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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Urederra says
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.
————
Which people?
In fact atmospheric scientists do consider them to be very stable species. That’s part of the problem. They don’t break down at low levels in the atmosphere, so they diffuse into the upper atmosphere.
In the upper atmosphere CFCs have the crap beaten out of them by deep ultraviolet radiation from the sun. They disintegrate and the fragments are chlorine atoms which are very, very reactive indeed. These are responsible for destroying ozone. The whole chemical reaction trail has been worked out in minute detail.
Theodore hasn’t the faintest clue about any of this stuff.
William M. Connolley says:
March 9, 2012 at 4:07 pm
“So far, none of the residents here have had the courage to agree with me, even though it is obvious.”
===========
Umm, it appears you are mixing up your Realms, and please be more careful where you post, cus it can really freak me out.
Phil says:
March 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm
The real reason the air under the blanket warms is not radiation but conduction which rapidly equilibrates with the air under the blanket.
Radiation is a minor player in planetary energy loss too.
Multiple layer glazing has long been known as a method of retaining energy in homes.
Below about 10mm gap is ineffectual because of the minimal increase in insulation, above 20/22mm gap gives diminishing returns because of convection in the unit allowing warm gas to collect at the top of the unit, thence conducting outwards. From there we move to triple or even quadruple glazing. Whatever gains are made from IR blocking coatings are minimal in comparison.
Pilkington Bros. and others have introduced low metal glasses, (which incidentally requires importation of white sand from Spain plus much higher temperatures to melt,) to maximise transmission into the home & then coat the inner layer to reflect IR.
I can actually see the point of allowing more light into the home but the IR coating is superfluous. (Incidentally, Pilks actually admitted that the reflective coating prevented as much admission of IR to, as transmission from the home.)
DaveE.
At some point in the last 20 years NCAR, GISS and CRU would have been eliminated in some kind of budget cutting exercise without the GHG / CFC scare that they foisted on the world.
Instead of being wound-down, they turned into juggernauts that have 50% of the world’s population convinced of their imminent demise.
NASA cannot cut the budget of GISS or fire Hansen or even try to control him in the least. If anyone does, he just runs to the media and pleads that his “imminent demise” storyline is being suppressed. The Director of NASA gets fired instead. That is power.
Long ago, they figured out the scare meant prestige and funding and power and unlimited academic publishing rights. They hitched their wagon to the story and they are sticking with it since it has been so lucrative to date.
None of their predictions has turned out to be anywhere close to true yet but we still can’t get rid of these guys and people actually believe the predictions of 20 years ago have been borne out. They even turned Wikipedia into an untrustworthy source. Ridiculous mass hysteria.
William M. Connolley says:
March 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm
> 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”.
So, you are denying that CO2 molecules can be exited through kinetic collisons and emit radiation as a result. Interesting, I had no idea you were a denier of basic physics.
My comment referring to Anthony’s post on Hansen was unexpectedly posted on its own, so I would like to answer a question about the laws of thermodynamics and why man-made global warming is an outright lie.
As the forecaster who called the 2009-2011 ENSO years in advance, I know a thing or two about how the Earth’s climate works; how it is forced and what the resulting weather events will be.
The fundamental thing to remember are that there are astrophysical (causes) to geophysical (effects) laws which govern the Earth’s climate and resulting weather. No amount of opinion, ideology, or fuzzy math will ever change these laws – the First and Second laws of thermodynamics.
These laws are the reason why the Earth can NEVER – and that means ever – become a greenhouse.
There is no such thing as ‘man-made global warming.’ It has always been a lie and has never and will never be true. The Earth cannot become a greenhouse.
Ever.
I have reported on and worked in the most complex field of climate science – atmospheric physics – and I can tell you – without equivocation – that man-made global warming (so-called man-made ‘climate change) has never, ever, been true at whatsoever and never will be.
Those who do not accept this are delusional about the rules that govern their own planet’s climate. But delusion also does not change the laws of physics no more than opinion does either. What fully and absolutely debunks anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are the laws of thermodynamics – the laws of physics.
Any kind of so-called ‘consensus’ that hitches its wagon to the false star that ties man-made activity to Earth’s global warming violates the basic laws of physics – the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The debunking of man made warming disproves the fallacy of AGW that says there exists a mechanism where carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal forcing effect on the warmer surface below.
That violates the First AND Second Laws of Thermodynamics. There is no glass roof on the Earth that traps excess heat as it escapes upward and out into space. Remember, the deeper the ocean – the colder the water – and remember that heat rises – it does not fall.
What AGW proponents seem to forget is that the mechanism of warming in a real greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming of the Earth’s atmosphere – it is not a “greenhouse” effect – not even close.
The expensive climate models used to fear-monger and bully the entire world to believe the lies of “catastrophic global warming” curiously depict net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground.
Now that right then and there is a DIRECT violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that any machine that acts to transfer heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir – without external work applied – CANNOT exist.
But AGW proponents – by their very claim of ‘man-made global warming’ – means they have found what amounts to a perpetual atmospheric motion machine that we all know does NOT exist. It is pure fantasy and an outright lie.
For that lie to be true would mean to trash what cannot be trashed – the laws of Thermodynamics – by careerist ideological ‘scientists’ and their minions to bully the world into believing that the world is ‘flat’ – and we’re supposed to take that lying down?
No way, not in a million years with me. I respect the laws of physics and suggest everyone do so so too – because if the Sun went away tomorrow – we all DEFINITELY would notice – and the laws of physics would end right there. All over. No more climate to speak of as the Earth would freeze into a giant ball of ice and there would be no life. That is the catastrophe we never want to see. Better respect the Sun because it is the Sun that is the cause of all climate change.
The math stinks on AGW from every single conceivable angle – none more important than the laws of physics.
Two physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner say the same thing –
“…1) There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects.
2) There are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet.
(3) The frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly.
(4) The formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately.
(5) The assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical.
(6) Thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero – the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”
Those who want to understand why AGW is a lie because of the laws of thermodynamics that govern the Earth’s climate and weather should take the time to read the paper linked below that was published in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.
Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper.
Both German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%.
They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. The German scientists show how greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.
They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the Earth works as an OPEN system. Moreover, the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does NOT occur in any fundamental work involving Thermodynamics, Physical kinetics or Radiation theory.
So for those still clinging to the bald face lie of ‘man-made global warming’ by means of tons and tons and tons of AGW kool-aid (the real ‘climate change’ threat to the world) also know that you are effectively denying the mathematical laws that govern your own physical existence and entire climate of your own planet.
Free Your Mind, Take The Red Pill -> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
– Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci
I first heard about the likelihood of global warming in 1967 and it was probably not a new idea even then. Someone who didn’t hear about it until 20 years later was hardly in on the beginning.
David A. Evans says: ( March 9, 2012 at 4:44 pm):
Priceless! So is energy lost from Earth by convection or by conduction?
Theodore White says:
No-one is claiming that heat is flowing from the atmospheric gases to Earth. Some of the energy trapped by the gases is radiated back to the surface, reducing net energy flow from the surface. Rather like a space blanket (those tinfoil things) keeps you warm even though it is actually colder than you are. If you are going to make claims about thermodynamic laws being broken, you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out.
@richard Simons, who says, “No-one is claiming that heat is flowing from the atmospheric gases to Earth. Some of the energy trapped by the gases is radiated back to the surface, reducing net energy flow from the surface. Rather like a space blanket (those tinfoil things) keeps you warm even though it is actually colder than you are. If you are going to make claims about thermodynamic laws being broken, you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out.”
I wrote that – “The expensive climate models used to fear-monger and bully the entire world to believe the lies of “catastrophic global warming” curiously depict net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground.”
Now, your term of space blanket is “tinfoil.” Most of the radiative heat the Earth’s receives from the source – the Sun – is released back out into space. The Earth is an OPEN system with a highly variable water vapor gaseous climate. The Earth can never become a greenhouse. I will remind you also that I am a forecaster who knows by practice how the Earth’s climate functions.
The Earth can never become a greenhouse no matter how hard you try to force the AGW square through the Earth’s round hole. It’s not going to happen. There are many people who talk the talk about the climate and weather but whom do not walk the walk – talk is cheap and that is all AGW ever was and ever will be – just talk.
There are many people who speak on climate science, specifically atmospheric physics, who do not have the fundamental physical laws down pat. I forecast applying these laws and no amount of minutiae opinion which denies the laws of thermodynamics that govern the Earth can ever change these physical laws. Anyone who does (like those pushing man-made global warming ) is definitely not playing with a full deck.
William M. Connolley says:
March 9, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Urederra says:
March 9, 2012 at 2:43 pm
> 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.
How is CO2 well mixed? Please explain.
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.”
The OzoneScare was a scam: http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/10804/
“Dr. Wil Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential”
And everyone it seems jumped on the bankwagon to push their favourite anti-industry slant as they do now:
“The Ozone Wars included mass media propaganda campaigns to convince the public and America’s law-makers of the following unproven theories:
That the ozone layer would be depleted by the operation in the stratosphere or mesosphere of supersonic aircraft that exhaust water. When that theory was disproven, nitrogen oxides (NOx) replaced water as the ozone destroyers.
That the detonation of nuclear devices whose debris clouds can produce or carry NOx into the stratosphere or mesosphere will deplete the ozone layer.
That the ozone layer would also be depleted by the stimulation of N2O production by addition of fixed nitrogen to the biosphere whether through nitrogen fertilizers, animal wastes, combustion-produced NOx, expanded growth of legumes, infection of nonleguminous plants with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, or by green mulching.
That the Space Shuttle would deplete the ozone layer through the release of chlorine from its rocket boosters.
That the ozone layer would be depleted by the atmospheric release of stable chlorine-containing compounds such as chlorocarbons in general and chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) in particular, which can penetrate the stratosphere before decomposing.
That the ozone layer would be wiped out by the atmospheric release of stable bromine-containing compounds like CH3Br, now used as a soil fumigant, which can allegedly penetrate the stratosphere before decomposing. The same claim was made in regard to brominated chlorocarbons, known as halons, used in fire-fighting equipment.
That the ozone layer would also be depleted by the stimulation of N2O production by denitrifying bacteria through increased acidity of precipitation from atmospheric release of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen. This theory claimed that the famous “acid rain” in the northern part of the United States would destroy the ozone layer indirectly, through bacteria in the soils….
If several–and in some cases only one–of these claims were true, the atmosphere’s ozone layer would have been destroyed several times over by today. Yet, as we shall see in the chapters to come, there is no scientific evidence of any ozone depletion.” http://american_almanac.tripod.com/cfc.htm
Same players, they just expanded the brief to include blaming everyone, Carbon Dioxide the food of us carbon life forms now demonised as a toxic promoted as a fact by those who would be horrified to be thought uncaring for life… That sums up the insanity of this scam.
William M. Connolley says:
March 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Oh no. The greenhouse-effect-doesn’t-exist folk are back, too. There goes respectable “skepticism”.
Oh right, the warmists in sceptic clothing are oh so respectable, calling us “deniers”, making a point to separate themselves out so respectably from us (see Singer). Who thought of the meme “you’re giving skeptics a bad name? Heard it so often now..
The Greenhouse Effect is a fraud, deliberate sleight of hand by excluding the Water Cycle.
Without water the Earth would be 67°C – the greenhouse gas water vapour cools the Earth by 52°C to get to the 15°C. Think deserts.
The Greenhouse Effect based on the difference between -18°C of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, and the 15°C, the claimed “warming of 33°C in the TGE”, is deliberately discrepant – there is no such effect.
It is obviously a con the moment one puts back the whole Water Cycle.
The rest of the fictional fisics created to support TGE by taking out convection and gravity and attraction and so on, can only fool those not taught traditional science. Traditional science is respectable, this junk fisics created through the looking glass with Alice is a joke against that.
And that’s exactly how it must have seemed to those who created it. There must be lots of LOL from these psycho/sociopaths at how successful their con as they read all these people arguing that their fictional fisics is real, and doesn’t break the second law for example..
I don’t know why you’re part of that con, William. In my philosophy there is no blame for being what we are, we didn’t create ourselves, but we do know the difference between good and bad and we can make a choice to bring out of ourselves one rather the other (I’m making no claims it’s easy to choose good, I certainly don’t find it to be), but it seems to me that a common failing in the supporting members of the scam is lack of objectivity and it’s this that drives them to protecting their beliefs with ever more stridently bad methods, regardless that every aspect has already been falsified, because it began an impossible scenario in real world physics, and to this end they become willing helpers of those who devised this scam who think themselves superior to others – and that’s just an illusion – who don’t care what lengths they go to in destroying the quality of life for others. Objectively facing that would be a very bitter pill to swallow for any realising how they’d been duped.
We have a natural social gene, trust, we couldn’t function generally without it, and when that trust has been broken by someone or some event it can be hard to cope with the consequences, I think a lot of problem in communicating the real science to warmists is the wall they build up against ‘hearing’ anything that will anticipate such a breakdown in the trust they’ve invested in the AGW belief. I’m reminded of the PhD physics teacher who introduced me to the subject, when I asked why he wouldn’t read some papers I’d found contradicting AGW, he said they were of no interest and he didn’t have to read them, I paraphrase it was a while ago. And then I found the hockey stick and the saga of getting the data, and the conclusion, that any random number input would give a hockey stick because the programme was designed to do this, and the skullduggery of having people sacked and the campaign of denigration against any scientist who had objections, he still wasn’t interested in discussing it. I was rather shocked at the time, he considered himself a scientist. I’m no longer surprised by this. This was never about the science, that’s just been the vehicle for “it”. How can there be any respectability in arguing for a non-existant effect?
And that’s what Theodore White’s talking about – the “science” is non-existant – it was never there in the first place. That’s the great illusion here.
So, how is CO2 well mixed? Please explain.
– which I continue to remind everyone cannot ever happen on Earth due to the laws of thermodynamics.
_____________________________________
Quite so – well almost, and therein lies the main subject matter of my 6,600 word Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics being published on-line within the next 72 hours. But you have to find an answer to the fact that radiation from the atmosphere can slow the rate of radiative transfer of thermal energy from the surface. Have you considered such?
Under the laws of a criminal trial, one must convince a jury of lay people the client (mankind) is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is a huge price to pay for ones reputation and liberty that anything less than that would be a greater crime itself.
Wind up to 2012. Hansen’s guesses date back to 1986. The 2C rise he predicted back then has been 0.4C, the sea level has been around an inch (not yards as he so freely proclaimed). The IPCC’s original graph of projected CO2 policies and related temperatures shows 20 years or so later we are below their lowest line of stable CO2, while CO2 has continued to rise at a constant rate.
Then after claiming the Himalayan glacier chain was losing (a very specific) 50 billion tons of ice a year, the real findings showed it had lost none for a decade.
I have pages more, so how many reasonable doubts do the politicians want before they pack their taxes in and stop telling us when we can drive our cars and fly abroad? Never, I expect, as this was never about a trial but about an enormous robbery, and we are not the defendants but the victims and always will be until enough people go online, read the data, and stop voting in politicians set to tax the gonads off us.
Theodore White says:
Currently, this is true (assuming by ‘heat’, you mean ‘energy’). It is because not all of the energy is released back into space that Earth is warming at present and will continue to do so until a new equilibrium is reached.
Then why is Earth warmer than the moon?
Myrrh says:
How delightfully bizarre! Do other people here agree with you? How do you think this works? Are you thinking of evaporative cooling and forgetting that the energy never actually leaves Earth, but is released again when the water vapour condenses?
What is most apparent are that many people simply are not aware nor educated on the most basic of geophysical matters, practically speaking, – the climate and weather. Any skilled forecaster will tell you that it is one of the most demanding jobs because the Earth’s climate and weather is highly variable – everything always in motion. That’s the weather folks.
I have not seen one – not a single proponent of ‘man-made global warming’ – do what I do with ease – and that is forecast seasonal or long-range weather applying the laws of physics. Yet, we are to believe that any AGW proponent is able to forecast years and decades ahead claiming the world will forever warm and blames humanity for global warming? That is ludicrous.
We humans have a lot of problems, but we are NOT responsible for global warming. We don’t handle that and cannot do a thing about it either. That is the job of the Sun.
All we can do is to forecast in advance and dress for the climate and weather in advance. That is in our power. Those who claim humanity is the cause of climate change do NOT have both oars in the water.
I continue to state that the laws of physics cannot be broken by ideology, opinion, careerism, bullying, by altering/erasing weather data and pushing out AGW lies.
The thermodynamic laws that govern the Earth’s climate says the Earth can NEVER become a greenhouse. These are mathematical truths. There is no way to ignore those facts. Period.
Applying the principles of my expertise of the science of astrometeorology, I have forecasted that the world is headed toward Global Cooling, officially beginning later in this decade. Storms will be bigger, more damaging and we will require not less – but MORE energy sources to survive. This cooling regime will begin about 2017-18, increase into the 2020s and will peak by the mid-2030s before global cooling eventually begins to wane in the mid-2040s. We will see increasingly more La Nina-grade storms and lesser El Nino-grade storms.
All this forced by the Sun.
I will take ‘global warming’ over global cooling any day. Global warming is good for the Earth, but global cooling is an entirely different creature altogether. Should we enter even a mini-ice age of extreme grades of global cooling then the world’s populations will surely suffer. Global cooling is so much worse than global warming could ever be.
Mostly this began in the 1960s with the re-rise of Malthusian ‘Population Bomb’ folks. In the late 60s they began to understand how to corral the peoples; and that medium was the environment. For reference, you may review UN docs and/or associated individuals outside their UN purview. Through the 1950’s and 1960s there was the anti-nuclear movement, and then the flower child hippie universe popped up. By 1969, as the latest I’ve found, the enviro recognition was clear. Then Earth Day, and the coinciding of multiple UN agencies plus NGO’s specifically for Earth. Most of the documents and statements of the players are out there in their own words, including the ‘founding fathers’ of the UN.
What this would lead to of course is control, globally, hence global governance. It’s not a nutjob conspiracy. This goes back to the early 1900’s. Central planning, population control, eugenics, global government, essentially a technocracy. Brave New World type existance. No matter which avenue you take to any of the above, those are ALL the results.
If you believe this is crazy, I suggest you peruse the internet yourself. I’ll remind you of Agenda21, The World Bank, IMF, forming the EU, enviro-zealots, ‘birth control’, Central Banks with fiat currency, UN agencies commissions that beat you into submission, NGOs, and Academe (including scientists).
As for AGW or CAGW – “Rather be a denier, than a liar”
I recall an argument I had with a TV news reporter in 1991 — I told her that the ozone scare would be forgotten in 20 years, just as fears in the 1970s of an impending ice age had been, but she disagreed. I should have known that it would simply be replaced by the next panique de la décennie.
I feel sorry for people like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and also Christopher (Lord) Monckton, who are being vilified:-
1. for understanding and describing the “greenhouse” effect, by some self-proclaimed sceptic people failing to understand the meaning and relevance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
2. for understanding and describing why the “greenhouse” effect (enhanced or otherwise) is NOT a problem, by global warming alarmists with vested interests in alarmism.
The real argument about global warming / climate change, is a quantitative one, it’s the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity, and the magnitude and arithmetical sign of the feedbacks.
I’m surprised and disappointed that a “science” blog has “elevated” a comment including such a misleading interpretation of the Laws of Thermodynamics without explaining why respected CAGW-sceptical scientists believe it is wrong.
Forgot to add, speaking of old journalism, the NYT’s Archive is a fun view of articles 40 years or so ago on climate change. Must be a subscriber to read more than title and first sentence of articles.
Mike says:
March 9, 2012 at 11:16 am Does the Margaret Thatcher story about coal strike busting play weave into this narrative in any way?
I suppose it does but she had people around her that could spread sheet and as opposed to Scargill (who like Jones knew feck all), and it gave her the knowledge that she could fight a long run as there were coal stock reserves above ground to keep the power on for 2 years!
Richard, Theodore and Myrrh:
Firstly, Richard, a simple question about the Moon proves nothing, because there are so many differences between it and Earth, including length of day, core heat and overall size. I wonder if you even know that the Moon’s surface goes above 100 deg.C during its daytime because it has no atmosphere to shield it a bit from the Sun. Mean temperatures mean nothing. This is why Myrrh is right in saying that water vapour helps to cool the surface, at least in daylight hours. I can’t vouch for his figures – I would never claim such implied accuracy as is indicated even by just two significant figures. In fact the whole atmosphere acts as a shield to the Sun, and you can see the estimates of what is absorbed even on those energy diagrams of NASA and Trenberth et al.
Theodore is right about the Second Law of Thermodynamics preventing transfer of thermal energy from the cooler atmosphere to the surface. Unfortunately, that is not quite enough on its own to dismiss the GH effect. I explain why you need more than that in my 6,600 word paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics being published on line within the next 72 hours. You and I are in pretty close agreement, but I suggest that there will be just slight cooling until the 60 year cycle warms again from 2028 to 2058 and that the 1000 year cycle will still add 0.5 deg.C for 100 years or, at the most, 1.0 deg.C for 200 years before it starts a 500 year decline. With technology (which we probably can’t even imagine) I tend to think the world will cope with another Little Ice Age better then than it did during the last one. However, see my post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/09/a-view-of-climate-on-the-ground-from-a-reporter-who-was-there-at-the-beginning/#comment-917949
Myrrh is quite correct in saying all that -18 deg.C and 33 deg.C business is completely incorrect, and I go into this in an Appendix to my paper.
Theodore White (March 9, 2012 at 5:34 pm): Now that right then and there is a DIRECT violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that any machine that acts to transfer heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir – without external work applied – CANNOT exist.
Classically, work = force x distance applied. In the GHE, work is done by upwelling microwave radiation in exciting CO2 and H2O into higher vibrational energy states.
> What AGW proponents seem to forget is that the mechanism of warming in a real greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming of the Earth’s atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Real_greenhouses
> The expensive climate models used to fear-monger and bully the entire world to believe the lies of “catastrophic global warming” curiously depict net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground.
No, they don’t. By putting in the word “net” there you expose your key error.
> How is CO2 well mixed? Please explain.
In the sense that it is long-lived compared to its mixing time (mixing by the turbulent motions of the atmosphere). So if you measure CO2 anywhere in the atmosphere (as long as you stay below, say, 50 km) you get pretty well the same value – 390 ppm or whatever it is now. With small regional fluctuations, of course.
> The OzoneScare was a scam…
Lots of words and propaganda, but nothing to dispute that actual science I’ve quoted.
> The 2C rise he predicted
You have no evidence he made any such prediction.
> I have not seen one – not a single proponent of ‘man-made global warming’ – do what I do with ease – and that is forecast seasonal or long-range weather applying the laws of physics
Well, no-one has seen you do it either. You haven’t referenced a single “prediction” of yours actually made in advance.
> I recall an argument I had with a TV news reporter in 1991 — I told her that the ozone scare would be forgotten in 20 years
And clearly, you were wrong. We’re still talking about ozone, no?
“until a new equilibrium” – Really? When was that last time when equilibrium was reached?
@Theodore White, the issue is not whether heat flows back to the earth’s surface from the atmosphere, it is how easily it is released from the earth’s surface having arrived from the sun. That is about how the heat is distributed within the atmosphere which can certainly change depending on the composition of the atmosphere without violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Oh. It became a Connolley thread.
From wikipedia:
The greenhouse effect and a real greenhouse are similar in that they both limit the rate of thermal energy flowing out of the system, but the mechanisms by which heat is retained are different.
Like lots of stuff on wikipedia, that’s wrong, because the energy flowing out of the Earth (and its atmosphere) has to equal the energy arriving at the Earth, for equilibrium to be maintained, and it’s that that limits energy outflow, not the greenhouse effect itself.