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.
I recommend to you my label for them:
Jackasses of All Sciences, Masters of None.
>:)
Suggestion for a post title:
“CO2 is a Past Participle, Not a Gerund”
(‘forced‘, not ‘forcing‘ variable)
<:)
@richard Simons, who says –
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.”
———————
Richard, the laws of thermodynamics make a global greenhouse an impossibility on Earth. That is all you need to know. Do you understand? The laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate makes it mathematically impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse – no matter how much any AGW goober wants those physical laws not to be true.
There is no how it “applies to the global greenhouse effect,” as you put it, because there is no man-made global greenhouse effect on Earth. Accept the laws of physics that rule your own planet and then you will have come to the truth of the matter; thus freeing your mind from the prison and lies of man-made global warming.
Agile Aspect says:
March 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm
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?
They don’t. It would be ridiculous to measure radio waves which can be hundreds of feet long by the same units as visible light, which is tiny, actually measure in angstroms, thermal infrared is bigger than visible, bigger than the light waves which include near infrared. Near infrared is microscopic, thermal infrared the size of a pin head – it is radiated heat which is capable of packing a physical punch to get molecules into vibration. Heat heats things up.
I can only imagine that you’ve never cooked anything in your life, and when you watch someone else prepare your meals you think it the magic visible light you might see, put your head in a dark oven sometime, feel the heat ..
..that’s the invisible thermal infrared, just as we get from the Sun. Thermal energy is heat, that’s why it’s called thermal, duh.
The Sun’s thermal energy, the great heat radiating out and reaching us on the surface of the Earth, is the invisible thermal infrared, heat.
Visible light is not only even tinier than near infrared, it is only a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The AGW meme “they are all the same energy” is designed to confuse. By not appreciating the differences between them, that a gamma ray is not the same as a radio wave, you lose intellectual touch with our history of scientific discovery. That, to me, is that saddest part about all this. If you could get back basic understanding of the difference between Light and Heat you could put them back into the categories to which they belong.
For light, go look at Optics. That’s where you learn what light’s properties can and can’t do, for example they work on electronic transition level – as in our atmosphere where visible is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen and then bounced back out, called reflection/scattering, why we have our blue sky, and, in water which is a transparent medium for visible light, visible doesn’t get absorbed, it doesn’t even get to play with electrons of the molecules of water, but can’t get in and is transmitted through without being absorbed at all.
For heat, go to Thermodynamics, where you will learn of the three methods of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation. When you open the door, the great heat coming from your dark oven which someone has put on to cook a meal for you, is heat travelling by radiation direct to you. Your body absorbs it because of the water content in you, it heats up the water molecules in you just as the invisible heat direct from the Sun heats up our ocean and lands. It moves the whole molecule in vibrational resonance – visible light can’t do this, it ain’t big enough for a start.. It takes the vibration of whole molecules to heat something up, to raise it’s temperature, which is the average kinetic energy (kinetic meaning movement). Water here is interesting because it takes a lot of thermal energy to heat it up, in other words, it will take in a lot of heat before you see a temperature change, this means too that it will give up its heat, the thermal energy it contains, more slowly, called heat capacity. The lower something’s heat capacity the quicker it will absorb heat, thermal energy, and the quicker it will release it. Carbon dioxide for example has a lower heat capacity than oxgen and nitrogen, so it will absorb heat more quickly and will release it more quickly, actually pretty much instantaneously. Carbon dioxide doesn’t have the capacity to store, trap, heat, as water does.
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…
================================
You mean the George Smith who claims that heat can’t be transferred by radiation?!
Not only have y’all, generic warmists who believe this made up fisics, no idea any more of traditional definitions and the differences by categories and properties and effects of the electromagnetic spectrum, you have created your own fisics built on not having these, like the nonsense from Werner that gases aren’t buoyant in air! George Smith looked up in his text book and told me that they gave heat tranfer by radiation, but that they were wrong..! Heck, you were there..
I was interested to explore his thinking, because I’ve heard your version often enough, ‘that all energy is the same’, but I hadn’t heard his variation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-908178
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-909693
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-911627
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-911940
And my final post, which I note in going back to look for this is still being avoided by strawmen arguments.. :http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-914539
And, the rest of you who’ve commented on my previous post – if you can’t provide what I have asked for then it proves you have no answers
ENOUGH OF THE PREVARICATION
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-914539
But yet all energies have the same units – why is that?
Cause we like James Joule??
Frequency is measure in Hz, because we like Heinrich Hertz
Wavelengths are measured in the SI unit of length, as in nm, pm, mm, m, etc. same unit different fractions.
Do try and not look foolish
Come on, Myrrh! Let’s be having your explanation of why “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. “ There’s no need to be shy. I can virtually guarantee that it’s something I will treasure for a long time! Although to be fair, I’ve also enjoyed your defence of why all energy is not the same.
Theo:
I find this an interesting statement as it tells me that you are an authoritarian – you choose an authority and accept their views without question and you expect me to do likewise. I am curious as to how you decided that Gerlich and Tscheuschner would become your authorities despite them making claims which run counter to the opinions of about 95% of the world’s climatologists. You write that “The laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate makes it mathematically impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse”, but I am now convinced that you are incapable of taking me through the mathematics, step by step (I am not a mathematician, but I do have a degree in maths so don’t use the ‘Oh, you could not possibly understand’ excuse).
Richard Simons says:
March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Come on, Myrrh! Let’s be having your explanation of why “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. “ There’s no need to be shy. I can virtually guarantee that it’s something I will treasure for a long time! Although to be fair, I’ve also enjoyed your defence of why all energy is not the same.
Because it stands to reason..
Have you ever been in a desert?
Seen pictures?
Notice anything missing?
Can you remember/imagine how hot it gets with the Sun’s thermal energy, heat, invisible thermal infrared boiling you up inside?
What’s missing is the whole of the water cycle, which standard industry figure from this side of the mirror has 67°C without it. The main greenhouse gas cools the Earth by 52°C to get what would be a very overheated Earth down to 15°C allowing life to flourish. That, our real atmosphere including the Water Cycle, is what was originally thought of as Earth’s greenhouse, a real greenhouse, with windows enabling the cooling cycle – the wonder of our real voluminous greenhouse atmosphere with gravity just right and water where other planets didn’t have this. Instead of a thing of wonder AGW has turned this into a nightmare, where the very food of all our carbon life forms is called a poison… What’s toxic is this AGW fictional fisics world.
No oceans, no lakes, no rivers, no rain, no fog, no dew, no plants, no us, no life which began in the oceans – without the Water Cycle.
Which why it is obvious to anyone able to connect the dots, that the whole AGW fisics is based on a fiction – it is describing a different world. With the Water Cycle there is no ‘greenhouse gases warm the Earth from -18°C to 15°C – is there?
Do you see the sleight of hand? Like all such it’s deceptively simply, happens practically before you can ‘register’ that something is amiss because it then immediately distracts from it by misdirection, builds a whole scenario on the displacement.
Which is why there is no atmosphere at all in the fictional AGW world – why there is only radiation and no convection – why gases aren’t buoyant in air – why the gases are ideal and not real, having no weight or volume (gravity), no attraction, etc. – why carbon dioxide is thoroughly mixed – why carbon dioxide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years – why StefanBolzmann is used …. – why there is no sound, so warmists can’t hear this..
Put back the Water Cycle and you put back the real heavy volume of the fluid gas ocean above us weighing down on our shoulders a ton weight, no ideal gas diffusion in empty space in that is there? Put back the Water Cycle and you put back attraction of real gases not the, quite frankly, idiotic ideal gas molecules without attraction zipping at great speeds bouncing off each other and thoroughly mixing while zipping around empty space without any gravity to keep them here because they have no volume… 🙂 – put back the Water Cycle and get back gravity, weight, volume, and you get back that gases have weight relative to each other, carbon dioxide is one and half times heavier than air, it can’t spontaneously rise and thoroughly mix by ideal gas diffusion in an empty space vacuum scenario but will always sink displacing air without work being done to alter this – put back gravity of our real atmosphere and you put back buoyancy of real gases because you put back evaporation of water vapour being lighter than air and so you get clouds which in the AGW fictional fisics appear magically in the ideal gas empty space – put back attraction of real gases and you get carbon dioxide and water vapour spontaneously attracted to each other, joining together to make carbonic acid, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, where’s carbon dioxide accumulating in that? – put back the Water Cycle and you get volume of real gases so you get back sound – put back the Water Cycle and you get back real life not the fictional fisics of AGW created through the looking glass with Alice where you can think any number of impossible things before breakfast including giving the properties of heat to light and saying heat direct from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface… – put back the Water Cycle and you get evaporation of the real fluid gas water vapour which has a much higher heat capacity relative to the other gases and absorbs much more heat which as it rises lighter than air takes this heat into the colder heights of the atmosphere cooling the Earth and releasing that heat in condensing out into fluid liquid water or ice, bringing the temp 52°C..
..and as a bonus as it forms it cleans the atmosphere, forming as it does around dust and such, and irresistably attracted it brings carbon dioxide back to Earth where the plants and us are reliant on it. Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, it helps cool the Earth.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect is fiction, created by the AGWScience Fiction fisics meme creating department, very cleverly by tweaking real physics a bit here, a bit there, taking out properties and processes and laws out of context and so on – don’t look for internal coherence, this isn’t real physics, so ideal gas empty space atmosphere will not only have ideal gas diffusion of volumeless weightless molecules without attraction bouncing off each at at great speeds to explain ‘thoroughly mixed carbon dioxide’, but will claim Brownian motion which is only applicable to fluid volumes and on nanometre scale at that and anyway carbon dioxide as a gas would be part of the fluid gas volume and not a particle being moved by it and AGW has taken volume out, or, by ‘winds mixing everything up thoroughly, even though winds are real volumes of air on the move from differences in temperature, pressure, which doesn’t exist in empty ideal gas vacuum without gravity, and anyway they stay in their own hemisphere and don’t cross over to provide the ‘turbulent constant mixing’..
Introduced into the education system to dumb down the general population to sell the AGW scare scenario, for various vested interests and ideologies who’ve built the bankwagon. Harsh reality.
Reclaim real science for yourselves, don’t let the b*gg*rs get you.
Richard, G&T Gerlich and Tscheuschners’ claims run counter to 99.99% of the opinions of the world’s climatologists. You have to differentiate between the log(crazy) categories. For example, log (Lindzen) might be 1, but then log (G&T) = 6
M-
Put back the Water Cycle and you put back the real heavy volume of the fluid gas ocean above us weighing down on our shoulders a ton weight, no ideal gas diffusion in empty space in that is there?
———————————–
FYI water vapor (molecular mass 18) is lighter than nitrogen (molecular mass 28) and oxygen (molecular mass 32). Are you referring to the small water drops up there? Even with that, ever wonder WHY they are up there? What is holding them up there?
You are one confused puppy.
categories. For example, log (Lindzen) might be 1, but then log (G&T) = 6
Eli Rabett says:
March 14, 2012 at 6:58 am
M-
FYI water vapor (molecular mass 18) is lighter than nitrogen (molecular mass 28) and oxygen (molecular mass 32). Are you referring to the small water drops up there?
See, no concept of our heavy fluid real gas atmosphere.
Even with that, ever wonder WHY they are up there? What is holding them up there?
You are one confused puppy.
Magic, according to AGWSF fisics. Do tell.
==========
Missed out the word “down” in 7th para –
– put back the Water Cycle and you get evaporation of the real fluid gas water vapour which has a much higher heat capacity relative to the other gases and absorbs much more heat which as it rises lighter than air takes this heat into the colder heights of the atmosphere cooling the Earth and releasing that heat in condensing out into fluid liquid water or ice, bringing the temp down 52°C..
Richard Simons says:
March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Come on, Myrrh! Let’s be having your explanation of why “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. “ There’s no need to be shy. I can virtually guarantee that it’s something I will treasure for a long time! Although to be fair, I’ve also enjoyed your defence of why all energy is not the same.
Theo:
I find this an interesting statement as it tells me that you are an authoritarian – you choose an authority and accept their views without question and you expect me to do likewise. I am curious as to how you decided that Gerlich and Tscheuschner would become your authorities despite them making claims which run counter to the opinions of about 95% of the world’s climatologists. You write that “The laws of physics which govern the Earth’s climate makes it mathematically impossible for the Earth to become a greenhouse”, but I am now convinced that you are incapable of taking me through the mathematics, step by step (I am not a mathematician, but I do have a degree in maths so don’t use the ‘Oh, you could not possibly understand’ excuse).
_____________________________
Richard, this is another problem people who claim humanity is the reason for global warming have, and that is that they love to believe that anything that counters that AGW lie is somehow ‘authoritarian’ – as if anyone tells you the truth is an ‘authority?’
The principals of the physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate are quite clear. Open your eyes. Do the math yourself. However, physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner and many others have provided enough to easily show you what should already be self-evident to anyone who has consumed the AGW kool-aid.
The laws of thermodynamics are quite clear but if you did not allow your ego and false belief to get in the way you would already know this rather than to continue to allow the lies of AGW propaganda to rule over your own mind.
That is a problem you must solve yourself. No one can do that for you. You must do that on your own. The math has already been set – by Mother Nature. Open your eyes and see the truth as it has always been since the origin of the Earth.
Moreover, opinions are like ass***** – everyone has one Richard. Talk is cheap and there is no way whatsoever that you can claim that 95% of the world’s climatologists are in denial about the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, any so-called ‘climatologist’ who denies these physical laws is not a climatologist, but a careerist ideological fake, because the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by opinion. You should know that.
I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them. I apply these laws in my climate and weather forecasts and they function as they should.
Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws.
For you (or anyone else) to claim that it can means you are smoking AGW crack and need to get off the AGW drugs because it has spoiled your mind to the real world all around you – ruled and governed by the laws of physics.
Once more, it is the SUN that is the cause of all climate change on Earth.
“Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws. ”
Saying so isn’t a demonstration – show your math. You’ve been asked to do so above yet you ignored the request. Hint: it’s a little more demanding than working out a horoscope. For one thing, your numbers and figures have to correspond to reality. If you fail to show your math in your response, we’ll know why.
“I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them.”
For someone who claims Nostradamus as one of his heroes and who calls himself “Clairvoyant” to invoke physical laws is pure chutzpah. Bravo!
BTW, greenhouse gas theory is not an “AGW” theory. It was understood and accepted before AGW was widely accepted. It’s an observation; satellites can detect it happening. Scientists who don’t accept AGW still accept the greenhouse effect.
Robert Murphy says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm
“Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws. ”
Saying so isn’t a demonstration – show your math. You’ve been asked to do so above yet you ignored the request. Hint: it’s a little more demanding than working out a horoscope. For one thing, your numbers and figures have to correspond to reality. If you fail to show your math in your response, we’ll know why.
“I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them.”
For someone who claims Nostradamus as one of his heroes and who calls himself “Clairvoyant” to invoke physical laws is pure chutzpah. Bravo!
BTW, greenhouse gas theory is not an “AGW” theory. It was understood and accepted before AGW was widely accepted. It’s an observation; satellites can detect it happening. Scientists who don’t accept AGW still accept the greenhouse effect.
________________________________________
Robert, The laws of physics do not change – and the mathematics have been provided on this thread but you did not bother to read them. These laws that regulate and rule over the Earth’s climate does not change for ‘clairvoyants’ neither for ‘Nostradamus’ or for you Robert.
Moreover, do not insult the intelligence of others by now playing games with ‘greenhouse theory’ (another AGW attempt to obscure) and AGW. How can you accept something that is an impossibility to ever occur to the Earth?
We are not talking about greenhouse theory. We are talking about man-made global warming which includes greenhouse effects used to force a square through a round hole.
The physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate cannot be violated – neither by greenhouse theory or AGW bullshit or your problem with ‘clairvoyants’ and ‘Nostradamus.’
As for my heroes: that has little to do with this discussion or the physical laws that rule the Earth. You come onto this forum with a skull full of mush but if you open your own and clearly see the physical laws that exist and govern our climate you will leave here with a higher IQ than when you entered.
Another thing quite common with AGW proponents is that not only are they rude but anti-social, anti-science and stupid. To think that you have the right to diss anything that does not fit into your small view of the world is beyond laughable – it’s sad. That high-school childish behavior is part and parcel of those who do not have both oars in the water. You have a lot to learn and should listen more than you speak.
The only thing that is ‘pure chutzpah’ is your lack of knowledge of that which you speak. Grow up and use the remaining 90% of the power of your own brain. Have a nice day.
Robert Murphy says:
March 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm
“Again, the Earth can NEVER – ever – (and that means never ever Richard) become a man-made greenhouse – that is an mathematical impossibility according to physical laws. ”
Saying so isn’t a demonstration – show your math. You’ve been asked to do so above yet you ignored the request. Hint: it’s a little more demanding than working out a horoscope. For one thing, your numbers and figures have to correspond to reality. If you fail to show your math in your response, we’ll know why.
“I did not invent the physical laws of thermodynamics and physics, but I sure do respect them.”
For someone who claims Nostradamus as one of his heroes and who calls himself “Clairvoyant” to invoke physical laws is pure chutzpah. Bravo!
BTW, greenhouse gas theory is not an “AGW” theory. It was understood and accepted before AGW was widely accepted. It’s an observation; satellites can detect it happening. Scientists who don’t accept AGW still accept the greenhouse effect.
________________________________________
Robert, The laws of physics do not change – and the mathematics have been provided on this thread but you did not bother to read them. These laws that regulate and rule over the Earth’s climate does not change for ‘clairvoyants’ neither for ‘Nostradamus’ or for you Robert.
Moreover, do not insult the intelligence of others by now playing games with ‘greenhouse theory’ (another AGW attempt to obscure) and AGW. How can you accept something that is an impossibility to ever occur to the Earth?
We are not talking about greenhouse theory. We are talking about man-made global warming which includes greenhouse effects used to force a square through a round hole.
The physical laws that govern the Earth’s climate cannot be violated – neither by greenhouse theory or AGW bullshit or your problem with ‘clairvoyants’ and ‘Nostradamus.’
As for my heroes: that has little to do with this discussion or the physical laws that rule the Earth. You come onto this forum with a skull full of mush but if you open your own mind and clearly see the physical laws that exist and which govern our planet’s climate you will leave here with a much higher IQ than when you entered.
Another thing quite common with AGW proponents is that not only are they rude but anti-social, anti-science and stupid. To think that you have the right to diss and mock anything that does not fit into your ideological small world is beyond laughable – it’s too tired and much too sad. That high-school childish behavior is part and parcel of those who do not have both oars in the water. You have a lot to learn and should listen more than you speak. The world and the universe is very big and much more complex than your current small mind will allow, that much is certain.
Give up on the pop culture mindset and come correct kiddo. The only thing that is ‘pure chutzpah’ is your lack of knowledge of that which you speak. Grow up and use the remaining 90% of the power of your own brain. Have a nice day.
“Robert, The laws of physics do not change – and the mathematics have been provided on this thread but you did not bother to read them.”
No they haven’t. You haven’t provided a single equation on this page. That’s a fact. As expected, you refused yet again to provide any math.
“Another thing quite common with AGW proponents is that not only are they rude but anti-social, anti-science and stupid.”
Do astrologers know what irony is? lol
“To think that you have the right to diss anything that does not fit into your small view of the world is beyond laughable – it’s sad”
I don’t have the right to call astrology a load of horse crap? Really? Says who, you?
“Moreover, do not insult the intelligence of others by now playing games with ‘greenhouse theory’ (another AGW attempt to obscure) and AGW.”
The greenhouse effect is an observation. Satellites measure it. Not only is it not an impossibility, it’s a fact. It’s truth is independent of whether AGW is correct.
“As for my heroes: that has little to do with this discussion or the physical laws that rule the Earth.”
I agree that Nostradamus and his ideas have nothing to do with the physical laws that rule the Earth.
Look, all you have done is make wild claims that somehow the greenhouse effect violates physical laws, but you can’t demonstrate it because you have no idea what you are talking about. It’s like what you wrote way above when you said, “I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved.” Everybody else also refused to write that too, since *nobody* has ever claimed CFC’s were more than a minor player in the GHE. How could someone who claims to be so in tune with what was going on at the time make such an elementary blunder? The concern was with CO2, not CFC’s (at least as far as warming was concerned). And the idea was already over 100 years old. Your claim to have been a reporter “on the ground” and “at the beginning” (which you falsely think was the late 80’s) seems highly unlikely. What papers did you write for? What articles did you write concerning climate issues? The only thing you seem qualified to write is the daily horoscope.
I don’t do pop astrology nor daily horoscopes Robert, wrong guy. I practice it as a science in the same tradition as Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, Ptolemy, Newton and Galileo – all of them astrologers and astrometeorologists. You can no more lump all ‘astrologers’ into one monolithic group as you can all climatologists. Grow up and evolve already why don’t you?
If you were paying attention int he 1980s, CFCs were being touted as one of the causes of worldwide warming – and the concern back then was not with CO2 but with CFCs and I wrote about it many times. Whether you want to believe it or not is your problem, not mine. I don’t care if you do or not as your comments recently are simply full of hot air and stupid to say the least.
Moreover, I have made no ‘wild claims’ but stated the facts and the truth as I know them to be – and not in ‘theory’ but in practice, which is something I can say I’ve done and you have not. There is a huge difference between talking the talk and walking your talk.
The Earth cannot become a man-made greenhouse – ever. Humanity is not responsible for global warming. It was never was and never will be either. The Sun is the cause of all climate change and your opinion doesn’t matter one bit because the Sun does not give a [snip] what you believe.
The Earth’s climate is ruled, governed and regulated by physical laws. You and others of the AGW cloth are the ones in total denial and all of you need not only to shut up but to seek serious mental health therapy and stay with it until you get all 52 cards back into your decks.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Eli Rabett says:
Yes – I tend to forget that those who do not accept the reality of global climate change are busily running off in a hundred directions all at once.
Myrrh says:
Yes. It was cold at night as you’d expect. The rest of your comment was a huge, garbled mess that could be immeasurably improved by understanding the Grade 9 Science course (in our local syllabus).
Theodore White says
But you failed to counter AGW. You wrote “That is all you need to know.” (i.e. that the laws of thermodynamics make a global greenhouse an impossibility on Earth.) This is the ultimate authoritarian statement – “Because I say so!’ I have been repeatedly asking for evidence but you have consistently failed to provide it. All you have done is to give a link to Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s rambling monograph (over 100 pages) then, when I point out an error they make, you just harrumph that it does too violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it’s obvious, so there! Show me the maths. BTW: For the third (?) time, why do you accept G&T as your authority when their views run counter to those of most climatologists?
I don’t. Thay are not. None-the-less, they accept that Earth is warming. Why do you think that is?
Show me the maths! Or, alternatively, show me that the commonly-accepted explanation for global warming is wrong (again, by using some maths with real figures).
Reference, please, to the contemporary scientific literature. Yes, I understand that some of the less-reputable popular press got CFCs, CO2, ozone depletion and global warming thoroughly confused, but I don’t for one moment believe that your statement correctly describes scientific opinion of the day.
You do your own referencing. That is THE major problem with those who push the lie of AGW on the world, and here on climate forums. I posted a paper with 250 references, but you cannot find the time to read them yourself?
Please, I do not babysit adults which translates to – do your own HOMEWORK Robert.
And to clarify – no, the ‘popular’ press (whatever THAT means) did not get CFCS, CO2, ozone depletion or global warming ‘thoroughly confused’ as you say. That did not happen. The so-called ‘man-made global warming’ mania did not really start until the careerists saw the federal dollars rolling in and many of them (who rolled their eyes at the Earth’s warming climate in the mid-1980s) by the 1990s were singing a wholly different tune falling all over themselves to get to all that money. That is what happened. That is the truth and you can’t handle the truth it seems Robert.
You ask why the Earth has been warming?
Easy answer – it’s the Sun.
Try that on for size and quit writing to me with strawman silly arguments.. That insults my intelligence and wastes my valuable time. You want to know more?
Then use your free library card and read up on the laws of physics that state that it is impossible for man-made global warming to exist on Earth and stop asking other people to think FOR you.
AGW is countered by the physical laws that govern Earth’s climate. And it is the SUN that is the cause of global warming and global cooling and all things in between. You have a problem with that? Then take it up with the Sun kiddo.
I just work here.
Eli Rabett says:
“…Gerlich and Tscheuschners’ [sic] claims run counter to 99.99% of the opinions of the world’s climatologists.”
Oh. OK. Just like Einstein’s claims ran counter to the consensus of his day?
Bunnyboi, you just keep parroting your old ‘n’ tired ‘consensus’ line. Me, I’m watching the planet falsify your belief system. Tell me, who should I believe? You? Or Planet Earth?
No Smokey, Einsteins special relativity theory was quickly accepted by scientists, it was the politicians and theologians who had problems with it and were the reason that his Nobel Prize was for the other things (Brownian motion, heat capacity of solids at low temperatures) that he discovered in his miraculous year.
Bunbun,
I’m too busy to look up the exact quote, but the rest of us remember the 100 scientists who signed the open letter to Einstein trying to discredit Relativity. Einstein replied that it didn’t take a hundred scientists to discredit him, it just took one fact.
That was the “consensus” of the day, just like ‘catastrophic AGW’ is the current ‘consensus’. And it is just as wrong as Einstein’s detractors were wrong. There is no empirical, testable evidence for CAGW. There is only the $billions in annual grant money, which is the only reason that CAGW is even being discussed. Because CAGW is as scientific as Scientology.
So, Theodore, you are unable to:
1. show me the maths to support your claim that the Greenhouse Effect would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
2. provide any reasoned argument against my claim that the Greenhouse Effect does not violate the Second Law. In fact, I think you just dismissed it without a moment’s thought.
3. provide any justification for using G&T as your authorities.
4. provide any references to support your claim that CFCs were being touted as one of the causes of worldwide warming in the 1980s.
You claim that amongst these 250 references there may be one that supports your argument. Why can’t you tell us which one it is, or put the argument concisely in your own words? Do you in fact understand it yourself? The nearest science library is a 4-hour drive from where I live and I don’t think I could reasonably ask the local library to get 250 research publications for me. Do you?
Easy, but wrong. Check out a graph of global temperature compared with solar activity.
BTW: On a cold day, I wear a parka. The parka is colder than I am, yet it keeps me warmer. Why does that not violate the Second Law? Because it slows down energy loss, just as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slow down energy loss.
Theodore White, you have mentioned once or twice that the so-called greenhouse effect violates the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It’s interesting because both ideas were formulated around the same time, in the mid-1800s.
The second law and the greenhouse effect are both theories created by humans to explain observations they were making at the time. So I’m curious why you think one is superior to the other? Or rather, if they do contradict, how do you choose which one to believe?
@anonymoushoward, who says: “Theodore White, you have mentioned once or twice that the so-called greenhouse effect violates the so-called second law of thermodynamics. It’s interesting because both ideas were formulated around the same time, in the mid-1800s.
The second law and the greenhouse effect are both theories created by humans to explain observations they were making at the time. So I’m curious why you think one is superior to the other? Or rather, if they do contradict, how do you choose which one to believe?”
———————————————
Since human beings are the ones who have the logic to see how the laws of physics work on their world and that the observational method is the scientific method – what one chooses to ‘believe’ is a matter of personal choice. However, that does not change the laws that govern the Earth’s climate system.
What you need to understand is that the baby boomer generation has been a great negative to Science and the world in general. But ideology and careerism do not trump common sense no more than it can the laws of thermodynamics.
There is no contradiction since the Earth can never become a man-made greenhouse according to the laws of physics. Again, anyone who chooses to believe otherwise is not playing with a full deck. Period.
Believe whatever you want, but the Sun is and always has been the cause of all climate change on Earth – global warming and global cooling. That is not going to change because of ideology or anyone’s belief.
Let the bunbun take a look. Einstein submitted his doctoral thesis in 1905 and published papers on special relativity, the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion.
In 1908 he was appointed lecturer at Bern. The next year he became docent at Zurich. and in 1911 he was appointed full Professor at the University of Prague. Those places ain’t chopped liver, but in 1914 he was appointed director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin (now the Max Planck Institute) and at the same time full professor (in those days there were only one or two in a department) in maybe the most important university in Germany, the Humbolt.
Then, of course, showing how much the scientists Hated, Yes Hated Einstein he was elected president of the German Physical Society (1914-1918)
Oh yes, they really hated ol Al