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.
Smokey says:
What evidence would you accept that does not require a second, identical planet to experiment on?
Theodore White says: (March 16, 2012 at 11:19 am)
Glad to know your copy and paste keys are working, but you haven’t answered my question. The greenhouse effect and the second law of thermo have equal claim to the phrase “the laws of physics,” as both are man-made descriptions of physical observations. Indeed many of the same observations informed both theories.
So given that you think they contradict each other, why do you choose to side with Carnot, Clausius and Boltzmann, rather than Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius?
I side with the laws of thermodynamics. They always have the last word. The Earth can never become a man-made greenhouse. That would be impossible according to the physical laws that rule the Earth’s climate.
Anonymous Howard :
Your question is similar in concept to one I asked (about G&T) thatt he never attempted to answer. I suspect he genuinely does not understand what is being asked.
Rather, Richard, we can suspect that you do not want to genuinely hear the answer. That is the problem you have.
Again, I strongly suggest that it is you who clearly needs to familiarize himself with the laws of thermodynamics that say that man-made global warming is an impossibility on Earth. That is not going to change. Stop asking other people to convince you of something that should be already self-evident.
At Earth’s surface (neglecting a small amount from radioactive decay, etc):
With no ‘greenhouse effect’, energy from Sun = energy lost from surface, therefore no change in temperature.
With ‘greenhouse effect’, energy from Sun + back radiation from atmosphere /= energy lost from surface, therefore Earth’s surface warms.
The back radiation would take place even if the atmosphere were at -100 C.
Repeating ad nauseam the same claims is no kind of answer. I will rephrase:
Show me how the above violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
On what basis did you decide that G&T were reliable authorities?
And to back up Anonymous Howard’s question: “if they [SLOT, Greenhouse Effect] do contradict, how do you choose which one to believe?” Do you choose on the basis that one is called a Law and the other isn’t? Remember, at the time people were more inclined to call things Laws than they are now. Mendel’s Laws, for example, should more properly be called ‘Mendel’s Postulates’.
The laws of thermodynamics and physics do not require your ‘belief’ Richard – just your respect because the Sun does not need your ‘belief’ to rise, culminate, or to set. Rather wasting your time here with snarly comments does not get you a single millimeter closer to getting that which you obviously are dense about. Pay attention to the laws of mother nature, i.e., physics and you will then see what should have been long self-evident to you.
More content-free bluster and insults to avoid answering the questions.
Another question for you. Do you feel that the vast majority of the world’s climatologists who say that anthropogenic CO2 production is a major contributor to global warming are 1) less well-informed on physics that you are or 2) lying as part of a massive global conspiracy that has been going on since at least the time of Arrhenius?
BTW: Have you seen the historical data on solar irradiance? No increase over the past 50 years and only a 0.1% increase in the previous 50 years.Where’s the maths to demonstrate that this is enough to cause global warming on the scale seen?
Richard Simons says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:03 pm
“What evidence would you accept that does not require a second, identical planet to experiment on?”
I would accept testable, verifiable evidence showing that global warming is accelerating. But that is not the case. The temperature trend line has remained the same since the LIA. CO2 has no bearing on it.
Since the rising trend line is the same whether CO2 is 280 ppm, or 392 ppm, then obviously the effect of CO2, if any, is too small to measure. The “carbon” scare is being falsified by the planet itself. I’ll believe what the planet is saying, over the deceptive alarmist crowd.
Wake me if and when global temperatures exceed their long term parameters.
What do you mean by testable? What do you mean by verifiable? You do realise that the Central England Temperature Record that you link to is very unreliable (thermometers were not as trustworthy as now, some of the measurements were taken inside buildings or extrapolated from a different country, etc) and the area it covers is a small part of a small country, less than 0.05% of the world as a whole. I hope that this is not typical of the standard of evidence you accept.
Or CO2 is not the only thing to be involved. Solar irradiance, aerosols, etc all have an impact.
Check out this for a less simplistic view.
We all are aware that co2 is a lagging indicator of temperature, not a leader. It also makes up an tiny fraction of the atmospheric gas on earth. Also, water vapor is more likely a warming agent than co2, however it is the sun and not man which causes water vapor from ocean evaporation.
Thus, trolls like Simmons are probably operatives for the left or for those who are getting rich from demanding we change our economy to fit their model designed to save us from ourselves (like the shift from chloroflourolcarbons was going to save the ozone layer) Look up the name Rauhauser, Neil and see the thread of how democrat operatives are tasked with “social media disruption”. Rauhauser was such an operative who was outed after being paid by several democratic congressional campaigns to do exactly what Simmons was doing: cast doubts, stir up attacks and cause trouble. He was a rabid warming accolyte who even attacked people in local news papers who dared to write against global warming lies.
Global warming = religion. You are branded a heretic if you don’t have faith in their idea.
Man made global warming is the modern-day Henny Penny story about the sky falling.
The moral of Henny Penny was to teach children not to believe fantastic lies or risk being eaten
by the foxes in our world.
But then the adult children running things today never really learned to read or do simple math.
And 1+1 can always equal 3 if the group says so.
A WILD THOUGHT about the EPA thinking Carbon is bad:
Ever considered that the true MASTERS of the USGOV’T,
those INVISIBLY PRESENT MASTERS, may be some Silicon –
NOT Carbon – Based “Artificial” Intelligences from far
away (maybe even The Future of some alternative Time
Line of “Our” Earth)? Such BEASTS might see their
CARBON progenitors as An Embarressment, which they
destroyed long ago, and all other Intelligent Carbon
LIFE FORMS then are as “the Enemy” (to be destroyed)!
[snip – sorry, a valid email address is required to post here guest@Anthony Watts.com isn’t one – Anthony]
Besides Solyndra fiasco, want to hear of some other ways to make money hand over fist with “green schemes”? Here goes:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2012/03/alternative-energy-farce-us-taxpayers.html
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/firm-sells-solar-panels-itself-taxpayers-pay/434251
Complications arise partly due to polar magnetic shift towards Russia.Another item is clouds appear to be 30 meter lower in last 10 years.This is likely due to co2 being heavy with carbon content tends to rest on ocean where it can be absorbed by waves.This reduces the atmosphere s o clouds will naturally follow the lower atmosphere downwards. I never measured the height of atmosphere but when leaving San Jose Costa Rica I looked down toward the lights and I was looking through clouds.San Jose must be in a valley
Uh oh! The loonies are coming to support the vacuous.There’s no defence against such idiocy so I’ll revert to my usual role of watching from the outside.