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.
Oh, thanks.
Well, as you can see, the concentration of CFC-12, whatever the units are, is the highest in the equator and goes down at the poles (a pity it only reaches to 60 degrees), and it goes down with altittude too, to the point that it is non existant at 60 degrees 45 Km over sea level)
So, over the equator there is a higher concentration of CFC-12, a higher solar radiation and higher temperature than at the poles, yet, the claim is that CFCs breaks ozone over the poles, but apparently, not over the equator, despite that the 3 variables (concentration, solar radiation and temperature) favour the reaction over the equator. It is chemical kinetics upside down)
So?. How does the vortex speed up the reaction? If the vortex makes the air with larger amounts of CFCs ascend then there could be a point, but if it descends, how can speed up the reaction?
Here they say that the those clouds are rare.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/science/cool-science/2009/rare-mother-of-pearl-clouds-sighted-in-antarctica
Besides, those clouds reach a maximum altittude of 20-25 Km, while the so-called ozone layer expands from 15 Km up to 55 Km. http://www.meteo.lv/public/28974.html They only touch the lower portion of the layer. Most of the ozone is located in the top part of the layer, where it is formed.
Again, so?. None of the mentioned reactions involve CFCs or O3 .
“Well, as you can see, the concentration of CFC-12, whatever the units are, is the highest in the equator and goes down at the poles”
Actually not. There is a north south asymmetry, because almost all of the CFCs were emitted in the Northern Hemisphere and the time for mixing across the poles is of the same order as the time to reach the stratosphere. The circulation is driven by what are called the Hadley and Ferrel cells (google or look in the Wikipedia or ask you local meteorologist) and account for where the CFCs are carried into the stratosphere. This is all quite well understood and verified by any number of tracer studies. Also you have to account for how ozone and the photolysis products from the CFCs are transported in the stratosphere by the Dobson circulation (google is your friend).
“None of the mentioned reactions involve CFCs or O3 . ”
You are missing the point. CFC (chloro, fluoro carbons) decompose in the stratosphere to form Cl atoms by far UV photolysis. So the CFCs enter the story as the source of the Cl atoms. They are for sure there.
CFC = hv –> nCl + other stuff
These reactions are very well measured in the lab and in vivo.
The Cl atoms react with O3, ozone, to form ClO as in
Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
Cl + O3 –> ClO + O2
Eli wrote this twice because two ClO react with each other to form ClOOCl
ClO + ClO -> ClOOCl
The ClOOCl is the result of reacting two ozone molecules with two Cl atoms, so two ozone molecules have disappeared. The ClOOCl rapidly absorbs another photon and falls apart in two steps
ClOOCl + hv -> Cl + ClOO
ClOO –> Cl + O2
At this point two ozone molecules have been transformed into three O2 molecules and the Cl atom has been regenerated. Two Cl atoms have catalytically destroyed two ozone molecules
——————————-
Net: 2 O3 -> 3 O2
Go read the FAQ for a start. More detail at the Stratospheric Ozone Textbook.
Urederra says:
March 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Agile Aspect says:
March 11, 2012 at 9:30 am
During the summer when there’s UV present, and the ozone at the poles is lower than in the winter.
errr… nope.
See…
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm
Look at the graph, southern hemisphere, the so-called hole is larger in September, at the end of the austral winter.
;—————————————————————————————————————–
Arguing that there is no ozone hole is a “straw man” argument.
What you call the “ozone hole” is the known as the vortex – and I as far as I know, I don’t think anyone is arguing there is no vortex or “ozone hole” at the South pole.
It’s the extreme cold of the vortex which destroys the ozone – did you notice the ozone piled up next to the vortex?
The argument is about where the ozone comes from.
If you had actually look beyond the first image, you might have noticed the other images support my claim, namely, that there is very little ozone in the polar regions at the onset of winter and the ozone flows longitudinally into the South pole during the winter.
Scroll down on the page and there images from May and July – very little ozone.
Q.E.D.
Note most of the other images on the URL you posted are from
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/selectMap
If you use this interface, it’s trivial to show the ozone is longitudinally flowing into the polar regions during the winter since you can choose any date you like – and any pole you like (use the polar projections for clarity.)
“Ian H says:
March 10, 2012 at 2:04 am
The second law is very specific. It speaks of the behaviour of an ISOLATED SYSTEM.”
Do you think this means there is perpetual motion in all non-isolated systems then?
Theodore: Gerlich and Tscheuschner make a fairly basic error. They say “A machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir (e.g. stratosphere) to a high temperature reservoir (e.g. atmosphere) without external work applied, cannot exist – even if it is radiatively coupled to an environment, to which it is radiatively balanced. A modern climate model is supposed to be such a variant of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.”
Their supposition is wrong. The argument is that Earth’s surface is radiating energy into space. A dry, CO2-free atmosphere absorbs and reradiates very little of this radiation. However, CO2 and water vapour (and some other constituents) absorb some of the outgoing radiation and reradiate it, with some of it going back to Earth’s surface. The surface is receiving radiation from the sun, as before, but now there is also additional radiation returning from the atmosphere. Note: No mention of heat and no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Tell me: what is your reason for accepting the claims of Gerlich and Tscheuschner over those of essentially all climatologists?
Hi Richard,
I suggest you actually re-read that section since you’ve taken it out of context. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are self-explanatory.
These are Principe that cannot be broken and it is exactly for that reason that the AGW kool-aid drinkers (the worst of whom I consider mad hatters and clearly not in possession of a full deck) would try to insult the intelligence of all people by claiming the Earth is really flat, not round, does not rotate and is isolated with a Sun that has little if really any forcing on the earth at all. None of those things are true to those with open eyes, ears and a mind to think for themselves.
But that is exactly what those who claim man warms the world are saying. Again, that is not true because the laws of physics say so. The prime mover of these laws which rule our system you have seen every day of your life – it is called THE SUN.
Any attempt to violate these laws would immediately mean that the laws of physics do not apply and therefore the Earth’s system is in chaos. That has never happened and I tell you the reason why – because of the Sun – the Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth.
The real ‘chaos’ has (and is) taking place in the minds of those careerists and believers in the fallacy, myth and lie of man-made global warming.
Man does not cause global warming – the Sun causes global warming and global cooling. Which one do I prefer? I prefer global warming because it is good for the earth and so should you. Global Cooling is much worse than global warming could ever, ever be.
Also I do not know what you mean by saying “essentially all climatologists.” Gerlich and Tscheuschner are far from the only scientists to know and state without equivocation that AGW is impossible on Earth.
The fact of the matter is that many climatologists, along with those in my forecasting field of atmospheric physics, space weather and meteorology are well aware of the laws of thermodynamics.
There is no ‘perpetual machine’ that violates the laws which govern the earth’s climate.
As for your mention of ‘additional radiation returning from the atmosphere,” can you clarify just how this has anything to do with the second law? Of course there is always some back radiation the earth retains, but to take the quantum leap to say that carbonic acid, which is what we call C02 forces heat to ‘fall’ but not rise – is ludicrous.
Again, where is the perpetual machine that allows the impossible to happen? I have not found it, and neither has any climatologist and/or physicist.
There is no AGW perpetual machine that violates the laws of physics that says the Earth can ever become a greenhouse, and that essentially is what those who push ‘man-made global warming’ are saying.
It is impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse, forever with warming temperatures into ad infinitum because that violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics that have governed the Earth since its origin straight to this very day.
Only the Sun can change the climate and it performs its many functions very, very well and if the Sun ever goes away – we all go away. So, better to get off that AGW kool-aid train and respect the Sun a lot more than some of you appear to do.
The Sun is the cause of climate change – global warming, global cooling and everything else in between.
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_1/1_Js/1-07.jpg
Oh, c’mon, the dark orange blob that says 398 is just over the equator, that marks the highest concentations of CFC12 in the graph. Note that there is no CFC12 at an altittude of 45 Km and over at around 60 degrees of latitude, whereas there is still some at the same altittude over the equator.
And yes, there is a north south asymmetry because of the production in the N.H. Which you would think that it would lead to a larger destruction of ozone in the N.H. That is not what happens.
You are missing my arguments. I repeat one last time. The speed of a chemical reaction depends on the concentration of the reactants and temperature. (see wiki or elsewhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_kinetics ) The higher the concentration, the faster the reaction will happen, and also the higher the temperature, the higher the speed of the reaction. And in this particular case also depends on the amount of hv (UV radiation)
Over the equator, the three variables, CFC concentration, temperature and hv are high. Over the poles during winter, the CFC concentration is lower and even 0 at hight altittudes, temperatures are much lower, and hv is very low (it is dark) The three variables that control reaction rates favor higher reaction rates over the equator, and lower to none over the poles. (no hv = no reaction) If not enough Cl radicals are formed over the equator to produce significant ozone destruction over the equator, they cannot be formed over the poles. It is the photodissociation of CFC over the poles what is not compatible with empirical data. Eli may know that, that is why he does not mention that reaction in the portion you copied and pasted.
Really? In vivo? Somebody injected CFCs into mice and place them under a UV lamp? LOL.
Nope, I said “so-called ozone hole” because I disagree with the terminology. A total amount of 800 DU of ozone is called “layer” and a total amount of 100 DU or even 400 DU of ozone is called “hole”. That is political scare tactics, since people who doesn’t know the terminology would think that the ozone hole is a zone with absolutely no ozone on it. Check ozone readings and you will see it.
So, no CFC involved? Just the cold?
Check this:
http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm
Ozone decomposes faster at higher temperatures, not at lower temperatures, half life = 3 months at – 50 C and 8 days at – 25 C. Just like everything else. We store food in the frigde, not in the oven.
I just don’t like that page because the color codes are upside down. The orange blob over the north pole reads 500 DU acording to the legend, and the green band over Europe reads 300, the one over Saudi Arabia reads 250 DU. The figure just shows double amount of O3 over the pole than over Saudi Arabia.
here is another graph showing the hole forming during winter-spring.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747
Theo – You are babbling.
OK then. Put it in context to show me where I misunderstood.
Don’t be silly.
So you consider the sun to be the prime mover of the laws? Is the sun your God? Think before you write.
Physics does not care what you prefer. Earth does not care what temperature it is. Rapid change is stressful for most living things and will be particularly difficult for human agriculture.
You are avoiding the question, which was “what is your reason for accepting the claims of Gerlich and Tscheuschner over those of essentially all climatologists?” (over 95% of climatologists disagree with them).
Remarkably little, which is why I do not understand why you keep banging away about the Second Law.
Nowhere.
I know of nobody making this claim.
Theo: Instead of just blasting away with your usual harangue, you need to slow down and actually think about what I am writing and what you are writing. In my first comment I said you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out and I think that is still your major problem. Once you figure this out, I’m sure you will realize that, in the context of the basics of the greenhouse effect (yes, I have known for 40 years that a real greenhouse works differently), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent.
“The higher the concentration, the faster the reaction will happen, and also the higher the temperature, the higher the speed of the reaction.”
True in General Chemistry, but not true of atmospheric reactions that depend on the formation of intermediate complexes and for sure not true in situations where there are multiple possible product channels. Look up what a negative activation energy means.
For example, ClO + ClO to form the dimer is about twenty times faster at 200 K than at 300 K to chose only one example from the mechanism Eli discussed.
Wanna try for more, or are you going to study a bit?
duster
“allows carbon di-oxide to exist in a liquid state” except CO2 doesn’t have a liquid state. Remember dry ice?
whatchou talkin bout, willis? you saying a triple point for CO2 doesnt exist????
Urederra says:
March 12, 2012 at 4:16 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747
;——————————————————–
Do you really get your climate information from Richard Black at the BBC?
Did you follow up on the references?
It’s not clear if you realize the URL contains a composite image of the ozone for late winter and early spring in the Northern Hemisphere – and without any units or date information.
Once again, the issue at hand is the ozone levels at the poles in the late fall and early winter – high levels of ozone in the late winter and early spring are to be expected.
Oh wait, that’s right – since you’re ignoring the ozone data for late fall and early winter, “straw man” arguments are the only ones you have left.
@richard Simons, who says – “Theo: Instead of just blasting away with your usual harangue, you need to slow down and actually think about what I am writing and what you are writing. In my first comment I said you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out and I think that is still your major problem. Once you figure this out, I’m sure you will realize that, in the context of the basics of the greenhouse effect (yes, I have known for 40 years that a real greenhouse works differently), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent.”
__________________
All I can say to that Richard, is that you clearly do not know how the Earth’s climate functions from the content of your own comments. I know the difference between heat and energy quite well, but suggest you learn the difference because again, your comments do not show that you do.
Moreover, the Earth’s highly-variable climate is always in flux, always changing and humanity cannot cause global warming – only the Sun does that.
I suggest that YOU figure it out because after 40 years, if you actually believe that the second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant, as you say, then you surely do not have both oars in the water.
Urederra says:
March 12, 2012 at 4:16 am
So, no CFC involved? Just the cold?
Check this:
http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm
Ozone decomposes faster at higher temperatures, not at lower temperatures, half life = 3 months at – 50 C and 8 days at – 25 C. Just like everything else. We store food in the frigde, not in the oven.
;—————————————————————————–
Incidentally, the frigid temperatures in the vortex create ice particles in the stratosphere which dramatically speeds up the break down of the ozone .
Also, I can predict the strength of the polar vortex by looking at the snow pack in Siberia.
What do your CFCs tell you about the vortex next winter?
Supercritical CO2 is an excellent solvent (fluid state) and liquid CO2 exists in every bar on earth (you need a high pressure to liquify the stuff, just what you have in a gas cylinder) for pumping the been and soda. As Eli recalls it is about 900 psi (divide by about 14 to get atmospheres) in those cylinders, which is the equilibrium point between gas and liquid at room temperature for CO2
Theodore White says:
March 12, 2012 at 11:03 am
@richard Simons, who says – “Theo: Instead of just blasting away with your usual harangue, you need to slow down and actually think about what I am writing and what you are writing. In my first comment I said you need to get the difference between heat and energy sorted out and I think that is still your major problem. Once you figure this out, I’m sure you will realize that, in the context of the basics of the greenhouse effect (yes, I have known for 40 years that a real greenhouse works differently), the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevent.”
__________________
All I can say to that Richard, is that you clearly do not know how the Earth’s climate functions from the content of your own comments. I know the difference between heat and energy quite well, but suggest you learn the difference because again, your comments do not show that you do.
Moreover, the Earth’s highly-variable climate is always in flux, always changing and humanity cannot cause global warming – only the Sun does that.
============
The problem is that the fictional fisics created in support of AGW has deemed all energy the same and all creating heat – there is no longer any understanding of what thermal energy means, because they think visible light can heat land and oceans…
They really need to get the difference between heat and light sorted.
*******
http://thermalenergy.org/
Thermal Energy Explained
“What is thermal energy ?
Thermal Energy: A specialized term that refers to the part of the internal energy of a system which is the total present kinetic energy resulting from the random movements of atoms and molecules.
The ultimate source of thermal energy available to mankind is the sun, the huge thermo-nuclear furnace that supplies the earth with the heat and light that are essential to life. The nuclear fusion in the sun increases the sun’s thermal energy. Once the thermal energy leaves the sun (in the form of radiation) it is called heat. Heat is thermal energy in transfer. Thermal energy is part of the overall internal energy of a system.
At a more basic level, thermal energy comes form the movement of atoms and molecules in matter. It is a form of kinetic energy produced from the random movements of those molecules. Thermal energy of a system can be increased or decreased.
When you put your hand over a hot stove you can feel the heat. You are feeling thermal energy in transfer. The atoms and molecules in the metal of the burner are moving very rapidly because the electrical energy from the wall outlet has increased the thermal energy in the burner. We all know what happens when we rub our hands together. Our mechanical energy increases the thermal energy content of the atoms in our hands and skin. We then feel the consequence of this – heat.”
&
http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php
********
Visible light is not thermal energy, it is not heat, it is not thermal infrared, it cannot heat land land oceans.
All energy is not the same. A gamma ray is not a radio wave… These are distinctly different and each has its own properties and effects on meeting matter.
For example, water is a transparent medium for visible light and visible light is transmitted through it without being absorbed, but, water absorbs the invisible thermal infrared, heat which is the thermal energy of the Sun on the move to us, and is heated by it.
Urederra says:
March 12, 2012 at 4:16 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747
;————————————————————————————————-
The reason you won’t find large concentration of ozone at poles during the summer time is because oxygen absorbs UV radiation (wavelength < 240 nm) which destroys oxygen to create ozone, and ozone absorbs UV radiation (wavelength < 290 nm) which destroys ozone to create oxygen.
There's also the process of two ozone structures colliding and producing oxygen.
The ozone level in the summertime at the poles is the equilibrium level between the production and the destruction of ozone by UV radiation.
And ozone is doing it's job – it's absorbing harmful high energy UV radiation and releasing energy shifted to longer wavelengths.
Myrrh says:
March 12, 2012 at 5:14 pm
All energy is not the same. A gamma ray is not a radio wave…
;——————————————————————————–
But yet all energies have the same units – why is that?
Gamma ray and the radio wave are both electromagnetic radiation – the difference between them is the frequency.
As George Smith once observed, you can’t be helped…
Hi, Myrrh! I see you are back. Are you now ready to explain why you think that “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. “?
Can you give an example of a wavelength of radiant energy that does not create heat when it is absorbed?
Theo: Even in your last comment you have been unable to explain why you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the global greenhouse effect, or why you have faith in the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner, so there is obviously no point in my continuing.
So Teddy, perhaps you would like to tell us the difference between heat and energy? and yes that is a trick question
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.
Well having been in on it here in the late 1950s what irritates me is that many of the issues raised at the time suggested that many of them believed that removing the SO2 to remove acid rain would cause a significant one or possibly two degree rise in temperatures. Take that away from the rises we have experienced and they do not look anywhere near as significant. The rises are in reality not worth a jot but it is the assumption not just that the rises would continue but that they would increase based on the wildly over facile computer models they have used which so far have proved 95% inaccurate creates the problem. Since SO2 is a greenhouse negative gas just ignoring the massive changes in the late fifties and sixties is highly questionable like so many other methods used and assumptions made.
To those who say AGW is a proven fact I would say that since the climate scientists have refused external examiners in favour of crony approval it is conjecture of the lowest order and utterly worthless. If you choose to believe them it is merely a personal preference akin to classical music versus pop and no more. These are not experts in any one of the critical skills involved in assessing the question merely the jobbing tradesmen with a broad low level skill base.
myrhh wrote:
http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php
“Take a small piece of ice out of your fridge and hold it in your hand. The thermal energy content of your hand is higher then the thermal energy content of the ice cube.”
Garbage. It’s the temperature that’s higher, not the heat content.
Horse pucky. Every word.
Urban heat islands are trivial in the global heat budget, and may well be offset by some indirect feedback; a few hundredths of a percent change in cloud cover would do it.
Sulphur, if anything, increases cloudiness. Cools, not warms.
CO2 is equally an IR emitter; probably/possibly it simply expedites the net cooling of the high atmosphere by radiating into space. NO climate “warming” has been shown to follow from CO2 increases, ever.
P.S. When the jets stopped flying for a few days after 9/11, upper level cloud and haze cleared. And the ground warmed. Then the jets started flying again and cooled us back down.
And if you tourniquet the hand to stop heat influx from the circulation, your hand will be verrah chilly by the time the last of the cube drips away! And a loverly painful purple-black, too.
😀