Why We Need Debate, Not Consensus, on Climate Change

NOTE: This op-ed was rejected by the New York Times. It was submitted as a response by The president of The Heartland Institute in reply to Fred Krupp’s Wall Street Journal essay. I reproduce it here in hopes of it reaching a wide audience. Feel free to reproduce it elsewhere. – Anthony

by Joe Bast

Dear Fred,

I read your August 7 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Climate-Change Consensus,” with great interest. As you know, The Heartland Institute is a leading voice in the international debate over climate change. The Economist recently called us “the world’s most prominent think-tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”

First, I welcome you to the effort to bring skeptics and alarmists together. We need your help. We have been trying to do this for many years.

For example, we ran more than $1 million in ads calling on Al Gore to debate his critics. He repeatedly refused. We hosted seven international conferences on climate change and invited alarmists to speak at every one, the most recent one held in Chicago on May 23-24. Only one ever showed up, and he was treated respectfully.

Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist, and when opinion polls and political decisions revealed that strategy wasn’t working, by denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”

Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us. Prominent global warming alarmist Peter Gleick stole corporate documents from us and circulated them with a fake and highly defamatory memo purporting to describe our “climate change strategy.” Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20.

Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists who affiliate with The Heartland Institute, while the Center for American Progress and 350.org are using them to demonize corporations that fund us. No group on the left, including yours, has condemned these activities.

In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”

Reconciliation will be difficult so long as you and others on the left fail to express doubt or remorse over the errors, exaggerations, and unethical tactics that continue to be used against skeptics.

For example, it is impossible for skeptics and alarmists to come together so long as alarmists pretend – as you do, Fred, in this very essay – that recent weather trends in one part of the world lend proof to their theories and predictions. Anyone familiar with the science knows this claim belongs in the kindergarten of the climate science debate.

Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, second because they are notoriously unreliable, and third because they tell us nothing about what is causing warming or cooling.

You are asking, in effect, that skeptics simply “shut up and sit down,” that they concede as being true the most flawed and unlikely assumptions of the alarmist movement, and that they endorse policies that are wholly unnecessary and extremely costly.

While I cannot presume to speak for all global warming skeptics, I think I can channel the opinion of most when I say, “hell no!”

Your overture comes at a time when the science backing global warming alarmism is crumbling, as amply demonstrated by the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change (NIPCC). International negotiations for a new treaty are going nowhere. Public opinion in the U.S. and other countries decisively rejects alarmism. Politicians here and abroad who vote for cap and trade or a carbon tax rightly fear being tossed out of office by voters who know more about the issue than they do.

Your appeal to “restart the discussion” would have skeptics snatch failure from the jaws of victory. I’m sure you understand why we won’t go there.

I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:

First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.

Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.

Third, given the rapid and unstoppable increase in greenhouse gas emissions by Third World countries, it is pointless for the U.S. and other developed countries to invest very much in reducing their own emissions.

Fourth, tax breaks and direct subsidies to solar and wind power and impossible-to-meet renewable power mandates and regulatory burdens on coal-powered electricity generation plants have been disastrous for taxpayers, businesses, and consumers of electricity, and ought to be repealed.

Fifth, the world is entering an era of fossil fuel abundance that could lift billions of people out of poverty and help restart the U.S. economy. We have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. Basic human compassion and common sense dictate that fear of global warming ought not be used to block access to this new energy.

Agree to these five simple propositions, Fred, and we can begin to work together to address some of the real environmental problems facing the U.S. and the world.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
387 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Warwick Wakefield
August 14, 2012 2:06 am

What a confidant and civilized invitation to a discussion

Brian Johnson uk
August 14, 2012 2:16 am

There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days. With mindsets like that and the likes of Hansen,Gore,Mann, Jones,Trenberth and others with direct connections to the sympathetic AGW Media nothing will change in any meaningful time scale. How long did it take for Dragons, Witches and Papal Indulgences to be accepted as utter rubbish?
CO2 is good for us carbon life forms and for our essential friends the food producing plants, trees etc.

John V. Wright
August 14, 2012 2:17 am

So sad that this was rejected by the New York Times – that says so much about the journalists who work there. In Britain, the BBC has suffered a similar collapse in journalistic values and ethics, determined to keep the evidence of skeptical scientists away from the camera and the microphone – a public service broadcaster that has lost jts sense of duty to the public.
It is not just science that is losing credibility with the public, as a result of the lies, distortions, exaggerations, corruption and malfeasance (exemplified by Climategate) but journalism, too. Professional integrity is an issue for both scientists and journalists.

Venter
August 14, 2012 2:17 am

Well said, Joe. Unfortunately no one from the warmist side will dare to take you up on this as they seem to be fundamentally dishonest.

August 14, 2012 2:18 am

Excellent reply. Well expressed; and how sad that the NYT won’t publish it. One suggestion I would make is maybe to soften the basic propositions a little, otherwise this just restarts the stand-off. Rather than insist on the alarmist ‘agreeing’ the basic propositions, maybe ‘respecting’ would capture the best approach. Yes, we want them to agree, and it is not that difficult if you look the facts in the face. But don’t forget many are, as you say, still ‘in the kindergarten of the climate science debate’. But then again mybe you are right and the ‘hell no!’ response is best…

JamesNV
August 14, 2012 2:23 am

I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.

DEEBEE
August 14, 2012 2:24 am

While it is important not to respond to the “alrmists”, it seems a bit unseemly to do that in a response that seems to be a bit on the plaintive / kumbaya side. Joe either you write combative pieces and expect combat or take a tone of reconcilliation and be repectful, painful as it might be. Otherwise you will get back a but of “denier” hurls at you and we will be running in place, as usual.

Glenn
August 14, 2012 2:27 am

Amen.

August 14, 2012 2:34 am

Well written and to the point but it will go right over the alarmists heads.

pax
August 14, 2012 2:39 am

Argh, if only they hadn’t done that billboard.

PN
August 14, 2012 2:48 am

He hee, I found point #1 especially comical considering the consistent use of the term “alarmist”. No wonder it was rejected.
Anyhow, pretty pointless to “reconcile” with the conspiracy theorist faction that HI represents. That view had its glory day around the Copenhagen conference but I don’t think you can say it is doing very well today. The view that we should do “nothing” is of course quite legitimate and by all means, argue for it when policy is made. But reconciling with a bunch of flat Earther’s on the science in question is just rediculous, and has been so for close to 50 years.

Valerie Rawlinson
August 14, 2012 2:49 am

Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way. And the vision to create an alternative economy that will allow us to do so.

Bloke down the pub
August 14, 2012 2:50 am

Any reply will be along the lines of Na Na Na Na I’m not listening

Peter Miller
August 14, 2012 2:52 am

Trying to reason with alarmists, always has the same outcome:
“And some fell on stony ground.”
You cannot get to first base with these guys:
1. Most sceptics accept rising CO2 levels have had a mild impact on global temperatures – these rising CO2 levels have obviously been caused by the activities of man. So we agree there is an AGW effect. However, we do not believe this effect is serious, or will ever be serious.
2. Alarmists like to call sceptics deniers, or denialists, stating we are denying the existing of AGW, when in reality we are denying the existence of CAGW (Catastrophic AGW).
3. The argument for CAGW is based on the feedback effects of increasing amounts of clouds as a result of mildly rising temperatures caused by rising CO2 levels. The problem for alarmists is there is absolutely no evidence for significant positive feedbacks, in fact there is increasing evidence that this feedback effect is mildly negative and not hugely positive.
The global warming industry is a well funded gravy train. It is a fact of life that those who live their lives on gravy trains rarely want to get off. That is the real problem between sceptics and alarmists: why should alarmists do anything which could possibly upset their gravy train by doing something like publicly debating the subject of CAGW?

steveta_uk
August 14, 2012 2:54 am

I feel that expecting Fred to agree to these 5 propositions is just as unlikely as would have been expecting Joe to accept the propositions from Fred that he has so firmly rejected.
So no chance of any progress here, is there?

August 14, 2012 2:57 am

Getting down to brass tacks and setting out the positions seems like a very healthy and transparent way to go. Enumerating these key points warrants a response, alarmists?

Disko Troop
August 14, 2012 3:02 am

I like to argue, but I can’t argue with that.
If the mindless numbskulls peering fearfully over the parapet at the wave of killer CO2 approaching them got out of their trenches and read some science, we could all go home and get on with the real work of bringing the third world up to our level of prosperity.
Ivor Ward

August 14, 2012 3:07 am

I’d bet that this letter will have the same effect as show photos of your wedding to a giraffe.

August 14, 2012 3:15 am

Good rebuttal, Joe.
Thank you for posting it to a wider audience, Andy.
(But asking alarmists like Fred Krupp to agree to these basic propositions, however straightforward, would be akin to asking the Pope to question the virgin birth).
Kurt in Switzerland

Renaud
August 14, 2012 3:25 am

While I was reading this article, I directly made the link with the 5 stages of loss and grief:
Stage 1: denial and isolation: which in your letter is “Regrettably, your colleagues in the liberal environmental movement responded at first by pretending we don’t exist”
Stage 2: Anger: which in your letter is “denouncing us as “deniers” and “shills for the fossil fuel industry.”” and also “Most recently, your colleagues on the left went so far as to break the law in an attempt to silence us.” and then “Greenpeace is using the stolen and fake documents to attack climate scientists ”
Stage 3: Bargaining: which in your letter is ” In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”” and you are right to answer them “Hell no!”
what we will have now to wait is stage 4 and 5:
Stage 4 is Depression: Two types of depression are associated with mourning. The first one is a reaction to practical implications relating to the loss. Sadness and regret predominate this type of depression. The second type of depression is more subtle and, in a sense, perhaps more private. It is our quiet preparation to separate and to bid our loved one farewell.
Stage 5 is Acceptance: Reaching this stage of mourning is a gift not afforded to everyone. Death may be sudden and unexpected or we may never see beyond our anger or denial. This phase is marked by withdrawal and calm.
So there is light at the end of the tunnel it seems! Only 2 stages are missing.

Dave_G
August 14, 2012 3:55 am

Not surprised to see the word ‘sustainable’ appearing in the blog posts…… we know what direction the wind is blowing and can see where the debate is headed……

August 14, 2012 3:57 am

Valerie Rawlinson says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way
=======================================================
Do you really understand what “sustainable” means? It doesn’t mean that something can go on for ever, it means that when something gives out, we can replace it.
What exactly do you think is in danger of NOT being sustainable? Out of interest?

BillD
August 14, 2012 4:00 am

The Heartland Institute equates climate scientists with mass murders–so much for reasoned discussion. Most of the debate is in the scientific literature, which Heartland consistently reinterprets.

polistra
August 14, 2012 4:02 am

There’s no such thing as debate in modern times. There’s only this week’s orthodoxy. All other views are literally Unthinkable, and those who hold them are Unpersons.
(We do have noisy talkfests that sound like arguments, but if you examine the two “sides” you’ll find that both are equally evil and false. The factual side is never allowed to reach the microphone.)

tallbloke
August 14, 2012 4:09 am

*Typo Alert*
“the world’s most prominent think-think”
Did Jo try to get a right of reply off the WSJ?
I’m not surprised the NYT demurred.

Joseph Bastardi
August 14, 2012 4:15 am

But the kind of debate is not the yelling across the fence that goee on now. We have to get a few of their “experts” against a few of ours, and demonstrate the knowledge of weather, climate and the natural large scale drivers that they ignore, in a way that wipes them out in a well organized and well publicized forum. These people are not weather and climate observers, they are voyeurs, ( I got that term from a good friend of mine, but dont know if he wants me to attribute it to him. If I find out he does, I will) The peak in on the weather when it suits them to push their propaganda points.
Until such time that a) they are shown to be either ignorant of the facts or deceptive where every one can see and b) co2 is put in its rightful place as a red herring to the climate debate, this is going to continue. And if they wont come out and debate where they can be seen, their “all stars” against ours, then it should be pointed out they are running for one reason, they know they have nothing to stand on and can be refuted.
I am not even asking for a position on our team. I just want to watch them beaten by our side. But dont kid yourself, this is going to continue, as the media and administration is on their side, until these 2 things happen in a way for all to see
perhaps one of the networks will carry a 5th debate.. on the climate scam. Bound to get ratings

Reply to  Joseph Bastardi
August 14, 2012 5:41 am

Joe says voyeurs – I say Jihadis. The latter cause far more damage than the former!

Steve Keohane
August 14, 2012 4:17 am

Peter Miller says: August 14, 2012 at 2:52 am
The global warming industry is a well funded gravy train. […] why should alarmists do anything which could possibly upset their gravy train by doing something like publicly debating the subject of CAGW?

That is why it will never happen. The sustenance of their existence depends on maintaining the status quo.

wsbriggs
August 14, 2012 4:20 am

Peter Miller says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:52 am
1. Most sceptics accept rising CO2 levels have had a mild impact on global temperatures – these rising CO2 levels have obviously been caused by the activities of man.
Only a fraction of the rising CO2 levels are due to man, it’s not so obvious that all of it is. Don’t concede them the argument that we’re responsible in total. We’re not.
I’m astonished that discussions of “sustainable economies,” pop up here, there is nothing sustainable about an economy which requires the use of force to get enough money to drive it. Taxes are extortion, and funding “sustainable economies” through taxation is not a long term solution. Real sustainable economies are the result of voluntary exchanges where each party believes they are the better for having made the trade. When the majority of the consumers of electricity want to draw their power from some source other than petrochemicals, that form of power generation, what ever it may be, will succeed in the marketplace. Until then, keep your guns away from successful energy sources! Yes, the EPA is guns!

Dermot O'Logical
August 14, 2012 4:20 am

The second condition is just plain daft.
The statement “Second, recent weather and temperature anomalies have not been unusual and are not evidence of a human effect on climate.” defines the positions of the two sides – an AGW skeptic would agree with that statement, an AGW proponent would not.
There would be no point in the Heartland Institute debating AGW with people who agree because they would already be on your side.
I’m not in line on this one – I read the conditions as “agree that we’re right, or we won’t talk with you”. Who is going to sign up to that?

August 14, 2012 4:21 am

The New York Who?

August 14, 2012 4:23 am

The problem is, the POLITICAL debate is well advanced, but the SCIENTIFIC debate is non-existent, because: Nobody knows the fundamental science they are pretending to know, or deluding themselves that they know. There are no competent climate scientists. Neither the “alarmist” nor the “lukewarm” believers in the greenhouse effect–of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (not “the temperature with, vs. without, an atmosphere”, you proud fools)–know the first thing about what the evidence is telling you: that there is no such greenhouse effect, and your belief in it only marks your own scientific incompetence. There should be no public debate on the science, first and foremost because the mostly lay public is not educated to competently participate, and now it should be clear (but of course it is not, which is the main point) that even the “experts” are miseducated, and clinging to failed theoretical dogma (so the dismal truth is, “climate science” is not ready for prime time–after the last 40 to 50 years of imbibed false theory). These statements are the real point of departure for any reasonable debate (which should be entirely open to the lay public, but without its participation, AND without the participation of climate scientists, who have universally failed in their professional responsibility; hand it over to non-climate scientists–preferrably physicists over the age of 60, educated before the dogma of the “greenhouse effect” was accepted as “settled science”–and anyone who respects the stable Standard Atmosphere over the hysterical “meme” of runaway climate change. And given the stillborn state of the scientific debate, cancel all governmental “climate” policies, forthwith–cease and desist now, or yesterday if possible.

gbaikie
August 14, 2012 4:36 am

“Valerie Rawlinson says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way. And the vision to create an alternative economy that will allow us to do so.”
Wind mill and solar panels aren’t an alternative economy.
The US can’t build an economy on these source of energy, and expecting
developing economies to do so is unrealistic.
There could be a possible advantage of such technology for use in isolate regions, but in term
nation of million of people it’s not going work as the solution. It situational and supplemental
perhaps.
Using natural gas resources instead using coal is much cleaner and environmentally better
solution. And with fracking technology one a much wider and larger availability of local natural resources.

Doug Huffman
August 14, 2012 4:59 am

Hmm, yes, “think-think[sic]” does promote skepticism, especially as contrasted with the prog-left’s chat-chat consensus. Verification-ism is not science.

Jean Parisot
August 14, 2012 5:00 am

“Flatearthers”, PN? Our children are going to look at these Alarmists, they way we do the Piltdown crowd, we shouldn’t be throwning insults at the few advocates who stayed sane.

August 14, 2012 5:18 am

“In the year 1527, the Medici being expelled from Florence, there was a fight for the Palace of the Signoria, and a bench was thrown down from on high so as to fall upon those who were assaulting the door; but, as fate would have it, that bench hit an arm of the David in marble by Buonarroti, which is beside the door of the Ringhiera, and broke it into three pieces. These pieces having remained on the ground for three days, without being picked up by anyone, Francesco went to the Ponte Veccio to find Giorgio, and told him his intention; and then, children as they were, they went to the Piazza, and, without thinking of any danger, in the midst of the soldiers of the guard, they took the pieces of that arm and carried them to the house of Michelagnolo, the father of Francesco, in the Chiasso di M. Bivigliano. From which house having afterwards recovered them, Duke Cosimo in time caused them to be restored to their places with pegs of copper.” – Giorgio Vasari (“Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects” 1568)

Bill Yarber
August 14, 2012 5:19 am

JamesNV
Hiding from the truth won’t make it change or go away. Look at the “studies” from the AGW camp that show the stark differences in belief of AGW between the two parties. Now think of which party wants the government to take care of us from cradle to grave, and which one wants individuals to stand on their own two feet, work hard and succeed.
AGW alarmism isn’t about the science, it is about political control over the masses so the brilliant elites can decide how we minions live our lives. It is, at the heart of this discussion, political. Ask yourself, when did AGW, Eco-terrorism and the push for a world government really take off. Your answer will probably be: in the late 80’s, early 90’s. It’s no coincidence this is when the USSR collapsed. This is a politician fight, first and foremost, and you need decide which side you are on. NOW!
Bill

Berényi Péter
August 14, 2012 5:25 am

JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.

You are right, of course, but tell it to your comerades and tell it loudly. This whole mess is framed as a political issue by them in the first place.
See the wicked meme of Climate Justice, for example.

MikeH
August 14, 2012 5:29 am

I’m at a bit of a loss.. Since this was in response to an essay in The Wall Street Journal, why ask The New York Times to the be path for rebuttal? Why not ask The WSJ to publish the rebuttal since they are the audience that Mr. Krupp was addressing? I know the NYT has an extreme left stance, but to expect them to print it does not make sense. The WSJ is the one to prove fair and balanced journalism.
BTW, I agree with most of the 5 points, with a rewrite to #5 (see Ed Koch quote below). Fossil fuels are the cheapest, easiest and quickest ways to lift impoverish nations, but that the industrialized nations need to pursue nuclear, especially Thorium. The western civilization has the technology to design and help build clean and safe fossil fuel plants for the third world while we get on the path for nuclear. Adding more nations to a fossil fuel diet will drive up the price, even with added extraction from the earth. We need to ladder the worlds’ energy production, while the undeveloped nations move to fossil fuels, we move to nuclear/hydrogen. And in the 1K years that buys us, look to develop the next rung in the energy ladder.
As Ed Koch, Mayor of New York city said while campaigning , “If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me, if you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist.”

Lewis P Buckingham
August 14, 2012 5:30 am

Renaud says ‘the five stages of ..grief’
You are right about this and it is important then to show those going through such grief a lot of respect as they come to accept the realisation of their loss.
This grief looks ordered when tabulated as five stages, but this tabulation neglects that some will be in a couple of stages at the same time, may revert, and in community there will be people in any stage.This makes it hard to manage such a thing as loss of belief in AGW.
Politically all that can be done is remove people who refuse to debate as they may do more harm to the body politic by limiting free speech.

Stephen Richards
August 14, 2012 5:33 am

JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.
The problem James is that the left wing polis (progressives, commis, liberals) are using AGW as a means of raising taxes and improving their control over the people.

Gary
August 14, 2012 5:34 am

Too direct, too honest, too simple — the left will never go for it. The NY Times, which long ago abandoned it’s motto “All the news that’s fit to print” for “All the news that fits (the agenda),” commits the classic error of authentic journalism, omitting parts of the story that it doesn’t like and thereby telling a lie.

izen
August 14, 2012 5:46 am

@- Joe Bast
“I have a counter proposal. Let’s restart the discussion by agreeing on these basic propositions:”
1} Stop using the term blanket term ‘alarmist’ and maybe the ‘other side’ will stop charaterising even the skeptics who reject the role of rising CO2 in the climate with the ‘D’ word.
2} The recent vast disproportion of hot records broken over cold records is certainly clear evidence of unusual climate change. Unless you have a more credible cause for this massive shift then anthropogenic is the best theory available.
3} The rapid rise in emissions by some third world nations is not unstoppable, tech transfer could ameliorate the rate of rise. But the premise is mathematically wrong. The large emissions per capita of Americans means that just a small investment in reducing those emissions such as few percent from increasing vehicle mpg efficiency would cause a big reduction in total emissions easily offsetting many third world increases.
4} Tax breaks, direct subsidises and mandates have been very effective in changing the energy use in Germany. The failure to make them work in the US is not a fault with the regulation as Germany {and a number of other nations} have applied them successfully and with very little evidence of economic damage. Perhaps political will and industrial opposition have undermined the application of such policy in the US.
5} the world is already in an era of peak oil with minimal changes in oil production for almost a decade. Coal is abundant, but transport cost make it uneconomic beyond use in a local power station. Natural gas and shale oil can be exploited but the cost, financial and in energy, to extract it makes it comparable with renewables. The cheap fossil fuels have already been used up. What is left is increasingly expensive to extract even without the clear evidence it is radically altering the climate. The idea that it is a easy source of wealth for the developing world is a delusion.
Even if you ignore the external costs.
Seeking ‘agreement’ on claims and assertions that are so demonstrably wrong is not going to persuade the vast majority of scientific organisations or the many people who have grasped the underlying physics to view your positions as anything other than a politicaly motivated defense of an unsustainable status quo.

August 14, 2012 5:55 am

BillD says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:00 am
The Heartland Institute … Most of the debate is in the scientific literature, which Heartland consistently reinterprets.

That my friend is how science works. But I understand how a non-scientist wouldn’t understand that.

Bob Kutz
August 14, 2012 5:56 am

Well, the fact that NYT would reject such a call for civility because the author doesn’t support the ‘correct’ position on AGW is very telling.
Our ‘main stream media’ is owned, lock stock and barrel by the establishment; meaning the likes of GE, George Soros, the (D) and, to a lesser extent, (R) parties.
They are not journalists. They have no interest in communicating facts, only opinions that fit with their world narrative.
But for that fact, people like Anthony Watts would not enjoy the success that they do. You don’t need a second or third tier to get your news, if it is being faithfully and accurately delivered by the MSM.
That is why Fox News has been so successful, and I note that the liberal media uses the exact same slander techniques against them as they do against skeptics.

August 14, 2012 5:58 am

Brian Johnson uk says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days. With mindsets like that and the likes of Hansen,Gore,Mann, Jones,Trenberth and others with direct connections to the sympathetic AGW Media nothing will change in any meaningful time scale. How long did it take for Dragons, Witches and Papal Indulgences to be accepted as utter rubbish?
CO2 is good for us carbon life forms and for our essential friends the food producing plants, trees etc.
===============================================
How strange to be attacked by skeptics. Considering it was people of faith who largely carried the skepticism yoke when no one else would.

izen
August 14, 2012 6:01 am

It is kinda depressing to see even the most basic physics of the anthropogenic source of the rising CO2 and its known role in warming the climate are STILL being … rejected by a number of posters here.
A debate with an opposition that cannot even agree within their own ranks about the underlying science that is accepted by all the scientifically informed is a non-starter.

John Greenfraud
August 14, 2012 6:13 am

Thanks Joe, keep fighting to give the little guys a voice. There is no reasoning with the political left. Their leaders are dishonest Big Government politicos bent on controlling the energy markets and the their followers are generally rabid eco-zealots and useful idiots, bound and determined to
convince everyone that 2 + 2 = 5. The banking industry is experiencing the same thing, theft by legislation/regulation, big government “banks” using Dodd/Frank to drive the small community banks out of business and consolidate and control the financial markets. Other industries are under similar attack. The time for talking/debating/arguing has passed, the time for action is here. Thank you for your ‘efforts’ and for your support.
Tom Currie AKA John Greenfraud
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/07/12/community-bank-others-challenge-constitutionality-dodd-frank-law

higley7
August 14, 2012 6:25 am

“In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.””
1) As long as the temperature data is adjusted to create a warming trend when there is none or to augment a slight trend, there is no debate. Fraud is fraud.
2) “Both sides begin to agree”? This is not a matter of compromise. The Dems think that it is the role of the Repubs to compromise, which means that, when the Dems push for more socialist entitlement programs, they believe it is the Repubs duty to ALWAYS accept some of it, creating steady progress toward socialism. That’s wrong thinking but it totally serves the Dems’ goals. On something like a budget, it is balanced or not, just as a woman is pregnant or not. There is no compromise or debate.
In science, there is debate over concepts and evidence for or against a concept. But, the science of climate may be complicated, but principles involved are simple, particularly the warmest science claims. As it is impossible for any gas to warm the Earth’s surface and thus the atmosphere, CO2 cannot do what they claim. There are 4 or 5 key and well established aspects of thermodynamics and physics that have to fail (or be ignored or abused) for their claims to work. There is no debate.
3) “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions”. This presupposes that there is a need for solutions, which is the point of most warmists. Non-problems do not need solutions. As human activities to not alter the planet’s climate by emitting CO2, methane, or even water vapor, there is no reason to seek Draconian, wasteful solutions. The warmists want to skip debating the science altogether.
The assumption that solutions are required is the hallmark of the warmist stance. They REFUSE to debate the science as they KNOW that they will lose. This is why Al Gore refuses to debate. SO, they jump past their junk science and demand that the real need is for solutions.
The real solution is for the warmists to learn the real science, the false “climate scientists” to be gotten rid of for promoting a global scam and fraudulently altering raw data to fit political needs, and for the UN and those seeking to alter the world to fit their goals be put down and dethroned for their actions.
A true debate of the science would settle everything, as it would explain quickly why the warmists goals and claims are all false. But, then it would NOT be a debate, as a debate assumes two stances or positions that both have merit. In this case, the warmists would be “schooled” and the debate would be a lecture. However, typical of warmists, they would quickly resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority and then claim the “debate” is over.

Owen
August 14, 2012 6:26 am

The Skeptics have been treating their opponents as if the are rational and scientific. They are not. The global warming scare mongers are nothing more then liars and propagandists, interested in supporting their ideological agenda through the use of phoney science. They will stop at nothing to impose their views upon everyone else. They are thugs and bullies, and if given the power will become tyrants and despots. I say these things not to be insulting but to make it clear as to exactly what kind of people we are dealing with. The Climate Liars are dangerous people. Let’s stop fooling ourselves by pretending they are simply misguided souls.

Scottish Sceptic
August 14, 2012 6:26 am

gbaikie says:
Wind mill and solar panels aren’t an alternative economy.
The US can’t build an economy on these source of energy,

Windmills and solar panels are luxury goods which we can only afford to buy because we have (had) a viable fossil-fuel economy which could afford to indulge those who wanted to be “more green”.
Put bluntly, it costs money to be green, so, we have to produce more in order to afford this luxury. The real truth, is that far from spending anything on being “green”, “green” really means consuming less, which in economic terms means spending less, or having less to spend, i.e. cutting GDP … going into permanent recession.

Luther Wu
August 14, 2012 6:27 am

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:21 am
The New York Who?
__________________________
You get a “Gold Star” next to your name.

August 14, 2012 6:28 am

JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.

I’m not a lefty, and I totally agree with you. This, as well as other issues, is being used to create a wedge (well, an even bigger wedge) between people. It helps to create entrenched positions and prevents the useful dialog that could lead to compromise and real solutions to real problems.

Rud Istvan
August 14, 2012 6:33 am

Mr. Bast was doing well until point number five. He is dead wrong about future fossil fuel abundance. Neither conventional sources, nor newer unconventional sources save the planet from absolute aggregate production declines in petroleum (about 2020), natural gas (by about 2040), and coal (between 2040 and 2060). This means two things. First, independent of climate models and sensitivity, none of the SRES high emission scenarios are possible. Second, to avoid future economic disruption starting with liqid transportation fuels, conservation measures need to begin since the have such long lead times. This is shown in detail in my e-book Gaia’s Limits. Since that was published (with numerous peer reviewed references), there is another new study (unfortunately pay walled) by Maggio and Evans, When will oil, natural gas, and coal peak?, Fuels 98: 111-123 (2012). The charts accompanying the public abstract suffice to underscore the point.

August 14, 2012 6:37 am

There’s a nice response to the EDF screed at the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443991704577579951766037924.html
— by Cohen, Happer & Lindzen. Stronger than Heartland’s (imo), and definitely worth reading.

Pamela Gray
August 14, 2012 6:37 am

I would have rejected this piece by the time I got through the second paragraph. One, it is poorly written in terms of standard English writing conventions required in for-profit media venues. Odd and contorted sentence structures and mechanics are everywhere in this work. Two, it is poorly reasoned in terms of the standards set for argumentative/opinion modes of writing. The organization of his points of contention wander all over the piece, showing no signs of focus or cohesiveness. The New York Times made a wise choice in preventing this piece from harming the writing standards the editor must shepard.

Crispin in Waterloo
August 14, 2012 6:44 am

@JamesNV says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations.
++++++++
Thanks for piping up, James. There is not enough balance voiced by different political stripes on the scientific subject of how the climate behaves. The Earth does not give a hoot which party you vote for or support or switch to. It does what it does.
I understand, of course, the inclination to blame whatever person is in ‘power’ for any and everything that bugs people, but that ‘Buck stops here’ stuff is belied by a cursory examination of power broking and smokey back rooms. It is true that politicians can waste vast sums of money on half-baked ideas but opposition to bad science misrepresented as fact knows no party allegiances. Junk is still junk, and historically there is plenty of blame to dish out to all parties.
The unifying component of resistance to junk science should be the facts of temperatures, physics and methods of analysis. The 5 preconditions seems to have been shaped to assure rejection. That is my assessment. If a discussion was to start it will not be following capitulation, it will start with an agreed time and place.
The NYT will never allow an open debate with a guaranteed right of reply – they have too much invested in the alarmism that has become their bread and butter. Further, they would be attacked in a coordinated manner by the Team with the stick of political correctness. This reality means that the proper place for sharing opinions and comparing results is on blogs like this.
There is nothing to prevent Anthony forming a peer review committee (perhaps in the name of REP)then tag acceptable articles with a Seal of Review. The resulting on-line Journal can easily become a significant resource for people who want to know ‘everything’ not ‘some’.

August 14, 2012 6:45 am

“He hee, I found point #1 especially comical considering the consistent use of the term “alarmist”. No wonder it was rejected.”
Those who spread alarm might well be called alarmists (definition: “Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat”). Surely, even most who believes in CAGW will agree that the alarms have been either excessive or exaggerated (no, Manhattan is not under water, nor are Himalya melting…). You can be alarmist about something that is real. But you cannot “deny” something that is simply not true.

Ron
August 14, 2012 6:45 am

Harry Huffman: totally agree with your statement above. The lay public is smart enough (as an entity) to see that the science trotted out to either ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the theory of CAGW is not going anywhere, fast. This is why ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ is falling off the opinion plates. People (voters) have simply stopped listening to either side and have moved on. My opinion, can’t back it up.

Canman
August 14, 2012 6:49 am

Joe Bast:
“First, people and organizations that break the law or use hate language such as “denier” should be barred from the global warming debate.”
That your opponents has stooped to name calling, should be a debating point, not an excuse to bar them from debate. It’s like the alarmist ducking debate because of their claims of consensus and settled science. If these are true, they should be debating points too.

ed
August 14, 2012 6:52 am

First and foremost, this is no longer about the science of Climate it has become a question of control of billions of dollars in research funding and hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of GDP. It is 100% political. To ask those advocating AGW to agree to your “terms” would be like asking US Democrats to abandon support of Abortion and adopt the Republican Platform. Its just not going to happen and certainly not as a precondition to any “discussion”. Politics is warfare without guns. You can not defend yourself half-heartedly when the objective of your adversary is to silence you and take control of huge portions of economies.
Although its a nice letter I’m not surprised it was not published. Why would those who consider you a “denier” give you a free shot at undercutting their power or position?

Bill Wood
August 14, 2012 6:58 am

Arguing CAGW within the current state of climate knowledge is not unlike arguing planetary motion in classical Greece. We haven’t developed the basic tools that can be agreed as a basis for argument. Tree rings? Which trees? Any trees? Paleoclimate data? 1972 to 2000 data? Adjusted, homogenized, averaged data? Raw data? Which adjustments? Western European historical records? What defines “Global Climate”?
Considering that we are said to be facing the an existential crisis for all of humankind, the lack of basic, robust scientific inquiry is the reason that the argument has become a political discussion.
With a lack of falsification because the science, regardless of internal conflicts between theory and data, is “settled”, we end up with a “don’t just stand there, do SOMETHING” approach.
Unfortunately, SOMETHING has real world, unintended, effects.

August 14, 2012 7:00 am

I don’t know if Joe Bast did this intentionally or not, but, I like it.
As some readers here have noted, there’s not an alarmist out there who would or could agree with the five points Joe wishes them to agree upon. It attacks their self-definition. Joe correctly lays his foundation on political premises. It is, after all, a political question. Any “science” towards alarmism was abandoned long ago.
I like for this reason alone. No alarmist would agree. If one ever finds himself in agreement with a totalitarian Malthusian Marxist, you know you’re on real shaky ground and have likely lost the plot.

August 14, 2012 7:06 am

Political agendas are controlling the lack of scientific debate. In the U.S., this can be changed by electing members of congress and the administration who do not have an agenda for controlling the use of fossil fuels for what ever reason or by what ever method. Funding of politically motivated subjective research has almost destroyed the scientific method of objective research.

dmacleo
August 14, 2012 7:07 am

http://www.theconservativevoices.com/_/energy/why-we-need-debate-not-consensus-on-climate-c-r55
if reposting like this is not allowed please let me know.
either comment here so I see it or reply there and I will check back.
thanks

Mr Lynn
August 14, 2012 7:13 am

Why was this response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed submitted to the New York Times? Makes no sense.
/Mr Lynn

Theodore
August 14, 2012 7:13 am

“In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
How about we agree on the basic proposition that bad measurements with worse adjustments equal bad science. Then we devise a new measurement system free of UHI effects, I think it would be the most effective climate solution as once we remove the contamination from the temperature record we will have eliminated global warming.

Mike D in AB
August 14, 2012 7:13 am

A further comment back to Valerie, I would suggest that you consider the biological ramifications of what you said. Creatures take in nutrients and sustenance of many forms and continue to grow for so long as they do so. They grow and grow until such a time as they reach their “maximum” size (dependent upon their surroundings, and physical constraints of their life-form). After that, they die outright, or continue to take in reduced quantities of resources as they slowly shrink and fade, ultimately to their demise. There are some mosses and plants I’ve heard of (I’m not in the field of biology, I’m one of those nasty mineral extraction bunch) that continue to grow by forming a donut shape and continually expanding outwards with a newly developing front on the “outside” while the “inside” withers and dies. No organism that I’m aware of maintains a “sustainable” existence: they grow and grow until they begin the process of dying.
I’d like to think that our culture isn’t ready to die yet.

dmacleo
August 14, 2012 7:14 am

Peter Miller
1. Most sceptics accept rising CO2 levels have had a mild impact on global temperatures – these rising CO2 levels have obviously been caused by the activities of man. So we agree there is an AGW effect. However, we do not believe this effect is serious, or will ever be serious.
****************************************
isn’t the rise in CO2 the result of the warming?
iirc CO2 rise was AFTER the noted warming.

Bill
August 14, 2012 7:18 am

I agree with Pamela Gray. The piece was not well written and did not make its points all that well. It also seemed to be a bit on the childish side. I’ve seen you do much better, Joe. I am glad that this did not get put into the NY Times as the best case the skeptic camp can present. I would have been embarrassed by it.

Renaud
August 14, 2012 7:28 am

Lewis P Buckingham
partly agree with you. We can only show respect for the ones arriving in stage 4 or even 5.
Before that it is denial anger and bargaining. A lot, well probably 99% are still in phase 1 and 2 and nothing says that, this article in the WSJ which seems the first one to arrive in stage 3, when bargaining is refused by the other party, they will not return to stage 2 or stage 1.
But once in stage 4 or 5, normally they should not return back then yes we should respect them.

jayhd
August 14, 2012 7:30 am

Joe, you can’t reason with unreasonable people. Neither can you reason with people who are mentally deranged. And since the CAGW crowd are both unreasonable and mentally deranged (liberalism is a mental disease), don’t waste your time talking to the CAGW crowd. Instead, we all should continuously point out the failures of their predictions, the errors they continue to make in all their research, and heap as much scorn on them as we can.
Jay Davis

izen
August 14, 2012 7:32 am

@- harryHuffman
” hand it over to non-climate scientists–preferrably physicists over the age of 60, educated before the dogma of the “greenhouse effect” was accepted as “settled science”–and anyone who respects the stable Standard Atmosphere over the hysterical “meme” of runaway climate change. ”
Actually you would need physicists over the age of 200 to predate the greenhouse theory which was established in science before Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
AGW dates from around 1900. The many objections to the hypothesis, {ocean sinks, negative feedbacks, human CO2 production rates} were all refuted by the 1950s when it became widely accepted as a good theory.
Like many who reject the GHG process you egregiously underestimate the historical depth, breadth and consilience of climate science.

rilfeld
August 14, 2012 7:32 am

Politicians are voting and will continue to vote. They will either continue to bugger our economy and civil society on the alter of CAGW or they will stop. This is a binary decision, and a death match. “Compromise” does not stop the foolishness; it merely means giving in this time for some amount of money and freedom lost, and waiting because “they’ll be back”. This will only end when the CAGW folks have the membership and credibillity of the Flat Earth Society, at which point we will be able to afford to ignore them. One hopes we skeptics will be suitably aggressive, and won’t have to wait for the next ice age for the alarmists to recede along with the temperate zone.
[Oddly, both “alter” and “altar” of CAGW are correct in your context of sacrificing the world’s economy….. 8<) Robt]

August 14, 2012 7:35 am

We already had the definitive ‘intelligence squared’ debate. There was Stott, Crichton and Lindzen on one side and Schmidt, Sommerville and a woman whose name escapes me at the moment, on the other. Stott et al massacred them. The warmist side saw what happened and have avoided debate ever since. They were humiliated beyond belief.

August 14, 2012 7:38 am

Joe:
You know I agree with your points but, with respect, I think your article goes about attempting dialogue in the wrong way.
As you say, dialogue begins by finding points of agreement. After that the dialogue moves to debate of disagreements and the reasons for them. Clearly, dialogue begins by determination of ‘common ground’.
You suggest the dialogue could start by both ‘sides’ agreeing to your propositions. But we both know that will not happen because it requires the ‘warmers’ to back-down on some of their views before the dialogue can start. Simply, you are trying to start the dialogue by asking ‘warmers’ to move onto ‘climate realist’ ground, but the ‘warmers’ are as unwilling to do that as ‘climate realists’ are unwilling to move on to ‘warmist’ ground.
So, I suggest the dialogue should start on common ground. And I offer this suggestion. The agreed common joint statement by all ‘sides’ could be
The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared.
This avoids (a) dispute of the science, (b) conflicts over past misdemeanors and (c) overt opposition to dialogue from members of the ‘AGW industry’. And it gives a practical way forward.
Climate has always changed and it always will change so investigation of adaptation to climate change would be beneficial whatever the merits of the AGW-hypothesis.
Anyway, that is my suggestion, and I would welcome other suggestions of possible starting points for dialogue which do not require either ‘side’ to capitulate before the dialogue can start.
Richard

Leonard Young
August 14, 2012 7:38 am

This is an excellently written piece. However, a major flaw in all these exchanges between sceptics and “believers” is the insistence on polarisation according to left/right political views. It really is terribly narrow and is a very important reason why both sides refuse to engage in a civilised or intelligent manner. This debate can only develop fruitfully if both sides of it stop attaching their views to a more general right or left political stance, and therefore it is as counter productive to refer to warming believers as being in the “liberal” camp as it is to describe the “deniers” as being republicans or rednecks.
Like many other sceptics, I am not actually right wing but it is assumed by warmists that I am. I’m interested in the facts of climate, not whether views upon it suit my political opinions in other avenues. Therefore I believe that for example the Guardian newspaper is not serving the truth by mindlessly following the Gore camp because of its leftist stance generally, nor are those on the right being helpful by a tendency to automatically subscribe to the assumption of republicanism. If CO2 warming does not exist then it still doesn’t whatever political philosophy is expressed.
The sceptics should refuse to be drawn into the debate on party political lines and should avoid phrases like “liberal”, “left”, “republican”, “right”. There are political vested interests on both sides. An intelligent debate at the very least should recognise these inevitable differences but not allow them to polarise the discussion or dominate the search for truth.

Doug Proctor
August 14, 2012 7:54 am

Propositions 1 through 4, okay. Number 5 – cheap, abundant energy, not so much.
First, American natural gas prices do not reflect costs of supply but over-supply pushing down prices. Heavy oil out of Canada is cheaper than it should be because of pipeline export limitations: pipeline space. Once you have to pay proportional to costs of delivery, prices will go up in this “new” era of frac-technology.
The “new” resources are also not new, but newly accessed. Because of commodity prices. $100/bbl oil, not frac-techology, is the key driver of oil shales and gas shales and oilsands. Techology helps on the back of high prices. The “new” resources are also local, not across the US, and certainly not across the world (outside of the price threshold, again). Africa can have energy, if they have the dough.
The Heartland has, by its own admission, set upon a course to fight fire with fire. Exaggerations abound on the alarmist side; so, too, they occur on the skeptic side. This is a war of partisanship, not of hearts and minds. Good for drama, though. Drama and ego love drama. Truth gets a pass in good drama, unfortunately.
The key against the alarmists is open debate. The hold they have on the public is fear, fear of death and disaster – both of which exist only in the details of CAGW theory. Any debate that brings doubt into the actual temperature rise, a la Watts et al 2012, or the rate of sea-level rise, or the attribution of heat increases to CO2, bring the detail, i.e. the death and disaster, into question. That is why Gore and others refuse to debate. Their fundamentals aren’t strong enough and they know it.
Fight for an open debate by embarrassing Hansen, Suzuki, Gore, Mann by pointing out in full-page ads that they have refused to debate. Get Inhofe to say publicly that an open debate is needed, demand, not challenge, Gore to do so if truth, not profits, is his goal. Hammer them to come to the forum to let the people know just where the certain and settled science stands.
Of course this would mean putting the Heartland’s skeptical cards on the table. Some would say that would be risky, especially if the Heartland was worried that they had also exaggerated the solidness of their position.

Leonard Young
August 14, 2012 7:55 am

Pamela Gray says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:37 am
“I would have rejected this piece by the time I got through the second paragraph. One, it is poorly written in terms of standard English writing conventions required in for-profit media venues. Odd and contorted sentence structures and mechanics are everywhere in this work. Two, it is poorly reasoned in terms of the standards set for argumentative/opinion modes of writing.”
If you are going to be pedantic about poor syntax and grammar then perhaps you should look at your own: Try “firstly” and “secondly” rather than “one”, then “two”, and “mechanics” is a function of engineering, not writing. Try “regarding” rather than “In terms of” (that’s a real corker). Your own paragraph contains multiple instances of clumsy writing.

Peter Miller
August 14, 2012 8:01 am

I see there are a couple of new alarmist commentators here today, spouting the same tired old arguments. So for them:
1. Most sceptics believe man made CO2 increases over the past 50 years have had an impact on global temperatures, but this impact is very modest and dwarfed by the natural climate cycles experienced by our planet. So there it is, most sceptics believe in AGW, but that it is only a mild effect and will never become a serious problem.
2. Sceptics do not believe in CAGW, which is the cornerstone of alarmist philosophy for the global warming industry. There is no evidence for the C word (Catastrophe) whatsoever and yes we deny this is a problem.
3. What sceptics find repugnant are:
a) The constant manipulation by the Global Warming Industry of raw data to always make the past cooler and the present warmer.
b) The seemingly never ending unfounded stories from the global warming industry, designed to confuse and scare the gullible, such as: i) the supposed threat to polar bears, ii) the glaciers are melting (well yes they are, but the latest melt started circa 1850), iii) the Arctic ice cap is shrinking (OK, but why is the Antarctic growing) and etc. etc..
c) The global warming industry annually receives somewhere between 500 and 3,000 times the amount of funds received by sceptic organisations and yet the global warming industry is clearly losing the argument. And no, the oil industry does not fund the sceptic organisations.
d) The outright manipulation of facts and the fraudulent statements – much beloved by the Establishment media – routinely made by the likes of Gore, Hansen and Mann.
e) The spokesmen of the global warming industry are either government employees and/or grant addicts and will do, or say, anything to maintain their comfortable lifestyles. Scientists, particularly geologists, operating in the private sector are almost universally sceptical of the alarmist nonsense spouted by the global warming industry,
f) The pal review process for ‘climate scientists’, which is an outright abuse when compared to the accepted research practices of all other fields of science.
g) The obvious fear, and therefore refusal, of the high priests of the global warming industry to publicly debate CAGW with sceptics. Fear? Yes, because they are all too aware that their ‘science’ would be shredded.

Dr. Lurtz
August 14, 2012 8:06 am

The “global warming crowd” make-up relationships and publish them. They use instantaneous weather events to further their money harvesting techniques. They make attack ads calling legitimate scientific inquiry by intelligent, reasoning people: DENIERS.
We, who are “intelligent, reasoning people”, talk about long term climatic events. We don’t put out the titillating, crisis oriented, press releases. Of course we would like funding for legitimate scientific inquiry, but our goal is not “money harvesting”.
Bottom line: They use “critical weather events” to further their religion and to attack us. We have boring charts and data showing poor site location of temperature, humidity, rainfall sensors. We are always in the rebuttal mode. The initial “hyped, news making, press release” always wins.

David in Michigan
August 14, 2012 8:07 am

While I agree with many of the points made by Joe Bast, I also agree with Pamela Gray and Bill that the piece “did not make its points all that well”. It has too many inflammatory words/phrases to come across as logical and dispassionate. A rewrite is needed.

Mr Lynn
August 14, 2012 8:42 am

Wait! A friend just sent me a link to a reply in the WSJ to Fred Krupp’s piece, dated yesterday, written by:
• Roger W. Cohen, Fellow, American Physical Society
• William Happer, Princeton University
• Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
Here:
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443991704577579951766037924.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email
“‘Climate Concensus’ Data Need a More Careful Look”
Here’s the conclusion:

Humanity has always dealt with changing climate. In addition to the years of drought and excessive moisture described above, the geological record makes it clear that there have been longer-term periods of drought, lasting for many years as during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s to many decades or centuries. None of these past climate changes, which had a profound effect on humanity, had anything to do with CO2, and there are good reasons for skepticism that doubling CO2 will make much difference compared to natural climate changes.
It is increasingly clear that doubling CO2 is unlikely to increase global temperature more than about one degree Celsius, not the much larger values touted by the global warming establishment. In fact, CO2 levels are below the optimum levels for most plants, and there are persuasive arguments that the mild warming and increased agricultural yields from doubling CO2 will be an overall benefit for humanity. Let us debate and deal with serious, real problems facing our society, not elaborately orchestrated, phony ones, like the trumped-up need to drastically curtail CO2 emissions.

The ball has been knocked out of the park!
/Mr Lynn

Mr Lynn
August 14, 2012 8:46 am

PS That WSJ link is good for seven days. So if you’re not a subscriber, copy the article for your files. /Mr L

Bart
August 14, 2012 8:47 am

Rud Istvan says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
“Neither conventional sources, nor newer unconventional sources save the planet from absolute aggregate production declines in petroleum (about 2020), natural gas (by about 2040), and coal (between 2040 and 2060).”
Color me skeptical, as I’ve been hearing these dire prognostications all my life (currently zooming through my 5th at warp speed) and nothing has ever come of them. But, even if it is so, the question is, who do we make responsible for charting a transitional course? A venal and technically illiterate non-cognoscenti in government, who take the opportunity to dispense funds and favors to their cronies (can you say “Solyndra”?), creating boondoggles that never amount to a hill of beans?
Or, do we leave it up to the energy producers who best know the tradeoffs between alternatives, and whose own money is on the line to come up with new ways of delivering energy?
I choose column B. Worry about doing your own job, and leave the rest up to those who know best, and are personally invested in the outcome, and are not in a position to extort your own funds for pie-in-the-sky schemes to make their friends obscenely wealthy and, bye-the-bye, help maintain them in power.

jorgekafkazar
August 14, 2012 8:53 am

JamesNV says: “I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations. Framing it in those terms only seems to exacerbate the polarization. I don’t see any good in doing that.”
With all due respect, James, the issue (can’t really call it a debate, can we?) has been polarized since its origin. The evidence for AGW is so weak and unscientific that the warmist position was clearly never about the science. It’s about promoting leftist (i.e., political) objectives, including redistribution of wealth. Ottmar Edenhofer, a high UN official has stated this in unambiguous terms. Perhaps it’s time for you to examine your thinking, whom you believe, and where you get your information. Thank you for coming to WUWT, in any case.

Bart
August 14, 2012 8:53 am

Yikes! I’m currently zooming through my 6th! I always have trouble e.g., remembering that the 1700’s were the 18th century and such.

rilfeld
August 14, 2012 8:56 am

[Oddly, both “alter” and “altar” of CAGW are correct in your context of sacrificing the world’s economy….. 8<) Robt]
Good catch – intended altar. Have a spell checker but not a thought checker.
Red-faced in Florida………

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 9:10 am

Pamela Gray got it right, and the conditions Joe Bast asks to be agreed upon would make further debate pointless, so there is no way that they would be accepted. Right intent, poorly executed. But that’s the cool thing about the blogosphere, weak documents can be turned into stellar documents by accepting the many suggestions for improvement that are being made and acting upon them. I’d like to see a rewrite and resubmission.

JJ
August 14, 2012 9:20 am

“Newspaper of Record” = “Really nice buggy whip”

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 9:22 am

Izen;
Actually you would need physicists over the age of 200 to predate the greenhouse theory which was established in science before Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
AGW dates from around 1900. The many objections to the hypothesis, {ocean sinks, negative feedbacks, human CO2 production rates} were all refuted by the 1950s when it became widely accepted as a good theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Would that be the theory that:
1. Predicted temperature increases that didn’t materialize over time?
2. Predicted ocean depth increases that didn’t materialize over time?
3. Predicted hurricane and cyclone intensity increases that didn’t materialize over time?
4. That predicated results on tree ring proxies that have since been shown to be anti-correlated with temperature for nearly half the instrumental record?
5. That spawned climate models that are incapable of hind casting, are incapable of forecasting, and cannot explain the last 15 years of flat temps without massive fudge factors that cannot be justified?
Is that the “good theory” that is “widely accepted” to which you refer?

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 9:30 am

..In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”

This is not about restarting “the discussion,” on Carbon Dioxide’s influence on the climate. This is complete capitulation on that issue and moving forward to the discussion of implementation of capping CO2 emissions.
What is even worse THEY GOT IT!

About Mitt Romney.com
MAIN PLATFORM:
“Unfortunately, some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left. As governor, I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. But Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations.
“Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore. Instead of sweeping mandates, we must use America’s power of innovation to develop alternative sources of energy and new technologies that use energy more efficiently.”
Myclob.pbworks.com – Governor Mitt Romney on the Current Environmental Debate – Feb 23, 2007
“With regards to our developing more energy, I want to see us use more of our renewable resources: bio-diesel, bio-fuel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol. I want to see us developing liquefied coal if we can sequester the CO2 properly. I want to see nuclear power. I want to see us develop our own oil off-shore, and in Anwar. Let’s develop all the sources we can to provide for our own energy needs and free ourselves of independence on Ahmadinejad, and Chavez and Putin and others that have that oil today….
YouTube – West Des Moines, Iowa Town Hall Meeting – May 31, 2007
“We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative — an energy revolution — that will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. It will be a mission to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now. We will license our technology to other nations, and, of course, we will employ it at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, and it will be good for our economy. Moreover, even as scientists still debate how much human activity impacts the environment, we can all agree that alternative energy sources will be good for the planet. For any and all of these reasons, the time for energy independence has come.”
archived copy from ForeignAffairs.com – Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges – Jul/Aug 2007

This is Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus It is based on the logic of the Hegelian/Marxian dialectic.

History Of Economic Theory and Thought
…In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite. Thus, the idea of light could not exist unless there were an idea of darkness, nor truth without falsity, nor high without low. If an idea were labeled a thesis, its opposite would be its antithesis. Consequently, in this realm of the mind within which the universe had its only real existence, innumerable theses and antitheses existed. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created. All action or change occurring in the universe was, under the Hegelian philosophy, the product of thesis, antithesis, and resulting synthesis…
The fundamental idea of change occurring as a synthesis of opposing forces Marx accepted as the germ of the universal truth that he, as a philosopher, sought. However, he found unacceptable the Hegelian assumption that these conflicting opposites had realistic existence only in the mind of man. Marx consequently accepted one portion of Hegel’s philosophy and rejected the other.
To Marx the thing the mind perceived was realty in itself. Objective existence was exterior to the mind of man, and ideas were the reflections of those exterior phenomena

We have had the Thesis and Antithesis. the Delphi Technique was used to ‘Achieve Consensus’ (This is what the IPCC was for.) Now we are moving forward with the Synthesis. Mit Romney represents the New Synthesis.
Once you wrap you mind around the Leftist’s Hegelian/Marxian philosophies, you can understand the paramount importance of Achieving Consensus or the Synthesis. Now that that has been done the discussion has moved forward to the next conflict, Methods of implementation and that is where Mit Romney now is. Offering the New Synthesis.
You can see we who are still debating the old conflict have been left far behind and that is why we are referred to as “Deniers” That discussion is done and over, the Consensus has been reached and the new conflict is on the table.
Now look at the statement again

..In your opinion piece, you say “if both sides can now begin to agree on some basic propositions, maybe we can restart the discussion,” and you end by saying “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”

The discussion is about achieving Consensus on a New Synthesis. “it is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost effective climate solutions.”
Now does that statement and the refusal to print the op-ed by the New York Times make sense?

Bill Yarber
August 14, 2012 9:46 am

izen posted:
“It is kinda depressing to see even the most basic physics of the anthropogenic source of the rising CO2 and its known role in warming the climate are STILL being … rejected by a number of posters here.
A debate with an opposition that cannot even agree within their own ranks about the underlying science that is accepted by all the scientifically informed is a non-starter.”
CAGW is a hoax!
1) the primary source, as well as the largest CO2 sink on this planet, is our vast oceans which cover 70%+ of Earth’s surface. The Earth has been warming since about 1750 as we began coming out od the LIA. The oceans outgas as they warm and dissolve CO2 when they cool. Man made CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (wood, coal, petroleum, NG …) is trivial compared to CO2 outgassed from the warming oceans. If you don’t know that, suggest you go back to high school.
2) I have an MS in AeroSpace Engr., 30 years in the process instrumentation and control industry and am knowledgeable about process control for both negative feedback processes s well as positive feedback (think exothermic) processes. My guess is my scientific training and knowledge exceeds yours. Processes which are dominated by positive feedbacks, as postulated by the AGW crowd for Earth’s climate, are inherently unstable and saturate at one extreme or the other until acted upon by a dominant outside forcing. But you probably don’t know that.
Bill

higley7
August 14, 2012 9:57 am

harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman), August 14, 2012 at 4:23 am said,
“educated before the dogma of the “greenhouse effect” was accepted as “settled science””
That’s a great point. A good generalist who likes to know the basics of all areas is also a good judge. Just because something is “settled” does not mean that a good scientist should not try to explore and understand it. Taking settled science on face value, or faith, is SOOOO unscientific.
A huge failing of a majority of studies of the effects of global warming start with the assumption that there is warming, even since 1998 when it ceased, and make observations in the total absence of concurrent temperature monitoring as part of the actual study. Instead, these studies blithely adopt the published, adjusted temperature data and jump to false conclusions.
And, indeed, greenhouse gases do no exist as gravity determines the basis temperature and the Sun and ocean currents the periodic and variable climate.
Very simply, there is not enough heat capacity in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface, neglecting the fact that a colder gas, at subzero temperature cannot warm anything warmer than it. It’s just thermodynamically impossible.
[“gases do no exist”? What is your intended phrase? Robt]

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 9:58 am

Valerie Rawlinson says: @ August 14, 2012 at 2:49 am
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way
=========================================
Jeremy Poynton says: @ August 14, 2012 at 3:57 am
Do you really understand what “sustainable” means?….
==========================================
Sustainable is the code word for Agenda 21. ‘Smart growth’ and ‘high density urban mixed use development’ are some of the other code words.
What is Agenda 21?

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.

In other words sustainability = SLAVERY and us serfs are being hoodwinked into asking for our slave collars. SEE: 2009 – Year of the Slave
Unfortunately I can not add a /sarc

August 14, 2012 10:00 am

jorgekafkazar:
At August 14, 2012 at 8:53 am you say to JamesNV:

With all due respect, James, the issue (can’t really call it a debate, can we?) has been polarized since its origin. The evidence for AGW is so weak and unscientific that the warmist position was clearly never about the science. It’s about promoting leftist (i.e., political) objectives, including redistribution of wealth. Ottmar Edenhofer, a high UN official has stated this in unambiguous terms. Perhaps it’s time for you to examine your thinking, whom you believe, and where you get your information. Thank you for coming to WUWT, in any case.

Nonsense! Absolute twaddle!
The AGW issue is a right-left issue in the USA but nowhere else. And it was started as a right-wing scare.
The AGW-hypothesis existed as an obscure scientific curiosity for nearly a century until Margaret Thatcher, a right-wing UK Prime Minister, raised it as a political issue in the early 1980s. She did this for reasons of personal political advantage, and her right-wing political party (i.e. the Conservative Party) went along with her doing it because they thought it might harm the coal industry.
Also in the early 1980s, I conducted an analysis which predicted the AGW-hypothesis would become an international political issue whether or not it obtained any supporting scientific evidence. That analysis was commissioned from me by the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) who rejected my findings as being “extreme” and “far fetched”.
Subsequently, no supporting evidence for AGW was discovered – none has been found to this date – and Mrs Thatcher did turn AGW into an international political issue.
In 1997 the late John Daly posted my 1980 analysis together with some updating on his web site. It can be seen at
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Richard

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 10:11 am

higley7:
Very simply, there is not enough heat capacity in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface, neglecting the fact that a colder gas, at subzero temperature cannot warm anything warmer than it. It’s just thermodynamically impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only is it possible, it can be measured, and has been. Not only is it possible, Stefan-Boltzmann Law is in part derived from it. Not only is it possible, but there is no other way for SB Law and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics to co-exist.
Your error is in not considering what effect the total absence of the colder body would be on the warmer body. In the absence of the colder body, the warmer body would be exposed to the temperature of outer space which approaches absolute zero, and which is colder still. As a single example. nights with cloud cover are demonstrably warmer than nights with no cloud cover, despite the clouds being much, Much, MUCH colder than the surface below them. If they were not there, the surface would be radiating to outer space directly, which is far colder than the clouds.

ericgrimsrud
August 14, 2012 10:27 am

Please !!! Let’s be honest here. This letter is nothing more than an effort to move the scientific deliberations concerning climate change from the traditional, legitimate scientific communities to the public domain (which includes a host of self proclaimed “scientists” with modest, if any, scientific credentials usually with direct ties to commercial interests). I am impressed that the New York Times had the good sense to reject it.
As in all scientific issues, there comes a time when action is warranted. Just as we now know that we cannot afford to spread radioactive nuclides about in the process of developing nuclear power plants, we now also know that we must stop the emissions of CO2 when producing energy. If we can do that while burning fossil fuels, fine (and good luck!). If we cannot do that, then we must not burn any more of our fossil fuels and use our brains and resources for the development of the other means of energy production, including nuclear.
The clear purpose of the authors of this letter is to delay those actions so that “Big Fossil Fuels” retains the lion’s share of our energy dollars for as long as possible. As requested in their letter, perhaps we should no longer call them “deniers of AGW”, since the term “traitors to humanity” now provides a better fit.
Yes, it is appropriate to demonize these former deniers and now traitors – as I am attempting to do here – because of the great influence they and their money have on public policy (i.e. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, for example). Even the Democratic Governor and both Democratic Senators of my home state of Montana do not dare cross our controlling fossil fuel interests. Apparently, they need to be shown that following demons generally leads to Hell.
Eric from ericgrimsrud.com

John Whitman
August 14, 2012 10:39 am

Joe Bast’s letter to the NYT got the fundamental concept identified correctly that will bring together all people interested in rational dialog about the scientific study of the total earth system of which the atmosphere is just a dependent part.
That fundamental concept is absolute openness in every aspect of the scientific dialog and processes involved.  Bast has appropriately called out the notorious failure of  openness  in the research and in the institutional processes of the IPCC centric CAGW scientists. 
The rest of Bast’s letter, although interesting to me, is just tasty but unnecessary intellectual sauce for the central intellectual concept of absolute open scientific discourse and processes.
Until a broad group of CAGW proponents accept the rational principal of absolute openness in scientific discourse they will continue have unrestricted tendencies toward irrational arguments and conclusions that are not supported by observations of the total earth system.
Thanks to Joe Bast for the letter, thanks WUWT for this venue.
John

G. Karst
August 14, 2012 10:52 am

Why is it that Izen is always spouting off about the GHE, but never, never, speaks about sensitivity, which is at the heart of the debate. The fact of a miniscule sensitivity, never seems to impact his comments nor consciousness. GK

kwinterkorn
August 14, 2012 11:00 am

The first agreement between sides must be that climate science is in its infancy, its data base weak and uncertain, and that all current models have no record of successful predictions.
Only the false demands of Post Normal Science and its Precautionary Principle require otherwise good and well-meaning scientists to make asses of themselves declaring an urgent need to mitigate a predicted catastrophic climate change.
Good scientists can come together and assert that no action can be prescribed until good data and proven models (tested by real world data, not computer simulations) are in hand.

Michael Daly
August 14, 2012 11:03 am

Why should the New York Times print a reply to an Op-Ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal? Did the WSJ refuse to print the reply to Krupp”s Op-Ed?

Eric Grimsrud
August 14, 2012 11:08 am

Please !!! Let’s be honest here. This letter is nothing more than an effort to move the scientific deliberations concerning climate change from the traditional, legitimate scientific communities to the public domain (which includes a host of self proclaimed “scientists” with modest, if any, scientific credentials usually with direct ties to commercial interests). I am impressed that the New York Times had the good sense to reject it.
As in all scientific issues, there comes a time when action is warranted. Just as we now know that we cannot afford to spread radioactive nuclides about in the process of developing nuclear power plants, real professional scientists now know that we must also stop the emissions of CO2 when producing energy. If we can do that while burning fossil fuels, fine (and good luck!). If we cannot do that, then we must not burn any more of our fossil fuels and use our brains and resources for the development of the other means of energy production, including nuclear.

Mr Lynn
August 14, 2012 11:31 am

richardscourtney says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:00 am

Sorry to disagree with so distinguished a writer, but while the (C)AGW scare might have gotten a good leg up in the UK when Lady Thatcher used it as a stick to beat the state-run coal industry, the hoax goes back to the ’70s with Margaret Mead, Paul Ehrlich, the ironically-named Club for Growth, and other far-left miscreants, who seized upon it as an ideological tool to push for world statism (hence the agenda-driven IPCC and the subsequent perversion of climatology). See here:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
In this radical-left, enviro-wacko history, the conservative Lady Thatcher was surely an anomaly.
/Mr Lynn

MikeB
August 14, 2012 11:40 am

I think we should all be grateful to the New York Times for rejecting this incoherent piece. As a sceptic I simply find it embarrassing in its naivety and the fewer who see it the better. Does anyone really think that this rant could influence a neutral objective reader in any positive way?
It seems some people here do – which is the most depressing of all.

August 14, 2012 11:41 am

From Brian Johnson uk says:
August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
[i]There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days. With mindsets like that and the likes of Hansen,Gore,Mann, Jones,Trenberth and others with direct connections to the sympathetic AGW Media nothing will change in any meaningful time scale.[/i]
Sorry, but you are attacking Christians and placing them in the same bin as Hansen, Gore, Mann and Trenberth and the biased Media? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly, nor will it be accepted.
[i]How long did it take for Dragons, Witches and Papal Indulgences to be accepted as utter rubbish? [/i]
So, you do not believe Dragons existed? Despite the presence of fossils, and for some, the presence of markings and drawings all over the world? Witches did not exist? Once again, I see that you are not a reader or believer in the Bible. Yet, you also have not looked around your world of late to see the presence of evil and people who desire to do evil. But then too, there were those we humans called Witches during the Dark Ages were mischaracterized or just practiced herbalism. Other cultures still believe that many of their leaders are Witches and thus give them that title. And, I am surprised to see that you, a non-Believer in the Bible surely do not recognize the horrific events that the Catholic Church committed during the Dark Ages and onward? Do you doubt also the lifestyle and lavish purchases by the Catholic Church?
I’m sorry, but it is you who appears to be on the wrong side, pretending to foster an open-eyed belief system while yet, your own eyes are blind.

izen
August 14, 2012 11:45 am

@-“The oceans outgas as they warm and dissolve CO2 when they cool.
Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.
@-“Man made CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (wood, coal, petroleum, NG …) is trivial compared to CO2 outgassed from the warming oceans. ”
No, the amount out-gassed in response to the warming is tgrivial compared to anthropogenic sources.
Or about 5% of the amount added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
This confirmed by the isotope ratios which show the increases is from fossil carbon with zero C14 and reduced C13.
It is further confirmed by the reduction in ph as the increase in the partial pressure of CO2 overwhelms any outgassing from oceanic warming. If all the atmospheric CO2 was from ocean outgassing the ph would have risen.
@-“If you don’t know that, suggest you go back to high school.”
Yes I knew about Henry’s Law, but unlike you had investigated whether the calculable amount of outgassing from the measured temperature change COULD be the source of the atmospheric rise in CO2.
It isn’t.
@- “My guess is my scientific training and knowledge exceeds yours. ”
Correct, at least for Aerospace engineering and mechanical process control.
@- “Processes which are dominated by positive feedbacks, as postulated by the AGW crowd for Earth’s climate, are inherently unstable and saturate at one extreme or the other until acted upon by a dominant outside forcing. But you probably don’t know that.”
I am familiar with rather more complex (biological) systems in which multiple non-linear interactions result in quite robust stability of the system, at least until the number of interactive factors falls below a threshold. I suspect that the climate may be closer to biological complexity than engineering simplicity when it comes to how its feedbacks work.
However I certianly do not KNOW that, and given the bi-modal climate of the last few million years (glacial/interglacial) in response to quite small changes in the energy balance from the Milankovitch cycles perhaps you are right and the climate is a system that ‘saturates’ to one extreme or the other.
Until there is a major change in one factor that overrides the energy balance at that extreme.
Like increasing the GHG effect by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than has been active in the climate system for several million years…..

Mike D in AB
August 14, 2012 12:02 pm

a response to Rud Istvan @ 6:33:
Twaddle. I work in coal extraction. We redo our long-term plans annually based upon recent coal pricing trends and forecasts for the next 5 years, and “beyond”, based upon current demand and long range projects at an international level. The current forecasts have our existing operations running for over 80 years. If prices increase beyond the forecast (forecast prices for us are considerably lower that current spot price for metallurgical coal) then more of the resources will be pursued as possible reserves. “Resources” loosely means that the coal in the ground meets the simplest economics test of “if we move all of the waste rock above this coal out of the way, we’ll break even or make money at current price”. Our resources have jumped in recent years because of the change in prices. In my working jurisdiction “Reserves” means that a license to mine is in place and we can go in and break ground at any time (Proven Reserves) or that a plan to mine the coal (including all pit-bottom accesses) and a plan and sequence to dump the waste rock exists but that governmental approval of all aspects of the mine has not yet been granted or even pursued (Probable Reserves). Legal ownership/rights to the coal must be held before either reserves or resources can be listed.
Back to the main point: $5 a tonne selling price metallurgical coal is extinct. We may be nearing the $60 a tonnes selling price metallurgical coal limit. If we forecast $100 or $200 a tonne metallurgical coal then all of a sudden more is created, because it becomes economic. I apply the same reasoning to oil and natural gas, and am not worried about peak anything.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 12:35 pm

BillD says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:00 am
The Heartland Institute equates climate scientists with mass murders–so much for reasoned discussion….
_______________________________
Ask yourself how many have died because Heartland Institute and “Deniers” have said there is no problem?
Then ask yourself how many have died because climate scientists left science and entered the Political Arena to pursue advocacy for legislation.
Have you forgotten the death of Friday Mukamperezida? He was an ill little boy who was burned to death because They had to burn the village to save it from global warming
How many died as a result of the USA passing Bio-fuel and other laws due to climate scientists testimony before Congress?
Remember the over thirty countries having food riots in 2008?
2008: Riots from Haiti to Bangladesh to Egypt over the soaring costs of basic foods have brought the issue to a boiling point and catapulted it to the forefront of the world’s attention… finance ministers were in shock, almost in panic this weekend,
The UN secretary general has warned that millions of people are at risk of starvation as global food stocks have fallen to their lowest levels for decades…. shortages are forcing prices to rise which may have devastating consequences.. Egypt, where thousands of people have resorted to violence due to shortages…At least 10 people have died over the past two weeks, in riots…
And 2008 was not the end of food riots
2010: Six dead in Mozambique riots over food
Food Riots 2011: ….In Algeria, several protesters have been killed by police and several others have actually set themselves on fire to protest the economic conditions. In Tunisia, more than 100 people have been killed and the president of that country actually had to flee for his life.
What about the UK just this winter? Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day.
And the riots in Europe over fuel. This is not just Third world countries being effected.
Nigerian police and protesters clash over soaring fuel prices and
two killed and dozens wounded
French fishermen protest soaring fuel prices
Police have clashed with hundreds of fishermen protesting against the high cost of fuel outside the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels… In recent days they have been joined by members of fleets from the UK, Spain, Portugal and Italy, who have blockaded ports across Europe, and truck drivers.

Riots as Indonesia restricts cut to fuel subsidy
Breaking News: 10 Hospitalized as Fuel Protests Turn Violent in Central Jakarta

THIS is the FACE of the policies advocated by Climate Scientists. It may hurt your delicate sensibilities but if the shoe fits…

August 14, 2012 12:51 pm

Mr Lynn:
Please read my analysis at the link I provided.
It does not matter how many ‘conspirators’ plotted during the century between the activities of Arrhenius and Thatcher. It was Thatcher who started it as a political issue, and she put in the money to turn AGW from a scientific curiosity into a major research industry. She did it for the reasons I said and not those you say. And she was right-wing.
‘Divide And Rule’ is a tactic best used on enemies and not ourselves. It is an undeniable fact that AGW is not a left-right issue anywhere except in the USA. And it is sad that there are those who choose to make it a left-right issue in the USA.
Totalitarians of the left and the right support AGW because it fits their desires. All who support freedom – both left or right – oppose totalitarians. So, those who wish to engage the political (as distinct from the scientific) debate on AGW need to unite against totalitarianism and not waste efforts fighting among yourselves.
The issues are too important for silly ‘bun fights’ between left and right. Sometimes there are greater battles to be had in the here-and-now so political divides need to be put off for another day; e.g. Churchill united with Stalin in 1942. Totalitarianism is our greatest political threat at present.
And those who want to engage in the political issue of AGW need to ‘keep on board’ those of us who want proper practice in science whether we are of the left or the right.
Richard

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 12:57 pm

Brian Johnson uk says: @ August 14, 2012 at 2:16 am
There are still humans around who think the planet was created in seven days.
===============================================
James Sexton says: @ August 14, 2012 at 5:58 am
How strange to be attacked by skeptics. Considering it was people of faith who largely carried the skepticism yoke when no one else would.
===============================================
Many people can not understand Judeo/Christians can be a very good scientists because they know the difference between belief via faith and believe via data, facts and logic. Perhaps this is one reason why the communists sought to drive out religion.

August 14, 2012 12:58 pm

It would be a pleasant development if this Initiative could makes some serious inroads into the “climate science” community, but I don’t think i’ll be holding my breath for that.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/08/markets-in-everything-research.html
“Science Exchange, in partnership with the open-access publisher PLOS and open data repository figshare, announced today the launch of the Reproducibility Initiative – a new program to help scientists, institutions and funding agencies validate their critical research findings.
“In the last year, problems in reproducing academic research have drawn a lot of public attention, particularly in the context of translating research into medical advances. Recent studies indicate that up to 70% of research from academic labs cannot be reproduced, representing an enormous waste of money and effort,” said Dr. Elizabeth Iorns, Science Exchange’s co-founder and CEO. “In my experience as a researcher, I found that the problem lay primarily in the lack of incentives and opportunities for validation—the Reproducibility Initiative directly tackles these missing pieces.”
The Reproducibility Initiative provides both a mechanism for scientists to independently replicate their findings and a reward for doing so. Scientists who apply to have their studies replicated are matched with experimental service providers based on the expertise required. The Initiative leverages Science Exchange’s existing marketplace for scientific services, which contains a network of over 1000 expert providers at core facilities and contract research organizations (CROs). “Core facilities and commercial scientific service providers are the solution to this problem,” said Dr. Iorns. “They are experts at specific experimental techniques, and operate outside the current academic incentive structure.””

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 1:01 pm

izen;
Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It isn’t that simple. The tropics are a net out gasser of CO2, the high latitudes are net absorbers. This is a function of their entirely different temperature profiles. You can’t just apply Henry’s law across the board, you have to look at the system as a whole.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 1:19 pm

Ron says: @ August 14, 2012 at 6:45 am
…..This is why ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ is falling off the opinion plates. People (voters) have simply stopped listening to either side and have moved on. My opinion, can’t back it up.
___________________________
A bit of an internet search would back you up.

7/02/2012
Climate change no longer ranks first on the list of what Americans see as the world’s biggest environmental problem, according to a new Washington Post-Stanford University poll.
Just 18 percent of those polled name it as their top environmental concern. That compares with 33 percent who said so in 2007, amid publicity about a major U.N. climate report and Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary about global warming. Today, 29 percent identify water and air pollution as the world’s most pressing environmental issue….. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/global-warming-no-longer-americans-top-environmental-concern-poll-finds/2012/07/02/gJQAs9IHJW_story.html

John Whitman
August 14, 2012 1:22 pm

Gail Combs says:
August 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Many people can not understand Judeo/Christians can be a very good scientists because they know the difference between belief via faith and believe via data, facts and logic. Perhaps this is one reason why the communists sought to drive out religion.

– – – – – – – –
Gail Combs,
My understanding of the Soviet Union’s consistent intolerance for traditional religions is it did not want competition for its Marxian Statist Religion that was the ideological basis for communism in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wanted the state as a focus of its religion to replace the traditional supernatural being focused traditional religions. I think any rational capability of members of the various traditional religious sects had little applicability to Soviet intolerance for traditional religions. It was all about elimination of competing religions that could distract from the state focused religion of the Marxist State.
John

August 14, 2012 1:24 pm

davidmhoffer:
At August 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm you say to izen;

It isn’t that simple.

With respect, you seem to have forgotten that izen has repeatedly show he is that simple.
Richard

Entropic man
August 14, 2012 1:25 pm

Please send Smoky as your representative!

Arno Arrak
August 14, 2012 1:28 pm

I quote from Fred Krupp: “That gases such as carbon dioxide and methane can trap heat is an undisputed matter of basic physics. But what is most telling is that as concentrations of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased, the global average temperature has increased in near-unison.”
Krupp is dead wrong. First, global average temperature has not increased in near-unison. Second, such increase as does exist was not caused by greenhouse gases. Lets walk it through. Starting with the twentieth century, its first ten years saw cooling, not warming. Warming started suddenly in 1910 and ended equally suddenly in 1940. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 and this rules out the greenhouse effect by the laws of radiation physics. Bjørn Lomborg attributes this warming to solar influence and I agree. By now, forty percent of the century is over without any sign of greenhouse warming. There was no warming in the fifties, sixties, and seventies either while carbon dioxide kept increasing. People were worried about a coming ice age and newspapers and magazines had articles about it. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of why rising carbon dioxide failed to produce warming for thirty years, only contorted hypotheses to try to explain it away. One of them was smoke and aerosols from war production blocking out the sun. And by now it is seventy percent of the twentieth century gone without any anthropogenic warming. The next two decades, the eighties and the nineties, had no warming either while carbon dioxide kept increasing. There were just ENSO oscillations, warm El Ninos alternating with cool La Ninas, while the average temperature remained constant. On this point satellites from UAH and RSS, Gistemp from NASA, and NCDC temperature records all agree. The next real warming arrived with the super El Nino of 1998. In four years global temperature rose by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. This is a substantial warming, considering that IPCC allows only 0.6 degrees for the entire twentieth century. Its cause was the large amount of warm water the super El Nino carried across the ocean. This, and not an imaginary greenhouse effect, was the cause of the very warm decade of the 2000-s. There has not been any warming since then while carbon dioxide increases relentlessly. This leaves just the Arctic warming to explain. It started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, after two thousand years of slow cooling. It paused in mid-century for thirty years, then resumed, and is still going strong. There was no concurrent increase of carbon dioxide in the air and this again rules out greenhouse effect as its cause. Apparently there was a change in the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to direct warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. Direct measurement of water temperature reaching the Arctic in 2010 showed it to be higher than any individual measurements for the last two thousand years. And here you have it: there has been no greenhouse warming for the last 100 years. Yet despite that you have the nerve to claim that “Dramatic alterations to the climate are here and likely to get worse—with profound damage to the economy—unless sustained action is taken.” This is just abject nonsense with no science behind it. Do you do this to justify your 400,000 dollar salary? It is these kinds of lies that have cost billions of dollars to American taxpayers for direct and indirect subsidies to green projects and for climate research that produces no worthwhile science. And the likes of you on this gravy train just want to keep it going.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 1:39 pm

John K. Sutherland. says: @ August 14, 2012 at 7:35 am
We already had the definitive ‘intelligence squared’ debate. There was Stott, Crichton and Lindzen on one side and Schmidt, Sommerville and a woman whose name escapes me at the moment…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Her name was Ekurzwei. Climate Audit discusses the debate here The included links to the transcript of The East Side Debate at Intelligencesquaredus.org seems to be dead.

Arno Arrak
August 14, 2012 1:53 pm

I posted the above comment with the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed from Fred Krupp. He and others like him are way out of line with their claims of warming and somebody has to tell them off. Please note that everything I said is backed up by science while his claims are not.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 2:01 pm

Rud Istvan says: @ August 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
Neither conventional sources, nor newer unconventional sources save the planet from absolute aggregate production declines in petroleum (about 2020), natural gas (by about 2040), and coal (between 2040 and 2060)….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah? So what.
The sky is falling cries in the media over a century ago.

…Morris points out that, by the late 1800s, large urban centers were “drowning in horse manure.” Not only were there no solutions in sight, people were making dire predictions:

In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows.
…even when it had been removed from the streets the manure piled up faster than it could be disposed of…early in the century farmers were happy to pay good money for the manure, by the end of the 1800s stable owners had to pay to have it carted off. As a result of this glut…vacant lots in cities across America became piled high with manure; in New York these sometimes rose to forty and even sixty feet…..

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/

You can also read The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894
Yet we are not buried in horse manure, the crisis never became critical because when left free to innovate mankind will.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 2:04 pm

JamesNV says: @ August 14, 2012 at 2:23 am
I’m a lefty and I get annoyed when the debate is framed in political terms. I understand that many are polarized because of their politics, but this issue isn’t supposed to be about political affiliations.
____________________________
It is Al Gore and other politicians on the left who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.

dp
August 14, 2012 2:04 pm

There are only two points of agreement needed, and one goal.
1. Agree to be polite
2. Agree to be honest
The Goal: Seek the truth about the state of the climate.

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

Mark Twain – The War Prayer
http://warprayer.org/

Entropic man
August 14, 2012 2:19 pm

Arno Arrak says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm
——————————-
This is the NASA/Goddard land/ocean global temperature data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
While the amount of noise in the earlier part of the century makes it harder to pick out long term trends by inspection; you would need to be deliberately obtuse to miss the increase from 1970 on, especially inspecting the five-year averages which damp out the worst of the short term variation.

Geneke11y
August 14, 2012 2:31 pm

Richard S Courtney suggested that a point of agreement was
“The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared”.
I agree that getting a friendly conservation will let us get out of this mess but this answer won’t work.
It ignores the factors of hope, fear and process in general. Time progresses.
Add something like this, “A commitment to further investment in empirical research is essential”.
It’s more subversive than at first appears (Dad)..

Mr Lynn
August 14, 2012 2:39 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm
. . . Totalitarianism is our greatest political threat at present.
And those who want to engage in the political issue of AGW need to ‘keep on board’ those of us who want proper practice in science whether we are of the left or the right.

Nothing to disagree with there. But those who push the “global warming/climate change” agenda are almost entirely totalitarians of the left, not of the right. They are not interested in “proper practice in science,” so the facts will not sway them. Their interest is in controlling society “for its own good.” There may be totalitarians on the right (or as Jeane Kirkpatrick used to call them, “authoritarians”) but they are not Watermelons.
/Mr Lynn

Rud Istvan
August 14, 2012 2:48 pm

To Mike at AB:
It isn’t twaddle. You misunderstand peak energy production. I never said we run out then, because that point is likely at least a century away. I said we will not be able to produce more annually than in the past , and that rate will begin to fall (at any price, because is has to do with geophysics, not economics). Read the book and understand the arguments before dismissing them.

Entropic man
August 14, 2012 2:57 pm

Arno Arrak says:
August 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm
—————–
You are trying to microanalyse the temperature data to explain every little change. Easier to take an energy budget approach, and try some calculation oneself.
On last week’s Sea Ice thread I used NASA’s solar data to estimate that the 0.05C per decade increase in solar output observed by their satellites had added 17% of the warming since 1979.
Similarly I calculated that the 1957 contribution of back radiation from CO2 was a conservative 33W/M2, and that the 14% increase in CO2 in the last 60 years added 4W/M2. This is enough to increase equilibrium surface temperature by 1.5C, once oceanic warming catches up with the land around 2100.
My own back-of-the-envelope calculations came closer to those of IPCC than I had expected, suggesting that the complexity you tried to read into the data is either unnecessary or self cancelling.
Perhaps you have some numbers?

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 3:01 pm

Eric Grimsrud says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:10 am
Please !!! Let’s be honest here….
_________________________
Yes Eric, let us be honest.
The most critical point is
1. CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive) and the more CO2 available the better the growth and the better the drought resistance and the higher the yield per acre. (humans have DOUBLED the yield per acre in under a century)
2. Henry’s Law, CO2 solubility, biosphere flux, biosequestration… SEE: Green World Trust or The Acquittal of CO2 for a more indepth analysis.
3. The Climate Scientists have been repeatedly caught with their thumb on the (temperature) scale not only in the USA but in other countries so their credibility is now near zero.
Hansens adjustments to US temperatures: Graph All you have to do is look on WUWT to learn of the other problems with the US weather stations. link
The UK/global temperature data is “Lost”: The Dog Ate Global Warming
From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing
Current update on the lawsuit against The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA): Courtroom Chaos as New Zealand Skeptics Rout Government Climatists
Australian Temperature Records found Shoddy, Inaccurate, Unreliable Surprise!
and an update on the Formal Request to the Auditor-General for Australia to audit BOM and CSIRO Climate. Threat of ANAO Audit means Australia’s BOM throws out temperature set
You do not have to be a scientist to smell the stench of backroom politicking for profit

Blue Sky
August 14, 2012 3:17 pm

As a hard core skeptic…..Heartland screwed the pooch with their horrible ad earlier this year. Why would any organization take their call for reasonable debate serioulsy?

August 14, 2012 3:25 pm

Sad to say, Joe never read/absorbed the memo from Vaclav Klaus. The alarmists have moved on from debating us and may well have moved on from even discussing their fait accompli. They concentrate now on talking up solutions to the non-problem that is feathering their nests and tickling their dark fancies.
Memo to self: Never get on the wrong side of Gail 😉

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 3:28 pm

richardscourtney says: @ August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm
….Totalitarians of the left and the right support AGW because it fits their desires. All who support freedom – both left or right – oppose totalitarians….
___________________________________
Anthony should put that under his title.
As Robert A. Heinlein stated

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number…

and H. L. Mencken got the rest of it correct.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

Politicians and bureaucrats for the most part belong to the group with the urge to rule or control others.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 3:35 pm

John Whitman says: @ August 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Gail Combs,
My understanding of the Soviet Union’s consistent intolerance for traditional religions is it did not want competition for its Marxian Statist Religion….
___________________________
That of course was the big reason. However we are seeing the same intolerance here in the USA.

James Hein
August 14, 2012 3:41 pm

I don;t understand the call for reconciliation or the middle way in the debate on many of the issues where one side is saying that 1 + 1 = 3 and the other side trying to point out that 1 + 1 is actually equal to 2. To compromise and say let’s start at 2.5 makes no sense. Junk science, poor calculations and caught red handed fiddling of the data should never be areas for compromise.

Entropic man
August 14, 2012 4:03 pm

James Hein says:
August 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I don;t understand the call for reconciliation or the middle way in the debate on many of the issues where one side is saying that 1 + 1 = 3 and the other side trying to point out that 1 + 1 is actually equal to 2. To compromise and say let’s start at 2.5 makes no sense. Junk science, poor calculations and caught red handed fiddling of the data should never be areas for compromise.
————————————————–
From my viewpoint (warmist by your standards) the sceptics are the ones claiming that 1+1+0 and doing the fiddling. Since neither side trusts the other to argue the science, rather than make political points, any debate is likely to be no more productive than the discussions regarding Intelligent design and creationism.
The Heartland Institute’s call for a discussion rather reminds me of the creationists’ ploy of trying to sneak their religious views past the prohibition of teaching religion in state schools. By presenting Intelligent Design as ” science” they try to sneak religion into science classes. By portraying a political agenda as a scientific position Heartland are trying to pretend that a proper scientific debate on climate change should legitimately include them.

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 4:23 pm

Entropic Man;
From my viewpoint (warmist by your standards) the sceptics are the ones claiming that 1+1+0 and doing the fiddling. Since neither side trusts the other to argue the science, rather than make political points, any debate is likely to be no more productive than the discussions regarding Intelligent design and creationism.
The Heartland Institute’s call for a discussion rather reminds me of the creationists’ ploy of trying to sneak their religious views past the prohibition of teaching religion in state schools. By presenting Intelligent Design as ” science” they try to sneak religion into science classes. By portraying a political agenda as a scientific position Heartland are trying to pretend that a proper scientific debate on climate change should legitimately include them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hereby dub thee R.Gates II.
Sorry bud, but posing as neutral while exuding warmist propoganda in every comment has already been done here. Find a new strategy, that one already fell flat on its face. Well, repeatedly pounded face into pavement would be a better description. As for your egregious attempt to equate calls for a fair debate with Intelligent Design, well….I already dubbed thee R.Gates II, so ‘nuf said.

ericgrimsrud
August 14, 2012 4:35 pm

Gail, While I am exceedingly interested in being honest, I am not at all interested in becoming stupid. So “CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive” !!! Sorry, but I can’t even go there. Eric

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 5:51 pm

Gail,
Read through the Inhofe thread. You’ll find out everything you need to know about Eric Grimsrud, sock puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists. He’s WAY over his head on the physics and responds to every point one brings up with bloviationg about how he is a “real” scientist with a “real” degree. A PhD in Chemistry of course makes him an expert. I’m a big advocate of engaging with trolls, but there are a limited few who simply repeat their arguments from authority and/or by assertion. There’s no value in feeding this particular troll.

Greg House
August 14, 2012 6:06 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 10:11 am
higley7: “Very simply, there is not enough heat capacity in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface, neglecting the fact that a colder gas, at subzero temperature cannot warm anything warmer than it. It’s just thermodynamically impossible.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only is it possible, it can be measured, and has been.
=================================================
It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on.

Mr Lynn
August 14, 2012 6:22 pm

ericgrimsrud says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Gail, While I am exceedingly interested in being honest, I am not at all interested in becoming stupid. So “CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive” !!! Sorry, but I can’t even go there.

Maybe you should:

The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.

http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
More CO2 is better. Greenhouses often use c. 1,000 ppm.
/Mr Lynn

AlaskaHound
August 14, 2012 6:34 pm

A question begs to be asked:
Is man’s small contribution of C02 to the troposphere and its implicit feedback mechanism/forcing going to stop the natural oscillations that bring the planet into a glaciated state and out to an inter-glacial state?
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
When ice covered the north pacific (300+ miles) from the Alaskan coast moving south, what was the level of C02 in the troposphere?
The warmists are rewriting history quickly and now is the time to stop it in it’s tracks!

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 7:04 pm

Greg House;
It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great. He’s back. And stepping right up exactly where he left off before Anthony gave him a time out.
Tell you what Greg House, Eric Grimsrud is the guy for you. He’s got a PhD in chemistry, a membership card from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a wonderful web site displaying his talents as a physicist. I suggest you take him on. You two deserve each other.

OssQss
August 14, 2012 7:24 pm

Well, this song just came to mind when I read this entry.
Ohhh, it makes me wonder!
Enjoy,,,,,,, I did >>>>>>>>

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 7:48 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Gail,
…… There’s no value in feeding this particular troll.
_______________________________
Agreed, anyone who will not even consider CO2 at or below 200 ppm as dangerously low should spend a couple of weeks in an entirely CO2/carbon free chamber.
The fact he claims to be a PhD chemist boogles my mind since I also have a degree in chemistry.

ericgrimsrud
August 14, 2012 7:58 pm

Mr. Lynn, The last time the Earth’s atmosphere contained 1,000 ppm, aligators lived in Alaska and sea levels were about 70 meters higher than today. Eric

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 8:07 pm

Mr Lynn says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm
ericgrimsrud says:…
Maybe you should:
The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.
_____________________________________
I picked 200 ppm because although that will keep most plants alive (at sealevel) it says nothing of what happens to plants ABOVE sea level or about their ability to reproduce. In general humans eat the seeds/fruits/nuts of plants so a decrease in reproduction is important.

Effects of low and elevated CO2 partial pressure on growth and reproduction of Arabidopsis thaliana from different elevations
J. K. WARD* & B. R. STRAIN
Duke University, Department of Botany, Durham, NC 27708, USA
..Low CO2 reduces the growth and reproduction of C3 plants, whereas elevated CO2 often increases growth and reproduction. Plants at high elevation are exposed to reduced CO2 partial pressure…
Plants at high elevation are exposed to lower CO2 partial pressure than plants at sea level, such that CO2 partial pressure is reduced by 30% at 3000 m elevation (Sage & Reid 1992). Gale (1972) argued that increased CO2 diffusivity and equal reductions in O2 partial pressure at high elevations may partially offset the negative effects of reduced CO2 partial pressure on plants. However, reductions in CO2 partial pressure due to elevation are substantial enough to reduce stromal CO2 concentrations by at least 20% above 2500 m elevation (Sage & Reid 1992).
Several studies present evidence suggesting that plants from high elevations exhibit adaptations to low CO2….
Comparison of the responses of genotypes from different elevations to low and elevated CO2 may help us understand how plant species adapted to the low CO2 of the Pleistocene….
http://web.ku.edu/~jwardlab/pdf's/512.pdf

Greg House
August 14, 2012 8:14 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Greg House: “It has been measured? Only in “thought experiments”, come on.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great. He’s back. And stepping right up exactly where he left off before Anthony gave him a time out.
==================================================
Let us be serious, davidmhoffer. Things are sometimes not as they appears to be. My guess is you and others needed a break.
But let us not talk about me, let us talk about science. I hope it is not “settled”. Especially as far as those measurements concerned. Last time, as I recall, there was no “measurements” at all, it was more like “go to the library” argumentation, with some portion ad hominem.

Greg House
August 14, 2012 8:27 pm

by Joe Bast: “Another basic error you repeat is that surface-based temperature data validate or prove that human greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. They cannot, first because they measure temperatures on only a small part of the Earth’s surface, …
===================================================
Joe, I am very glad you said that. I have repeatedly touched this issue on this blog and others, and I am very surprised that people do not react.
I do not understand why they do not question again and again the issue of calculating the “global temperature”. The method used (like this one: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf) appears scientifically outrageous to me. They admit that the data is not representative but at the same time they assign temperatures and trends to large areas with no thermometers.
I do not understand why people have been questioning “catastrophic” but not the phony “warming”.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 8:49 pm

AlaskaHound says:
August 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm
A question begs to be asked:
Is man’s small contribution of C02 to the troposphere and its implicit feedback mechanism/forcing going to stop the natural oscillations that bring the planet into a glaciated state and out to an inter-glacial state?
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
When ice covered the north pacific (300+ miles) from the Alaskan coast moving south, what was the level of C02 in the troposphere?
_________________________________
Does anyone think that is the case, and if so, please explain?
Some of the warmists do.
They say “we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial.” That is Science speak for we are in the type of conditions that could dump us into another Ice Age if something like Joe B’s Triple Crown of Global Cooling happens. (Cold PDO & AMO, deep solar minimum and a really major volcanic eruption at the right time and place)

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
“Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

The Authors say there will be no returning Ice Age but that is based on the assumption of “continuously increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and no change in the sun.”
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic is worth a read. and do not miss WUWT The End of the Holocene or how to make out Like a Madoff Climate-change Insurer
When the planet had 2200+ ppm of C02, did it stop the next glacial advance?
That is where things get tricky. If you have followed WUWT at all you are aware of the data ‘messaging’ in the temperature records. Well the same thing is true of the CO2 ice core records. CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time and another paper link It was ‘politically useful’ for the CO2 measurements of the past to be low. Older measurements showed they were actually a lot higher. Jaworowski et al. (1992 a, 1992 b) reviewed published CO2 measurements from ice cores, and emphasized that the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration, according to early accurate analyses, was many times larger (measurements up to 2450 ppmv) than the present atmospheric value.
I wish I had the link (it is in the WUWT link above somewhere) but it was mentioned that although cycling OUT of glaciation does not always happen cycling INTO glaciation does.
That is why I think the CAGW hype is insane. We can adjust to a bit warmer a heck of a lot easier that a mile of ice over much of the northern hemisphere.

Gail Combs
August 14, 2012 8:56 pm

Greg House says:
August 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm
….I do not understand why people have been questioning “catastrophic” but not the phony “warming”.
____________________________
It depends on the context. I think Lucy’s flick graph does a great job of pounding that nail home. link And that is without even getting into the thumb on the temperature scale problems.

davidmhoffer
August 14, 2012 9:07 pm

Greg House;
But let us not talk about me, let us talk about science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric Grimsrud
It is Greg House’s oft repeated assertion that the GHE does not exist and that it is impossible because cold things cannot heat warm things and CO2 in the atmosphere is colder than the surface. (Greg House, if I have misrepresented your position, please clarify for Dr Grimsrud).
I would appreciate it Dr Grimsrud if you would explain the facts to Greg House. I’ll just sit back and listen and learn from both of you.

August 14, 2012 11:40 pm

Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? and commented:
As Paul Harvey use to say “The rest of the story” But, only in the blogosphere.

August 15, 2012 1:12 am

Gail Combs:
At August 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm you make the blatantly false assertion:

It is Al Gore and other politicians on the left who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.

No! It is Margaret Thatcher and other politicians on the right who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
See http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
The US ‘came to the party late’ and Gore was (and is) an opportunist who made use of AGW when the US was starting to take notice of it. Indeed, this is a major reason why AGW is a right-left issue in the US: Gore is a Democrat and Republicans reacted to him.
The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft. AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.
Richard

August 15, 2012 2:34 am

[Snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

August 15, 2012 2:44 am

re. Geneke11y says at August 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Matt:
I am grateful for your dispute of my suggestion (at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am) and your suggested amendment to it. This thread is about obtaining “debate” between ‘sides’ of the AGW issue.
I wish others had also noticed my point and disputed/discussed it, too.
But, sadly, this thread implies few people are interested in its subject: most don’t want to determine how to achieve “debate” between ‘sides’ of the AGW issue. The thread mostly consists of people trying to push their partisan political views, people arguing their own views of AGW including cranks such as Grimsrud and House.
Also, it can be argued that dispute with one’s father is to be expected so some people may think your contribution is not as valuable as I think it is.
Dad

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 2:58 am

The Heartland Institute seems to be busily digging its own grave.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 3:12 am

davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 4:23 pm
I hereby dub thee R.Gates II.
Sorry bud, but posing as neutral while exuding warmist propoganda in every comment has already been done here.
—————————————————————
Whatever gave you the idea that I was neutral? I prefer politeness to abuse, and evidence to armwaving denial, but that does not make me neutral.
I regard the evidence for cAGW as good, from the radiation physics, ground and satellite measurements of the greenhouse effect, through the human impact on CO2 levels, to the implications for climate and sea level change. Some of this comes from education, some from reading the literature and some from verifying conclusions by my own calculations.

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 3:21 am

richardscourtney says:
August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am
So, I suggest the dialogue should start on common ground. And I offer this suggestion. The agreed common joint statement by all ‘sides’ could be
The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared.
——————————————–
Somebody already has. It’s called the Stern Review.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/so-what-does-the-stern-report-mean-for-the-world-422283.html

August 15, 2012 4:43 am

Skeptics should be relieved that this was not published in the NYTs, since it implies that the skeptical position is that humans may have no effect on climate. Of course, that’s not what most of us here at WUWT argue.

August 15, 2012 5:07 am

Entropic man:
In response to my suggestion at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am

So, I suggest the dialogue should start on common ground. And I offer this suggestion. The agreed common joint statement by all ‘sides’ could be
The costs of mitigation to climate change and the costs of adaptation to climate change should be comprehensively assessed and compared.

at August 15, 2012 at 3:21 am you have replied

Somebody already has. It’s called the Stern Review.

You forgot to add the /sarc tag after your reply.
Richard

August 15, 2012 5:32 am

Friends:
There may be some who do not understand my reply to Entropic Man so I write to explain it.
In 2006 the UK Parliament’s Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs published the Report of their investigation on “The Economics of Climate Change”. It is in the Parliamentary Record where it can be read at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
That Report was damning of the IPCC and recommended adaptation instead of mitigation (i.e. Kyoto-type actions) in response to climate change.
The then government of Tony Blair had a Constitutional duty to respond to that Select Committee Report. But the government had a policy of supporting the IPCC and supporting mitigation options including the Kyoto Protocol and any possible successor Protocol. Hence, the government would need to reverse its policy if it were to accept the findings of the Select Committee.
The government overcame this problem by reacting to the Select Committee Report by appointing Nicholas Stern to conduct a review of possible costs of AGW. His remit was to determine all the worse-case scenarios for global warming and to assess the maximum possible costs if those scenarios (many of which were ridiculously improbable) were to come true.
Stern fulfilled his remit and provided the required political document which the government hid behind whenever the Select Committee Report was mentioned. Since then ‘greens’ have proclaimed the Stern Report to be a serious study when – in reality – it was commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda.
Richard

Mike D in AB
August 15, 2012 6:59 am

responding to Rud Istvan @ 2:48 pm: My apologies, I missed one of our design factors. The 80+ years of production includes annual production ramping up over the next 5-10 years to produce at a higher rate than at present or what has been achieved historically. Some capital upgrades are needed to get the target wash plant throughput. We’re increasing our production in the time period in question as a result of higher forecast prices. That is why I focus so much on prices and what’s available (reserves/resources, what can feasibly be mined), the coal fired blast furnace is still the preferred way of making the iron and steel needed to support a modern infrastructure and so is likely to still be in use. I extend what I know and work with to what/how other producers would react and estimates of what demand will be (and, following that, what trend the prices will follow).

Greg House
August 15, 2012 7:02 am

Ian Weiss says:
August 15, 2012 at 4:43 am:
“Skeptics should be relieved that this was not published in the NYTs, since it implies that the skeptical position is that humans may have no effect on climate. Of course, that’s not what most of us here at WUWT argue.”
====================================================
As for “most of us”, I do have the impression, that warmists, both alarming and non-alarming, are very active here and dominate the commentaries.
But if asked to prove their core assertions some of them get angry and it is getting nasty and, of course, they can not prove it.
Well, the NYT does not like articles challenging warmism, OK, this is not new, we know that.

Steve Keohane
August 15, 2012 7:17 am

richardscourtney says: August 15, 2012 at 5:32 am
Friends:
There may be some who do not understand my reply to Entropic Man so I write to explain it.
[…]
Richard

Thank you for your elucidation.

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 7:50 am

I was entirely serious. Any sarcasm was inferred by yourself, Mr Courtney.
Reading both the Select Committee Report and the Review by Sir Nicholas Stern, the difference shows mainly in the emphasis.
The Select Committee took a pessimistic view that significant climate change is inevitable and unstoppable, so any resources spent on the problem should go towards mitigating the effect. (After all, they are practicing politicians and understand the difficulty of persuading anyone to defer a present benefit, to reduce future pain.).
Sir Nicholas took a more optimistic tone, that it is worth taking a financial hit now as the price of reducing the scale of the problem later.
With both main parties accepting the existance of climate change, such analyses are easier to do in the UK. I have seen nothing in the US to match either report; the recent Senate hearings seem more of a battleground than a way towards consensus.
Incidentally, Mr. Courtney, is it your habit to automatically assume that anything produced by governments is “commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda.” Such cynicism!

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 8:26 am

Entropic Man;
Whatever gave you the idea that I was neutral? I prefer politeness to abuse, and evidence to armwaving denial, but that does not make me neutral.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You began your comment with the assertion that you were a warmist by other people’s standards. You attempted to imply something that anyone who is familiar with your comments knows is not the case. As for being polite, positing an equivalence between fair debate on climate and the tactics of Intellgient Design is a slimeball remark that is no less slimey for having been politely delivered.

Schroedinger
August 15, 2012 8:36 am

I’m confused. You deny global warming exists, yet you object to being called a “denier.” You object to the tactics of environmentalists, yet you lie all the time about the data and the science. You say support is crumbling, when EVERY national science academy in the world and EVERY scientific organization in the world still agrees AGW is real.
How do you expect to be taken seriously? You ask for a debate, but you deny the existence of the topic you want to debate. It’s like asking for a debate over monetary policy when you deny the existence of money.
REPLY: My position is that GW is happening, just not the catastrophic problem it is made out to be and likely less in magnitude than measurements indicate. Heartland’s position isn’t much different. Feel free to show where they or I “deny” the GW. In the meantime, you can continue to bask in the comfort of anonymity while hurling hateful labels to lower the status of your opponent – Anthony

August 15, 2012 8:42 am

Moderators:
For some reason the formatting of my last post went very wrong. I am resubmitting it hopefully in corrected format. Please delete the original.
Richard
Entropic Man:
At August 15, 2012 at 7:50 am you ask me

Incidentally, Mr. Courtney, is it your habit to automatically assume that anything produced by governments is “commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda.” Such cynicism!

No, it is not!
But as I explained in my post at August 15, 2012 at 5:32 am the Stern Report was commissioned as, and is, blatantly political propaganda. Are you suggesting that governments don’t produce propaganda?
The implication of your question to me is an unfounded insult which is an obvious attempt to distract from the facts which I reported; i.e. it is blatant trolling.
And your post says

Reading both the Select Committee Report and the Review by Sir Nicholas Stern, the difference shows mainly in the emphasis.

Really? You think that? Then perhaps you would care to cite the comments in the Stern Report which only differ in “emphasis” from these statements in the Select Committee Report.

149. Whatever the validity of temperature projections, the science of measuring
impacts remains speculative. Many of the adverse effects of warming can be
offset by adaptation and we believe that the economic and social returns
from investing in adaptation should be properly weighed against the cost of
mitigation (para 27).
151. We draw attention to the fact that, if extreme events are indeed to be
considered the most important impacts from climate change, there is
uncertainty and controversy about the underlying data required to
substantiate this claim (para 37).
156. We conclude that there are weaknesses in the way the scientific community,
and the IPCC in particular, treats the impacts of climate change. We call for
a more balanced approach and look to the Government to take an active role
in securing that balance of research and appraisal (para 44).

And I could quote much else from the Select Committee Report which induced the then UK government to commission Stern to conduct his so-called study instead of adopting the findings of the Select Committee Report.
Richard

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 8:43 am

Entropic Man;
Such cynicism!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Such naivete!

Greg House
August 15, 2012 9:06 am

davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:07 pm:
“Greg House, if I have misrepresented your position, please clarify for Dr Grimsrud.”
=================================================
Of course you have, but no problem, I can clarify that in a few sentences.
First of all, I see catastrophic warmism as a foundation for worldwide totalitarianism. Second, warmism is a foundation for catastrophic warmism, catastrophic alone can not exist. Third, it is possible to fight just the catastrophic component of catastrophic warmism without touching its foundation warmism, but it does not look efficient enough to me. Thus, fourth, it is reasonable to look more closely at warmism itself. Fifth, looking at warmism it is reasonable to look at its core assertions first, which is what I have been doing.
There are 3 pillars of the AGW concept: warming, CO2 effect and attribution. The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does. If there is none, then the card house of warmism collapses immediately and there is no real foundation or justification for establishing worldwide totalitarianism.
And at the moment it looks very much like there is none.

Greg House
August 15, 2012 9:15 am

Schroedinger says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:36 am:
“…when EVERY national science academy in the world and EVERY scientific organization in the world still agrees AGW is real.”
=====================================================
This looks so much like untrue. It is practically impossible to be true. Or did all the member of the Academies voted? It would be absurd, because the most members do not study AGW and have the same source of information as others, namely TV and newspapers.
Let us take the American National Academy of Science as an example. Did all the 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates vote to approve the AGW concept or was it just the leadership (http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/nas-council.html) ? I mean, the most members have nothing to do with the “climate science”. Even the most members of the “Leadership and Governance” have nothing to do with climate professionally.
I guess it was just the president or maybe the council and not on the basis of studying the matter.

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 9:17 am

davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:26 am
“You began your comment with the assertion that you were a warmist by other people’s standards. You attempted to imply something that anyone who is familiar with your comments knows is not the case. As for being polite, positing an equivalence between fair debate on climate and the tactics of Intellgient Design is a slimeball remark that is no less slimey for having been politely delivered.”
1) By the sceptical standards of WUWT, I am a warmist.Greenpeace would regard me as far too moderate. Perspective tends to depend on where the observer stands.
2) I’m in this because I enjoy scientific debate, which is more fun if you can find someone with different views from your own. I am currently having a wonderful time on the current Sea Ice thread. Most of my comments do relate to the science, though I confess to a rather whimsical sense of humour on political issues!
3) In the US everything from science to religion seems to end up as a political debate. From this observer’s viewpoint I see little difference between the political tactics of the climate sceptics and the creationists. Both are trying to pass off what is essentially a belief system as science. If you are offended by the comparison, my apologies, but it does not change my view of the political reality.Considering the way in which the Heartland Institute is managing its affairs at present I doubt any request for open debate would be taken seriously anyway. The Unabomber poster killed that possibility stone dead, and many of their old supporters are now scrambling to dissociate themselves from the Institute.
Mr Watts is showing the proper way to debate climate change. Produce proper, publishable, science which can be seriously addressed by other scientists. If the sceptics can show interpretations of the various sets of data that provide a better fit than cAGW, they will eventually prevail. If not, then not.
Despite the repeated assertions of some posters here, there is no science conspiracy. Scientists hate to be wrong. If you can show that your approach is better, it will eventually become accepted, though you may have to wait for some of the older and more intractable of the old school to die off!

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 9:39 am

Eric Grimsrud;
Please note Greg House’ remark which said in part:
“So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.”
I challenge you to convince Greg House as to the effects of CO2. Should be trivial for a PhD in chemistry who has written a free book on the greenhouse effect.

August 15, 2012 9:52 am

davidmhoffer:
As you know, I agree with you on many things, but I am fearful that the suggestion in your post at August 15, 2012 at 9:39 am may be fulfilled.
A debate between those two would consist solely of unfounded assertions which are mostly nonsense. It would fill the thread. And it would degrade WUWT.
So, I hope your suggestion is ignored by both of them.
Richard

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 9:54 am

Greg House says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:06 am
The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
———————————–Summaries are easy. Try this one or do your own web search.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
A fully detailed demonstration would take a lot more detail and a lot more time.
This proof would need three parts.
1) The physics of CO2
2) The energy flow towards the Earth’s surface.
3) The energy flow back into space.
If what you call the CO2 effect is to work as described , the gas would need be transparant at visible light wavelengths, absorbing and reradiating at specific frequencies in the infrared. This can be measured in the lab.
It would need to produce back radiation of appropriate frequency detectable at the Earth’s surface, increasing with increased CO2 concentration. THis would be measured looking up form the surface.
It would need to show reduced radiation back to space in the appropriate infrared frequencies, detectable in the emmission spectum measured by satellites and correalating with CO2 concentration
If you agree that this is the type of evidence you are looking for then I can start assembling data to demonstrate that these three processes happen. I ask two things.
1) Do you accept peer reviewed science papers and data derived from them? If you are a believer in the conspiracies I would be wasting my time.
2) Is there anything I’ve missed out, that you feel you would need?
I’ve other business today, but should be able to get back to you tomorrow on this.

jjfox
August 15, 2012 10:50 am

There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” and here’s why.
There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” or “greenhouse gases” and understanding that is very straightforward.
If the atmosphere were completely transparent to infrared energy and completely incapable of absorbing or emitting infrared energy, with the planets’ surface free to radiate directly to space, the atmosphere would still warm via conduction with the planets’ surface, but the atmosphere would not possess any means of cooling to space. That energy would be trapped in the atmosphere.
Under those conditions near-surface air temperatures would be very hot, day and night, year-round.
No, the infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a warming effect at all, it is a cooling effect that keeps near-surface air temperatures much cooler than they would be otherwise. It is how the atmosphere cools to space. Without this atmospheric infrared activity near-surface air temperatures would be very hot. There wouldn’t be any ice anywhere on the planet. The infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a “greenhouse effect” at all, it is a refrigeration effect!
The warmists have the science upside-down and backwards. There is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” or “greenhouse gases”. Humans have no effect on the weather or climate at all because, well, we are just too puny. Many people would rather believe that mankind is great and grand, capable of affecting the weather and climate, but it’s just not so.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming” is a hoax. People are being conned and this nonsense needs to stop.

Lichanos
August 15, 2012 11:18 am

He should stick to the science and squelch his remarks about ‘the Left,’ and the ‘liberal environmental movement.’ That stuff simply perpetuates the political name-calling.
I agree with his views on AWG, but am a thoroughly far-left liberal. Whaddya gonna say about that?
No point in it – just like kids in the schoolyard.

Bart
August 15, 2012 12:17 pm

izen says:
August 14, 2012 at 11:45 am
“Correct, and given the measured amount of warming of the Oceans [~0.6degC in the last century] and Henry’s Law applied to the dissolved CO2, the HCO3 and the CO3 the amount of CO2 out-gassed by the oceans warming can be calculated at a little over 4ppm.”
It’s not the temperature of the surface warming alone, it is the temperature relative to a particular baseline established by the current state of carbon fluxes from the lands and oceans. The data show this very clearly.
To predict the level of CO2 in the atmosphere very closely at any time in the last 50 years, all one needs is the starting value, and the global temperature anomalies in-between. It is clear that temperature is driving CO2 levels because CO2 levels lag the temperature. Human inputs are rapidly sequestered by nature, and are insignificant and largely superfluous in determining the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
“AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else.”
Only because there isn’t much of a “right”, akin to American conservatism, elsewhere.

August 15, 2012 12:22 pm

Entropic man:
Following your having trolled about the Stern Report, at August 15, 2012 at 8:42 am in this thread I asked you to justify your falsehood which said the Stern Report and the Lords Select Committee Report only differed in “emphasis”.
I cited only three statements from the Select Committee Report and asked you to cite statements in the Stern Report which differed from them only in “emphasis”.
You have failed to respond to that but during the hours since you have made posts on this and other threads including in this thread (at August 15, 2012 at 9:17 am) a flaming post. For example, it includes this gem of untrue flaming

From this observer’s viewpoint I see little difference between the political tactics of the climate sceptics and the creationists. Both are trying to pass off what is essentially a belief system as science.

Of course, you are not an “observer”: your posts demonstrate you are an anonymous, offensive troll. And there could not be a more clear demonstration of troll flaming than your assertion that you are (deliberately?) blind to the difference between “creationists” and those who conduct scientific discussions of the AGW-hypothesis which – to date – has yet to obtain any supporting empirical evidence.
So, perhaps you could take some time off from trolling on this and other threads and spend that time in responding to my request that you show statements in the Stern Report which only differ in “emphasis” from the three quotations I provided. Or would that be contrary to instructions from your paymasters?
Richard

August 15, 2012 12:29 pm

Lichanos:
I think you may want to read my post at August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm.
Richard

Bart
August 15, 2012 12:43 pm

jjfox says:
August 15, 2012 at 10:50 am
“No, the infrared activity that is exhibited by the atmosphere isn’t a warming effect at all, it is a cooling effect that keeps near-surface air temperatures much cooler than they would be otherwise.”
It is quite complicated, but you are on the right track. Basically, the atmosphere provides a positive feedback which will warm the surface until the gases are excited enough to dissipate the energy through radiation, at which point the surface temperature stabilizes. A linearized model would give you something like this:
Tdot = (To – T)/tau
where T is the surface temperature, To is the equilibrium temperature, and tau is a time constant. For an homogenous atmosphere composed of a single gas, theoretically, as you add more gas, To and tau change. Generally, To will increase, up to an upper limit, as you add more gas.
What is interesting is what happens when you have a complex atmosphere composed of many emitters. In general, energy will start to dissipate more and more rapidly as the lowest frequency emitter becomes more and more excited. But, the higher frequency emitters will continue pulling the surface temperature up, as they reflect back increasing energy in their emissions band (the reflected emissions increase as the surface temperature increases, and the central mass of the Planck emissions spectrum moves closer to the emissions band of the higher frequency atmospheric emitters – this is the positive feedback effect of which I speak).
It is my hypothesis that, if you have two major emitters which are both being excited significantly in the equilibrium state, then adding more of the lower frequency emitter will necessarily draw the surface temperature down. It is like having a dam with two levels of floodgates, which are both spilling water out to establish an equilibrium level of water behind the dam. If you add more floodgates on the lower level, then the equilibrium level of water behind the dam is going to go down, rather than up.
This is the situation with the Earth, where H2O and CO2 are lower level emitters, but CH4 is a higher level emitter which is also being significantly excited. If you add more CO2, which has its emissions band close to the central mass of the Earth’s emissions spectrum at current temperatures, there will be more energy radiated away and the surface temperature should stablize at a lower level, i.e., the surface temperature should actually go down.
I have significant doubts that current theory has properly accounted for the interaction of all the emitters in our atmosphere.

Bart
August 15, 2012 12:50 pm

Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
So, to sum these two comments up:
1) the data show that humans have very little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, which are determined by temperatures
2) Increasing CO2 may actually tend to decrease, rather than increase, surface temperatures
Add to those:
3) the current hiatus in temperatures shows that the AGW models are wrong
4) there is zero possibility that China, India, and others are going to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions
5) there are benefits to both higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
and you find that the whole controversy is moot, beside the point, futile, and just overall an overwhelming fiasco and a monument to hubris on the part of what are effectively religiously motivated activists on the pro-AGW side.

Werner Brozek
August 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Schroedinger says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
You deny global warming exists

As Anthony said, it is the ‘catastrophic’ part that most of us do not agree with. Below is a very brief summary of comments and things that have happened over the last 7 years. Can you tell me why I should believe global warming is ‘catastrophic’ based on science and not consensus?
Are you aware of Phil Jones comment on July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
Then there is the ‘travesty’ comment by Trenberth. My interpretation is that privately, they were shocked to see a period of 10 years with no warming. But when that actually happened, they said it appeared in 1 out of 8 model runs. Fair enough. I will accept that. However I also read that no model runs showed 15 years of no warming. Now that three of the data sets show over 15 years of no warming, Santer says we need 17 years for something or other. I am not sure if he is implying that 17 years of no warming means that CAGW is false. But if that happened, I would not be surprised if the goal posts get shifted again.
So what am I trying to prove? We are beyond Trenberth’s ‘travesty’ in terms of time of no warming and are rapidly approaching Santer’s 17 years. With 15 years and 8 months on RSS, we are 92% of the way there. Hadsst2 is right behind at 15 years and 6 months of no warming.
Personally, I would say we are already at the point where we can say the warming is NOT catastrophic, but I cannot prove it mathematically.

August 15, 2012 1:26 pm

Bart:
It is simply true that AGW is not a right-left issue anywhere except in the US. Deluding yourself about this inhibits opposition to the AGW-scare because – although you may not like it – the US is not the world.
And the US Democratic Party is right-wing by the standards of most countries in Europe and Asia.
Richard

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 2:59 pm

richardscourtney;
So, I hope your suggestion is ignored by both of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Patience Richard. There is method to my madness.
Though our friend Eric Grimsrud now seems missing in action. He has the opportunity to strut his stuff in response to Greg House. He could also respond to jjfox whose explanation is rather good save for some critical details that he has overlooked. This should be trivial for Eric Grimsrud to spot the error and correct it.

Bart
August 15, 2012 3:12 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm
“And the US Democratic Party is right-wing by the standards of most countries in Europe and Asia.”
I think that was my point.

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 3:50 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Following your having trolled”
I prefer not to give rudeness any reward.

jjfox
August 15, 2012 3:59 pm

Re:davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm
…He could also respond to jjfox whose explanation is rather good save for some critical details that he has overlooked. This should be trivial for Eric Grimsrud to spot the error and correct it.

What critical details do you think I have overlooked? (crypto-comments are a pain)

Greg House
August 15, 2012 4:05 pm

Entropic man says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:54 am
Greg House says (August 15, 2012 at 9:06 am)
The main foundation is, of course, the CO2 effect. So, I am asking for the scientific experimental proof that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
———————————–
Summaries are easy. Try this one or do your own web search. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
====================================================
I said “experimental proof“. And exactly as I expected your link does not contain any link to a real experiment proving that CO2 works the way the warmists say it does.
There are only 2 references there containing the word “experiment”: one to a “thought experiment” and the other one to a “model experiment”. Both have as much to do with real experiments as hot dogs with dogs.
Why not just admit there are no experiments apparently proving the alleged CO2 warming effect?

Entropic man
August 15, 2012 4:06 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Or would that be contrary to instructions from your paymasters?”
I could be paid to do this? Who do I contact?

James
August 15, 2012 4:48 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
“The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft. AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Richard, you are not seeing the U.S. paradigm correctly. There are two issues. The first is CAGW. The current status is that there is support from those whose belief is based on studies that they have seen, there is support from those whose belief is based on faith, and there is skepticism from those who have a better understanding of data and analysis (according to a Harvard study). Regardless of who believes what, it is irrelevant.
The second issue is critically important. That issue is what we as members of various governing units are forced to do in mitigation of CAGW. When Lord Monckton spoke at Schenectady, he was asked why if the economic argument against mitigation ($1.5 quadrillion/ C°) was so strong that he bothered with the scientific argument. The professor asking the question had intuitively understood, that if the real cost of mitigation was understood, that political support for mitigation would be equivalent to the votes for the Communist Party USA.
The Republican party would love to see the scientific basis for CAGW demolished, but until that happens, we are happy to have the federal government waste billions of dollars in energy research if we can keep the federal government from crippling our economy and reducing our standard of living by limiting energy production and driving up energy prices. The Democrats have made membership in the first church of AGW a political issue. We are not going to accept mitigation as the Democrats propose in order to make the scientific argument pure and academic.

jjfox
August 15, 2012 4:51 pm

Re:Bart says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
It is quite complicated, but you are on the right track. Basically, the atmosphere provides a positive feedback which will warm the surface until the gases are excited enough to dissipate the energy through radiation, at which point the surface temperature stabilizes

No, this is incorrect. The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. The infrared activity exhibited by the atmosphere is purely a cooling effect, it doesn’t warm the surface a bit.
If you wish to understand whether a particular bandwidth of radiant energy warms a surface, you must examine the net energy. In the case of our planet, whether over land or water, the up=welling LWIR is always greater then the down-welling LWIR. The planets’ surface is not warmed by LWIR, it is warmed by the sun.
Down-welling LWIR does not warm the planets surface.
Cooling slower is not the same as warming
Going broke more slowly is not the same as becoming wealthier.
Neutralizing alkalinity is not the same thing as acidification.
No, it is not “quite complicated”, it is very straightforward.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 5:38 pm

jjfox;
Stay tuned for 24 hours or so.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 5:44 pm

Greg House;
Why not just admit there are no experiments apparently proving the alleged CO2 warming effect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ERIC GRIMSRUD
The question begs an answer! Are you going to step up? You’ve told me repeatedly that you are a SCIENTIST and that you are a TEACHER. So… teach Greg House some science…. please.

ericgrimsrud
August 15, 2012 5:55 pm

As requested by davidmhoffer, I will attempt here to provide here an explanation of how the colder upper atmosphere manages to warm the surface of the Earth. I will do this in my own way and in manner designed to teach only the basic principles involved. My explanation is in no way rigorous with respect to all relevant details.
For starters, let’s talk about how solids (such as the terrestrial Earth) and then gases (such as our atmosphere) can both absorb and emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Solids can absorb essentially all EMR of all wavelengths. Thus, when either UV, Vis, or IR radiation strike the Earth, absorption occurs and the energy of those photons is converted to thermal energy within the solid – causing its temperature to increase. Solids emit EMR only over a specific range of wavelengths, however. Solid objects with Earth-like temperatures emits over a continuous and broad range in the IR (wavelengths say from about 2 to 50 microns). Objects with Sun-like temperatures (about 6,000 C) emit continuously over the UV, Vis, and near Vis range of wavelenghts about 0.1 to 2 microns).
Gases interact differently with EMR, however, and those interactions depend entirely on the chemical composition of the gas. If, for example, the gas in question contained only O2, N2, or Ar (the three major components of our atmosphere), there would be no interaction of that gas with either visible or infrared radiation. All of that radiation would simply pass through that gas as if nothing was there – as all radiation does pass through a vacuum. Also a gas consisting of these three substances will not emit any radiation at all if that gas that near-Earth-like temperatures.
If, on the other hand, the gas in question contained what we call “IR-active” molecules, then the interaction of that gaseous mixture with IR radiation will be very different.
(Time out: What are IR-active molecule? – they will include any molecule that has three or more atoms. Why? such molecules have vibrational modes in which the center of electron density is altered as the molecule vibrates. So what? Just as a radio antennae can absorb and emit EMR of the radiowave frequencies, an IR-active molecule can emit and absorb EMR of the same frequency as the molecule’s vibrational frequenies.)
Thus, that gaseous mixture will be able to absorb the portion of IR radiation that passes through it that happens to have the same frequency as the specific frequency of that of an IR-active molecule’s vibration. The rest of the IR radiation will simply pass through. ALSO, that gaseous mixture will emit IR radiation at the frequencies of the vibrations of its IR-active molecules.
OK, so now lets get to our main point. The surface of the Earth is emitting broad band IR radiation. So let’s next consider what would happen if the atmosphere had no IR-active molecules. The answer is – nothing would happen. That IR emitted from the surface would simply sail out into outer space thereby cooling the Earth. As a result, that surface emission – all by itself- would be able to match the amount of energy that is being received from the Sun (less the amount of sunlight reflected – called the albedo). In that case, the surface of the Earth would have a Temp of about -15 C (determined from straightforward calculations).
But now, what if the gaseous mixture, such as our atmosphere, contained IR-active molecules (such as H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, and myriad others). Then much of the broadband IR emitted from the surface would be quick absorbed – especially at the lower elevations where total atmospheric pressure and partial pressures of all components are the greatest.
So let’s now consider that first layer of say 10 meters of the atmosphere immediately above the ground. In this layer, absorption would, of course, be occurring. Emission would also be occurring due to the presence of IR-active molecules – at all of the vibrational frequencies of the IR molecules. AND these emissions would be in all directions – including back downward towards to surface and upwards.
Now, lets consider the next 10 meters of air above that. It will also be absorbing some of the IR radiation coming from below – now coming from both the surface of the Earth and from that layer of air immediately below. And its IR-active molecules will also be emitting IR radiation of all directions. The intensity of those emissions will depend on the temperature of that air mass – as did those of the air mass and surface below it. The emissions from each air mass will decrease with a decrease in temperature.
Now lets consider the next thousands or so 10-meter layers of air above the previous one: same story as before, repeated again and again, until we reach an altitude where the air is so thin that most of the upwardly directed IR does then make it out into the universe.
(Another Time Out: In the troposphere, temperature decreases with increase altitude until at the top of the Troposphere (about 8 miles above where I live), the temp is about -50 C. Then above that altitude, in the stratosphere, temperature increases until it approaches Earth-surface-like magnitudes at its top. (this T increase is due to the absorption of incoming UV light by stratospheric ozone, O3 – which since it has 3 atoms will also be an absorber and emitter of IR radiation).
So in putting all of this together, lets compared the condition #1 in which we imagined that all of the IR emitted by the surface simply sailed out into the universe. In that case, the only EMR hitting the Earth was that from the Sun. In condition #2, we have the same amount of sunlight hitting the Earth BUT a lot of additional IR radiation is also coming back from the emissions of the IR-active molecules throughout the atmosphere. This returning IR additionally heats the surface of the Earth and changes its average T from about -15C to about +15C.
The magnitude of this so called “GHG effect” will increase with increases in the concentrations of the GHGs. The effect is essentially never “saturated” – as evidenced by the surface temperature of Venus (about 400C) which is only about 1/3 closer to the Sun.
In summary, this provides an example of how radiant energy (IR) emitted from a colder region of the Earth (our upper atmosphere) – because of the presence of GHGs in it – causes the temperature of a warmer region (the surface) to be increased.
Hope this helps. Glad to try to answer any questions if sincerely delivered. More on this, along with direct physical evidence can be found in Chapter 2 of my short course at ericgrimsrud.com.

Greg House
August 15, 2012 7:40 pm

ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm:
As requested by davidmhoffer, I will attempt here to provide here an explanation of how the colder upper atmosphere manages to warm the surface of the Earth. … BUT a lot of additional IR radiation is also coming back from the emissions of the IR-active molecules throughout the atmosphere. This returning IR additionally heats the surface of the Earth…
====================================================
First of all, Eric, let me thank you for no abuse in that long posting. The thesis about warming back radiation is well known and actually very old, like 150 years old.
The problem is, it is not clear that this back radiation would warm. Yes, radiation generally can warm, we know that, but we also know that heat does not flow from a colder body to a warmer body at least through conduction. Again, some people say yes, it does flow in both directions but the net effect is that a colder body does not warm a warmer body and the same goes for radiation. Others say no, it is against the laws of thermodynamics.
Now, I am trying to be objective. Knowing that thermodynamics started with experiments and not just with laws, and not knowing exactly that the experiments included experiments with radiation, I am asking a simple question: is it proven experimentally? Is it proven experimentally that a colder body can influence the temperature of a warmer body by means of radiation?
Then I ask people if they can provide a link to a real direct scientific verifiable experiment proving that well known assertion. And guess what: nothing comes up. Only explanations or irrelevant stuff or references to other unproven assertions.
So, Eric, do you have something real proving that your explanation is not a science fiction? And please, no more explanations, experiments only.

ericgrimsrud
August 15, 2012 7:41 pm

And to Gail, let me explain at bit more my previous response, which was
“Gail, While I am exceedingly interested in being honest, I am not at all interested in becoming stupid. So “CO2 is a life giving gas that has become dangerously limited (Plants need >200 ppm just to survive” !!! Sorry, but I can’t even go there. Eric”
The only part I thought not worth considering was your bit about “has become dangerously limited”.
We now have 393 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, rising at the rate of 2 ppm or more each year. When and if we ever stop converting geo carbon to bio carbon, it will take thousands of years to significantly reduce the level of CO2 that we have then “achieved”. Perhaps, if I live to be about 10,000 years old, then your question concerning how plants would do with only 200 ppm CO2 might interest me.
Nevertheless, let me speculate a bit about your question of what happens if CO2 ever goes to 200 ppm:
All I can say from my own limited knowledge on this point is that the ice core record indicates that we had about 180 ppm CO2 in the global atmosphere during the long glacial periods that separated relatively short interglacial periods. To my knowledge the vast unglaciated regions of the world (including all that south of Kansas into Central America and most of South America – just to mention the Western Hemisphere) still had plants.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 7:42 pm

Well done Eric Grimsrud!
I shall reserve comment for the time being. I requested that you respond to Greg House, and now that you have done so, I shall not deprive Greg House of the opportunity to respond to you.
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 7:48 pm

jjfox;
No, this is incorrect. The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. The infrared activity exhibited by the atmosphere is purely a cooling effect, it doesn’t warm the surface a bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I shall respond to you directly as I said I would over the next 24 hours or so. In the meantime, I’d refer you to Dr Grimsrud’s explanation which has considerable merit in the context of your assertions.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 7:57 pm

jjfox;
Without delving into the science itself, as I am standing down on that issue for the time being to allow for Greg House and Eric Grimsrud to converse with one another directly, I will add some simple observations in support of Dr. Grimsrud’s explanation.
As he correctly pointed out, Venus is extremely hot, and average temperatures temperatures there actually exceed the PEAK temperatures on Mercury. When we compare average temps to average temps of both planets, Mercury is a couple hundred degrees cooler than Venus despite being closer to the sun and recieving considerably higher insolation. One needs little additional evidence to conclude that the atmosphere of Venus warms the planet to a higher temperature than it otherwise would have been.
Similarly, while the albedo of the moon is a bit different than Earth’s, the difference isn’t large enough to explain the much higher temperatures found on earth. As the insolation received by the moon is nearly identical to that received by earth, we can only explain the massive difference in temperatures by concluding that earth’s atmosphere indeed warms the planet.

Greg House
August 15, 2012 8:17 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
===========================================
??? It is there.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 8:58 pm

Greg House says:
August 15, 2012 at 8:17 pm
davidmhoffer says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm
GREG HOUSE
Over to you….
===========================================
??? It is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s it? That’s all you got? Dr Grimsrud has presented to you a factual explanation of how CO2 warms the earth. Either accept it or refute it.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 9:01 pm

apologies Greg, I missed it. browser issues. reading it now.

Eric Grimsrud
August 15, 2012 9:02 pm

To Greg House,
You asked for experimental evidence of the warming of the surface by the emissions of IR-active molecules in the atmosphere. See
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
for lots of surface to atmosphere measurements including one looking into a cloud free nighttime sky in Canada in February.
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others? The energy of the photon must be conserved and will be as it changes to heat.
I think I can see where your problem lies in not seeing how a cold object can warm a warmer object. You are thinking only of energy transfer via the collisions of matter. Energy transfer via the emission and absorption of photons provides the more important means of energy transfer in the atmosphere, however.. Photons travel at the speed of light, of course, and will dominate energy transfer in a gas – as long as emitters and absorbers (that is, IR active molecules) are present. If they are not present, then the convective motion of the major gases determines the much slower rate of energy transfer within that gas and then, yes, I can imagine that energy would then flow only from warmer to cooler regions.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 9:04 pm

Greg House;
So, Eric, do you have something real proving that your explanation is not a science fiction? And please, no more explanations, experiments only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric, it appears you’ve failed to convince Greg House. The ball is in your court.

ericgrimsrud
August 15, 2012 9:20 pm

GregHouse,
For the experimental evidence you seek, see:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
and many other sources. I recommend this one because of its extensive explanations of the measurements shown. Note especially the IR emissions from a cloud free nighttime sky in Canada in February – all due to the permanent GHG’s with little confusion from water vapor at that low temp.
I think I might understand why it is difficult to understand how energy can be transferred from cold to warmer regions. You are perhaps thinking only in terms of energy transfer by the motions and collisions of molecules. In a gas, E transfer can be much faster if emitters and absorbers (that is, IR-active molecules) are present. If they are not present, then yes, the motion and collisions of molecules provide the only and much slower means of energy transfer.

Greg House
August 15, 2012 9:22 pm

Eric Grimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others?
=================================================
You “Of course”, Eric, is not a substitution for a scientific verifiable experiment. I did not ask you “do they?”, I asked to present… you know… Just focus.
Come on, Eric, there is no way around it. I am sure you have understood my “And please, no more explanations, experiments only“.

davidmhoffer
August 15, 2012 9:56 pm

richardscourtney;
….patience…. madness…. method….

August 16, 2012 1:04 am

Entropic Man:
Your post at August 15, 2012 at 3:50 pm says in total:

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Following your having trolled”
I prefer not to give rudeness any reward.

I was NOT trying to offer you any reward for your rudeness.
I asked you to justify your blatant falsehoods.

And you have offered the quoted post as your excuse for not being able to substantiate your lies. Poor, very poor even by your standards.
And at August 15, 2012 at 4:06 pm you write

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm
“Or would that be contrary to instructions from your paymasters?”
I could be paid to do this? Who do I contact?.

The oil industry, the Al Gore foundation, the Sierra Club, etc..
Oil companies fund much global warming scare-mongering; e.g. BP provided funds to create the Climate Research Unit (CRU) from when the ‘climategate’ emails were linked. Al Gore’s organisation has established a fund solely to train and to fund warmist trolls, etc.
But, since you have refused to attempt justification of other falsehoods you posted on this thread, I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.
Richard

August 16, 2012 2:14 am

James:
Sincere thanks for your post addressed to me at August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm.
As I am sure you have seen, on this thread several have addressed my view that
“The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.”
But only Gail Combs seems to have understood my argument.
You have explained your view to me, and you start that explanation by saying of me that I am “not seeing the U.S. paradigm correctly. There are two issues”.
Thankyou. That is a clear start of a statement of the difference between our views which provides opportunity for rational debate instead of the ‘argument by assertion’ which has dominated discussion of the matter on this thread. And I am belabouring my gratitude for it to emphasise that I think your behaviour is how we should examine disagreements in the hope of learning from each other.
You say:

The first [issue] is CAGW. The current status is that there is support from those whose belief is based on studies that they have seen, there is support from those whose belief is based on faith, and there is skepticism from those who have a better understanding of data and analysis (according to a Harvard study). Regardless of who believes what, it is irrelevant.

“Irrelevant”? Really? Here we differ.
My major concern about the AGW-issue is that it is destroying the conduct and the reputation of science.
We know what effect Lysenkoism had in Soviet Russia: millions dead. And the false ‘science’ of AGW has already had Lysenkoist effect with the biofuels fiasco resulting in food riots in many places. The potential effect is horrific. World population is most conservatively estimated to increase by 2.6 billion before declining around the middle of this century. Those extra people need additional energy supply for them to survive and that need for additional energy requires increased use of fossil fuels. The AGW-scare demands policies for reducing use of fossil fuels. If the Lysenkoist ‘science’ of AGW is not defeated then pressure will continue for adoption of policies which would kill billions of people, mostly children. Simply, the Lysenkoist AGW ‘science’ is intended to justify policies which would make relatively insignificant the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolf H and Stalin.
Furthermore, we have the benefits of modern life as a result of science. The Lysenkoism of AGW ‘science’ is already damaging the reputation of all science. The further advance of science needs science to retain its reputation. And the future peoples of the world need the – not yet imagined – benefits that science has yet to provide.
But I recognise that for many it is the politics – not the science – of AGW which concerns them. You say

The second issue is critically important. That issue is what we as members of various governing units are forced to do in mitigation of CAGW. When Lord Monckton spoke at Schenectady, he was asked why if the economic argument against mitigation ($1.5 quadrillion/ C°) was so strong that he bothered with the scientific argument. The professor asking the question had intuitively understood, that if the real cost of mitigation was understood, that political support for mitigation would be equivalent to the votes for the Communist Party USA.
The Republican party would love to see the scientific basis for CAGW demolished, but until that happens, we are happy to have the federal government waste billions of dollars in energy research if we can keep the federal government from crippling our economy and reducing our standard of living by limiting energy production and driving up energy prices. The Democrats have made membership in the first church of AGW a political issue. We are not going to accept mitigation as the Democrats propose in order to make the scientific argument pure and academic.

I understand and I agree with all of that. But, with respect, I fail to see why that requires a simple left-right divergence on the AGW issue. It only exists in the US: elsewhere people on all ‘sides’ of the AGW issue exist across the political spectrum.
If Republicans and Democrats want to debate, dispute and compete to enact policy then they will. But why drive away potential allies?
I think Senator Inhofe has a more sensible approach.
Senator Inhofe is most interested in the politics – not the science – because he is a politician. But he has done much study to become conversant with the science if only to refute silly claims about what the science says.
And Senator Inhofe is a right-wing US Republican Senator while I am a left-wing British socialist, but he has quoted me on the floor of the US Senate.
It seems to me that there are three important political principles which are relevant here.
1. As Machiavelli observed, enemies need to be destroyed but an attempt to convert them to friends is desirable before they are destroyed because it is better to have live friends than dead enemies.
2. One needs to keep one’s friends close and one’s enemies closer.
And
3. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I hope I have expressed my views of this as clearly as you expressed yours.
Richard

Entropic man
August 16, 2012 3:58 am

….patience…. madness…. method….
richardscourtney says:
August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am
I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.
———————————–
I go out to my archery club for an evening ( European time) and come back to abuse!
You leave in an impossible position. If I respond to your request for further discussion of the Stern Review , you will ignore it as the output of a “paid warmist troll” and my time will have been wasted. If I do not respond you flame me again. Again, my apologies for entering areas on which you seem hypersensitive.
Though you will probably not believe me I am here by choice. I choose now to discontinue this conversation.

Mark
August 16, 2012 4:03 am

Valerie Rawlinson says:
Don’t agree with suggestion five. What we really need is vision to learn to live with the earth in a sustainable way.
The word “sustainable” has been one of those adopted by politicans to be used in whatever way they like. Including in ways which are mutually exclusive with any definition in a dictionary.
If anything generating electricity using steam turbines (regardless of if the water is boiled by burning stuff or nuclear fission) is far more “sustainable” than wind/solar/waves.
For one thing maintanance costs are likely to be orders of magnitude lower and supply can be matched to demand. The latter being a rather fundermental point of electric power.
If the actual issue were fossil fuel usage then nuclear is the obvious alternative. Followed by burning waste materials. (Either as is or in the case of suitable waste feeding to methane producing bacteria.)

Fred Staples
August 16, 2012 4:52 am

Ericgrimsrud presents a radiative explanation for atmospheric warming which was once believed to be the source of heating in terrestrial greenhouses. To quantify the argument, imagine a greenhouse without glass. If the incoming radiation is W, the interior must radiate W out.
Now add the glass. It will pass incoming and absorb outgoing radiation. Half of the absorbed radiation will be returned to the interior. So, the outgoing radiation will be reduced to W/2, and the surface will receive the original W plus W/2. The additional back-radiation will heat the interior until it radiates 2W, when the original balance will have been restored. (W in, 2W radiated from the interior, W back from the glass, W out, Page 18 of Global Warming by John Houghton, for example).
The Stefan-Bolzmann equation relates radiative energy to temperature. Radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. So, if radiation doubles, the temperature will increase by the fourth root of 2, or 1.19, or 19%.
So, does this actually happen? No, it does not. How do I know? Because 100 years ago R W Woods built two identical greenhouses, on of glass and the other of rock-salt, which does not absorb outgoing radiation. The two greenhouses reached almost identical temperatures, because they both eliminated convective cooling from their interiors.
But if the facts do not agree with the theories, so much the worse for the facts. The experiment is old and might not have been done properly. So, ericgrimstud, let us apply the same argument to your multi-slab atmosphere.
Substitute a singe slab atmosphere for the glass, and the planet surface for the greenhouse interior, and you get a surface temperature of 303K, which is reasonable if you allow for some direct transmission from the surface to space.
But, as you say, the atmosphere absorbs radiation rapidly over a short distance. Introduce a second layer, balance the flows, and the surface radiation becomes 3W. The temperature ratio to a bare rock becomes the fourth root of 3, and the temperature 335K. Three layers, equally plausible, produce a surface temperature of 360K.
If n is the number of layers into which you divide the atmosphere, the ratio of Tsurface to Ttop is the fourth root of (n+1). It is easy to prove, and is set as a problem in Grant Petty’s book on Atmospheric Radiation, Page 144.
So, as T and G asserted years ago, most of what is written about greenhouse global warming is nonsense. You will find your theory repeated in Eli Rabetts “rebuttal” of the famous T and G paper, with two layers in the atmosphere.
So how does the atmosphere warm the surface? Principally via the lapse rate, the increase of temperature with pressure, which is a function of gravity and specific heat.
Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot). You can observe the effect on a car temperature indicator by driving up a hill, at about 6 degrees per kilometre of altitude. It has nothing to do with radiation.
So why does any scientist think that additional CO2 will increase surface temperatures? Because of the “higher is colder” theory, as follows.
If we add CO2 to the top of the atmosphere, it will act as a kind of radiative insulation, impeding the escape of energy to space. The effective emission level – the average level at which the earth’s energy is radiated to space – will rise. The effective emission temperature, because of the lapse rate, will fall.
At the lower emission temperature, outgoing radiation will be reduced, and the whole system, including the surface, must warm (via the sun) to compensate.
This idea is plausible, and allows all the energy transfers involved to increase entropy, in accordance with the second law. However, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever to confirm the theory or quantify its effect. There is much to the contrary in radio-sonde and satellite data (UAH mid-troposphere, for example).

August 16, 2012 6:00 am

Entropic man:
I see you are still trolling. Your post at August 16, 2012 at 3:58 am misquotes me as saying at August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am

I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.

when I actually wrote

But, since you have refused to attempt justification of other falsehoods you posted on this thread, I see no reason to think you are telling the truth on this thread when you claim you are not one of the many paid warmist trolls.

Those falsehoods which you refuse to justify are your lies about the Stern Report. But you use your misquotation of me as an excuse to continue to refuse to justify those lies.
You are one of the worst slimey trolls it has ever been my misfortune to observe, and I am now convinced that you are paid to conduct your despicable trolling.
Richard

August 16, 2012 6:38 am

Friends:
I write to explain why I disbelieve the assertion of Entropic Man that he is not a paid troll.
At the listed time of August 16, 2012 at 1:04 am I wrote my post which Entropic Man answered. The local time here in the UK was 9:04 am: n.b. I made my post early this morning.
Subsequently, about 3 hours later At August 16, 2012 at 3:58 am Entropic Man made his reply. That would have been 11:58 am UK time: i.e. about noon. But in that post he says;

I go out to my archery club for an evening ( European time) and come back to abuse!

Clearly, he is claiming he resides in Europe and returned to find my post after having been out for the evening. But my post was in the morning and he replied to it before the evening (wherever he abides in Europe).
Obviously, Entropic man is a fake. He claims to be in Europe but he is not. He claims to have made a post in the evening but he did not. And he claims to not be a paid troll and I don’t believe it.
Richard

August 16, 2012 6:50 am

ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm
“So let’s now consider that first layer of say 10 meters of the atmosphere immediately above the ground. In this layer, absorption would, of course, be occurring. Emission would also be occurring due to the presence of IR-active molecules – at all of the vibrational frequencies of the IR molecules. AND these emissions would be in all directions – including back downward towards to surface and upwards.
Now, lets consider the next 10 meters of air above that. It will also be absorbing some of the IR radiation coming from below – now coming from both the surface of the Earth and from that layer of air immediately below. And its IR-active molecules will also be emitting IR radiation of all directions. The intensity of those emissions will depend on the temperature of that air mass – as did those of the air mass and surface below it. The emissions from each air mass will decrease with a decrease in temperature.
Now lets consider the next thousands or so 10-meter layers of air above the previous one: same story as before, repeated again and again, until we reach an altitude where the air is so thin that most of the upwardly directed IR does then make it out into the universe.
(Another Time Out: In the troposphere, temperature decreases with increase altitude until at the top of the Troposphere (about 8 miles above where I live), the temp is about -50 C. Then above that altitude, in the stratosphere, temperature increases until it approaches Earth-surface-like magnitudes at its top. (this T increase is due to the absorption of incoming UV light by stratospheric ozone, O3 – which since it has 3 atoms will also be an absorber and emitter of IR radiation).”
That’s all well and good, what’s also important is the rate of energy transfer. For an equal photon flux(which it can’t be), 1 hour of incoming solar IR at .5u, would require 20 hours to radiate out at 10u (61F), and 26hrs at 13u (-58F). Since the average daily temperature increase in the is ~18F, and the average daily falling temperature is an almost identical 18F ( http://dkue3ufa3e1f8.cloudfront.net/files/images/Global%20Annual%201940-2010.jpg ), the scenario you describe is physically impossible. Here’s a graph ( http://www.science20.com/files/images/1950-2010%20D100_0.jpg ) of the difference between daily rising and falling temps for >23North Lat, you can see how the slightly different ratio of day/night changes the balance of rise/fall as the seasons change. As soon as night starts increasing, falling temp average is greater than the rising average. And yet averaged out over a year, they are almost identical.
“The magnitude of this so called “GHG effect” will increase with increases in the concentrations of the GHGs. The effect is essentially never “saturated” – as evidenced by the surface temperature of Venus (about 400C) which is only about 1/3 closer to the Sun.”
Venus also has ~300,000 times as much CO2 in it’s atmosphere as the Earth does. Plus, CO2 has a strong absorption band at ~4u (~850F), that will return a much larger amount of the energy of outgoing radiation. For the most part, Earth has no such temperature source. And in fact I think because of this, CO2 is most effective for a surface temp below ~40-50F, at which point Water takes over as the predominate GHG. This would explain why it takes so long for the planet to come out of ice ball stage, water freezes out, and it takes a long time for enough CO2 to build up in the atm, all it would require is the planet stay above ~-70F

ericgrimsrud
August 16, 2012 7:22 am

to Greg House who posted on
August 15, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Eric Grimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm
And do those IR photons warm the surface upon striking it? Of course. Why would these photons differ from any others?
=================================================
You “Of course”, Eric, is not a substitution for a scientific verifiable experiment. I did
Come on, Eric, there is no way around it. I am sure you have understood my “And please, no more explanations, experiments only“not ask you “do they?”, I asked to present… you know… Just focus.
=====================================================
OK, Greg, if you insist, let’s just do the experiment ourselves.
On a bright sunny day walk up to window in your house that is facing the Sun and open the drapes. Note if you instantly feel those visible photons being converted to thermal energy on your skin.
Now walk up to a stove of any kind that has been turned on. Hold your hand up say a couple feet away from the stove. Note which side of your hand feels warmer. Then block your hand’s straight line view of the stove with a hand-sized piece of paper held between the stove and your hand. Does your hand now feel differently? Record your results and then ask yourself if the IR photons being emitted by the stove are also convert to thermal energy upon striking your hand.
If you like actual temperature measurements instead, repeat the experiment using a colored solution (grape juice) for the window experiment and any solution for the stove experiment and record the temperature measured with a thermometer. Invariably I suspect that you will note that both of visible and IR photons will cause the temperature of the solutions to rise.
Hope I have “just focussed” here sufficiently well.
Eric
I

Greg House
August 16, 2012 8:42 am

ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:22 am:
“OK, Greg, if you insist, let’s just do the experiment ourselves. … the Sun …thermal energy…stove… your hand feels warmer. …Hope I have “just focussed” here sufficiently well.”
==============================================
Well, maybe not quite, unfortunately, but I am not saying you did not try (lol).
The hot Sun warms my skin, the hot stove warms my skin, very nice, thank you, but this is not the issue.
The warmists’ point is, that the colder hand also reduces the cooling of a warmer stove e.g. . This is what needs to be proven directly experimentally, as I said so many times, otherwise it seems to be a fiction unsupported scientifically.
So, no experiments proving that?

Entropic man
August 16, 2012 10:28 am

Greg House says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:42 am
The warmists’ point is, that the colder hand also reduces the cooling of a warmer stove e.g. . This is what needs to be proven directly experimentally, as I said so many times, otherwise it seems to be a fiction unsupported scientifically.
So, no experiments proving that?
—————————————————
Take a mug (a dark colour works best) with a thermometer in it. Place it well away from vertical surfaces. Hang a piece of paper alonside it, close enough for your hand to feel the heat Add hot water (boiling if your thermometer can take it) and take the temperature every minute for ten minutes. Do it again without the paper, as a control. Plot your measurements on a graph.
If the paper reduces the cooling of the water, that graph should show a flatter slope than the control. If not, the two slopes should be the same.
Let us know how you get on. In my teaching days I always encouraged my pupils to try things for themselves, rather than just take my word for it.

ericgrimsrud
August 16, 2012 10:56 am

OK, Greg House, this is a better experiment that you need to do or at least consider.
Inside a stainless steel vacuum chamber at room temperature (about 25C), suspend a metal block that has a heating element and thermocouple embedded in it. Then pull a vacuum on the chamber.
Next heat the block to say 200C by passing a constant and controlled level of electrical current through the heating element. Let the system sit until you are sure the temperature of the block has reached a stable level.
Now wrap the vacuum chamber with heating tap and heat it up to 100C.
Watch the thermocouple’s reading of the block’s temperature. It will increase – even though the block is still surrounded by walls that have a lower temperature.
Why? Because the block was being heated by two sources. One is the resistive heating provided by the constant current source and the other is IR photons that are coming from all directions from the walls of the container – which in both cases was of lower temperature than the block. Clearly the warmer object is being heated by the colder walls. The hotter the walls the more IR heating of the central block.
I cannot do that experiment in my kitchen now, but know what the result will be having noted this effect on the inners of vacuum chambers that I used in my own research with mass spectrometers. So I’ll leave it up to you to either do it or look it up – somewhere in the ancient literature of physics.

ericgrimsrud
August 16, 2012 11:52 am

to Fred Staples,
I don’t see the connection of what you said to my previous post. At the beginning you said
“Ericgrimsrud presents a radiative explanation for atmospheric warming which was once believed to be the source of heating in terrestrial greenhouses.”
Sorry, but there were no glass window the model I described so I don’t know what you are talking about. And later you say:
“Gravity compresses the atmosphere, and so increases its temperature, (which is why Venus is so hot).”
Do you not realized that the mass of Venus is actually somewhat less than that of the Earth and according to Newton, the force of gravity on a planet’s surface is proportional to its mass.
If you had a point to make concerning any of my previous comments, sorry, but I did not catch it.

Bart
August 16, 2012 11:57 am

jjfox says:
August 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“The atmosphere does not provide any positive feedback at all. “
It certainly does. The tails of the surface emissions spectrum extend into the range of any atmospheric emitter. Those emitters respond by abosorbing and re-emitting the radiation in random directions, some back at the surface. The surface temperature thereby increases, which extends the tail, creating more radiation for the emitters to absorb and partially reflect back to the surface, raising the temperature and extending the tail, creating more radiation… and so on in a positive feedback loop. The process continues until the amount of radiation escaping equals the amount coming in.
I realized the necessity of such a dynamic when someone on these boards brought up what seemed a quandary: if the GHGs in the atmosphere warm the planet, how did the planet ever get warm enough in the first place to excite the GHGs? The answer lies in the fact that the tails of the surface emissions spectrum, though decreasing rapidly, extend out theoretically to infinity, so even a small amount of emissions in the range of the GHG band will feed on itself to raise the temperature until such as time as equilibrium is achieved.
“Cooling slower is not the same as warming”
In a very real sense, it is. Because there is a continuous influx, and a continuous outflux, of energy. The planet will always seek a point at which the net energy flux, which is the time rate of change of incoming minus outgoing energy, is at equilibrium. But, if you extend the time to reach equilibrium, then the integration of the net flux, which is the retained energy, becomes greater, and that results in a temperature rise.

August 16, 2012 12:04 pm

ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:56 am
“Clearly the warmer object is being heated by the colder walls.”
Here’s a test you might be able to try once it gets cold out.
Stand in the middle of a warm room, where at least one wall is an interior wall, and another wall is an external wall which has a large picture window that’s not covered with curtains(and this may not even be required, in my case the wall did have a picture window). Take your shirt off, and turn to face both the internal wall and the external wall.
My room was about 12×14, and you could easily feel which wall was which.

Bart
August 16, 2012 12:06 pm

Bart says:
August 16, 2012 at 11:57 am
“But, if you extend the time to reach equilibrium, then the integration of the net flux, which is the retained energy, becomes greater, and that results in a temperature rise.”
The key is, this is a dynamic system, with continual inflow and outflow. It is analogous to turning on the water in your sink to full on such that, assuming your drain cannot handle the flow, will result in accumulation of water in the sink. The water will rise, and the resulting increase in pressure at the drain will cause the water to drain faster, until such a time as equilibrium is reached. If you now decrease the area of the drain, the water level will increase, until such a time as the pressure at the drain is high enough to reestablish equilibrium of inflow and outflow. Draining slower results in a rise of the water level, which increases the drain rate, and the process continues until such a time as the water drains as fast as it is coming in.

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 4:19 pm

jjfox;
What critical details do you think I have overlooked?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are two.
1. You posited as your starting premise a planet with an atmosphere composed of radiatively inactive gases. In that scenario, the atmosphere would warm through conduction until it was in thermal equilibrium with earth surface. After equilibrium was established, the surface temperature would be 100% determined by the amount of insolation and would have a temperature commensurate with Stefan-Boltzmann Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law which is that P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with P in watts per meter and accounting for all incoming energy sources and T being in degrees K. The atmosphere, being radiatively inactive, would have an affect on temperature of precisely nothing.
2. In the latter part of your explanation, you compared a radiatively inactive atmosphere to one with a concentration of radiatively active gas such as CO2. Putting aside the critical detail discussed above, this is not a valid comparison for the purposes of the climate debate. We’re less interested in the difference between an atmosphere with and without trace amounts of a radiatively active gas than we are in the differemnce between an atmosphere with different amounts of a radiatively active gas.
Eric Grimsrud has provided a pretty good working explanation that addresses both these points upthread, and I would encourage you to review them. He’s missed some critical details of his own, but I’m focused right now on assisting Dr. Grimsrud in convincing Greg House of the folly of his reasoning, and shall leave those aside for another day or so.

Greg House
August 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Entropic man says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:28 am
Take a mug (a dark colour works best) with a thermometer in it. Place it well away from vertical surfaces. Hang a piece of paper alonside it, close enough for your hand to feel the heat Add hot water (boiling if your thermometer can take it) and take the temperature every minute for ten minutes. Do it again without the paper, as a control. Plot your measurements on a graph.
If the paper reduces the cooling of the water, that graph should show a flatter slope than the control.
=================================================
Paper reduces convection thus reducing cooling. If you mean that it is radiation from the colder paper too, you need to prove it.

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 4:30 pm

Eric Grimsrud;
While I agree for the most part with your last response to Greg House, I can suggest from extensive experience that he will either no longer respond at this point, or reply with his dogmatic “that’s not an actual experiment, I asked for an actual experiment”. Given the number of physicists, engineers, chemists and other scientists he has already engaged with, who have presented information similar to your own, I can only assume that he believes the earth to be flat (there being no peer reviewed experiments to the contrary) that the sun circles the earth (there being no peer reviewed experiments to the contrary) and that internal combustion engines are impossible (there being blah blah blah) and the same would go for televisions, radios, telephones, photocopiers, and fax machines. Perhaps even the internet doesn’t exist by Greg House’s standards. That said, I shall attempt to assist you in the matter by providing the very experiment that Greg House insists upon.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
ulate
On the one hand, I disagree strongly that this experiment falsifies the order of magnitude effects on temperature that a doubling of CO2 would cause because it fails to simulate the scale of the atmospheric column, and hence produces a measurable effect that is orders of magnitude too small for the purposes of understanding effect on climate. That said, what the experiment does conclusively show is that doubling of CO2 in an atmosphere exposed to LW of the frequency emitted by earth surface would cause a measurable temperature increase in dirfect opposition to Greg’s position.
I’ve suggested this experimment to Greg before, which he believes to be a “trick” of some sort on my part. Please feel free to make use of it in your explanation to Greg as you see fit.

Greg House
August 16, 2012 4:44 pm

ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 10:56 am:
“OK, Greg House, this is a better experiment that you need to do…”
====================================================
Eric, do you really think that if you make an assertion, it is not your job to prove it? I hope you do not.
It looks like you can not present any link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body. Why not admit it?
I mean, no warmist can probably do that, it is not just you.

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 4:47 pm

Greg House;
Paper reduces convection thus reducing cooling. If you mean that it is radiation from the colder paper too, you need to prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a thin sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane (we use the expression “paper thin” for a reason) would suppress convection by an amount significant to the proposed experiment?

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 4:49 pm

Greg House;
It looks like you can not present any link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body. Why not admit it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you sir for stepping up as predicted and proving my prediction to be accurate. Much appreciated.

Greg House
August 16, 2012 4:52 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm:
“Eric Grimsrud; While I agree for the most part with your last response to Greg House, I can suggest from extensive experience that he will either no longer respond at this point, or reply with his dogmatic “that’s not an actual experiment, I asked for an actual experiment”. Given the number of physicists, engineers, chemists and other scientists he has already engaged with, who have presented information similar to your own, …”
=================================================
Exactly, davidmhoffer, they have presented “information”, “explanations” and suggestions I should conduct an experiment, but no link to a real scientific experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body.
You can take any science fiction novel and find a lot of “information”, too.

RACookPE1978
Editor
August 16, 2012 4:56 pm

A “paper-thin” substance affecting convection?
Absolutely.
ANYTHING (even a spider web, tissue paper, or aerogel) that is between a surface (of one temperature) and the gas (or fluid) around it that is a different temperature (or touches a substance of a different temperature) will reduce convection heat transfer.
Now, how effective that paper-thin substance becomes depends on the geometry of the heat transfer problem: where the hot substance is, how much distance is between the two materials, what the material is made of, how much gas (or fluid) can be exchanged, where the cold temperature is, etc. …..

Greg House
August 16, 2012 4:58 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm:
“Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a thin sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane (we use the expression “paper thin” for a reason) would suppress convection by an amount significant to the proposed experiment?”
=============================================
That depends on where you place your paper or whatever. And he did not present an experiment meaning exact data etc., it was just a sort of a hint, it can not be taken seriously in the context of this debate. Let us talk about real experiments that already proved the core assertion of warmists. I mean, we have been talking, and the result is zero.

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 5:16 pm

Now, how effective that paper-thin substance becomes depends on the geometry of the heat transfer problem:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The experiment proposed made use of a sheet of paper hung in the vertical plane “alongside” the object. That said, paper would actually not be the best material for this. Aluminum foil would have a much larger and more easily measured effect.

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 5:18 pm

Greg House;
Let us talk about real experiments that already proved the core assertion of warmists. I mean, we have been talking, and the result is zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I respectively surrender the field to Dr Grimsrud.

Gail Combs
August 16, 2012 5:28 pm

richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am
Gail Combs:
At August 14, 2012 at 2:04 pm you make the blatantly false assertion:
It is Al Gore and other politicians on the left who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
No! It is Margaret Thatcher and other politicians on the right who made CAGW a political football not skeptics.
___________________________________
Actually it was the politicians who were all for increasing the power of the United Nations (Left or right)
Well before Margaret Thatcher

As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:

It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.

http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

So the issue was on the floor of the UN from 1972. It is also interesting to see what else Maurice Strong was up to:

But Strong is no snob; he even counts Republican Presidents among his friends. Elaine Dewar again:

Strong blurted out that he’d almost been shut out of the Earth Summit by people at the State Department. They had been overruled by the White House because George Bush knew him. He said that he’d donated some $100,000 to the Democrats and a slightly lesser amount to the Republicans in 1988. (The Republicans didn’t confirm.)
I had been absolutely astonished. I mean yes, he had done a great deal of business in the U.S., but how could he have managed such contributions?
Well, he’d had a green card. The governor of Colorado had suggested it to him. A lawyer in Denver had told him how.
But why? I’d asked.
“Because I wanted influence in the United States.”
So Strong gave political contributions (of dubious legality) to both parties; George Bush, now a friend, intervened to help him stay in charge of the Rio conference; he was thereby enabled to set a deep green agenda there; and Bush took a political hit in an election year. An instructive tale — if it is not part of Strong’s mythmaking.

Strong attracts such mystified suspicion because he is difficult to pin down. He told Maclean’s in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” And his career combines oil deals with the likes of Adnan Khashoggi with links to the environmentalist Left. He is in fact one of a new political breed: the bi-sectoral entrepreneur who uses business success for leverage in politics, and vice versa.
http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

The labels “Left” amd “Right” are part of the dog and pony show for the masses. They ALL belong to the party of “Power and Money” and we are the voters to be scammed and fleeced.
A customer’s husband was in a situation a year ago where he could watch and over hear US politicians at their leisure in Washington DC. He was horrified to realize the Democrat/Republican labels were nothing but a complete sham and the politicians were actively LAUGHING at the stupid chums who had voted for them. They only thing they were bickering about was how to divide up the goodies.
The reason CAGW is a left wing agenda in the USA is because it is more touchy feely and fits that image.

Greg House
August 16, 2012 5:30 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm:
“Eric Grimsrud;…I shall attempt to assist you in the matter by providing the very experiment that Greg House insists upon. http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
===============================================
I remember that link. And you still assert the proved the point in question there? Look how this assertion can be easily debunked. Any layman can do that. The method is simple: a search for a key word. In this case it is the word “temperature”. Because if they really experimentally proved warming or reduced cooling, they would use the word “temperature”.
So let us open your link and look for the word “temperature” using the CTRL+F…
OMG! The word “temperature” is there! But it occurs only 2 (two) times in the whole text. That’s a bad sign, davidmhoffer. Let us see then, what they mean by that. This is the one occurrence: “One problem is that the radiative transport depends on the temperature gradient in the atmosphere – but this cannot be preset but ought to be calculated.”. Well, nothing about what you mean they proved. The other one is this: “Every scientisct who is familiar with basic IR spectroscopy from analytic chemistry would agree that there is a noticeable temperature increase for a CO2 doubling.” So, they assert that what is to be proven is a fact. Very nice.
Do you still insist that your link presents an experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body?

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 5:36 pm

Greg House;
Do you still insist that your link presents an experiment proving the alleged warming or reduced cooling by back radiation or by a colder body?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I already said, I have surrendered the field to Dr Grimsrud.

ericgrimsrud
August 16, 2012 5:41 pm

Greg House, I have been doing my best to relate some basic principles of physics along with an some classic examples. IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense believed only by “warmists”, have a look at:
t”http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Roy Spencer is skeptical of AGW and a professional physicist who understands the basic principles of physics. In addition, like me, he has worked with vacuum chambers and is all to well aware the problems that can be caused in experiments by the heating of objects in vacuum chamber by the colder walls of the vacuum chamber.
Now I don’t care at all if your admit that you are wrong and if you want to continue to discuss this point, please take it up with Roy Spencer who does not appear to be a “warmist”.

Gail Combs
August 16, 2012 6:49 pm

ericgrimsrud says:
August 15, 2012 at 7:41 pm
And to Gail, let me explain at bit more my previous response, which was….
We now have 393 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, rising at the rate of 2 ppm or more each year.
All I can say from my own limited knowledge on this point is that the ice core record indicates that we had about 180 ppm CO2 in the global atmosphere during the long glacial periods that separated relatively short interglacial periods. To my knowledge the vast unglaciated regions of the world (including all that south of Kansas into Central America and most of South America – just to mention the Western Hemisphere) still had plants.
_______________________________
And that is just the point. The ice core measurements of 180 ppm CO2 during glaciation are falsified by the continuing presence of trees. At 180 ppm, especially anywhere above sea level, trees could not reproduce because they are C3 and 180 ppm is starvation level. (Original data was 200 ppm but that has disappeared from the internet because it made the discrepancy too noticable)
Here is a newer paper: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

….We found evidence for severe and sustained carbon starvation in glacial Juniperus trees at La Brea. Both ⌬ and ci͞ca (Fig. 3) were similar in both modern and full-glacial trees (P ϭ 0.60 for ⌬, P ϭ 0.50 for ci͞ca), even though atmospheric [CO2] reached minimum values during the last glacial period (2). As a result, leaves of full-glacial trees had extremely low calculated ci values (averaging 113 ppm) that were 25% lower than in leaves of postglacial trees (ci of 150 ppm between 7.665 and 12.450 kyr B.P.), and 40% lower than in leaves of modern trees (average ci of 187 ppm, Fig. 4). Glacial ci values of 113 ppm are unprecedented in modern vegetation and are much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis (ca. 40–70 ppm for C3 plants; ci where carbon uptake from photosynthesis is equal to carbon lost from respiration). This level is critical when considering that plants must operate well above compensating ci to achieve sufficient photosynthetic rates for adequate growth and reproduction and for maintaining long-term survival (6). These low ci values were not unique to southern California, because glacial leaves of Pinus flexilis from the Great Basin exhibited ci values of 110 ppm (19), supporting the notion that trees in nearby regions were also carbon-starved during the last glacial period…

Even though the CO2 is now at ~400 ppm that does not take into account the sharp decrease in CO2 during glaciation when plant productivity will be the most critical for the survival of human civilization. During Glaciation the atmosphere is also much drier and higher levels of CO2 help “Drought proof” C3 plants. (Much of our food plants and livestock fodder is C3 and not C4)
No one, warmist or skeptic disagrees that we are near the end of the Holocene interglacial. Some warmists think the increase in CO2 has prevented a descent into glaciation that otherwise should have occurred.

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
…..Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution warns we may be looking at warming when the danger is actually cooling.

Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried? – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
“Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade….
But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…

There is also a well known 1470 year cooling event due soon. Bond Event Zero

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
Many paleoclimatic data reveal a ∼1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

Some warmists think we will have a “Double Interglacial” but that has been ruled out.

http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/COURSES/QCLIM/reprints/LisieckiRaymo_preprint.pdf
“Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6 o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398{418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6 o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398{418 ka as from 250{650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a “double precession-cycle” interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”

Even NOAA supports the Milankovitch theory.

NOAA: Northern Hemisphere forcing of climatic cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years Nature Vol. 448, Number 7156, pp. 912-917, 23 August 2007. doi:10.1038/nature06015.
…This ratio is a proxy for local summer insolation, and thus allows the chronology to be constructed by orbital tuning without the need to assume a lag between a climate record and an orbital parameter. The accuracy of the chronology allows us to examine the phase relationships between climate records from the ice cores and changes in insolation. Our results indicate that orbital-scale Antarctic climate change lags Northern Hemisphere insolation by a few millennia, and that the increases in Antarctic temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during the last four terminations occurred within the rising phase of Northern Hemisphere summer insolation. These results support the Milankovitch theory that Northern Hemisphere summer insolation triggered the last four deglaciations.

So we are NOT going to escape the next glaciation and if we by some miracle do it will be because of our increasing CO2. Also any increase in CO2 will also mean healthier more productive plant life during the next glaciation.
If you weight the options producing MORE CO2 has less downsides then not producing CO2. Returning to a major Ice Age with the CO2 levels much reduced due to cold ocean is going to be a real bummer compared to a couple degrees higher temperatures with flourishing plant life.

Greg House
August 16, 2012 6:54 pm

ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm:
Greg House, I have been doing my best to relate some basic principles of physics along with an some classic examples. IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense believed only by “warmists”, have a look at: ”http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
================================================
Maybe you should read it again. It was not a real experiment, Eric. It was a so called “thought experiment”, I hope you understand the difference.

Lichanos
August 16, 2012 7:01 pm

@ richardscourtney:
Interesting stuff about Maggie! I think I’ll look into that more.
This blog, which provides much valuable scientific discussion and lots of resources, is also, unfortunately, a magnet for libertarian-conspiracy theorists who see the black boot of totalitarianism in any sort of rule or regulation. We have Thomas Jefferson and others to thank for that particular strain of political delusion (although he was no slouch at hefting state power when it suited him).
Well, as Stephen Decatur said, although ‘conservatives’ who quote him never fully quote him:
“My country – may she always be in the right – but, my country, right or wrong.”

Greg House
August 16, 2012 7:06 pm

ericgrimsrud says:
August 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm:
“IF you think all of what I have said is non-sense”
================================================
I have never used this term in my discussions here. Why nonsense? I see it as unproven, because the “explanations” are based on an assertion that is not proven experimentally. There is a lot of science fiction stuff that is even logical in itself, but unproven, that is the point.

Greg House
August 16, 2012 7:21 pm

Lichanos says:
August 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm:
“… is also, unfortunately, a magnet for libertarian-conspiracy theorists who see the black boot of totalitarianism in any sort of rule or regulation.”
==============================================
Totalitarianism happens and not just like that. Communist totalitarianism was based on regulation too. They regulated profits, earnings and economy. A lot of people were considered to be an obstacle and therefore killed.
Some Greens are talking about reducing population, what do you think this concept can lead to?

davidmhoffer
August 16, 2012 9:01 pm

Dr Grimsrud;
So, how have you enjoyed your “discussion” with Greg House? By now you may have surmised that I goaded you into explaining some rather elementary physics to him. You may have surmised that I knew in advance how the conversation would go.
Did you enjoy having your carefully worded explanations simply dismissed with a wave of his hands and a perfunctory “that’s not proof”? Did you appreciate having the time and effort you put into examples and explanations simply dismissed out of hand? Did you find it frustrating that he made no attempt what so ever to even begin to understand the very well verified facts that you put before him? Was your discussion with him nothing but a complete waste of your time? In fact, it was a waste of your time, and I knew what the outcome would be, which is why I goaded you into it. So let us both put Greg House on ignore, and instead talk about you.
What is the difference between Greg House’s behaviour on this thread and your own on the Inhofe thread? I shall answer the question for you. Your behaviour was worse.
In addition to dogmatically asserting the same information over and over again, refusing to so much as acknowledge, let alone discuss the explanations and references provided to you by myself and richardscourtney, you repeatedly attempted to belittle us by demanding our credentials, suggesting that we were not scientists and so had no business commenting at all, and rubbing your PhD in our faces. I told you to discuss the science or STFU and my position on that has not changed.
You compounded your arrogance by continuing to call myself and richardscourtney quacks and charlatans, and so focused were you on denigrating us in that fashion that you even attempted to do so in the thread dedicated to the remembrance of Robert E Phelan. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and it is a tribute to Anthony’s patience and diplomacy that he simply snipped the the offensive remarks and left the balance of your remarks intact. I doubt that I could have done the same, but I’m willing to bet that if REP had to deal with the matter himself, he would have shown the same diplomacy and tact. Part of me wonders if perhaps REP guided Anthony’s hand.
So, I ask you again, to discuss the science. If you would like, I shall explain the critical errors that you have made in your explanation to Greg House. I’ll show you that the very warmist scientific literature you purport to explain doesn’t agree with your explanation and why. I’ll even entertain any comments you wish to make in rebuttal, consider them seriously, and respond to them. But at the first sign of you trying to rub your credentials in people’s faces, or belittling them for not having any, the discussion is over.
The smartest man I ever knew was a guy named John Carlson, who has long since passed on. He built a piece of equipment that was of immense value to the oil companies back in the late 70’s. But John was also a very religious man, and just before his invention could be put into production, he had a vision in which his deity told him that the invention was evil. The next morning we found the prototype cut to pieces in the back of my dad’s shop. I remember to this day engineers with Phd’s from Esso, Shell and Husky Oil trying to figure out from the pieces how it worked. One of them showed me a steel ball which the engineer had cut in half to reveal channels that had been drilled through the ball and which flared in the centre. He remarked “it is bad enough that I can’t figure out what it is supposed to do, even if I did, I cannot understand how the h*ll he machined it.”
John Carlson had a grade 8 education.
So it is your call Dr Grimsrud. Are you prepared to discuss science or not?

August 16, 2012 11:07 pm

Gail Combs:
Thankyou for your reply at August 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm to my post at August 15, 2012 at 1:12 am.
Firstly, I draw your attention to my post replying to James which I posted at August 16, 2012 at 2:14 am which says

As I am sure you have seen, on this thread several have addressed my view that
“The right-wing extremism on this thread is daft AGW is a right-left issue only in the US; nowhere else. And it dilutes the effectiveness of “skeptics”.”
But only Gail Combs seems to have understood my argument.

(Emphasis added: RSC)
And, with respect, I answered your point about Maurice Strong et al. in my reply to Mr Lynn at August 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm. I said there:

It does not matter how many ‘conspirators’ plotted during the century between the activities of Arrhenius and Thatcher. It was Thatcher who started it as a political issue, and she put in the money to turn AGW from a scientific curiosity into a major research industry. She did it for the reasons I said and not those you say. And she was right-wing.

As you rightly say, the likes of Strong were ready to grab the opportunity when Thatcher provided it. They would have created the opportunity themselves if they could have created it, but they could not so they did not. And then along came Thatcher.
After that, many jumped on the bandwagon she created. And I explain this at
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
One curiosity – which many now forget – is that AGW did not start as an environmental issue. Indeed, Greenpeace initially opposed the AGW-scare because it was a distraction from the ‘acid rain’ scare which was then their major preoccupation. But AGW was soon adopted by environmentalists when it became clear it was useful to them.
Richard

August 16, 2012 11:20 pm

Lichanos:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm.
It includes:

This blog, which provides much valuable scientific discussion and lots of resources, is also, unfortunately, a magnet for libertarian-conspiracy theorists who see the black boot of totalitarianism in any sort of rule or regulation.

Sadly, I have to agree. And there was one thread where some ‘lefties’ like me joined in but were driven out of WUWT. I urge you to stick with it despite the provocations of ‘lefties’ on this thread being trivial compared to some that happen on WUWT.
All of us who value freedom need to oppose totalitarianism so we need to unite in opposition to AGW-scare and its accompanying Lysenkoism. History shows that failure to defeat these evils has terrible consequences.
Richard

August 16, 2012 11:46 pm

davidmhoffer:
David, as you requested, I was “patient” and – as you predicted I would – I now understand. I hope you are successful.
Richard

Venter
August 17, 2012 1:03 am

davidmhoffer
Hats of for an excellent education provided to Eric Grimsrud. It was priceless.

August 17, 2012 1:26 am

The Bomb exploded in Hiroshima, because during World War II, there was no possibility for even a contact between two Japanese and American chefs.
1-There are no signs of weakness in Krupp’s remark, on the contrary, some of Joe Best conditions are not convincing.
2- Fortunately, there is no room here for boring scientific discussions. Some friends still continue the same non-constructive procedure. If this was efficient, it was not necessary to insist on preconditions for negotiations.
3- We still have trouble taking the first step. Black is the consensus? And white is the debate? The first step is to reach a consensus, which results in the desired Debate. Without passing through this stage, we’ll go nowhere.
4- Look at the second, third and fourth items made by Joe Best. Joe Best did not pay attention to Fred Krupp who says: -“One scorching summer doesn’t confirm that climate change is real any more than a white Christmas proves it’s a hoax.” And about the third item; the world is one world not U.S and the others. Atmosphere is border-less and it has one scientific definition nothing less/more. And about the forth item, we want Joe Best to reduce TAX? Is he the right individual to ask for it? After the Debate, policy makers would be convinced to do what we need.
In regards to the fifth Item, we are not asking the world to enter chaos, yet Joe Best is right,He says: ” we have the technology to use that energy safely and with minimal impact on the environment and human health. ”
The technology here means ALL THE TECHNOLOGIES. We are asking for breaking subsidies on all energy sources, we leave the technology itself and the market to decide when and where their use is beneficial.

Lichanos
August 17, 2012 6:58 am

Greg House @ August 16, 2012 at 7:21 pm said:
Some Greens are talking about reducing population, what do you think this concept can lead to?
This calls to me a joke. Orthodox Jews do not permit mixed dancing, i.e., men will not dance with women at weddings, etc.
An orthodox man goes to his rabbi and asks him whether the Talmud (the commentary on the Bible) permits various positions during sex with his wife.
-Is sex with women on top permitted?
Yes, this is permitted.
-Is sex with the man behind the woman permitted?
Yes, this is permitted.
-Is sex while lying on the side permitted?
Yes, this too is permitted.
-Rabbi, is sex while standing up permitted?
No! This might lead to dancing.
Anyway, reducing the worlds population is a good thing, but obviously, forcing reductions is not. Personally, I feel the attention to population growth (and immigration) by environmental groups frequently treads into racist-nativist territority.
You can never tell what a good idea will lead to.

davidmhoffer
August 17, 2012 9:07 am

richardscourtney, Venter;
Thanks for both your comments. The collective exchange on the previous Inhofe thread and this one are a demonstration (in my mind anyway) of just how difficult it is to have the meaningful debate that Joe Bast is trying to promote.
I only hope that I didn’t spank Grimsrud so hard that he simply withdraws. My sense is that he is capable of making a positive contribution to the discussion if he sets aside his elitism.

August 17, 2012 10:26 am

davidmhoffer:
In your post at August 17, 2012 at 9:07 am you say

The collective exchange on the previous Inhofe thread and this one are a demonstration (in my mind anyway) of just how difficult it is to have the meaningful debate that Joe Bast is trying to promote.

I could not agree more. And this thread makes clear the especial problem in the US where the issue divides on political grounds.
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
Richard

August 17, 2012 12:34 pm

It is unbelievable. Joe Bast thinks he is the winner of the climate war. And now it is time for signing a treaty. Fred Krupp statements led him get excited.
Denier or Skeptic, is Joe Bast’s problem the label? His proposed five items are not even “preconditions”. Hopefully this is not a game of political posturing and propaganda.

davidmhoffer
August 17, 2012 1:41 pm

richardscourtney;
Hence, my disappointment at the lack of response to my post at August 14, 2012 at 7:38 am. Dispute, discussion and/or amendment of that may have indicated a way forward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I liked the suggestion. I didn’t comment at the time because I was more focused on other parts of the thread. I think the limitation to your suggestion is that we can’t have the mitigation vs adaptation debate until we first have the order of magnitude debate. Adaptation is a completely different issue if sensitivity is high versus low. We have to have, I think, at least a range both sides can agree on and then predicate the debate on that range. The problem with that is that even the range is rather polarised. We have raging alarmists who think we’re all going to die from spontaneous human combustion and we have skeptics who think it impossible that LW can warm anything at all. The new “consensus estimate” for AR5 sounds like it is going to be in the range of 2.4 to 2.6 degrees per CO2 doubling. I think that the debate would have merit at that range, even though I think it a very high number. Then there’s the likes of Hansen et al who want to have the debate at 6.5 degrees!
Even if we agree to debate at 2.6 degrees, we also need agreement on how that 2.6 degrees manifests itself. That it won’t be uniform is openly discussed in the AR4 science, but by the time it gets to policy maker summaries it implies something else. Debating a uniform 2.6 degree sensitivity would imply a completely different adaptation cost than would very large changes to winter lows and very small changes to summer highs (as an example).

ericgrimsrud
August 17, 2012 2:48 pm

To Greg House,
In looking back at one of your last posts to me, I will acknowledge that I have not yet found the perfect reference for you that would describe an actual experiment specifically designed to prove the point concerning the flow of energy from a cold to warmer body – and I have been thinking about where exactly such a demonstration might be found in the literature.
The phenomenon of “black body” radiat