A view of climate "on the ground" from a reporter who was there at the beginning

Elevated from a comment Theodore White says: March 8, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Let’s clarify a few things on another of Anthony’s excellent posts, like this one ‘Hey Hansen! Where’s the Beef !?’ –

It’s lengthy, but gives the view of a person who was there on the ground, covering climate science and global warming in the late 1980s – years before the AGW mania took off.

I worked as a journalist in the late 1980s in Colorado, home state of Senator Tim Wirth. I had interviewed him several times on other topics. As part of my general assignment beat, I also covered science, climate and weather, regularly at NOAA, NCAR and other federal science agencies headquarted in Colorado.

I clearly remember the tone of articles on global warming during the 1980s. Most of the concern came out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on the ozone layer. By the way, this was during the new era of climate scientists working with high-grade graphic computer modelling.

The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were that some, like Hanson, took an immediate ideological tone to explain the ozone shifts – not once mentioning the Sun or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field effect on Earth’s ozone layers. For some reason, there was a resistance to even mentioning the Sun’s effects on earth by these new climate scientists getting jobs at the science agencies. It was odd I thought.

When news editors assigned stories on the climate back then it was usually spurred by press releases out of places like NCAR, NWS, NOAA, etc., which usually featured a talk, lecture, or findings that were sent to the media. Global warming, in the mid-to-late 1980s was not the AGW ideological era that it is today.

In fact, climate scientists were not in any agreement if the earth was ‘warming’ in the 1980s – though it was true. Many scientists would roll their eyes at the mention of ‘global warming’ but many changed their tune in the 1990s just as major federal dollars were being directed to ‘man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.

But I digress – in short, when I wrote pieces on the climate, I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved. Now, though there was evidence that the use of aerosols were clearly evident in the upper atmosphere; the data did not support that this was the cause of the fear-mongering on ozone holes which was all the rage in the climate community of the late 1980s and 1990s.

NCAR had modeled on the theory that aerosols were the cause, but not the Sun, which again, I found odd, since the only major source of radiation that can only affect the opening and closings and sizes of the Earth’s ozones IS the Sun.

There is no other source of radiation that can effectively destroy the earth’s ozone layer. But what was curious (and unbelievable) is that there were obvious determined efforts (in the mid-to-late 1980s) to blame mankind for something it could not do on a planetary level – and that is to change the climate.

Only the Sun can do that.

What I noticed about Sen. Wirth and Hansen back in the late 1980s, is that there was a obvious concerted effort within the emergence of baby boomer management and personnel into climate science on the federal level; that they were pushing ideology as policy. This was a prepatory assault that was planned out.

When Al Gore rose to the vice-presidency by 1993 – Wirth and Hansen were already well out in front of the ‘man-made’ global warming pack – extending the ‘man-made’ ideology to other federal agencies and the university-level climate community – with federal dollars.

Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present – you may find some amazing numbers.

Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up (and began to alter weather data on purpose) while spending lavishly on computers pushing the AGW ideology – all at the public’s great expense.

But the media was not on board. Most journalists are ignorant of climate and weather science. I was fortunate in that I was not, so my editors passed on to me the great amount of work – and I was busy enough as it was a police reporter as it was! Since my beat included covering the climate science community in the heart of it in Colorado, I was well-attuned to how events were shaping up by 1989.

Since the mid-1980s, what I saw were articles like the one Anthony posted from 1986 were becoming more common. What I observed as professional reporter was that the ozone-layer press releases from NOAA and NCAR and other climate centers were beginning to use the same talking points in their different releases to news desks. Sometimes, these went out on the wire which were then placed into newspapers across the country without the resources to assign reporters to cover the climate.

I did not have that problem since this was part of my beat. In interviews with the particular scientists (including Hansen) what I observed was that they were heavy on the ideology, yet not sure if it was strong enough because the global weather data in the late 1980s did not strongly support their case that the world was warming because of man.

Still, by 1989, the AGW science did not make sense to me in light that it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which I remind everyone – remains in effect to this very day.

Anyhow, it did not seem to matter to Wirth’s office, Hansen, or the growing careerists at NCAR and NOAA; because whomever was pushing ‘man-made global warming’ on the United States, were also doing it at the international level too.

My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.

Events have since proven that I was right.

All this – while AGW ideologists reaped untold profits convincing populations that carbon (the very stuff we are made of) is bad and so we all have to pay for carbon to a global mafia.

In short, the careerist climate AGW scientists and their political insiders conspired to convince the world that humans had to pay dearly for exhaling the carbon gases that the natural world and our trees inhales to flourish.

Carbon is natural to Earth. It is driven by the Sun’s activity. Carbon lags far, far behind temperature (also driven by the Sun) and carbon is not – and never has been – a threat to the Earth.

Why?

Because the laws of thermodynamics and physics that govern our system says so.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Maurice Darth Strong is one of the people behind this push of “man-caused” C02 Climate Doomsday, he even says so himself in the video interviews of him: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/18/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-only-one-earth-under-the-new-world-order-based-upon-false-science-brought-to-you-by-maurice-darth-strong.

SteveSadlov

During the first half of the 1980s I was a hard core deep green. I was a member of a small NGO that espoused books like “The Monkey Wrench Gang” and the “Ecotopia” series, whilst working on sustainable living projects (and boondoggles). While I was not a member of “Earth First” I networked with members. I was a true believer in runaway global warming and “the coming Human induced great extinction.” I believe Ronald Reagan was a rising Caesar, and that LA was the new Rome. My view of the future was similar to one of the “Seven Tomorrows” of Lovings et al, wherein we were in a gangster run fouled blackened fallen Earth. It is no surprise that some who stayed in that subculture (unlike ones like me who matured beyond it) have ended up with their grubby mitts on at least some of the levers of power. I point at this juncture to the warnings Paul R. Johnson gave in his key book “Intellectuals.”

“I’m convinced that prophets of Doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words doomsday is a possibility.” – Darth Maurice Strong, BBC Interview, 1972.
“I found that people were turned on that our Earth was in danger, and that our own life depends on the Earth and having a hospitable environment, and so how to translate that into a political kind of energy that would move the governments to do the right things in Stockholm [and by extension Copenhagen], to take the right decisions.” – Darth Maurice Strong.

SteveSadlov

Ooops: “Lovings” should have read “Lovins.”

Jens Bagh

Did Maurice Strong and Al Gore get their idea from Mr. Fontenelle (11/2/1657 – 9/1/1757) or is this a case of prescience by a gifted writer?
”Were a few influential men to teach the most wrongheaded idea such as there was no heat from the sun, the common man would without thinking accept such knowledge as an article of faith.”

Mike

Does the Magaret Thatcher story about coal strike busting play weave into this narrative in any way?

pat

If the Warmists could, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and astrophysics would be banned as if it were alchemy. Because they both put an end to the idiocy of war mists.

At some point in this social engineering experiment, sales and marketing expertise entered the fray. Whoever thought of using (abusing) the precautionary priciple to bring governments and the MSM on board was a master salesman. This principle made the selling of AGW so so easy because the science could be ignored. It just didn’t matter that there might be emerging evidence which contradicted the narrative, the PP overrode any objections. As a marketing strategy it is brilliant. The fact that it is fallacious is irrelevent. You all have house insurance and car insurance don’t you. Of course you do because it is necessary. It was never pointed out that the premium was the equivalent of half the value of your home every year. Nobody queried the premise.

David, UK

I don’t buy the assertion that the CAGW hypothesis violates the Second Law. Sure, a cooler object cannot cause a warmer one to gain heat. But it can slow down the cooling of the warmer object. Together with another heat source (say, the Sun) the combination could (in theory) cause the hotter object to be at equilibrium at a higher temperature than it otherwise would be.
HOWEVER, I agree that after decades of research, the case for AGW has failed monumentally. There is no hotspot in the troposphere. There is no correlation between recent CO2 increases and (lack of) temperature rise. Not that correlation equals causation anyway. There is abundant evidence that current temperature fits in with ancient cycles. Further, the behaviour and practices of pro-AGW scientists, with all their biases and preconceptions fed into their precious computer models designed to give them the answer they desire, hardly fills one with confidence in their work. I could go on – weather stations in urban heat islands, satellites giving different results, treemometers and hidden declines, the blind insistence in a positive/runaway H2O feedback from a trace gas, the insistence that Gaia is a fragile “biosphere” and after billions of years of survival is now being killed by mad bad Capitalist Man – only the religious socialists believe in that crap now.

Jeremy

Good article. However it is undermined by statements like this…”man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. ”
I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.
We see this in UHI in all urban areas. We know that sulphur emissions (mainly from coal burning) can cause smog and clouds that change climate locally. We also know that CO2 is an infra-red absorber – so “in theory” it must have some effect.
Skeptics, in order to be taken seriously, MUST accept these FACTS. What skeptics disagree with is the EXTENT of these effects (local or regional and on a overall global level very small or immeasureable). Skeptics disagree with the “CATASTROPHIC” in man-made global warming.

Duster

…Carbon is natural to Earth. It is driven by the Sun’s activity. Carbon lags far, far behind temperature (also driven by the Sun) and carbon is not – and never has been – a threat to the Earth.
By “Carbon” you mean carbon dioxide?
I think that the lag between temperature proxies such as O18 and CO2 in ice cores may well be due to the time it takes for the oceans to warm and to circulate very slightly warmer water to the abyssal plains. Temperatures and pressures at those depths allow for CO2 to exist in a liquid state. Circulation and differences in specific gravity cause the liquid CO2 to float upward and gradually disperse in a soluble gas state in the marine water. Once slightly warmer masses of water reach abyssal depths, the result will be to force dissolved CO2 out of solution and into the atmosphere. The 800 year lag is thus the result of marine circulation patterns and speeds.

Joanna

Read your comments yesterday and wished you would expand a bit on the laws of thermodynamics and physics you refer to for us non cognoscenti…still do! Maybe the expansion would answer a question I had about Hansen’s 2012 Ted lecture, which I just watched with some fascination. He did not give any recent updates on global temperatures, oddly. But I was particularly interested in his graph on T, CO2, and Sea Level through time (Sea Level rise flattening a bit recently I see). It always seemed to me that rising CO2 following rising temperature in the ice core was a weak point in the AGW argument. Interested to hear that, no, this timing is exactly what Hansen would expect, because due to orbital variations the sun periodically melts the polar ice sheets, the darker earth warms more, and the warming oceans release CO2, which adds another positive feedback (no mention of water vapor). Then he said that just the same thing would be going on today, because the physics don’t change. Well, in that case, what about the physics that cause the warming trend in each of those earlier temperature cycles eventually to stop and the cooling trend kick in? Are those physics still operating? Or is the amount of anthropogenic CO2 supposed to throw the cycles out of whack? Any clarifications from either side of the debate would be appreciated.

MorinMoss

Perhaps this “on the ground from the beginning” journalist can provide actual articles that he wrote on the subject back in those heady early days of the climate conspiracy?
That would really make it an article instead of a puffed-up comment.

Mike says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:16 am
Does the Magaret Thatcher story about coal strike busting play weave into this narrative in any way?
==========================================================
Yes, but that was part of the parallel (international) effort. Thatcher was a political leader who used this issue for expedience.
My view is, there were two parallel distinct efforts to advance the CAGW posit. Clearly, they collaborated, but for many years many of us weren’t even aware of people such as Phil Jones.

Jimbo

The problem with AGW is that PR has taken over and the truth does not matter. Flattening rate of sea level rise can be ignored. A stall in temperature rise can be ignored. Low hurricane ACE intensity can be ignored. Everything that contradicts the alarming forecasts of yesteryear can be ignored. It’s always free beer tomorrow with these folks. The good news is that most of the public no longer cares one way or the other.

DirkH

“My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start”
You’re right. 1971 saw Limits To Growth; 1975 the “Endangered Atmosphere” conference.
Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock.
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/
http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2010/03/aha.html
http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2010/04/global-warming-origin-of-crime.html

Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up

This is probably the fundamental issue with me. Because our country already spends more than it takes in, all of this money must be borrowed from our children and their children. They are going to be very angry if they discover that we wasted THEIR earnings on this silliness. What it amounts to is a transfer of wealth from future generations into the pockets of those profiting from this now. People 50 years from now might be looking at Al Gores descendants wanting their money back. Basically these people are stealing from those who are not yet even born.

Urederra

I was regarding the ozone layer scare as a rehearsal for the big global warming scare. None of the chemistry involved on the CFC is the bad guy theory makes sense to me. NIce to know now that I wasn´t wrong.
CFCs are very stable molecules, so stable we used them as aerosol spray propellants in body deodorants. O3, on the other hand, is so reactive it is used as a sanitizer because it kills all kinds of microorganisms. And yet, people see CFCs as the reactive species.

Joanna

Incidently, does anyone know when Hansen started wearing that hat–was it before or after Indiana Jones? I mean, even Indy took his off to give a lecture.

Mac the Knife

“…..there was a obvious concerted effort within the emergence of baby boomer management and personnel into climate science on the federal level; that they were pushing ideology as policy.”
Spot On, Mr. White! The early 80’s were about the time I too really started questioning ‘man made ozone depletion’, the agenda behind ‘Earth Day’, and the increasingly strident declarations from ‘climate scientists’ of various portents of doom, wrought by a grasping and Gaia destroying humanity.

ChE

This comment would have been a lot better if the author had left his junior high thermo theories at the door.

DesertYote

pwl says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:12 am
###
“Darth” has got to be the most apt label for him that I have encountered. It really says it all.

Joel Upchurch

I’m afraid I can’t take seriously the statements of a man that says that greenhouse warming violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics when serious skeptical scientists like Spencer and Lindzen says it doesn’t. The dirty secret of warmists is that most of warming has already happened, otherwise earth would be mostly frozen. Any future increases in water vapor and CO2, can only effect the parts of the spectrum that aren’t already being absorbed.

More Soylent Green!

Jeremy says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
Good article. However it is undermined by statements like this…”man-made’ global warming’ – which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. ”
I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.
We see this in UHI in all urban areas. We know that sulphur emissions (mainly from coal burning) can cause smog and clouds that change climate locally. We also know that CO2 is an infra-red absorber – so “in theory” it must have some effect.
Skeptics, in order to be taken seriously, MUST accept these FACTS. What skeptics disagree with is the EXTENT of these effects (local or regional and on a overall global level very small or immeasureable). Skeptics disagree with the “CATASTROPHIC” in man-made global warming.

I’m not aware of a proposed cap-and-trade program to manage the UHI effect.
In other words, while you are technically correct that humans may affect the climate in many ways, AGW = carbon emission is the meme du jour.

smileyken

duster
“allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?

Mac the Knife

Jeremy says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
“I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this…….. We see this in UHI in all urban areas. ”
Urban heat Island effects are local to urban areas. They are not global. ‘Islands’ of urban heat are not global. They are not evidence of ‘man made global warming’.
I would remind the confirmed believers of AGW that “man-made” global warming is an unproven hypothesis, as any serious and honest study of readily available data and analysis will show. It does not help AGW believers when they deny the facts. No amount of cap letter ‘shouting’ can alter that.

Sam the First

Jimbo: it doesn’t matter what the public believe or care about – if the politicos, and esp those who run the NGO (supra-governmental international agencies) see fit to carry on promoting this lie, and so far they do, then the hemorrhaging of billions on this giant scam will continue unabated.
Only when those in power can no longer make capital – literally – out of AGW will it cease to be policy. this is where the work is still to be done

Richard Steward

Antony please can we have the old ‘reply’ font back, I can hardly read this it’s too faint!

Duster

smileyken says:
March 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm
duster
“allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?

Here are a couple of help sites that will help you:
http://my.opera.com/nielsol/blog/carbon-dioxide-physics
http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2009/02/04/chemistry-lab-demonstrations-liquid-co2-extraction/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060830-carbon-lakes.html
The phases that any chemical compound enters are a function of temperature and pressure. At pressures typical of the earth’s surface CO2 ice sublimes directly a gas – hence “dry ice”. At higher pressures CO2 can take on a liquid state. If you read the links above, or simply search on “CO2 phase diagram” you will find plenty of information. There are also useful little calculators on line that will provide the pressure in atmospheres for any given depth. The last site offers empirical facts to help. The liquid CO2 on the sea floor is not simply an “idea.”
’nuff said.
JD

Richard M

Jeremy says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
We also know that CO2 is an infra-red absorber – so “in theory” it must have some effect.

Agreed. However, we also know CO2 is an infra-red emitter. It must cool the atmosphere as well. Until climate scientists take a balanced look at CO2 you know it’s about “the cause” and not about science.

“CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?”
It does at high pressure. That was the context of the statement.
Wikipedia: “liquid at 56 atm and 20 °C”
Thanks
JK

Garry

“global weather data in the late 1980s did not strongly support their case that the world was warming because of man.”
But the December 1988 IPCC charter certainly did, asserting that “certain human activities could change global climate patterns” and “the cause and effect relationship of human activities and climate.”
The IPCC charter also specifically states that “certain substances are depleting the ozone layer.”
Twenty four years later neither of those assertions have been proven.
http://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNGA43-53.pdf

Rhoda Ramirez

“Man-made” global warming exists, IMHO, as an artifact of poor data gathering, cherry picked data points, PR scare tactics, and questionable statistics (Note the Oxford commas but I’m not Gleick). Other than that, there is a perfectly normal temp rise from the LIA that they glomed onto to make things scary.

Mariwarcwm

Jeremy says:
“I would remind everyone ‘man-made’ global warming is a PROVEN FACT. It does not help skeptics when someone denies this.”
Roughly 90 billion tons of CO2 are generated naturally, annually, from the sea, and 90 billion tons pa are generated from the land, and a mere 6 billion by humans burning fossil fuels. Energy experts know exactly how much fossil fuel is burned by humans. It is a miniscule amount compared to what is produced naturally by Life on Earth. With some volcanoes thrown in from time to time. Add to that the LOGARITHMIC NATURE of the warming caused by CO2 and you can see that OUR BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT. We have so little effect on the climate on Earth that it is as good as no effect at all.
Urban heat islands are localized. Sulphur is pollution, CO2 is plant food and an essential gas for life.
A fascinating article on how this idiocy came about. So what is the way out of it? Growing taxpayer fury at £££ $$$ millions ripoff subsidies to every Tom, Dick and Harry who came up with a creative scheme perhaps. Jeremy would have us paying out for ever. Get wise Jeremy and all the other Jeremies out there!

William M. Connolley

> The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were… not once mentioning the Sun or the Interplanetary Magnetic Field effect on Earth’s ozone layers. For some reason, there was a resistance to even mentioning the Sun’s effects on earth by these new climate scientists getting jobs at the science agencies. It was odd I thought.
You’re confused; you’re mixing up ozone and climate. And they were right, since the ozone loss was caused by CFCs, as we now know very well.
> I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved
No-one is suggesting that CFCs are the sole cause of warming! No-one is even suggesting they are even a significant cause. **CO2** is the main cause of warming, but not the sole one. CFCs have only a very minor role in temperature change – they are strong GHGs, but they only exist in tiny quantities.
> CFCs are very stable molecules
Oh dear, the I-don’t-believe-the-ozone-hole-is-caused-by-CFC’s folk are back. The reasons CFCs make it up into the stratosphere is *because* they are stable. If they weren’t stable they wouldn’t be a problem. Only once they get up into the UV-B/C/whatever do they photodissociate.
> we also know CO2 is an infra-red emitter. It must cool the atmosphere as well
Oh no. The greenhouse-effect-doesn’t-exist folk are back, too. There goes respectable “skepticism”.
> Because the laws of thermodynamics and physics that govern our system says so.
{{cn}}

John West

What is meant by the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If it did then why would Engineers have to account for differences in downward long-wave radiation on cooling rates of cooling ponds and such? (Engineers aren’t known for accommodating imaginary processes that violate laws of thermodynamics.)
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf
It’s not that the GHE heats a cooler object; it’s that an object cooling radiantly cools in relation to the net radiation loss, which is its LW radiation minus the downward LW radiation.
What is usually left out of the AGW advocates dialogue is that when it comes to GHE clouds are KING and RH(relative humidity) is QUEEN.
[@ location of example link:]
The change in downward LW radiation from 0% RH to 100% RH is 200 W/m2 with clear sky and 400 W/m2 with complete overcast sky. The change in downward LW radiation from clear to cloudy (complete overcast) is ~72 W/m2 @ ~0% RH; 247 W/m2 @ 25% RH; 259 W/m2 @ 50% RH; 268 W/m2 @ 75% RH; and 272 W/m2 @ 100% RH. The variation from clouds and water vapor is huge compared to the relative minuscule 3.7 W/m2 purported GHE increase from doubling CO2 concentration. Even small long term trends in cloud cover or RH would easily overwhelm any alleged effect of CO2.

Ben Kellett

Every time I visit this site, I am reminded of how partisan people are on this issue. The truth is that nobody really knows for sure. Climate science is such a complicated study with so many poorly understood variables, that I can’t believe anyone can genuinely claim that AGW does or does not exist. From an independant view point, the debate reminds me of a very complicated game of chess – the only difference being, in chess, we do understand how all the variables work and interact. It never ceases to amaze me though, that even although the best chess players in the world (possibly some of our greatest minds),who understand the game intimately, are still unable to predict exactly how those variables will interact during the course of any reasonably well matched game. How then can any scientist be so sure of how all the variables involved in climate science will interact – especially of the course of such a ridiculously short space of time – in relative terms? It must be truly impossible! But alas, we are assured “the science is settled”…..and the supercomputer says “yes”!…. I think not!

AnotherPhilC

Atmospheric CO2 emits less infra-red than it absorbs. The difference is lost as heat. Hence “greenhouse effect”. The rate of spontaneous emission is a factor – which is lower for low energy radiation like microwave than for e.g. visible (which is was easier to develop masers before lasers). Hence the energy has a higher probability of being dissipated by molecular collisions.
There are a series of energy transfers happening:
1. Sun’s heat to Stefan-Bolzmann radiation energy (mostly visible).
2. Visible light to heat at earth’s surface.
3. Earth’s heat to Stefan-Bolzmann radiation energy (mostly microwave)
4. Microwave energy to CO2 and H2O vibrational energy.
5. Molecular vibrational energy to heat through molecular collisions in the atmosphere.
There is no reduction in entropy hence no violation of the 2nd Law.

John West

Jeremy says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
“I would remind everyone “man-made” global warming is a PROVEN FACT.”
No, the GHE is a known process that is measurable. That CO2 is a GHG is a fact. That human activities emit CO2 is a fact. That the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age is well established. That background atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily since 1950’s is well established. That a doubling of CO2 will increase the GHE by about 3.7 W/m2 is accepted as a decent estimate (still as yet unmeasured). That at least some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity is supported by compelling evidence. That the increase in CO2 MAY cause SOME warming is mostly accepted, however, this is very far from proven fact and certainly no where near the “it’s all man’s fault that the temperature is rising and will continue to rise for centuries ” that you appear to be claiming is proven.

Joanna

Mariwarcwm says:
March 9, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“Roughly 90 billion tons of CO2 are generated naturally, annually, from the sea, and 90 billion tons pa are generated from the land, and a mere 6 billion by humans burning fossil fuels. Energy experts know exactly how much fossil fuel is burned by humans. It is a miniscule amount compared to what is produced naturally by Life on Earth. With some volcanoes thrown in from time to time. Add to that the LOGARITHMIC NATURE of the warming caused by CO2 and you can see that OUR BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT. We have so little effect on the climate on Earth that it is as good as no effect .”
Interesting! Is there a reference for this data?

Tad

“The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.”
Really? Then how is it even possible for AGW to be prominent? And your other statement, that AGW cannot exist due to the 2nd Law, please explain that. It just seems to me that, if it was so obvious that fundamental laws of physics prevent AGW, then there would not be much to talk about.

Coldish

I would be inclined to push the objective scientific reaction to the global warming scare back a few more years to the early 1980’s (Sherwood Idso, various publications) or even the late 1970’s (Newell and Doplick, 1979).
To me as a middle-of-the-road observationally-inclined scientist, an astonishing feature of the global warming ‘debate’ is the extent to which what one might for simplicity call the ‘Hansen effect’ has obstructed scientific progress in this field. We should be grateful to Anthony and his blogosphere colleagues for the valiant efforts they have made to reverse this irrationalist tendency.

Gail Combs

pesadia says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:35 am
“At some point in this social engineering experiment, sales and marketing expertise entered the fray. Whoever thought of using (abusing) the precautionary priciple to bring governments and the MSM on board was a master salesman….”
_____________________________
His name is Stanley Greenberg and he is the husband of Rosa Delauro, the U.S. Representative of Connecticut (D) see: http://www.macmillanspeakers.com/stanleybgreenberg

Urederra

…The reasons CFCs make it up into the stratosphere is *because* they are stable. If they weren’t stable they wouldn’t be a problem. Only once they get up into the UV-B/C/whatever do they photodissociate.

And how can they be photodissociated over the poles during the winter when there are SIX months of night? NIGHT as in no light to photossiociate the CFCs? How can your theory explain a larger ozone destruction over the poles due to photodissociation when the poles receive no UV radiation?
I remind you that the so called ozone hole grows during the winter, when there is no light that could PHOTODISSOCIATE CFCs, and very low temperatures that slows down chemical reactions in gas phase. Chemical kinetics theory is not compatible with faster chemical reactions at lower temperatures. Seems that you forgot to read/edit this wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics
Appart from that, the so called Antarctic ozone hole is bigger than the Artic one. I remind you too that most of the CFCs have been produced and used in the northern hemisphere, but the largest ozone hole lies on the southern hemisphere, yet another hole in your sorry theory.

Don Keiller

I was an “environmentalist” back in the ’90s. I was seconded to British Antartic survey to “show” that the (Man-made) ozone hole was causing damage to the plants growing underneath it.
What the data showed was zippo, nada, zilch.
I published this to little fanfare- you would have thought it newsworthy we weren’t going to fry.
After this I became less idealistic and more sceptical.
The “smart money” has moved from the ozone hole (which is still there, just as big, but not scary anymore) to Man made “climate change”.
This particular scam has gained much more momentum but, like the ozone hole scare, it will eventually implode.

Phil

While nonscientific assertions by William Connolley are regurgitated to no avail, more and more people now recognize that CO2 has no effect on climate, the rate at which a body of matter loses energy is determines by it’s molecular density, the emission wavelength of an emitting molecule or body is determined by it’s temperature, can my FiveGuys burger emit at a wavelength incident to 350 degreesF? No. The Oceans lose energy at a much slower rate vs the atmosphere for this reason, and it is why the contain so much more energy than the atmosphere.
CO2 in the cold upper atmosphere cannot warm or slow energy loss from the higher density lower atmosphere by more than a few trillions of a degreeF because the wavelength quantified as “backradiation” is saturated in a warmer body, reducing LW release in the CO2 spectrum will simply result in more LW leaving the planet in other wavelengths, but to a barely noticable exent. The 33C warming above the S-B threshold DOES NOT REQUIRE A GHE! You have the oceans and atmosphere which will NOT lose all of their energy overnight WITH OR WITHOUT GHGes! Hence the next day you’re warmer to begin the daily heating cycle, still far from solar equilibrium.
When I cover my body with a blanket at night, the reason the air in between my body and the blanket warms is because the blanket has a higher density than the air in between it and my body, hence a higher retainement threshold. Changing the amount of CO2 in under the blanket will do nothing to effect the temperature. My body is the warmest source in this case, and it is LW radiation from my body, UNLIKE SW radiation from the Sun which cannot be applied in the same sense because it has a vector in relation to the atmospheric LW value which has no vector, and does not travel at the same rate nor has the same perturbational value.
This example should do it…
If the GHE theory were correct, then if I put a cold gellpack on my head, I should expect my head to warm because my head is warming the gellpack while my body remains at 98.6 degreesF! It is so very IMPOSSIBLE!

1DandyTroll

Is there a Hanson and a Hansen? Or should the former be the same Hansen.
I’m all for stripping perps of their due title for the satirical fun and general mayhem but it kind of looses its effect if you misspell their names. :p

u.k.(us)

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Edmund Burke

> And how can they be photodissociated over the poles during the winter when there are SIX months of night?
Not 6 months. And no, the photodissociation doesn’t occur during winter. But once dissociated, the free radiacals can survive for long enough. And the ozone hole occurs during winter because only then is ot cold enough to form PSCs. All this has been known for ages, and patiently explained many a time.
> and very low temperatures that slows down chemical reactions in gas phase.
Almost there, but you forgot the PSCs. The reactions occur on their surface.
> Seems that you forgot to read/edit this wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics
> the so called Antarctic ozone hole is bigger than the Artic [sic] one.
Because it is colder in the Antarctic. Can you guess why?
> I remind you too that most of the CFCs have been produced and used in the northern hemisphere,
But they, like CO2, are well mixed. It doesn’t make any difference where they are produced.
it would make rather more sense to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion, which would have told you what I’ve just told you.
> While nonscientific assertions…
I’ve pointed out that the author of this post has confused ozone depletion and global warming. So far, none of the residents here have had the courage to agree with me, even though it is obvious.
> CO2 in the cold upper atmosphere cannot warm or slow energy loss from the higher density lower atmosphere by more than a few trillions of a degreeF because
Richard Lindzen disagrees with you. Even recent posts here (“The skeptics case”, bad as that was) disagree with you.
> Don Keiller says… back in the ’90s. I was seconded to British Antartic
Were you really? I was there. I can’t say I remember you.
> I published this to little fanfare
{{cn}}

LazyTeenager

The problem with NCAR’s interpretation on the ozone fluctuations were that some, like Hanson, took an immediate ideological tone to explain the ozone shifts
—————-
Yeah, sure. Theodore forgets to mention a whole lot of other evidence going on at the time.
which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth can never become a greenhouse according to the laws of physics.
—————
And I will continue to remind people this is wrong. There is a big difference in being able to parrot the laws of physics and actually understanding what they mean.
NCAR had modeled on the theory that aerosols were the cause, but not the Sun, which again, I found odd, since the only major source of radiation that can only affect the opening and closings and sizes of the Earth’s ozones IS the Sun.
—————
Contorted language. Theodore claims to be a professional journalist.
My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world
————–
Ah Theodores conspiracy theory. Nominative determinism perhaps.
Most journalists are ignorant of climate and weather science.
————–
That’s true and never truer than expressed in this article.