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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If anyone feels led to do so, I could use some help debunking this article on the 97%. I am not a scientist but am trying to understand as much of the science as I can. I have been having a debate on a religious website where I’m pretty sure the majority believe in AGW. There is one leader of that pov in particular that I am trying to get to be open to other data. She threw this article up to support her position. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.long I did link to the above article and this article was her answer. I am doing my best to refute it but frankly, I am feeling out of my depth. Thanks for reading.
Berthold is on his way to a Nobel Prize if he’s right.
Or he goes in the same box as the guy who posted here saying the Greenland ice sheet was 650 years old.
Barry: You are wrong about the experiments of John Tyndall. The experiments definitely show that certain gases do absorb IR. the modern day IR spectrophotometer used in thousands of laboratories every hour are based on IR absorption. There is nothing in Tyndall’s experiment that show the “back forcing claimed by AGW’s. My experiment shows that Back forcing does not exist.
I have reviewed many of the “Glass jar” experiments from one done by some supposed Ph. D candidates at the University of Bremen to the totally feck one done by Bill Nye for the junk program Climate 101.Every one has major faults which I have identified in by “Experiment that failed***” The bottom line is that every one is an example of “confined space heat” not the “GHGE”. At the top of this blog is a tab “climate failed files” where Antony Watts and crew show how the “Climate 101” video was put together in Post production creation- a total lie.
If these pretend experiments were proving the GHGE then only the jar with CO2 would heat and the one with air in it would stay at room temperature. The problem is that the glass absorbs IR and heat up then that heats the gas inside. Ever one of these experiments put the thermometer inside the glass jar them they shine a heat lamp or the sun on the jar, this heats the thermometer even if there is a vacuum in the jar.
Going back to the IR spectrometer; if the “back forcing” existed then the IR spectrometer would not work because the back-forcing would prevent the system from being calibrated.
John Tyndall is his original texts on his experiments made the statement that water and water vapor are the major causes of IR absorption, and that the Trace gases are in such small quantizes that they could not effect the temperatures. The reference “Water Spectrum” by Martin Chaplin shows that Tyndall was partially in error as liquid water does absorb a significant amount of IR , water vapor absorbs a very small amount of IR. It is necessary to understand quantum physics to understand why this is evidence that AGW’s don’t know what they are talking about.
Just because some of the references use the erroneous term” greenhouse gases” does not prove that the Hypotheses is valid. Just like saying you used your Kleenex is that you are not using another brand of face tissue.
As stated before there is no valid experiment that proves that when CO2 or other IR absorbing (IRags) heat when they absorb IR. My experiment shows that they do not heat!!!
I will post the rest of my experiment with references to back up my statements.
Part 9
Section 8 Commentary by Dr. Nahle
I conclude your experiment shows solar radiation affects thermal temperature of high concentration gases (CO2, H2O, CH4, NO2) the same amount as natural air (N2 + O2) by heating the earth then conduction and convection heat the atmosphere ( not absorption of radiation). I understand Hottel did experiments in 1940’s that showed CO2 does absorb and radiate differently from other gases. I have not taken time recently to delve deeply but I think Kalmanovitch shows there is no conflict, CO2 absorbs and radiates just like everybody else. It’s absorption spectrum has a wide notch which GHG folks say blocks Earth’s IR from escaping to space, trapping it somehow. Seems to me that IR just bypasses CO2 molecule and goes out. [Hottel, Leckner (corrected Hottel charts), Lapp (corroborated Hottel and Leckner), Sarofim (corroborated Hottel and Leckner experiments).
Response
Based on the IR absorption spectrograph of CO2, it shows that only very narrow bands of IR are absorbed. The absorption occurs at about 4, 9, and 15nm .Thus all other wavelengths of IR pass though even 100% concentration of CO2, and can heat the earth ( inbound sunlight)or escape to space(out-bound long waves) cooling the earth. Thus the GHG folks are wrong. Even at the frequencies that are absorbed not all of them are absorbed which is demonstrated by the difference of peak heights of any typical CO2 spectrograph.
I’m sure that the AGWs will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.
As Dr. Latour says: Since AGWS are the promoters, skeptics like me say the onus is not on skeptics to disprove GHG, it is on promoters to prove GHG. The literature on GHG theory is childlike, 3rd grade level, incoherent nonsense. So another approach is asking GHG promoter’s questions. Why? How come? Where did you get that? What procedure did you use? Why? Can you prove that claim? Can you quantify what you are claiming and explain reasoning?
As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was placed one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.
Part 10
Section 9-Water/liquid/vapor/solid (H2O/lvs
Now let’s talk about water( H2O/lvs): Why? Everybody seems to acknowledge H2O dominates atmosphere in complex ways, swamping any CO2 effect. AGWS promoters just ignore H2O. I suppose when CO2 collapses they will declare DI-hydrogen monoxide a pollutant too. And so it goes.
Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change.
Examining H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it’s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy (Heat of condensation)(also a reduction of volume), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated.
Another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” cannot get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
Now let’s add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon, the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am (solar time) when there are measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation including cosmic partials have an effect on cloud formation, this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”. Besides thermal temperature in my back yard cycles +- 8C daily, so why should I care if average “heat “temperature increases 1C/100 years?
The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
The “science is not settled” ,just look at CERN for the newest real science done by experiment and retested until they have 6 sigma confidence levels. They use computers to analyze the data but “computer models” are not the end only the beginning, Science is not done by CONSENSUS.
Everybody has a different point of view; but scientists and engineers learn how to agree on how nature works.
What you see in GHG & AGWS hoax is what happens when untrained, incompetent people attempt to do science & engineering. A mess.
Dr. Pierre R Latour
Part 11
Section 10- Post script
If anyone gets this far, do you still believe the “GHGE exist”? Do you question its existence?. You also better be doing some independent research because it has been proved that there are large numbers of groups of supposedly scientific societies that have pissed on their own “Codes of Ethic” by agreeing with the Hoax of Mann-made global warming” by Consensus not by proven experiments.
Those that have accepted the Hoax of Mann-made global warming/GHGE include such organizations as Society of Sigma Xi ( a major group of scientists and engineer), the American Society of Civil Engineers, The National Academy of Science,, these are just some that I have had personal experience. The list of others would be in the thousands.
At the same time a few Noble prize recipients in physics have resigned from the American Physical Society because of their consensus accepted of the GHGE.
The witchdoctors of the IPCC , The US EPA, some at NASA, the EU, George Soros , Australia politicians and John Cook that are attempting to destroy the economics of the world because they lie about the fact that science has proven that the “GHGE” does not exist.
Berthold Klein P.E.
http://climaterealists.com/5783
ALAN SIDDONS HEADLINE STORY JOHN O’SULLIVAN NASA
NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?
As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:
**************************
But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.
How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.
********************************************************
Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan
###########################################################################
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme
this may have been submitted already
Part 9
Section 8 Commentary by Dr. Nahle
I conclude your experiment shows solar radiation affects thermal temperature of high concentration gases (CO2, H2O, CH4, NO2) the same amount as natural air (N2 + O2) by heating the earth then conduction and convection heat the atmosphere ( not absorption of radiation). I understand Hottel did experiments in 1940’s that showed CO2 does absorb and radiate differently from other gases. I have not taken time recently to delve deeply but I think Kalmanovitch shows there is no conflict, CO2 absorbs and radiates just like everybody else. It’s absorption spectrum has a wide notch which GHG folks say blocks Earth’s IR from escaping to space, trapping it somehow. Seems to me that IR just bypasses CO2 molecule and goes out. [Hottel, Leckner (corrected Hottel charts), Lapp (corroborated Hottel and Leckner), Sarofim (corroborated Hottel and Leckner experiments).
Response
Based on the IR absorption spectrograph of CO2, it shows that only very narrow bands of IR are absorbed. The absorption occurs at about 4, 9, and 15nm .Thus all other wavelengths of IR pass though even 100% concentration of CO2, and can heat the earth ( inbound sunlight)or escape to space(out-bound long waves) cooling the earth. Thus the GHG folks are wrong. Even at the frequencies that are absorbed not all of them are absorbed which is demonstrated by the difference of peak heights of any typical CO2 spectrograph.
I’m sure that the AGWs will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.
As Dr. Latour says: Since AGWS are the promoters, skeptics like me say the onus is not on skeptics to disprove GHG, it is on promoters to prove GHG. The literature on GHG theory is childlike, 3rd grade level, incoherent nonsense. So another approach is asking GHG promoter’s questions. Why? How come? Where did you get that? What procedure did you use? Why? Can you prove that claim? Can you quantify what you are claiming and explain reasoning?
As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was placed one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.
Part 10
Section 9-Water/liquid/vapor/solid (H2O/lvs
Now let’s talk about water( H2O/lvs): Why? Everybody seems to acknowledge H2O dominates atmosphere in complex ways, swamping any CO2 effect. AGWS promoters just ignore H2O. I suppose when CO2 collapses they will declare DI-hydrogen monoxide a pollutant too. And so it goes.
Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change.
Examining H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it’s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy (Heat of condensation)(also a reduction of volume), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated.
Another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” cannot get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
Now let’s add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon, the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am (solar time) when there are measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation including cosmic partials have an effect on cloud formation, this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”. Besides thermal temperature in my back yard cycles +- 8C daily, so why should I care if average “heat “temperature increases 1C/100 years?
The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
The “science is not settled” ,just look at CERN for the newest real science done by experiment and retested until they have 6 sigma confidence levels. They use computers to analyze the data but “computer models” are not the end only the beginning, Science is not done by CONSENSUS.
Everybody has a different point of view; but scientists and engineers learn how to agree on how nature works.
What you see in GHG & AGWS hoax is what happens when untrained, incompetent people attempt to do science & engineering. A mess.
Dr. Pierre R Latour
Part 11
Section 10- Post script
If anyone gets this far, do you still believe the “GHGE exist”? Do you question its existence?. You also better be doing some independent research because it has been proved that there are large numbers of groups of supposedly scientific societies that have pissed on their own “Codes of Ethic” by agreeing with the Hoax of Mann-made global warming” by Consensus not by proven experiments.
Those that have accepted the Hoax of Mann-made global warming/GHGE include such organizations as Society of Sigma Xi ( a major group of scientists and engineer), the American Society of Civil Engineers, The National Academy of Science,, these are just some that I have had personal experience. The list of others would be in the thousands.
At the same time a few Noble prize recipients in physics have resigned from the American Physical Society because of their consensus accepted of the GHGE.
The witchdoctors of the IPCC , The US EPA, some at NASA, the EU, George Soros , Australia politicians and John Cook that are attempting to destroy the economics of the world because they lie about the fact that science has proven that the “GHGE” does not exist.
Berthold Klein P.E.
http://climaterealists.com/5783
ALAN SIDDONS HEADLINE STORY JOHN O’SULLIVAN NASA
NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Thursday, May 27th 2010, 3:06 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?
As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:
**************************
But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.
How NASA responds to these astonishing revelations may well tell us how politicized the American space agency really is.
********************************************************
Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan
###########################################################################
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme
Part 12
R.W.Wood from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
The work of Arrhenius was shown to be significantly in error by Angstrom in1903. Arrhenius changed his career shortly after> Why?
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by many physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Paraphrasing: Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 Million politicians and 20 Million environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
http://www.americanthinker.com
Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010, G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( peer reviewed).
Many others are available.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
Part 13
APPENDIX
• IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation(invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature. animals radiate IR from exothermic oxidation and plants do so from endothermic photosynthesis. http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html Photosynthetic organisms also have a thermoregulatory system that permits them to radiate the excess of absorbed thermal radiation and the heat generated from metabolic processes. Dr. Nahle conducted an experiment related to this mechanism of thermoregulation in melons and spearmint: http://www.biocab.org/Biophysics.html#anchor_36
• IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths of radiation (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR, there construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags. The words “greenhouse gas effect” has never been proven by creditable scientific experiments and therefore will only be used when absolutely necessary. Atoms and molecules absorb according to their unique absorption spectrum and emit according to their unique emission spectrum. They emit amount of radiation, w/m2 that they absorb.
• The Bohr model is the work of Dr. Niels Bohr a physicist that studied the behavior of gasses when they absorb IR and other forms of radiation. This is much more complicated than presented here. It is a branch of science called Quantum physics.
The basic studies resulted in Dr. Bohr receiving a Nobel Prize in physics in 1922.
The important part of the Bohr model is that when the gas absorbs IR radiation it does not “heat” the gas. It does not increase the kinetic energy of the molecule which is the velocity of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. The IR (photon) energy is converted to inter-molecular activity. The explanation is a concept that is beyond the scope of this experiment. It has an important part in proving that the GHGE does not exist. Many volumes of experiments are available and can be explained better by Quantum physicists; the subject is being studied continually -”The science is not settled.”
• Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth’s fortunate location in the universe, its temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water (liquid/solid) can change to a gas at all temperature, to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above, and a solid below 32
Part 14
F.(0 C). Many commenters on GHGE fail to characterize these differences and call Water /l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” In fairness H2O can indeed be a gas, steam or humidity. As we go through this experiment it will become clearer that water or any other IRag is not a “greenhouse gas”
• CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature, it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. [Carbon dioxide also is processed by species of photosynthetic bacteria, i.e. cyanobacteria, green sulfur bacteria, purple sulfur bacteria, green non-sulfur bacteria and purple non-sulfur bacteria] Most process that produce mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2 (carbon dioxide) A very important and necessary part of life on this planet.
• CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes , cook food and run engines.. It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air (atmosphere) at very tiny amounts (parts per billion). While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone(O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight.(this reaction is documented by a paper in the EPA library if they have not erased it) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. It’s from swamps, rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of nature’s process of recycling.
• NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth. NO2 is a toxic gas and an air pollutant, along with other oxides of nitrogen, NOx. They are major components of smog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen dioxide!
• Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1. Cost about $60.00. many other models available
Addendum:
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html Water Absorption Spectrum by Dr. Martin Chaplin
The end for now
Nobel prizes are not awarded for proving some this is wrong. They give prizes to Al Gore to promote an unproven Hypotheses. Al’s book was shown in a British court to be 90% lies with more that 35 technical error. It was declared to be political propaganda and of no scientific value.
[trimmed by request]
Mod, please delete the previous comment that I submitted and replace it with this one. Thank you!
If anyone is interested, this was my reply, weak though it was: As I’m sure you know, science is not a head-count. When Einstein was told that 100 Nazi scientists had published a book rejecting his theory of special relativity as mere “Jewish science”, he responded that a single paper would have sufficed to refute his hypothesis.
A hypothesis that is disproven needs no consensus, for it is objectively false. Because global warming uses models to predict future outcome, the ultimate proof will be if the climate actually adheres to the models, so far they are not.
The paper you cited, primarily selected climate scientists who worked on the IPCC’s AR4 and we would not expect them to disagree with the main premise of a report they are providing -that global warming has occurred since the 1950s very likely (with no quantitative value to this term) due to human activity. Furthermore, a hypothesis to the effect that humans cause some warming, or even that most current global warming is very likely to be anthropogenic, is not – and does not necessarily imply – a hypothesis to the effect that current warming, if continued over some unspecified period, might prove sufficiently damaging to justify any climate policy to address climate change, still less any public support for it.
In any case, I do think that this 97% consensus is inflated (i.e., the example above of the recent survey of scientists from the American Meteorological Society) misleading, and ultimately, not what science is about.
I also encourage everyone to remain curious and skeptical, and explore ALL things, scientific or not, with an open heart and mind.
curiousnc: you point out something that is very important and is so similar to the actions of the AGW/environmental vampires when they use the RED herring that The scientific realists( man made climate change deniers)[ mmccd] are paid by Big Oil and other large industries like Koch Industries. They us the implication that these interests are lying about the science.
Every large industry have only one primary goal “to make a profit”. This is done by getting people to use their services or products. Koch Industries is one of the larges manufacturers of water treatment equipment and waste water treatment equipment they obviously care about the environment; this is how they make their money. The Koch Brothers have established foundations that donate large amounts of money for environmental research . Some of the recipients of these fund have produced corrupted reports that support the lie of Mann-made global warming.
The Union of Concerned (corrupted ) Scientists are funded by George Soros who is a known environmental vampire ; do you think that the U of corrupted scientists can be trusted to be telling the true science or the George Soros unreal science. This is no different that the attack on Einstein by the Nazis.
It is claimed that there is a “conspiracy by the environmental vampires and the AGW’s? What do you really think?
I dropped my AMS membership of 36 years in 1994 over their position on AGW. I have a feeling that many others have as well. I still receive requests to rejoin, so a mailing list exists that could be used to poll the former members. I don’t think they would welcome the results. Viva Roy Spencer & Murry Salby.
Proving one again that “peer review” should be more appropriately labeled “PAL review”.
Gaming the system is the only way these tools can present their “facts”.
An additional 10% say that GW is real and that humans are at least partly responsible. So that totals 62% who agree that GW is real and human activity is contributing to it.
Mark Farmer,
Human activity may be responsible for some of the global warming. But how much?
There is no measurable scientific evidence showing what quantity of global warming might be caused by human activity. Therefore, all such opinions are mere conjectures.
A conjecture is part of the Scientific Method. It is the first step in the hierarchy: Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law. It is by far the weakest step. A conjecture cannot make repeated, accurate predictions like a theory can [and a theory is really just a hypothesis that can make accurate predictions].
So where are we? Do we alter in a major way Western civilization, based solely on a conjecture? Or do we say, “Whoa! We need to study this more before taking any action…”?
You have identified the central issue in the global warming debate. Some scientists and engineers think that humans are responsible for part of the global warming obesrved. But no one knows how much — or even if they are right. The question is still undecided whether human CO2 emissions cause any warming at all.
Finally, if we are going to debate some vague “consensus”, let’s include the OISM respondents, who think that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Why does the “consensus” omit those 31,000+ scientists and engineers? Because their opinions are contrary to the AGW narrative?
So far, the true, major consensus of opinion is that human CO2 emissions are harmless, and beneficial: on net balance, more CO2 is a good thing. But that majority opinion is always omitted by those who have a self-serving interest in the debate. Why do you think that is?
What about their 2009 survey: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2947.1
their question 17:
17. Respond to this IPIPCC conclusion: “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
Strongly Agree (1) 8%
Agree (2) 16%
Neutral (3) 25%
Disagree (4) 24%
Strongly Disagree (5) 26%
75% of the respondents DO NOT agree that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” (Neutral respondents are not agreeing, as opposed to disagreeing.) Or one can say that only 24% of respondents agree with the statment.
Thanks
JK