We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
The survey is titled:
Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹
Abstract
Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.
From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported.
The introduction says:
Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).
So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.
The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:
“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”
Respondent options were:
- Yes: Mostly human
- Yes: Equally human and natural
- Yes: Mostly natural
- Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
- Yes: Don’t know cause
- Don’t know if global warming is happening
- Global warming is not happening
Here’s the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):
Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.
Dr.. Judith Curry writes:
Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”
That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.
References:
[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article).
Scott Basinger says:
November 20, 2013 at 2:01 pm
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” – Winston Churchill
This came in the form of a new paper published by the American Met. Society (AMS) that surveyed its members on the subject.The paper studied the views of 1,821 survey respondents (only about 1/4 of its total members) with meteorological and atmospheric “expertise” (not ‘climate scientists’ per say). Only 124 of these respondents had published papers focused mostly on climate.
Of this sub-group, 98% agreed that global warming was happening and 78% also agreed that it was mostly man-made. A further 10% thought it was jointly man-made/natural and 5% more agreed that there was probably some human influence. So in total, 93% of respondents with expertise in climate science agreed that global warming was both i) happening and ii) at least partly man-made, with a big majority believing it was ‘mostly’ man-made.
Alas, Anthony didn’t see that this result actually supports previous results showing a high degree of agreement among scientists *with expertise in climate science* that global warming is both i) happening and 2) at least partly man made. Even among the non-climate experts surveyed there was 73% agreement that global warming is both i) happening and 2) at least partly man made.
In the paper (which is linked in the post) they say: “In terms of strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables,perceived consensus was the strongest predictor of all three types of global warming views certainty, causation, and harm/benefit.”
That is, those scientists who believed there was a consensus were likely to subscribe to it. So we have a sort of syllogism: A scientist who believes there is a consensus that P will believe that P. Most scientists believe there is a consensus that P therefore Mosts scientist believe that P
It follows that there is a consensus that P … and loop. This obviously means that one should not pay much attention to whether there is a consensus or not. Because the consensus arises not from the science but from sociological/psychological facts about scientists.
52% agree. WHAT? I’m shocked the number is this high.
These people have the best education, knowledge and information that is available and it clearly shows the whole thing is a scam. For them to believe that global warming/ climate change is manmade is appalling. This 52% number is nothing to cheer about.
Not too surprising. I would hazard a guess a guess that a large majority
of readers of this site believe that human actions did cause some substantial
fraction of the global warming which seems to have peaked circa
A.D. 2000. Again, I would guess that most readers/posters here
believe some combination of the following:
(a) A doubling of CO2 will result in some warming, but less (perhaps
MUCH less) than the approximately 3 degrees Centigrade that the
IPCC trumpets.
(b) CO2 (and other GH gases) are a factor, but are not the dominant
effect.
(c) Natural feedback will turn negative and halt any influence of GH
gases far below any catastrophic level.
(d) Claimed negative effects of warming are exaggerated and, even if
they do exist, are much farther in the future than Al Gore and minions
would claim.
(e) Solar activity in some fashion was a rather larger contributor to the
warming that peaked circa A.D. 2000 than is believed by the IPCC.
The recent “pause” in global warming coinciding with a period of decreased
sunspot activity helps lend some credence to this thought.
As I say, this is purely my guess, based on reading comments on this
site for years. I think that some linear combination of the thoughts
above is the majority opinion of readers of this site,
I participated in this survey and remember thinking at the time how poorly worded it was. I feel a much better survey could’ve been designed and its results would’ve been far more illuminating.
I think it’s interesting that the highest degree of agreement with the CAGW hypothesis is among highly published climate scientist. These tend to be modelers and not traditional climatologist (i.e those who deal with real world data to reconstruct past climates.) Modelers tend to view the real world as a poor approximation of their models, the Pause is a failure of reality to keep pace with their simulations. They ‘buy into’ CAGW because they work by induction, where the evidence is suppose to support the theory not ‘tother way around.
Mumbles,
For a neutral fair and survey they need to include an equal number of catastrophic AGW skeptics, selected by the skeptics themselves.
But that will not happen with any of these organizations, because global warming propaganda is their motive, not science.
On February 17, 2013 Berényi Péter made a particularly insightful observation. He wrote:
A “neighboring discipline” of climatology is meteorology (and meteorologists are particularly well-equipped to recognize the difference between climate and mere weather).
From the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society we learned that most American broadcast meteorologists say that they disagree with the IPPC claim that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming. A newer survey of all American broadcast meteorologists by researchers at George Mason University confirmed that result.
Even back in 2007, before Climategate, when Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists (a broader category; details here), there was no consensus. Harris found that: “97% agree that ‘global average temperatures have increased’ during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature fluctuations and the rest are unsure.”
Refs: http://tinyurl.com/clim97pct
The bizarre thing about Climate Science is how far it is from it’s roots.
In the early days when I was a boy the atmosphere was a cold dry bath of nitrogen and oxygen.
It was cold because only a little of it absorbed any energy from the sun or the earth,
and what there was of it, dimmed the sun relative to earth by 20%.
The atmosphere made the world cooler overall, by quite a bit by blocking that 20%.
After it reflected that much from ever getting to earth, the atmosphere itself was still cold,
and it was still heat conductive, therefore the atmosphere contributed at night, to cooling through conduction, and through convection, as well as radiatively.
In the day time the same conduction convection and radiation worked,
and the water cycle’s phase change refrigeration cycle,
added to the conduction created by, it’s own convection.
The atmosphere was referred to as a greenhouse, STRICTLY to CHILDREN.
In the day when I was learning physics,
nobody had the nerve to stand up and say they reflected 20% energy from a sphere and made temperatures on target sensors attached to it, rise, using magic insulation.
It’s preposterous outright.
Similarly after that initial amount is reflected away, the atmosphere is still very cold.
And no matter who they were when there were still honest men in the scientific world,
nobody claimed immersion into refrigerated fluid,
removed less heat than illumination in vacuum.
Conduction nor convection are there to aid removal.
Even trying to persuade people that they should think of the atmosphere as ever heating the earth is evidence of some need to invert the science.
And of the 20% light blocked by the atmosphere?
The 20% blocking that light, cooling the globe through reflection of 20% away
is CO2.
And Water.
The ones cooling us by blocking half the infrared, which is about a fifth of the sun’s total
are the ones claimed in the scam to do the ‘warming.’
As you can see: removal of 20% energy in, forbids warming by the atmosphere, by definition.
As you can see subsequent spinning of the globe in a freezing cold heat conductive bath,
that’s not ‘warming. Heat sensors don’t go UP when you heat in vacuum then immerse in refrigerated, low temperature fluid baths, even gas ones.
And as you can see further the very gases blocking that 20% are the ones fingered for ‘heating’.
These three foundational errors spell: scam. Fraud. Falsehood, willfully contrived and maintained,
through systematically lying, and assassinating the character of anyone objecting.
It’s a scam.
It always was,
from the time when they had to invert that the atmosphere is actually a cooling, fluid bath.
You can’t raise a heat sensor output by denying it 20%, energy.
You can’t raise a heat sensor output by spinning immersed in frigid fluid gas baths, at one atmosphere pressure.
You can’t raise a heat sensor output using the energy screen, you blocked 20% E in, with.
You young people have been had.
It took a lot of money and nerve to turn a cooling conductive bath
into a giant heater.
It’s going to take a lot of nerve for you to take science back over with honest men.
97% of scientists a hundred years ago believed eugenics was proven. 97% of scientists fifteen years ago assumed the human genome project would answer seminal questions about health and disease and promptly lead to valuable therapies. Instead they found out that humans have fewer genes than do tomato plants… and the field of epigenetics was born… and the arrogance of those who called 97% of our genome (the non-expressed part) “junk DNA” was exposed for what it was. We don’t know what we don’t know, but ought to have enough sense when standing outside very complex systems like weather/climate or trying to appreciate how molecular biology works that the likelihood that we know much is low. But politics, money and fame get in the way — and there are always a whole bunch of progressives lined up to be true believers and tell the rest of us what to do — for the “greater good,” mind you! Yuk!
I found this very interesting in light of a recent talk I attended at McGill University’s “Is That a Fact” conference on education and epistemology. Apparently, so few publications in peer-reviewed journals stand up to independent verification (~ 10%) that industries independently check science-results before trying to develop technology based upon them. That the “non-publishers”, the ones whose work is directly applied to the real world rather than in academia and who run into trouble for errors rather than silence, disagree with the publishers would alone tll me something is very wrong in the science.
Stephen that is an excellent point. I saw another person say so, too. If there was a fair test of whether it is real, it would be what those scientists outside the research climate field think of them.
That’s the real measure of their standing in science. “We awl Say Were Smart”
delivering the kind of trash this whole field has delivered up… just very good point.
Kudos to whomever saw and said it first above before we did here.
That’s like…. the ONLY point really.
I have come here a long time I am glad people are catching up to this pseudoscience. It has given all science work a bad name. Keep up the good work every one don’t let this kind of government employee run, database alteration crime, ruin all our countries, harass these peoples’ work out of existence.
62% believe global warming is happening and is 50% or more caused by man. 9% believe that global warming is not happening or that the warming that is occurring is entirely natural. The other respondents are either unsure whether warming is occurring or unsure as to the causes. So out of the respondents that have made up their minds, by a ratio of 5:1 they believe that global warming is occurring and that 50% or more of that warming is caused by man.
Also, in the summary, Anthony made this statement: “The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.” 20% of the 48% responded “global warming is happening but there is insufficient evidence to know the cause”, 1% said “global warming is happening but they don’t know the cause.” I don’t see how that 21% can be categorized as “would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.” Or, to look at the converse, I could say” 21% believe global warming is occurring and would not ascribe natural variation as the primary cause” – I doubt you would agree with that wording.
dbstealey says:
November 21, 2013 at 9:39 am
Mumbles,
For a neutral fair and survey they need to include an *equal number of catastrophic AGW skeptics*, selected by the skeptics themselves.
But that will not happen with any of these organizations, because global warming propaganda is their motive, not science.
———————————————————————————————————————–
dbstealy,
No, that’s not true. You are trying to sample the entire population of AMS membership to find out how many are skeptics, warmists, luke-warmists, etc. What you want to check for is that your sample is random by checking to see if the sample population matches the general population in such non-related measures such as age, gender, etc. They did that in this survey and found the answering population slightly skewed from the general AMS population (fewer women, more older members, etc.) The problem with these type of polls is that they are self-selecting, meaning those with an axe to grind or otherwise motivated are far more likely to answer. I am a skeptic and I was highly motivated to answer this poll because I felt my perspective was not represented in the AMS leadership.
My complaint about the poll was the vague terminology of the survey, they used a definition of GW that was so board no one would disagree with it. They didn’t try to narrow down how much climate change members thought is due to anthropogenic vs. natural forcing. And they didn’t address the consequences of climate change except in wide terms. If I were designing the poll I would’ve tried to narrow down the specifics of what members really thought about different climate change theories. But there was a definite bias in the pollsters and it never even occurred to them that there would be different views among the membership.
I wonder what the result would have been if they’d asked for attribution from 1950 rather than 1850.
The methodology DB suggests isn’t really an opinion survey, it’s an election.
And Dingo makes a good point: this paper actually supports the central tenet of the “consensus” argument: that the greater your expertise in climate science, the more likely it is that you have concluded that AGW is real.
You know when a field of science gets politicized one side or the other is scamming.
When men tell you the world is going to end based on their data but they might need the data later for commercial purposes so he doesn’t want to share it with you, (Michael Mann)
you know it’s just pure crime.
My point is that everyone who has followed this knows people who believe in it are constantly being caught being outright incompetent; whereas the people who don’t,
they keep on refusing to budge and the hysteria is slowly peeled back,
revealing bad science that is undoubtedly beyond honest and upright government employement.
None of the authors queried by PopTech said anything at all about whether they had been contacted. It may be that they did not bother to respond to Cook et al. We just don’t know, unless anyone has better information. I’ve put the question at SkS with request for documentary evidence.
Of note, the questions in the survey are different from Cook et al – enough to make a significant impact. The one asking about human contribution to global warming over the last 150 years is particularly bizzarre. It’s an unusual time frame for the query, and not an IPCC reference or any other formal statement that I know of. It is also, as pointed out above and by the authors themselves, a very different proposition to the question about human attribution since the 1950s.
Simple apples to apples comparisons between the AMS survey, and Cook et al and surveys that come up with similar results, are not sound.
well, i did not have time to read all that, but markers were placed on the major ice sheets in the antartic a number of years ago. they have transmitters and are tracked via satellite. they are moving to fast toward the ocean. to much fresh water in the ocean affects the worldwide ocean currents, which affects worldwide weather. on the east coast there are areas that are eroding away that had previously remained the same for hundreds of years. the point i am trying to make is surveys and opinions do not matter, but facts do. they are available.
A consensus, specifically a consensus about a hypothesis, is a notion which lies outside natural science, since it is completely irrelevant for objective truth of a physical law: scientific consensus is scientific nonsense.
Mervyn is absolutely correct. Why would you ask the Opinion-subjective point of view of people with education in weather ,who may or may not have studied physics or quantum physics which studies the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by solids, liquids and gases. Physicists are the scientists that will know the most about atmospheric reactions to EMR. Climate scientist and “climatologist” don’t seen to know the real basic question to ask, let alone what the answers are.
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
Part 1
1.
It appears that no one has asked the very critical question-Where is the credible test/experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect exists? There is another important question that has not been asked is “Where is the credible experiments that show that reducing the CO2 content in the atmosphere will cause a decrease in atmospheric temperature?
Looking at the great quote from Albert Einstein above- If one experiment shows that an important part of the Hypotheses of Greenhouse gas effect cannot be proved or is disproved it is very likely that the Hypotheses is false from beginning to end.
Here is an experiment that shows that at least 5 of the features of the Hypotheses are false and here is a reference to another experiment that shows that another feature is ass backward as presented by the CAGW crowd.
The Greenhouse Effect Explored
Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.”
Another factor that even the meteorologists have not included in there pretend thinking is “evaporative cooling that is occurring on at least 99.95 % of the earth’s surface.
The Experiment that Failed and can save the World trillions.
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E 1-15-2012 Incorporation of comments of Dr.’s Pierre Latour, Dr. Nasif Nahle and others.
Dedication
To Robert W. Wood (1909) who first demonstrated that the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse effect in the atmosphere”were unscientific. To all the physicists and other scientists since Professor Wood who has added sound technical and scientific knowledge to many related field that have strengthened the case against the Hoax.
To protect my grandsons JJ and BA, their generation and all generations who follow because we finally got it RIGHT. THE GENERATIONS that would suffer extreme economical harm if the Hoax of Mann-made global warming-aka the “greenhouse gas effect” is not stopped now and forever!!
Table of Contents:
Preamble
Section 1-The Hypotheses:
Section 2-The Definition
Section 3: The Experiment.
Section 4-Numbers
Section 5-Holding the gasses -”containment”
Section 6-Setting up the Experiment
Section 7-Results
Section 8-Commentary
Section 9-Water- liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)
Section 10 Post-script
APPENDIX
Addendum
Part 2
PREAMBLE: Solving a 188 year olde mystery that has eluted many scientists when the answers have been in the books of physics and thermodynamics for up to 100 years To solve the mystery of why “The greenhouse gas effect” does not exist, one has to have an understanding of quantum physics and the basic laws of conservation of energy. To most people including many scientists quantum physics is a mystery especially because many things that happen are not intuitive. When explained and proven by experiment it can be understood
It is desirable that anyone that can read be able to understand this experiment and what it means. This edition is for everyone -the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control and the Ph. D in social studies , financial, many unrelated branches of science , lawyers and judges.
After communicating with some real people and some Ph. D’s I realize that my mission is a “Mission Impossible”. Being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend the inner workings of science. That having a Ph. D in one field does not give them sound knowledge or judgment in unrelated fields (many have taken the time to study in other areas and do have the knowledge needed).
A very brief definition of GHGE is an effect where certain gases have the molecular composition to absorb Infrared (heat) radiation and what happens afterward is important because it is not intuitive but is proven basic physics.(See Bohr model). This process of absorbing Infrared (heat) radiation is supposed to cause the earth to be warmer than a planet without CO2 or any other atmosphere.
This recent paper gives us insight into the real causes of “climate changes”
The Sun’s Impact On Earth’s Temperature Goes Far Beyond TSI – New Paper Shows
By P Gosselin on 30. December 2011
There are several words or terms used in this revision that need some explanation a Glossary of terms is in the appendix.
Section 1-The Hypotheses:
To demonstrate if the “greenhouse gas effect exists it is necessary to define it.
The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases (IRag) including
Water/liquid/vapor/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” This is a fair description. In 1981 James Hanson stated average thermal T at surface is 15C and Earth radiates to space at -18C. Then he declared 15 – (-18) = 33C is the greenhouse gas effect. Not OK because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. Thermal T is a point property of molecular motion measured by a thermometer or thermocouple, it decreases with altitude. Radiation T is a point property of radiation corresponding to its intensity by Stefan-Boltzmann law, measured by a pyrometer or spectrometer. Solar radiation T increases with altitude. One is apples the other eggs. So 10 apples – 6 eggs is indeed 4 whatchamacallits by math but nobody will ever know what a whatchamacallit is. Therefore it is quite true the 33C greenhouse gas effect is whatchamacallit nonsense. Since this is irrefutable logic, no experiment is called for. You do not have to prove the existence of hogwash either.
The remainder of the “Experiment that failed ****” will be added later.
Part 3
A term developed by a renowned physicist as a theoretical way to compare radiation. (By the renowned Dr. Pierre R. Latour) . There are only a few materials and conditions that approach these theoretical properties. “black bodies) (The earth and its atmosphere is not one of them.).
How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy. {No experiments are needed to refute the back-radiation hypothesis because it would violate the Second Law of thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine. Mankind has enormous experimental verification Second Law is valid since Carnot developed it, so we can call it a Law of nature. The proof that back-radiation does not exist is at http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/189-greenhouse-gas-theory-trashed-as-dissenters-build-compelling-case and an object of this experiment.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect” as has been said the truth is in the details.
As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” let’s start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag’s as CO2 ,Ch4, NO2 and others gases -the IRag’s will be dealt with first.
Section 2-The Definition
Critical features:
1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Thus CH4(methane) is supposed to be from 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ than CO2. NO2 is 1000 times that of CO2 Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by an IR spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. This is a very important feature of the “ghg effect”
5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the temperature of the Earth and “global atmospheric temperature will also increase.
6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists.
Where does this lead?
We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exists. Engineers have built them for decades for a useful purpose (growing plants). Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day or has walked into a store with south facing windows (Summer or winter experiences this), its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or windows in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating- this was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955.( confirmed by Dr. Nasif Nahle in 2011)
What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ”greenhouse gas effect exists
part 4
Section 3: The Experiment.
All the AGWS point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models. The problem with “computer models” is that unless all the factors that affect the atmosphere are included in the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this has been tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors? Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To date no one has come up with the “right model” More than 20 different “models of weather /climate program have been published and not one has been successful in predicting the weather a year from now, let alone a hundred years from now. The NOAA has just started the installation and start up of a Cray AMD 16-core Intrago processor in 16 cabinets array of 26 cabinets to create a 1.1 petaflops supercomputer. Until they can define the real facts it will be “super supercomputer garbage in and the super super garbage out at super super speed.”
Using the list of “critical factor” let’s see if there are some ways of indicating if the concept may exist.
To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today.
In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “scale models”” or models with similar properties that can be either up sized or down sized to relate by test to the factor being studied “Model studies” or “bench tests” are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events. They generate data that can be compared to known conditions or events. Chemical engineers and others build pilot plants from lab experiments before finalizing sizing design of a commercial $200 million process plant. Scale-up is a serious engineering art.
An example of downsizing is the use of the super collider at CERN to study what happens in a nuclear explosion.
As the amount of heating that is supposed to be added by the “greenhouse gas effect” is on the order of fractions of a degree per year-(some claim the change to be 1 to 3 degrees/ year) we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. However if the effect is vanishingly small, it will be hard to prove or disprove. This is one of the UN IPCC tricks to fool you. They employ wide ranges and invent probabilities out of very thin air. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does demonstrate the effect then the Concept does exist. If the concept does works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached. It might be linear or logarithmic to zero. However if the concepts does not work at High Concentrations of IRags then the concept of the theoretical “greenhouse gas effect “has been proven to be a fraud.
Part 5
Section 4-Numbers
Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million (1×10+6) .
. The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. (Volume concentrations high school chemistry) If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” Is causing a heating effect on the earth.
Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2,thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4 ,the effect should be 57,500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.
Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.(Available in pressure cylinders with regulators as Butane torches for soldiering pipe. A small flow of gas from the torch was used to fill the balloon.)
The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove.
Now 100 % CO2 is available from several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, a regulator is needed to reduce the flow and the pressure while filling the balloon.
Do not use Alka Seltzer (from an ineffective test promoted by some groups at NASA)as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2 or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable
Part 6
Section 5-Holding the gasses -”containment”
How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that “contain” the IRags is glass containers then they measure the increase in temperature of the gas. They claimed this increase was due to the “ghg “effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was due to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating thermally. ( A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request with about 100 other references). Another failure of these tests was their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard Black objects absorb most of the light including IR & UV converting the energy to “heat” which is conducted to the gas in the container. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating) That seems unfair. Why would they do that?
Another experiment painted the inner surfaces of the boxes to capture more thermal radiation and avoid high reflection from these surfaces. Corrugated cardboard walls have a higher thermal resistance than glass but, additionally, for enhancing thermal resistance of cardboard, we wrapped their outer surfaces with aluminum foil, which has a very low absorptive potential (0.03). It is true that inner walls conduction and convection towards the inner atmosphere were exaggerated by painting the inner surfaces of the containers with flat black paint because the coat had a very high absorptive and emissivity potentials. (From the experimental work of Dr. Nasif Nahle see references)
The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. [For a slimmer walled material, the lower its thermal resistance and its better conduction of thermal energy. A factor to be considered is the thermal conductivity of Mylar, which is 0.154808 W/m K by Dr. Nahle based on his experiment verifying the work of R.W. Wood ] The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons about 3mil thick. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen.
Part 7
Section 6-Setting up the Experiment
1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags , and one with dry air as a control.
2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade (minimize IR absorption ahead of testing).
3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data. Do not forget these measure two different phenomena. Digital thermometers measure thermal energy, while IR thermometers measure thermal radiation emitted by the system.
4. Take a large black mate board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it rises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5. . [DuPont Duco #71 wrought iron black paint has an absorptive of 0.98. It would make a very good absorber] The black mate board is used to absorb as much IR as possible that supposedly “back-radiates “from the IRag in the balloon. This is not to simulate a “black-body”. Having done some IR measuring of objects in a Hot car, the color of the object has a significant effect on the IR readings. Use of bi-metal digital thermometers has to be set so they do not absorb IR and heat because of the absorption.
5.Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially with the IR thermometer. Record the temperature. You mean balloon surface or internal gas? This is a valid question from Dr. Latour. The best answer at this time is that it is a combination of both. The properties of IR thermometers are to “see” the IR impinging on the sensor bases on the optic of the instrument. The sensor integrates the IR energy to a reading. Thus both the Mylar, and the contents are projecting IR radiation in all directions .The instrument which reads a range of IR frequencies is not able to differentiate between IR from the surface, from the gas inside the balloon and the background IR passing through the balloon. Thus it is necessary to determine IR reading based on the instrument “seeing “through the balloon for one set of readings. Another set of readings would be from an adjacent position but not through the balloon.
In multiple testing there was no differences, in the readings. This indicating that the IRag’s in the balloons stayed at ambient air temperature. The IRags did absorb IR but did not “heat” the gas.
To put a bi-metal digital thermometer either on or inside the balloons would give erroneous readings because the metal of the thermometer would absorb IR and heat up no mater what the temperature of the IRag was.
The study by Anthony Watts of weather stations throughout the US shows how easy it is to get junk readings from improperly constructed temperature recording devises.
6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.
Part 8
Section 7-Results
Now let’s repeat the Critical factors and note the result of the test to the critical factor(s).
1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of earth and atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
Results and explanation: The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature. It did not get “hotter thus normal IR radiation cooling of the black mate was occurring. The 100% CO2or the high concentration of other IRag did not “hinder “normal cooling. This has been confirmed by the work of Dr. Roy Spencer and satellite IR measurements showing significant losses of “heat”/radiation to space. Far more than is stated by the IPCC.
2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
Results and explanation: The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. Air temperatures were 90 to 95 degrees F. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface of the black mate . Not a sign of “back-radiation”.
3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
Results and explanation: The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the basic physics described by the Bohr Model. A statement of basic physics that shows that absorption of IR by CO2or other IRag does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecules (heat).
4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule(CH4,NO2,) absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).
results: As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
5.The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.
Conclusion of test results: Based on the failure of all the previous portions of these tests which were done with very high concentrations of IRag’s to demonstrate the GHGE, it is valid to say that increasing CO2 or other IRag’s in the atmosphere will have NO EFFECT.
6.The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists.
Conclusion: The use of ICE core data is at best circumstantial evidence but it is not proof of anything.
Berthold,
Tyndall demonstrated with the first lab experiment in the mid 1800s. GHGs absorb (and re-emit) IR. But you kind of acknowledge this later by citing references that acknowledge the “greenhouse effect.”
There are plenty of experiments on youtube and in the literature that do comparisons with equal pressure chambers of the same dimensions, absorptive and reflective properties, receiving the same amount of energy, but with different ratios of GHG and non-GHG gases. They show that increased GHG in a volume of atmosphere warms it.
There are also observational records of occlusion of IR in the spectra associated with CO2 over time from satellites measuring radiance reaching their instruments from the atmosphere. This is direct observational evidence of the absorptive effects of CO2 as it has accumulated in the atmosphere.
No serious skeptic denies that CO2 is a grenhouse gas that absorbs infrared radiation, or that increased levels in the atmosphere should cause some warming of the surface, all else being equal. What is contested is the magnitude of warming.