big deal out of the fact that Mauna Loa is a volcano.
    And my specific argument is as above. Against their specific claims for Mauna Loa, that it is a perfect place to measure ‘global background well-mixed in the atmosphere CO2 cleanly arriving across half the Pacific and free from local contamination of samples’. From which they claim ‘that this shows rising global background CO2 from their measurements pre-Industrial Revolution to rises in temperature in line with increased man-made CO2’.
    Again, a cherry picked beginning for temperature rises, the end of the LIA, but this is a many-headed monster.
    I’m puzzled by your idea that background CO2 does not/might not exist; you’ve said that Mauna Loa is no evidence that it exists. How could it not exist? It’s the average over a large region. There would be an average even if local CO2 stayed entirely local.
    This relates to the AGW claim that there is a ‘well-mixed background CO2 which stays up in the atmosphere accumulating’. From which all the dire predictions of catastrophe and frantic exploration of methods to bury carbon dioxide deep underground..
    They haven’t proved such a thing exists. That there is CO2 in the background is not the same thing. Carbon Dioxide is constantly in our atmosphere, our very lives depend on it being there..
    Also, its average is pretty much as historical measurement show, around 400 ppm.
    Remember, the AGW argument from Mauna Loa is that it has grown from an average of 280 ppm ‘before man’s imput of extra CO2 began leading to higher temperatures’.
    So I don’t think you can maintain your position without alleging a conspiracy.
    Hmm, conspiracy has certainly been proved in the email saga, but here there was definitely an agenda, Keeling made no secret of that so there’s no conspiracy there. It was the stated reason for choosing Mauna Loa in the first place.
    Now, this is very poorly remembered so it’s not the detail that’s my point here, but some time ago on this site there was a discussion about some readings from Mauna Loa, seems their computer had gone on the blink or something, or somehow large variations were not included, but someone made the comment that in analysing reems of data there’s a possibility of a kind of ‘blindness’ to anything that isn’t expected. My own personal view of Keeling is that his belief in the accuracy of his ideas had the same effect on him. This makes more sense to me of his much later attempts to retract from the accuracy of the conclusions in his own work. Over the years he must have been exposed to counter arguments, finally, I think, these raised doubts even in him as someone driven by his vision. I think this was a brave thing to do, it was his life’s work. Of course, by then the juggernaut was rolling and crushing all opposition, hence Gore’s uncharitable remarks.
    According to the Observatory website: “the undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2009.12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html
    While looking for information on the winds around Mauna Loa I found a discussion between helicopter pilots, the in-joke was that those learning to fly on Hawaii wouldn’t know how to deal with calm conditions when flying elsewhere..
    The real pattern here is the constant propaganda of descriptions at odds with the facts, it becomes rather pathetic really when it’s looked at in the detail as we’re doing here.
    I’ll have to leave it there for the moment, will come back to the rest of your post after the weekend.
    Enjoy yours.
    Here’s one of the pages looking at the earlier CO2 data and the cherry picking, http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2007/03/real-history-of-carbon-dioxide-levels.html

  128. Myrrh:
    Keeling was Gore’s guru, inspired him. Shortly before his death Keeling began to voice that he was wrong, Gore dismissed this as the onset of senility.
    That wasn’t Charles Keeling! It was Roger Revelle. Again and again, you show that you are not familiar with the question of global warming or the events surrounding it.

  129. This AGW on Mauna Loa graph is meaningless to real science without the inclusion of a real temperature line for a start, but, as propaganda it serves AGW purposes.
    What “AGW on Mauna Loa graph”? The article doesn’t show any graph of AGW.
    Followed by another such deliberate sleight of hand, the cherry picking of the beginning of the second graph on that page makes it appear that there is lockstep of rising CO2 and rising temperatures, only those taking a closer look will see why this point was chosen..
    No, it doesn’t. There’s no information in it about temperature. Besides, anyone who claimed that CO2 and temperature moved in “lockstep” would be in conflict with “mainstream” scientific opinion.

  130. Smoking Frog, please let me know if you’re still reading this. I haven’t been able to return to it earlier.

  131. Myrrh:
    Yep, I’m still reading, or rather, I will keep reading, since the “notify” email alerted me to your message.

  132. That wasn’t Charles Keeling! It was Roger Revelle. Again and again, you show that you are not familiar with the question of global warming or the events surrounding it.
    Right, that was Revelle, I’ve been thinking it was Keeling for quite a while. It was some time ago that I read that history and associated the story with Keeling. So, my sympathy for Keeling was misplaced.., it was Revelle who tried to reign things in.
    I’m familiar enough with quite a few aspects of it.., enough to have decided in my investigation that it was a con built on unproven science. I continue learning.
    I don’t understand your calculation. As I’ve said, I don not claim that a cooler body can heat a warmer body, except in the sense of making the warmer body warmer than it would be if the cooler body were not sending back an IR. It adds heat to the warmer body, but it adds less than the warmer body is losing. I thought you’d get that from Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” article.
    Shrug, I’m not sure what anyone can get from this article. He begins by saying,
    “Probably as the result of my recent post explaining in simple terms my “skepticism” about global warming being mostly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, I’m getting a lot of e-meail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible.
    More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming.
    These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphgere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect. etc.”
    And the rest is garbled. For example, he at one point compares the second plate to cloud cover on a cold night, and attributes this to IR from the second plate delaying the heat loss of the first plate, having already said that he can’t think of anything else it could be which is causing the first plate to heat up. Though having said that the electric source heating continues. In the case of the cloud he says it is because it is sending out IR. And so on along the same lines as what you’ve been saying here about insulation and blanket.
    So I’m confused. I really, really, have not the faintest idea of what he is saying.
    I’m assuming he’s still attempting, or rather thinks he has, shown that ‘ back radiation from the cooler layers of the upper atmosphere can flow to warmer lower layers’.
    Given that he doesn’t dispute the law of heat flows to cooler objects, I can’t see that he has shown this.
    In likening the heating of the first plate by the second to cloud cover on a cold night for example, he attributes the warming to IR, that seems to me a totally irrelevant comparison. The earth’s atmosphere is not a vacuum, water has a higher heat capacity than carbon dioxide, that’s why we use water in our radiators, not CO2, and so on. IR is emitted by warm things, how is a cold CO2 molecule in the upper layers of the atmosphere emitting it? What is this second plate really doing? Like the cloud cover, he just assumes that it is IR and leaves it at that. Not only has he failed to prove that colder upper layers of the atmosphere are capable of heating lower warmer layers, he doesn’t actually make anything clear about ‘the Greenhouse Effect’.
    We could go through this article in more detail, but since you keep using the idea of this as ‘insulation’ effect as he does, I thought I’d concentrate on that particular aspect. Hence my attempt to work out what this ‘blanket of CO2’ actually looks like, because by using such imagery this insulation conjours up something quite substantial. In the roof space of a house, so also a blanket around a body. The image of the effects of CO2 are utterly at odds with its availability to be such a substantial cause of warming, as you’ve already admitted here. So why keep on using it? Such an insulating blanket of CO2 around your cold but still living body would be utterly useless in raising your temperature. It would be around 1sq inch of the total surface of your body, even if you were lucky enough to have it all congregated in one place rather than thoroughly scattered in the mix of air around your body..
    What the skeptics mean by “the greenouse effect” is the same as what the warmists mean by it.”
    This is the crux of the problem I have with the AGW arguments for CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect. As I’ve explained re that article, I don’t understand them. If you can explain this better than Spencer who makes no sense at all, then I might be able to compare it with ‘what skeptics mean by it’, whatever that is. (And I don’t actually care what this is in our discussion, I’m really only interested in understanding what AGW’s mean by it.)
    If you can explain it better than Spencer, then please do so.

  133. Myrrh:
    You ask how “a cold CO2 molecule in the upper layers of the atmosphere” can be emitting IR. Every object whose temperature is above absolute zero emits IR. Secondly, the CO2 that does the back-radiating that we’re concerned with is not in the upper layers of the atmosphere. It’s in the troposphere.
    I’m assuming he’s still attempting, or rather thinks he has, shown that ‘ back radiation from the cooler layers of the upper atmosphere can flow to warmer lower layers’. Given that he doesn’t dispute the law of heat flows to cooler objects, I can’t see that he has shown this.
    There is no contradiction between back-radiation and the fact that heat flows from warmer objects to cooler objects. The CO2 sends back some percentage of the IR that it receives from the earth’s surface, so the earth’s surface is sending more than it gets back. The situation is as if I were throwing baseballs to you, and you were throwing some of them back to me. The net flow would be from me to you, but it would be slower (in baseballs per unit time) than if you were not throwing any of them back.
    You have not explained the calculation I said I didn’t understand.

  134. You ask how “a cold CO2 molecule in the upper layers of the atmosphere” can be emitting IR. Every object whose temperature is above absolute zero emits IR.
    Oh, please, we’re talking here about major heat transfer, the scenario we’re presented with is bloody great billions and billions and billions and billions of tons arctic and antarctic ice and Himalayan glaciers melting, scenes of New York and London flooded to practical obliteration!
    IR is heat transfer. Heat being the optimum word here. IR is given out by warm or hot bodies. A cold CO2 molecule has no heat, no IR to emit. A hot CO2 molecule cannot keep its heat, it emits practically instantly, so a hot CO2 will practically instantly pass on that heat to whatever is colder around it, like water vapour, or the heat will disappear into space, because heat rises, and this will be practically instantly out of the whole atmosphere because light travels etc.
    Secondly, the CO2 that does the back-radiating that we’re concerned with is not in the upper layers of the atmopshere. It’s in the troposphere.
    I used his description, I thought that he meant the upper layers of the troposphere, but in the example it’s actually about the upper layers of the the whole atmosphere since he compares his vacuum to the vacuum of space. As I said, he isn’t making sense to me, another example of why not. Either way, a cold CO2 isn’t emitting IR, not that CO2 is likely in the upper layers of the whole atmosphere.
    There is no contradiction between back-radiation and the fact that heat flows from warmer objects to cooler objects. The CO2 sends back some percentage of the IR that it recieves from the earth’s surface, so the earth’s surface is sending more than it gets back. The situation is as if I were throwing baseballs to you, and you were throwing some of them back to me. The net flow would be from me to you, but it would be slower (in baseballs per unit time) than if you were not throwing any of them back.
    ? So what’s the mechanism that’s throwing the CO2 back to earth, if the earth is warmer?
    You have not explained the calculation I said I didn’t understand.
    I thought I’d explained it, I took the the surface of skin area on a human body (a figure around 1.85 square metres), to see what proportion 400ppm would be.
    I didn’t have time to work out what this square inch (around 7square centimetres), would look like spread ‘well-mixed’, in terms of something that one could visualise, fraction of hair, cobweb?, but it’s insignificant. That’s why CO2 is called a trace gas, it’s insignificant as a proportion of our atmosphere. (Atmosphere here the troposphere, this is, I’ve noted, generally used as a term to describe just our troposphere, our immediate atmosphere subject to gravity, pressure etc.)

  135. Myrrh:
    IR is heat transfer. Heat being the optimum word here. IR is given out by warm or hot bodies. A cold CO2 molecule has no heat, no IR to emit. A hot CO2 molecule cannot keep its heat, it emits practically instantly, so a hot CO2 will practically instantly pass on that heat to whatever is colder around it, like water vapour, or the heat will disappear into space, because heat rises, and this will be practically instantly out of the whole atmosphere because light travels etc.
    IR is emitted by every object with temperature above absolute zero. This does not depend on coldness of surrounding objects. Indeed, the warmer the surrounding objects, the more IR the object emits, because it receives more. Heat “flows” from the warmer to the colder in part because the warmer emits more IR than the colder. The colder object does not have any magical power to decide whether to emit.
    Heat rises because of convection.
    I used his description, I thought that he meant the upper layers of the troposphere, but in the example it’s actually about the upper layers of the the whole atmosphere since he compares his vacuum to the vacuum of space. As I said, he isn’t making sense to me, another example of why not. Either way, a cold CO2 isn’t emitting IR, not that CO2 is likely in the upper layers of the whole atmosphere.
    The cold CO2 does emit IR. There is some CO2 in the upper atmosphere, but it’s not the CO2 we’re concerned with in talking about back-radiation warming the surface.
    ? So what’s the mechanism that’s throwing the CO2 back to earth, if the earth is warmer?
    As I said, any object above absolute zero emits IR. You are implying that whether an object emits IR depends on the temperature of its surroundings. That’s not true.
    I thought I’d explained it, I took the the surface of skin area on a human body (a figure around 1.85 square metres), to see what proportion 400ppm would be. I didn’t have time to work out what this square inch (around 7square centimetres), would look like spread ‘well-mixed’, in terms of something that one could visualise, fraction of hair, cobweb?, but it’s insignificant. That’s why CO2 is called a trace gas, it’s insignificant as a proportion of our atmosphere. (Atmosphere here the troposphere, this is, I’ve noted, generally used as a term to describe just our troposphere, our immediate atmosphere subject to gravity, pressure etc.)
    No, you didn’t explain it, and you haven’t explained it now. The 400 ppm is 400 ppm of the atmosphere. Did you multiply the mass of the atmosphere by 0.0004, divide the result by the human population, and somehow (how!?) come up with your 0.0009 square meters from that? Or did you pile all the CO2 onto one person and somehow (how!?) come up with your 0.00009 square meters from that? Or what? I have no idea of what you did.
    Bill

  136. IR is emitted by every object with temperature above absolute zero.
    I’m not disagreeing with you, but then that also includes all the nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere.
    This does not depend on coldness of surrounding objects. Indeed, the warmer the surrounding objects, the more IR the object emits, because it receives more. Heat “flows” from the warmer to the colder in part because the warmer emits more IR than the colder. The colder object does not have any magical power to decide whether to emit.
    Nor does it have any magical power to emit against the law that heat flows from the hotter to the colder, and not the other way round.
    heat rises because of convection.
    And radiation.
    The cold CO2 does emit IR. There is some CO2 in the upper atmosphere, but it’s not the CO2 we’re concerned with in talking about back-radiation warming the surface.
    There’s IR and IR, far IR is thermal, and is, as I’m using it here, the common understanding of IR, thermal energy. How does CO2 in this ‘back-radiation’ transfer thermal energy back to the hotter earth’s surface which emitted it when the law clearly states it can’t?
    As I said, any object above absolute zero emits IR. You are implying that whether an object emits IR depends on the temperature of its surroundings. That’s not true.
    No, as above, I’m saying that heat transfer cannot be from colder to hotter, and, heat rises. The atmosphere, troposphere, is cooler the higher it is from earth, the heat transfer from the earth will therefore always be in the direction away from the earth’s surface. Cloud cover particularly, but water vapour generally in the atmosphere has a real ability to delay this, but still, the direction of heat transfer still remains from the earth upwards. CO2’s heat capacity is less than 1, it can’t hold onto to heat, it passes it on practically instantaneously. And so that will be in the direction away from earth’s surface still emitting the hotter IR, to the colder around it. (The actual light aspect of this takes a very small fraction of a second to leave the earth’s whole atmosphere, it doesn’t hang around!) Anyway, the colder-than-earth emitting IR CO2, cannot then back-heat the earth’s surface heating it up. If it could we would have perpetual motion effect, the earth getting hotter releasing more heat and CO2 back-radiating it making it even hotter and the much hotter earth emitting even more heat and the CO2 back-radiating it making the earth even hotter, ad infinitum. It doesn’t happen.
    My fuel bills would go in inverse ratio if you can let me know what to tell my plumber in setting up these second plates..
    We also know it doesn’t happen quite obviously because the clouds and water vapour in the atmosphere which have a greater capacity to hold thermal energy, and significantly more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, have never had such an effect as back-radiating the IR and heating the earth’s surface making it hotter as per AGW description of CO2. (At any given day the amount of rain fall is around 3% of the total water content of our atmosphere.) That’s an awful lot of IR not back-radiating to heat the earth’s suface. What we find instead is that just as land nearer the sea is cooler, because water evaporates from the earth’s surface when heated by the sun, as it rises it takes away heat from the earth. Because of its exceptional capacity to hold heat, water has a two-fold effect on our atmosphere, it both delays the loss of heat after the sun has warmed it, (noticeably so as in Spencer’s description of cloud cover), and cools the atmosphere when the sun is warming it.
    In other words, water vapour is our greenhouse gas of choice, real greenhouse not AGW, regulating the temperature of the earth by regulating the extremes of temperature we would have without it as in a desert, giving us life.
    No, you didn’t explain it, and you haven’t explained it now. The 400 ppm is 400 ppm of the atmosphere. Did you multiply the mass of the atmosphere by 0.0004, divide the result by the human population, etc.
    Grin. No I did not. First a reminder of why I did it. Because I’m really really fed up of these images of ‘blanket’ and ‘insulation’ in AGW descriptions of CO2 in our atmosphere, conjouring up something so substantial relative to the earth’s surface that it ‘will cause all the ice on earth to melt and millions will die’.. The 400ppm is a proportion, so, I wondered just what this meant if it was a blanket around a human body. For human body I took the area which is skin, around 1.85 square metres, divided it by a million and multiplied that by 400, I got a very tiny blanket. And not much use in insulation as in a house if I put that very tiny blanket on top of my head. But, since AGW claim is that CO2 is thoroughly mixed and so evenly distributed, that tiny blanket would then have to be shared equally by my body’s area of skin. Which is such an insignificant amount I can’t readily find something to use as an analogy. Suffice to say that it is practically invisible?
    Which, a, put’s the description “CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere” and so insignificant for AGW purposes, into a more manageable picture, and b, makes me glad that CO2 is heavier than air and will always sink through air back to the earth’s surface where plants, and we, need it to survive and so, doesn’t ‘stay hundreds and even thousands of years out of reach well mixed through the atmosphere’, starving us to death at the surface and back-radiating us into toast.

  137. SF: IR is emitted by every object with temperature above absolute zero.
    M: I’m not disagreeing with you, but then that also includes all the nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere.
    Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR. CO2 is not. However, your remark is relevant in that CO2 molecules collide with oxygen and nitrogen molecules.
    SF: This does not depend on coldness of surrounding objects. Indeed, the warmer the surrounding objects, the more IR the object emits, because it receives more. Heat “flows” from the warmer to the colder in part because the warmer emits more IR than the colder. The colder object does not have any magical power to decide whether to emit.
    M: Nor does it have any magical power to emit against the law that heat flows from the hotter to the colder, and not the other way round.
    It doesn’t emit against the law. It emits “against” the more rapid loss of heat that would occur if it were not there, just as, in my baseballs analogy, you emit against the more rapid loss of baseballs that I would suffer if you were not throwing some of them back to me. Whoever it is that writes scienceofdoom.com has identified 6 engineering textbooks that confirm this. He provides photos of the textbook pages:
    Amazing Things we Find in Textbooks – The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics
    SF: heat rises because of convection.
    M: And radiation.
    Yes, but the radiation does not have a preferred direction. The CO2 emits IR in all directions.
    SF: The cold CO2 does emit IR. There is some CO2 in the upper atmosphere, but it’s not the CO2 we’re concerned with in talking about back-radiation warming the surface.
    M: There’s IR and IR, far IR is thermal, and is, as I’m using it here, the common understanding of IR, thermal energy. How does CO2 in this ‘back-radiation’ transfer thermal energy back to the hotter earth’s surface which emitted it when the law clearly states it can’t?
    The law does not state that it can’t. The law is about the net effect. It has nothing to say about whether a colder body emits IR in the direction of a warmer body.
    SF: As I said, any object above absolute zero emits IR. You are implying that whether an object emits IR depends on the temperature of its surroundings. That’s not true.
    M: No, as above, I’m saying that heat transfer cannot be from colder to hotter, and, heat rises. The atmosphere, troposphere, is cooler the higher it is from earth, the heat transfer from the earth will therefore always be in the direction away from the earth’s surface.
    Heat transfer is the net effect. Think about the baseballs. There’s “net baseball transfer” from me to you, but this does not preclude your throwing some of them back to me as part of this process.
    M: Cloud cover particularly, but water vapour generally in the atmosphere has a real ability to delay this, but still, the direction of heat transfer still remains from the earth upwards. CO2′s heat capacity is less than 1, it can’t hold onto to heat, it passes it on practically instantaneously. And so that will be in the direction away from earth’s surface still emitting the hotter IR, to the colder around it. (The actual light aspect of this takes a very small fraction of a second to leave the earth’s whole atmosphere, it doesn’t hang around!) Anyway, the colder-than-earth emitting IR CO2, cannot then back-heat the earth’s surface heating it up. If it could we would have perpetual motion effect, the earth getting hotter releasing more heat and CO2 back-radiating it making it even hotter and the much hotter earth emitting even more heat and the CO2 back-radiating it making the earth even hotter, ad infinitum. It doesn’t happen.
    There’s no perpetual motion effect. I am not claiming that the CO2 and water vapor back-radiate all of the IR that they receive from the earth’s surface. Beyond that, let me say, you raise too many issues simultaneously. I don’t have the time or the inclination to disentangle them with long explanations, and I don’t think it would do any good, considering the difficulty you’re having. Besides, I’m not a physics teacher or anything like that, so I would have to think very hard about how to state things.
    More later – maybe.

  138. Myrrh, I forgot, one other thing re your phrase “greenhouse gas of choice,” referring to water vapor If that means that water vapor is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect, the warmists agree with you. The trouble is, it’s not an independent variable; the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold depends on the temperature. If you raise the temperature by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, this enables it to hold more water vapor.

  139. Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR. CO2 is not.
    Well, first of all that oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR is a claim that is not proved, or rather I have never seen it explained, shown, as proved, instead all I see is references to Tyndall, (who said that water was the primary warmer of the earth’s atmosphere by IR and the rest insignificant).
    Actually, cannot be proved if they are shown to not be transparent to IR.
    So, where is the tested proof that they are transparent?
    Here is a claimed proof that both oxygen and nitrogen are not transparent to IR, (which I’m still thinking about):
    http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
    Here spectrum data:
    http://www.coe.ou.edu/sserg/web/Results/Spectrum/o2.pdf
    which made my eyes glaze over, however, I have now found this page:
    http://freshgasflow.com/physics/respi_gases/oxygen/pulse_oximeter.html
    which is written and presented in language I can understand. Oxygenated blood absorbs more infrared light than red light, de-oxygenated blood absorbs more red light than infrared light.
    This is a machine built to measure something important to know accurately in the medical sciences, if oxygen was known to be transparent to IR would anyone have thought to devise such an instrument?
    However, your remark is relevant in that CO2 molecules collide with oxygen and nitrogen molecules.
    As do oxygen with nitrogen and nitrogen with nitrogen and oxygen with oxygen. And there are more of these to collide with each other than there are carbon dioxide molecules.
    It doesn’t emit against the law. It emits “against” the more rapid loss of heat that would occur if it were not there, just as, in my baseballs analogy, you emit against the more rapid loss of baseballs that I would suffer if you were not throwing some of them back to me.
    It’s against the Law. This Law states quite clearly and unambiguously that heat does not flow from a colder to a hotter object. Generations of practical scientists, I include here all the engineers who work with this Law, have not found it possible to violate it. If they had, things created in the real world by real science engineers in all fields where this is applicable would be creating things which wouldn’t work, and they would long ago have told us that. It would no longer be a Law but a falsified hypothesis.
    Your baseball analogy, to remind us, as you posted earlier.
    The situation is as if I were throwing baseballs to you, and you were throwing some of them back to me. The net flow would be from me to you, but it would be slower (in baseballs per unit time) than if you were not throwing any of them back.
    I can understand the picture. I can understand how it works with baseballs. I can’t understand how it works in heat transfer when the Law states that the direction of flow of heat cannot be from colder to hotter. It either can or it can’t. We have a tried and tested Law which says it can’t. So what’s going on here?
    I missed it the first time around, but your addition of the page below goes to explain it what I think is awry with your baseball analogy, why it isn’t applicable re heat transfer as I understand it.
    Whoever it is that writes scienceofdoom.com has identified 6 engineering textbooks that confirm this. He provides photos of the textbook pages:
    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

    I find such a page very difficult to read, but, I have spotted something I saw an engineer reply to which relates to your baseball analogy, so I’ll paraphrase his answer as best I can.
    ScienceofDoom says the Law of Thermodynamics is imaginary and he proposes that there is a ‘real’ version which contradicts it and shows that textbooks say so. As above, I cannot for one moment understand why generations of scientists have practically used this Law and not found it violated without telling us.
    The first thing he mentions in his ‘real’ law is: 1a Net heat flows from the hotter to the colder. This is your baseball analogy.
    A reply I read somewhere, was that this was like saying that gravity is a net effect. He posted to a link, which I didn’t follow up so can’t reference now, which stated that law is without the ‘net’, i.e. that the classic law is that ‘heat flows from the hotter to the colder’, not, ‘net heat flows from the hotter to the colder’. He gave gravity as an example.
    If it were ‘net gravity’ the baseballs you were throwing to me would sometimes be arriving in the direction I would expect and sometimes not, some would be flying out of our gravitational field and into space, but, the ‘net’ effect statistically would be that most would arrive in the trajectory I would expect them to arrive according to classical measurement of gravity.
    Clearly, this doesn’t make any sense in the Law of Gravity as we know it, all of us know it practically, so why should such an addition of ‘net’ to the law of heat transfer make any more sense, even if it’s not so obvious?
    Also, this ‘net gravity’ would have the same probability of you accurately receiving the balls I was throwing back as it did when you threw them to me.
    So, I’m not sure about this ‘net’ thing re heat and your baseball analogy.
    But also, re this page from ScienceofDoom, are you sure he is accurately reading the textbooks?
    If you look at the posts exchanged between SofD and John Millet beginning 10ct 10, 8:43 and in particular to John Millett’s reply Oct 11 9:25 to SofD’s post above it, Oct 10 4:17 – then, I’m reluctant to believe that the classic Law of Thermodynamics is imaginary as ScienceofDoom says it is.
    I really don’t understand the mathematics of it to accurately judge this exchange, if you can provide me, I’ll continue looking too, with a workable example such as the simpler page I posted on oxygen absorbing IR, something that works in the real world, I might be able to get my head around it better.
    The page you posted earlier on the Spencer example doesn’t do this for me either, as I said. But then, neither does it really for him, because he says that, I paraphrase, ‘if the original hot plate isn’t gaining heat by absorbing IR from the colder one, then I don’t know why it gets hotter’. This isn’t proof that it is caused by back-radiated IR, and is an example of why AGW ‘proofs’ irritate me, because they argue from non-proof (‘we can’t find anything else to explain it therefore it must be CO2’).
    I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in asking for real proof. I’m not a scientist or a mathematician so have to struggle through such discussions as best I can. What I have found in reading many of them now, is that ‘engineers’, those with practical science qualifications in their fields who do have the maths, always argue that the law applies on both macro and micro level.
    I have to go with the John Millet’s in such discussions, his view is summed up in his post Oct 11, 9:25
    “You can make up whatever ideas you like to support your belief in the imaginary second law of thermodynamics. I invite new readers to read what the textbooks writers actually say.”
    Yes, but radiation does not have a preferred direction. The CO2 emits IR in all directions.
    Again, this is a statement I see but I have not seen anything to prove this is so, and as with the example I posted re oxygen and IR, perhaps there is a practical application in the real world showing this, proving or disproving it. If you can provide such a thing please do.
    For the moment, assuming that is correct. The figure I’ve seen about this, is that 50% will get emitted away from the earth and 50% towards the earth, so not all is radiated back.
    Until I see a proof that the Law of heat flow isn’t a Law, I’ll stick with it. Of that 50% directed to the earth, how much is actually reaching the earth if the earth is still radiating out greater heat and the flow therefore is 50% up into the atmosphere? Wouldn’t any radiation from the atmosphere to the earth simply be swept up in the heat radiating from the earth?
    The law does not state that it can’t. The law is about the net effect. It has nothing to say about whether a colder body emits IR in the direction of a warmer body.
    Yes, it’s this that’s confusing me, as I said above. I’ve seen a post from practical scientists which says the Law was not stated as ‘net’, and, I’ve just gone back to SofD page and (if I’d read all the replies first …), and another Millet post explains why it doesn’t when the colder comes into the environment of the hotter. Oct14 11:59 in a reply to Warmcast:
    “If the less bright body of your question is less energetic (colder) than the medium it would cease emitting into the medium (incidentally, towards the other body). It would instead absorb from the medium (incidentally, from the other body).”
    Which is what I meant by “swept up in the heat radiating from the earth”.
    See Bryan Oct 19 2:10 re the books SofD quotes from. Now, we do have lots of examples of AGW proponents cherry picking data to prove something to support their arguments, if this post accurately conveys the problem here, that this is cherry picking from badly written descriptions and doesn’t even include physics text books, then this explanation of ‘back-radiation’ is just another example. I’ll stick with the practical scientists’ assessments.
    Interesting page for the discussion. Just noticed something else. Bryan Oct 19 5:16pm
    refers to a physics text book which states:
    “..it is impossible to transfer heat continuously from a cold body to a hot body without the imput of work”
    Which is why I asked ‘what mechanism is sending the baseball back’? If the hotter body is you throwing baseballs to me and the colder me is absorbing these it takes work for me to send them back to a warmer body which you still are.
    There’s no perpetual motion effect. I am not claiming that the CO2 and water vapor back-radiate all of the IR that they receive from the earth’s surface.
    That’s not what I meant. As in the Spencer example is what I mean by ‘perpetual motion effect’. If the second plate is causing the first plate to become hotter, it is then itself emitting more heat and would be causing the second plate to become hotter and this in turn would cause the first plate to become hotter etc., ad infinitum. We then have perpetual energy cycle, which would lower my fuel bills dramatically, so I’d like it to be true!
    Beyond that, let me say, you raise too many issues simultaneiously. I don’t have the time or the inclination to disentangle them with long explanations, and I don’t think it would do any good, considering the difficulty you’re having. Besides, I’m not a physics teacher or anything like that, so I would have to think very hard about to state things.
    More later – maybe.

    OK, neither am I, so do understand how hard going this can be.. I’ve enjoyed your discussion for the opportunity it’s given me to think about it. I’m still finding myself wondering what caused the first plate to reach equilibrium… (have reduced this to a picture of the two plates trapped in the vacuum of a vacuum flask.. grin).
    Myrrh, I forgot, one other thing re your phrase “greenhouse gas of choice,” referring to water vapor. If that means that water vapor is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect, the warminsts agree with you. The trouble is, it’s not an independent variable; the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold depends on the temperature. If you raise the temperature by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, this enables it to hold more water vapor.
    I think of water vapour as the greenhouse gas of choice because for me the greenhouse is all the atmosphere around the earth, in its totality it prevents the conditions on earth we see on the moon which doesn’t have an atmosphere. It’s the water cycle within that which regulates the temperature we have on earth from extreme highs and lows and which makes the abundance of life possible. Locally its absence produces desert conditions, daytime temperatures soar and inhibit life. If this were happening globally we would be desert all over. So water the greenhouse house of choice within our greenhouse atmosphere.
    And so, naturally from my logic, CO2 merely joins that cycle, which is cooling the earth by taking up excess heat.
    Thank you for your thoughts here, bye for now.

  140. A p.s. on your ScienceofDoom link above. It concerned me that the Spencer experiment was in a vacuum, because this isn’t our atmosphere, but I wasn’t quite sure what difference it made. I think John Millet has solved this in his post Oct 21 10:41 am.
    “I think this is the source of Sod’s misunderstanding, doing in one step what the entropy law requires to be done in two steps, between each body and the surrounding medium. …Sod’s result (I typed law!) comes from assuming the absence of a medium.”
    And the discussion then looks at this lack of medium, i.e. calculations are done in a vacuum.
    This is similar to something I found earlier when discussing the movement of CO2 molecules, and couldn’t understand why the concept of CO2 being heavier than air was alien to AGW, all insisting that CO2 mixed thoroughly in the atmosphere and wouldn’t separate out – until I decided to investigate it via a discussion with an AGW (a PhD in physics), who insisted that CO2 moved rapidly in the atmosphere mixing thoroughly without work. This was in reply to me saying that CO2 being 1.5 times heavier than air, always sank to the earth unless work was done to move it (wind, ventilation).
    Our scenario was a room in which a large quantity of CO2 sank to the floor and pooled, as happens in mines, breweries, volcanic eruptions, vents and so on. I said because CO2 was heavier than air, it would stay on the floor where it had pooled if nothing changed to alter the conditions in which it had pooled. So, opening a window, putting on a fan could move it, work. He said, that even if conditions remained the same the CO2 would mix thoroughly in the atmosphere without any work being done because it travels at great speed colliding with other molecules in the atmosphere and so would mix into the atmosphere even though it was heavier than air.
    On further exploration of why he could think this I discovered that he was quoting ideal gas laws for the movement of CO2. The ideal gas is ‘imaginary’, it is not the way a real gas is but useful in calculations (a bit like the imaginary ‘average’); it does not have volume, is not subject to gravity, does not interact with other molecules, but bounces off them, and so on, contra to real properties of molecules. There are various ideal gas laws, none can accurately describe real gases in real life physics and various tweakings have to be done to bring these to describe how a real gas will react in any given situation. These are two distinct terms in this physics, real and ideal gases, and “imaginary” to describe ideal gas is also standard, that it doesn’t actually exist.
    But, so convinced is he that this is how CO2 works in the real world, that it is an ideal gas, that he utterly dismissed any thought that its known physical property being heavier than air could alter this, and so came up with this really strange picture of CO2 pooling and then getting up on its own without work to mix back into the air it was too heavy for.
    That’s the problem with the vacuum calculations, like ideal gas to describe real CO2, these can’t accurately describe real behaviour in the real world. Rather than accept that the Laws of Thermodynamics are actually laws, as CO2 is actually heavier than air, these laws are claimed to be wrong because the AGW hypothesis requires them to be wrong.
    This is the science taught to children at school, AGWScience. Certainly when some of those go on into practical science disciplines, like engineering, gas, energy disciplines etc, they will be corrected because their skills requires it, but look how difficult it is for such to argue with AGW’s who think they understand the science! Most of us will take this ‘consensus’ view because that’s what scientists are for, to come up with understanding of how reality works..
    Anyway, even in a vacuum I still don’t understand why Spencer says an equilibrium is reached, I’ll see if he’s got a discussion about it.
    Thanks again.

Comments are closed.