From the “smoke and mirrors” department.
Two leading USA scientists have acclaimed a little known book for its ability to show everyday people, not just scientists, the wonder of the climate system and how carbon dioxide is not driving modern climate change. The accolades are from world famous physicist, Emeritus Professor William Happer (who has advised President Trump on climate change), Princeton University, and Dr Willie Soon, Senior Researcher, Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.
The short 175 page book, titled Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate debate, was written by Dr. Howard Thomas Brady, an Australian scientist who studied in the USA and went on 4 expeditions to Antarctica with the US Office of Polar Programs.
The reader is invited to enter the climate debate, likened to a twisting maze or hall of mirrors, with dead-ends, illusions, traps – that are the lies, misinformation, over-simplifications and false prophecies.
The paperback version (2nd Edition) was released earlier in March 2017, but is now being released with Happer and Soon’s recommendations on the back cover. The book is also being released for the first time as a Kindle ebook.
The recommendations are:
“Mirrors and Mazes is written for intelligent laymen who like to think for themselves. The book reviews all of the issues that touch on the current climate debate: the nature of greenhouse gases; clouds; the sun; sea level; extreme weather; polar ice; etc.
The author, Dr Howard Thomas Brady, is uniquely qualified to write this guide through the climate debate. Leaving a youthful career as a Catholic priest to pursue his fascination with science, Dr Brady made many important contributions to geology, notably in studies of Antarctica, where he did extensive fieldwork during the Ross Ice Shelf Drilling Program.
Equations are avoided, but numbers are given when essential, for example, in discussions of rising sea level, where Dr Brady is an expert. There are well-chosen illustrations and good references for those who would like to dig deeper. Dr Brady’s discussions of the complicated interplay of the climate movement with religion, politics and the media are especially insightful, perhaps because of his youthful training in theology.
I am especially fond of Mirrors and Mazes. It would be an excellent addition to the personal library of anyone who wants to understand climate facts, stripped of propaganda and emotion.”
William Happer- Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University
and also…
“Mirrors and Mazes is a beacon of light to see through the cloudy attempts to demonize CO2 as the satanic gas of our times. It is a must read and welcome contribution to the educational aspect of this hot scientific debate.”
Dr Willie Soon – Senior Researcher, Solar and Stellar Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
The book is available from Amazon as a Kindle eBook or as a Paperback.
About the Author
In 2011, Howard received the Alumnus Scientist of the Year Award from Northern Illinois University, for his contributions to climate science and the community. He worked in Antarctica on four mainland expeditions, under grants from the United States Office of Polar Programs.
He has published scientific articles in periodicals such as the Journal of Glaciology, Nature Magazine and Science Magazine. He also contributed to Antarctic Geoscience, a book released by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Science in 1982.
He is a member of the Explorers Club of New York and the Australian Microscope and Microanalysis Society. In 2015, He was elected a Member of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences due to a lifelong interest in human error as a factor in serious accidents.
For more information visit http://www.mirrorsandmazes.com.au
[snip – wildly off topic with slayer type science -Anthony]
How can it be wildly off topic? Aren’t we talking about how the alarmist view can be refuted? Let it be, and let’s hear what other people have to say!! Or is your prejudice against Nikolov and Zeller now ruling your editing?
Censorship on WUWT too? I hurled no insults and my comment was meant to provoke a response–
I want to hear why the obvious fact of the influence of planetary pressures on temperature is not a game-changer. Maybe someone can show me the light– yes, I, and others, want to learn.
Everyone complains how the skeptic view is censored? Seriously, Anthony, get a grip.
don- nobody wants to hear about gravity = heat because it doesn’t.
it’s crazy talk. there is no correspondence with reality.
and who wants crazy ppl ranting around the place?
this is not censorship; it’s a janitorial matter.
don’t puke on the couch and nobody will have to deal with you.
gnomish– sorry, I don’t get it. If we have an equation that is pretty much right-on for determining planetary temperatures, then that tell us that yes, gravity does = heat in some way that we might not understand. I don’t see any way around that. And yes, this is off-topic as regards the book. but just give me a few sentences to set me right.
SIgh. Grip real science. Compression heats a gas. Steady pressure does not. This is why these comments get zapped.
Thank you, Anthony. Now can you see about those who peddle the notion that CO2 has no effect on the net heat flow?
I read your “snip” before it was removed, and I had a really brilliant reply cooked up.
I don’t believe you read any of the book before you made your comment, right?
Writing Observer:
In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf
Since we are at a temperature of less than 33 C and a partial pressure of less than .6096 of CO2 why should I not think CO2 has no effect when it has a ZERO emissivity in almost all of earths atmosphere?
By the way Hottel wrote books on heat transfer in combustion chambers and his charts are in engineering heat transfer books. So please explain.
“Everyone complains how the skeptic view is censored?”,,,oh please spare us all
Writing Observer– but SOMETHING is going on such that the equation that frolly, e.g., has given us holds true. The equations are telling us something. Sorry, but they are. I understand that compression heats a gas but steady pressure does not, but my supposition is that SOMETHING is going on with our atmosphere that we don’t quite understand.
In any case, Anthony, thanks for posting. For the rest, I have to tell you: I’m siding with the Connollys and with “frolly,” Wilde, and N&Z. I don’t think anyone has explained why atmospheric pressure isn’t significant in determining temperature except to say that it can’t be, whereas the equations tell us it is.
The atmosphere, my friends, is decidedly not like a bicycle tire that we pump up.
And no, I did not read any of the book in question. I have no doubt it’s a fine book that answers the alarmists. But for me, the obvious answer is that CO2 has no effect to speak of, and the greenhouse effect never existed and never will, and in fact cannot exist. That truth has hit me like a bolt from heaven– but then again, I must be exceptionally dense.
Which atmosphere has the higher temperature when heated by an outside source? An atmosphere at 14 psi or one at 1300 psi?
Isn’t the atmosphere constantly in flux, undergoing compression and decompression at various places all of the time?
“nobody wants to hear about gravity = heat because it doesn’t.”
Gravity causes compression, which increases kinetic interactions, which results in warming. Just as we have no meaningful way to separate natural and human influences on climate, we have no way to separate the adiabatic and radiative influences on the lapse rate. Radiative effects are potentiated by adiabatic compression, e.g. pressure broadening, scattering, etc.
There is plenty of room in our current lack of understanding for both radiative and adiabatic warming. To be adamant at this point that it is all either one or the other is just silly.
The gravity/temperature relationship exists on every planet where atmospheric pressure is > 0.1bar.
The pressure gradient allows the atmosphere to retain energy, thus the temperature gradient forms.
Nikolov can defend himself. However, he’s quickly coming to the realization that lukewarmers are really only concerned with pandering to alarmists, not seeking truth.
gnomish November 27, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation so it gets heated by conduction/sensible heat by the surface and also by evaporation of water vapor. Thus the molecules at the bottom of the atmosphere are given increased kinetic energy by collision and therefore try to take up more space and/or increase pressure. The effect is that the more energetic molecules take up more room the volume of atmosphere is less dense so convects upward. As it rises the pressure drops and there are less molecules in the volume – so the sum of the kinetic energy of the molecules is less – which is a drop in temperature. This drop in temperature as a volume of air convects upward is known as the adiabatic lapse rate (look up the meaning of adiabatic). If the air contains water molecules that change state releasing energy then the lapse rate is different and is known as the wet adiabatic lapse rate.
So in the absence of wind – the atmosphere is warmer at the surface due to conduction (gas molecules being given kinetic energy) and then as the volume of warm air rises the pressure drops and the temperature drops following Charles’ Law in line with the adiabatic lapse rate.
You were looking at the causation backwards.
That being said there are phenomena known as ‘Heat Bursts’ :
In meteorology, a heat burst is a rare atmospheric phenomenon characterized by gusty winds and a rapid increase in temperature and decrease in dew point (moisture). Heat bursts typically occur during night-time and are associated with decaying thunderstorms. a downburst of air that rises in temperature due to its rise in temperature.
I believe that you may owe an apology to Don.
sigh..
a downburst of air that rises in temperature due to its rise in
temperaturepressure.A thought experiment:
You have a container filled with air at constant pressure floating in space. You apply a heat source to the container like the sun. The gases will warm up and since there is no gravity the temperature of all sides of the container should be equal.
Now move the container into a gravity field. The molecules of the gases moving upward and hitting the top of the container are slowed down by gravity and the gases hitting the bottom of the container are sped up by gravity. Shouldn’t this lead to the temperature of the bottom of the container being warmer than the top?
Wouldn’t this also form a temperature gradient from the top to the bottom? In other words, a lapse rate. But the gravity field container will not have more energy than the one floating in space. We haven’t added any extra energy to the system and yet the gases nearest the gravity source will be warmer.
What has happened is the kinetic energy of the molecules has increased at the bottom while the potential energy has increased at the top. The concept of temperature just looks at the kinetic energy. While it is true the overall energy is still unchanged it is distributed differently between kinetic and potential energy.
In essence it is the way we are measuring energy as heat that makes us think the bottom is more energetic. In a gravity field temperature is only part of the picture. From a complete energy perspective the composite within the container is still equally divided.
Comments?
It’s too funny, this is well known and accepted in all science except climate science. Gravity is a force applied to an atmosphere, any air that falls converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and heat.
Without gravity, an atmosphere would simply disperse into space. And without a heat source, gravity would pull all the air to the surface and all the energy in it would eventually dissipate as radiation into space.
Together, the atmosphere is heated from a source and gravitational compression retains much of that heat within the atmosphere. The heavier the atmosphere, the more kinetic energy and heat there will be within it, nearly irrespective of the composition.
@richard — In reality, there is not magic bottle keeping the air together, you must have a gravitational field to keep the air bound to the surface. Without this force, the atmosphere and all of its molecular kinetic energy would disperse. Gravity keeps this heat bound to the planet, this force retains far more energy than the inaptly named GHG effect.
Essentially, it is basic conservation of energy applied to an open system in a gravitational field. When you add a gravitational field you add a massive amount of potential energy to work into the energy balance equations. This appears to us as an increased density as you get closer to the source of the gravity. It is simply the overall system trying to achieve equilibrium. In addition, the potential energy is a direct result of the overall mass of the system. More mass = more potential energy = more kinetic energy needed at surface to balance COE.
Back in older discussions the claim was made that an atmosphere without GHGs would become isothermal. It would if there was no gravity. However, when you have gravity you change the energy balance depending on where you are in the field. This leads to more kinetic energy closer to the surface to balance out the large potential energy away from the surface.
Now, what happens when a GHG absorbs a photon in this picture? Yes, that energy adds to the kinetic energy as well. However, with an open system this just expands the atmosphere creating more space between particles. The temperature won’t increase at the surface because it also changes the lapse rate. And, the expansion then allows that energy to escape. Equilibrium with no temperature increase.
Finally, in no way does the gravity add any increased thermal energy to the atmosphere. However, it does change the COE dynamics. It is those dynamics that cause the surface to be warmer.
OK, thanks for comments. My point is that we can prove there is no GH effect because PV=nRT for planets above 0.1 bar gives us (close to) the temperature, so that tells us that this formula applied to planetary atmospheres is highly significant. Frolly’s reformulation, T=Pn/Rp (where “p” = rho) is more accurate. This is the simplest way I know to state it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfuafZbpyII
If the mainstream contention is that we need a GH effect because the blackbody temperature of earth is 255K and the GH effect adds the extra 33K that we need to get up to a comfortable 288K, then we can easily prove this is wrong because T=Pn/Rp gives us 288K without invoking the actual identity of the gases that compose this, or any, atmosphere.
My larger point in relation to “Mirrors and Mazes” is that I’m sure it’s an excellent book, but the science, so far as I can see, really is settled, and settled in a big way: no GH effect that matters, period. The “GH effect” is baked into the atmosphere from the start before we even consider whether the gases composing the atmosphere are radiative or not.
We say that CO2 raises the emissions height of the atmosphere because the atmosphere becomes more opaque to IR radiation. But DOES the emissions height of the atmosphere get raised? Or is this just modeled? Have we built up an elaborate narrative to explain what we think the radiative gases must be doing? What if they’re actually doing/not doing something else?
“The atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation so it gets heated by conduction/sensible heat by the surface and also by evaporation of water vapor. ”
Conduction is not very important since gases have very low conductivity. Most of the heating is by evaporation and LWIR from the surface (this is where LWIR is actually important) and then most of this heat is convected away from the surface.
Convection dominates the climate system. Sea breezes = convection, Land breezes = convection, Cumulonimbus clouds = convection, Thunder storms = convection, Hurricanes = convection, Monsoons/Hadley cells = convection.
“and gravitational compression retains much of that heat within the atmosphere.”
Sorry – but no.
If it did then we would have a source of perpetual energy.
Gravity is important in that it gives rise (largely) to the lapse rate, in the relation -g/Cp.
The atmosphere is a heat-pump not just equator>pole but top to bottom as well.
As the Earth spins under a heat source the atmosphere is being churned around most places. Heat is pumped down because of subsidence and cooled by ascent. That maintains a basic LR which is modified by LH absorption/release and to some extent by the GHE.
Heat is not retained by the atmosphere after compression under gravity once that “work” has stopped.
The gravity/temperature relationship exists on every planet where atmospheric pressure is > 0.1bar.
Nothing all the erroneous pseudo-theories can do about it.
REALITY !
I said: “with an open system this just expands the atmosphere creating more space between particles. The temperature won’t increase at the surface because it also changes the lapse rate. And, the expansion then allows that energy to escape. Equilibrium with no temperature increase.”
This is wrong. Guess I got carried away. There would be a temperature increase. So, we are left with two possible causes of warming 1) The adiabatic effects of gases in a gravitational field and 2) The poorly named Greenhouse effect.
I believe what happens is an atmosphere without GHGs would have a significantly smaller transfer of energy into the atmosphere. If we look at the energy balance diagrams we see conduction is extremely small. Most of the energy transferred into the atmosphere comes from radiation and latent heat. As a result an atmosphere with GHGs has more energy to work with and will be warmer.
Removing GHGs is essentially identical to reducing the amount of energy entering the atmosphere. What it looks like is identical to simply turning down the input energy.
What this means is you need BOTH. You need an atmosphere with GHGs to allow more energy into the system, AND you need to understand the energy profile of an atmosphere within a gravitational field. You will not be able to describe the system without considering both factors.
What I think the ideal gas law is telling us is that the system has a maximum energy level associated with the overall mass of the system and the amount of energy input into the system. There is only so much energy entering the system. We cannot create additional energy. If we are at the maximum temperature profile for the atmosphere it can’t be raised without adding more energy as all the energy is already captured.
Don132
November 27, 2017 at 11:37 pm
I agree that gravity causes the lapse rate
PV=nRT for planets above 0.1 bar gives us (close to) the temperature,
Please give a reference to evidence of this claim
Frolly’s reformulation, T=Pn/Rp (where “p” = rho) is more accurate.
Please explain this reformulation
For every molecule that is moving up, there is a molecule that is moving down. So the energy doesn’t change.
When molecules in a closed container heat up, they expand and that increases temperature.
The atmosphere is not a closed container. When molecules of air heat up, the top of the atmosphere moves up a smidgen. However since the total number of molecules in the atmosphere doesn’t change, the pressure doesn’t change either.
MarkW: “The atmosphere is not a closed container. When molecules of air heat up, the top of the atmosphere moves up a smidgen. However since the total number of molecules in the atmosphere doesn’t change, the pressure doesn’t change either.”
Except you already said the air heats up. The pressure may not change but so what? The reason the air heated up was because of more energy input into the system by the absorption of more energy by a GHG. When the atmosphere moves up that smidgen it increases the distance where the adiabatic warming operates so the surface warms. I got this wrong initially too.
As long as there is more energy available that can be absorbed, then adding more absorbers will increase the energy in the system. OTOH, climate activists assume there is an infinite amount of energy available to be absorbed which is nonsense.
The problem with CO2 is almost all the energy available to it is already being absorbed by current CO2 molecules or water vapor. And, as you add more CO2 you reduce high altitude water vapor which nearly balances out the already small effects of the nearly saturated CO2 frequency bands.
Still d-nyeing basic physics I see. Think of the Earth’s atmosphere as a greenhouse, but instead of a roof acting as a barrier to convection, gravity is the barrier. If that barrier wasn’t there, atmospheres would not exist. Instead, it does exist, and with a constant source of energy at the surface that starts the convection process, conservation of this energy through gravitational potential energy is very important. And the more mass the atmosphere has, the more important it becomes.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
This is really not at all hard to understand, I fail to see how people continue to be confused. You don’t have a source of perpetual energy, some of the heat is lost due to radiation and conduction in the upper troposphere, but the bulk of the convection is constrained to the troposphere and energy input from the sun that lifted air is returned to the surface via WORK DONE BY GRAVITY. This process helps explain why many areas on the planet, where air descends in Hadley Cells, actually radiate more energy into space than they receive from the sun.
If I had the software, I’d create a trend map for the CERES data for outgoing longwave radiation, and then grid that map with the actual data to produce a residual map. I’d wager the latitudes corresponding to the descending legs of Hadley Cells would show positive residuals for OLWR for their corresponding latitudes, moreso even than they already do in the actual data.
http://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-09-01143/article_deploy/html/images/remotesensing-09-01143-g003.png
Here is a side by side comparison of July OLWR and vertical air velocities. Anyone else eyeballing a correlation between higher OLWR and descending air?
https://www.google.com/search?q=ceres+outgoing+lwr+july&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS570US584&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl07SL4eHXAhXLylQKHbHpB9gQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=974#imgrc=6wJFvIrJYfhEjM:
Errr
@ Richard M, I think you’re missing the mark with the GHG “adding” energy, since when we compare the atmosphere of Venus at an altitude where its atmospheric pressure is equal to Earth’s atmospheric pressure, the ONLY thing needed to differentiate between the temperature of the two planets…is the distance from the Sun. DESPITE Venus having an atmosphere that consists of over 95% CO2, thus being virtually ALL “GHGs,” as opposed to the “trace” amount (less than 0.1%) GHG for Earth’s atmosphere.
If GHGs added heat, then you would need more than the distance from the energy source to explain the temperature difference, but you don’t. Observation trumps theory, as they say.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
In my simple world, the easiest way I could think of to test this idea “gravity = heat” was to look at the temperature profile of Neptune.
Yup, where the atmosphere is dense it’s cold. Compressed air holds the heat given to it by the sun longer, that’s it. It doesn’t generate heat.
AGW is not Science ”
“@ Richard M, I think you’re missing the mark with the GHG “adding” energy, since when we compare the atmosphere of Venus at an altitude where its atmospheric pressure is equal to Earth’s atmospheric pressure, the ONLY thing needed to differentiate between the temperature of the two planets…is the distance from the Sun. DESPITE Venus having an atmosphere that consists of over 95% CO2, thus being virtually ALL “GHGs,” as opposed to the “trace” amount (less than 0.1%) GHG for Earth’s atmosphere.”
GHGs are not adding heat above the energy supplied by the sun. They are transferring that heat to the atmosphere. The warmer temperatures at the surface are a result of the kinetic energy profile, however, without the GHGs you wouldn’t have enough energy moved into the atmosphere to create a particular profile. I think you are assuming that without GHGs the atmospheric energy level would be the same. It’s not.
“If GHGs added heat, then you would need more than the distance from the energy source to explain the temperature difference, but you don’t. Observation trumps theory, as they say.”
Like I said they don’t add any heat. They just allow the solar energy to be absorbed more completely. Both Earth and Venus have sufficient GHGs to move most of the solar energy through the atmosphere and hence they will show the same kind of profile. Since Venus has more mass it’s profile is much taller leading to a warmer surface.
Richard M,
You say, November 27, 2017 at 10:57 pm: Now, what happens when a GHG absorbs a photon in this picture? Yes, that energy adds to the kinetic energy as well. However, with an open system this just expands the atmosphere creating more space between particles.
I am afraid you are making a fundamental conceptual mistake. We are talking about a thermodynamic system at steady state. For each photon that does what you suggest (get annihilated and cause a rise in KE) another will do the opposite (e.g. radiate away to space). If that were not true then the system would not be at steady state and the atmosphere would go on expanding for ever!!
So whatever you are arguing for cannot be supported by your comment.
the sun is trapped in the greenhouse liquid that covers the planet mostly.
the air is secondary.
True except that as a liquid water is not a GHG, it absorbs and emits as a black body.
Emissivity is important too.
Oops, i think it was Tony’s snip…not yours –
Further down the thread…
Don: I dunno. In Chem E we were taught that PV=nRT,such that an increase in pressure (from gravity) necessarily results in an increase in temperature. Is that your point?
Texasjimbrock – yes its called Charles’ Law together with Avogadro’s hypothesis. It is otherwise known as the adiabatic lapse rate as no energy is gained or lost but the number of gas molecules in a volume changes with the pressure, therefore the total kinetic energy (temperature) of the gas molecules in a volume changes with the pressure.
texasjim
Note the word “increase”. The gravity value does not change, so a standing column of air will not ‘retain its heat’ over time if it contains GHG’s radiating energy into space. Lost energy has to be replenished, which of course happens daily.
The gravity=heat idea is silly. I can increase the pressure in the tank of my air-powered nail gun. The air is heated by the increase in pressure. Then the tank loses that heat into the surroundings until it matches the ambient temperature. This shows that static pressure is not a source of heat nor is pressurized air an insulator.
I am sorry there are so many people taking up space on this blog talking up two errors at the same time. First, air can be pressurized, heated as that happens, then cool down over time if there is no external added energy source.
Second, the idea that the atmosphere is colder with elevation is only true part of the time, for part of the height. Balloon-borne instruments show the temperature drops with altitude, then rises. At the edge of space air molecules must be considered differently according to the gas: hydrogen, oxygen, CO2 and so on. Non-GHG’s are very hot because a) they are continually heated by various forms of radiation and b) they are not able to emit IR (or emit very little). They can cool by bumping into a colder molecule, which is difficult in a near-vacuum.
The top of the atmosphere is not ‘cold by conduction to space’. It is not true that space it ‘cold’. A vacuum doesn’t have a temperature. Physical matter does. Individual molecules of air at high altitude can have a temperature much higher than other identical molecules lower down. The common pressure-temperature equation only holds for certain cases at certain (low) altitudes when it comes to a real atmosphere, which is what we have been handed.
It will not take much research to discover that the air column does not conform to the PV=nRT formula. Note the qualification that the formula only works above 0.1 bars air pressure.
I am not a scientist to be able to accurately state what effects CO2 is having on earth. If the CO2 can be removed from the combusted fossil fuel exhaust and be transformed into useable-saleable products, then why not do so. If there is a benefit to the environment Great. There is also the Economical benefit, all the full time jobs that will be created in all the related industries..
Sid Abma
But there is NO worldwide, nation-wide, nor even region-wide MARKET for such mass of CO2 as it is found in exhaust stacks: low pressure, slightly mixed with trace contaminates and the unburned nitrogen, at low pressure and modestly high (or very high) temperatures.
Yes. Let the market decide – but NOT the worldwide government represented by eco-terrorists and academic wanna-be’s now in control of the UN/IPCC/global CAGW communities of despotic socialists. There IS NO such market globally, so – if a market exists locally, let it determine price and opportunities. But the CAGW catastrologists do not want that to be an option.
Reply to “If the CO2 can be removed from the combusted fossil fuel exhaust and be transformed into useable-saleable products, then why not do so.”
Why not? Doing so should open up a plethora of law suits for removing plant food that could feed starving people. Acting so as to apease the dumb, is a slippery slope.
Why not?
It is extremely expensive in terms of the expenditure of energy required to separate it out.
And it is not dangerous, is in fact beneficial.
And disposing of it will be very hazardous and expensive, because as noted, the amount that would make a hill of beans worth of difference to the atmosphere is ginormous compared to any industrial uses that might exist.
Maybe we can store it temporarily, and then convert it into biomass, some of which may be edible, some useful as a versatile structural material, some used as clothing and fabrics, animal feed, soil amendments, etc…and do all of this via a self replicating biochemical synthesis, powered 100% from renewable sunshine, while at the same time the processing facilities that absorb the CO2 and create the biomass exert a range of synergistic beneficial effects on the environment.
Maybe we could figure out a place to store it that would be readily accessible by any of these biochemical synthesis units, cost us nothing to put it there or transport from the source to where it is needed, and which in the meantime would make every plant and tree on Earth require less water just by being on hand in this handy and readily available storage place.
I think that would be a great thing to do with it.
And since this is what we are already doing with it, we will not even have to change anything.
Sid, I have three comments on your post: 1. What is the point of extracting some CO2 from process A just to use it in another process at point B (at some additional deadweight cost), when carbon and the oxygen are freely available anyway? 2. There is no economic benefit if the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit, e.g. the so-called ‘clean coal’ technology which increases the cost of coal-fired electricity by at least 30%, for a minuscule reduction in a trace gas called CO2. 3. If CO2 does not cause ‘global warming’, and the world is a better place with more CO2 (due to faster plant growth and therefore higher crop yields), why should anyone care about CO2 ’emissions’?
“If CO2 does not cause ‘global warming’, and the world is a better place with more CO2 (due to faster plant growth and therefore higher crop yields), why should anyone care about CO2 ’emissions’?”
If these conditions are met, the combustion of carbon would have a negative social cost. If a Pigovian tax is socially optimal under the case where the combustion of carbon imposes a positive social cost, then a negative Pigovian tax (subsidy for emitting CO2) is required for social optimality.
oh man. you propose to spend money to remove co2 from combustion of carbon?
and then you propose to sell it in a market where it’s already abundant to be re-emitted?
and you propose there may be some benefit to the environment from starving all plant life?
and somehow you imagine people employed in useless activities is a virtue?
cuz dying a slow stupid death is such a great idea? cut to the chase, man! why wait?
+++
Some CO2 is harvested and sold.
But the greatest economical benefit is to release it so plants can grow. (Many plants produce food for people and animals.)
CO2 is NOT “The Phantom Menace” it’s made out to be by those who gain by claiming it is.
” transformed into useable-saleable products,”…
A lot of CO2 is recovered…and what isn’t sold for fizzy drinks…to be released back into the atmosphere….is sold to greenhouses…to be released back into the atmosphere…wash rinse repeat
…you have to see the humor in that!
Let’s not forget that CO2 also has a market as fire extinguishing agent and as dry ice for freezing stuff. Plenty available and the cost is low.
Sid Abma, the purpose of economic activity is not to create jobs, but to produce what we consume. Jobs are a cost of production, not a benefit. That’s why the shifting of large portions (90%) of workers from agriculture to manufacturing has reduced hunger because productivity in growing food has reduced the cost of associated labor.
Yep the ancestors digging an irrigation channel with picks and shovels wouldn’t exactly be thinking what a great idea from the local philosopher economist suggesting if they used forks and spoons they’d create more jobs. More like here’s your pick and get to it if you want to eat bright spark.
Am going to buy the kindle version now. Will get back after reading it.
Me too …
… and me…
..waiting on your review
CAGW is a huge edifice and there are many angles of attack because there it has many flaws. The only way the alarmists can sustain the illusion is by snowing us with word salad.
When we demand answers for the obvious simple questions, the bull crap becomes obvious. The answers always follow the formula: bull crap baffles brains.
This book will resonate with many people and they will become skeptics. The joy of a relatively simple book is that people are more likely to read it.
Every skeptic has an aha moment. My own was when ‘they’ tried to erase the MWP and LIA. I didn’t need a dozen pages of equations to know that if CAGW were real, ‘they’ wouldn’t have to resort to obvious lies. Many people will find their own aha moment in Mirrors and Mazes.
Brandolini’s Law states: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
And the climate alarmists know this – it’s their #1 weapon.
[snip – multiple policy violations, ugly accusations without merit, you are now on permanent moderation -Anthony]
Strong words Tony.
You are clearly an expert on this book so please tell us which parts of the author’s analysis you find fault with and can disprove.
Don’t feed this troll – his comment has been removed and he’s on moderation now. Sheesh.
Ah. Anthony, never mind my request above – you were ahead of me! (Not hard to do, admittedly…)
It is always possible to see that someone has lost the argument on a discussion board, as they lapse into insults and ad hominems.
Worshipping experts is dangerous. They are more likely to lead you astray than help you.
Since we’re talking about scientific experts, let’s start with the fact that most published research findings are false. This is most starkly obvious for pharmaceutical research because drug companies try to reproduce and replicate the research as a first step in creating new drugs. link Drug companies point out that as much as 90% of published research findings are wrong and in many cases, the original authors can’t even reproduce their own experiments.
John Ioannidis points out that there is evidence that most research findings in all scientific fields is wrong. link
In face of the above damning evidence, what makes you think climate scientists are worth our respect and trust. I can tell you that Dr. Michael Mann has earned my distrust and disrespect.
As Ioannidis says:
In climate science, that sums it up in spades. Given the circumstances, I prefer to think for myself.
Why introduce the word worship? I saw a doctor this morning – an expert. Do I trust her expertise? Yes. Do I worship her? She was actually quite gorgeous too but no.
You trust her if she’s performing a well-defined task that frequently occurs. link Otherwise, anyone who has survived into adulthood can probably cite a story or two about when doctors got it wrong. Medicine is a very messy example of expertise.
Do I trust an engineer to design a building? Yes. Engineer-designed buildings almost never collapse. Engineers have a legal and moral duty to practice only within their areas of expertise. If you ask a mechanical engineer to design an electronic circuit, she should send you to another appropriately qualified engineer. I can’t think of a lot of examples where that didn’t happen. Engineers are very clear about the limits of their expertise.
The trouble is that we also define people to be experts on the basis of their education, not just on the basis of their demonstrated performance. Such people are remarkably unreliable when they speculate. They are also remarkably unaware of the limits of their expertise. When their predictions go awry, they have an armoury of of excuses to avoid being held accountable.
I used the word ‘worship’ advisedly.
Some climate scientists, who can’t accurately predict the weather next month, pretend that they can accurately predict global warming a hundred years from now. We trust such experts at our peril.
Come of it, engineers are just as fallible as doctors.
“Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
And that is where we end up. When one group of scientists are villified for idealogical reasons itis a slippery slope to dismissing all expert scientific authority.
Engineering is much less messy than medicine. link There’s evidence that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. link While practising their professions, the evidence is that engineers make far fewer errors than medical doctors.
There’s nothing ideological about it. Experts of all sorts make claims that they can’t back up. link It’s no wonder that the public doesn’t particularly trust experts.
There is a difference between trust and worship. One which you appear to have lost track of.
As always, Tony works overtime to miss the point.
The point is that we trust doctors when we are talking about medicine.
We don’t trust doctors when we are talking about building a bridge.
The vast majority of alarmists have no training and little experience in the areas on which they are pontificating.
Tony, do you worship her? You probably do. The original meaning for the word worship is “honour given to someone in recognition of their merit.”
Thus the origin of “Worship God” is simply “give honour to”.
The word “worship” has been corrupted in these modern times, but it’s origin and meaning remains.
Fair cop. I apolgise unreservadely to Happer and Soon for making “ugly allegations” without any supporting evidence. Something I am a harsh critic of others for. Sorry, posted in anger.
But you are incorrect in labelling me a troll. I post here because I am a passionate seeker of the truth prepared to call out bs when I see it (whether my opinions are correct or not is debateable and a different issue).
Start with all your own BS.. there is plenty of it. !!
No, I’m sorry Tony, but you are a troll. You specialise in cryptic one-liners that demonstrate your contempt for other’s views but do little to enlighten. For example, I recently posted an essay that included a brief commentary on the Dunning-Kruger effect, to which you responded: “That’s just golden John. Did you mean to demonstrate the effect?” I waited in vain for you to elucidate so I would have a basis for responding, but all you did was post further incomprehensible one-liners. So when you say ‘whether my opinions are correct or not is debatable…”, I have to say that is precisely what I didn’t find. The problem with you Tony is that you are not even wrong.
“John Ridgway November 28, 2017 at 1:07 am”
Queenslanders “think” they are better than everyone else. Not sure why…
I’m sorry John I saw what I thought was ironic and pointed it out. Perhaps I could have been a little more generous of spirit and complemented you on what was otherwise a pretty interesting post.
Thing is that DK effect is a hot button issue for me because I see it at the heart of so much misapprehension, particlarly here.
My moderation in this thread was unfortunately justified. But whether you disagree with my opinion or not, or whether you find my sense of humour funny or not, in the vast majority of cases I feel my comments are fair and reasonable.
[DK effect = Dunning-Kruegar effect? .mod]
“Thing is that DK effect is a hot button issue for me because I see it at the heart of so much misapprehension, particlarly here.”
Look in the MIRROR.
That is where the DK effect is manifest. !!
The height of your egotistical arrogance is matched only by your LACK of any substance.
Thanks Tony, I appreciate your response. Obviously, you would not expect me to agree that there was any irony in my account. Nevertheless, the fact that you thought there was, suggested to me that I had failed to make myself clear. Frustratingly, however, your comments did not allow me to determine exactly what I needed to clarify. For the record, the view I was trying to express is as follows:
In the Dunning/Kruger experiments individuals were asked to rank themselves regarding the extent to which they were above or below average in holding particular skills. The unskilled tended to overate themselves whilst the skilled underrated themselves. D/K concluded that the misconceptions of the unskilled were due to a lack of metacognition (since the skills concerned included cognitive skills, emotional intelligence and the ability to think logically, the very skills required for self-awareness). D/K also concluded that the skilled underrated themselves because they lack empathy with the unskilled (they assumed the tasks were easier than they were and presumed others would find them equally so). My point is this: Sometimes it is not a question of whether or not one is as skilled as one thinks one is, or how one’s skills compare to the average. The real question is whether or not you are as skilled as you need to be. This question is as relevant to experts as it is to anyone, and the reason it is a difficult question to answer is because of the concept of ontological uncertainty (i.e. the unknown unknown). Unfortunately, no amount of metacognition can help one deal with such uncertainty. The only antidote is humility in the face of nature.
So I would argue that my scepticism is not fuelled by my personal ignorance, but my presumption of a shared ignorance. If I’m guessing correctly, you would not accept this argument.
John Ridgway
“My point is this: Sometimes it is not a question of whether or not one is as skilled as one thinks one is, or how one’s skills compare to the average. The real question is whether or not you are as skilled as you need to be. This question is as relevant to experts as it is to anyone, and the reason it is a difficult question to answer is because of the concept of ontological uncertainty (i.e. the unknown unknown). Unfortunately, no amount of metacognition can help one deal with such uncertainty. The only antidote is humility in the face of nature.”
No problem with any of that.
“my presumption of a shared ignorance”
Ok I can see the distinction.
Tony
Is there a Permanent Moderation Hall of Fame?
Just wondered, I’ve only commented here for a few years.
Here is a pretty concise set of arguments:
How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/how-to-discuss-global-warming-with-a-climate-alarmist-scientific-talking-points-to-win-the-debate/
Nice compilation of the issues CO2IL.
For those interested, the book is available for Kindle. Just search the title on Amazon.
No need to search; just click on the big image of the cover near the top of this thread.
There are far too many ways to make a case against CAGW alarmism for it to remain such a widely held belief. It’s inevitable that the self referential obfuscation supported by fear and uncertainty that the IPCC calls climate science will eventually implode. This book sounds like a nice poke at the insanity of it all.
CO2, the most valid argument against CAGW alarmism is that it has corrupted science by attempting to turn it into a religion. The corruption process is dependent on naivete of those who follow it blindly, who never question it, and who have zero tolerance for opposition. This should never happen, but it has happened before. Read up on Galileo Galilei, who ignored the Pope and published his own opinions, and who was tried twice by the Inquisition for heresy, even though the Jesuits were working on the same principles that Galileo published.
Religion and science have to stay separate. Period.
I believe they picked co2 because if the alarmists control co2 they control every co2 producing entity in the world which gives them total control for ever.
They didn’t picked CO2, they tried just every human industrial product. This one worked, probably because CO2 is just useless for most people (as opposed to others products, hence harder to demonize).
Does the Kindle version omit diagrams, illustrations, etc.?
All of the Kindle books I have ever bought were duplicates of the original book, just in e form.
“Mirrors and Mazes: A guide through the climate debate”
I was kind of looking for the main points of “A guide through the climate debate”
But you have to buy the book….
This is basically an ad, a commercial. . (I will probably buy the book on Kendall) – jpp:
AW, I hope you allow this post…Phil
I re-post many WUWT articles on Facebook and social media. Most of my old friends are liberals – from HS and Art college..for some reason…jpp.
JPP, “liberals”
More or less, I equate liberals with progressives, socialists, and communists in likeness to Bernie Sanders.
The few I know, I call an acquaintance.
Friends they are not.
Some seem like kidney stones (annoying) and some seem like cancer.
John; with friends like that, who needs enemies?
Last 40 million years temperature and CO2 graph. global Temperatures (processed the right way, 11,000 data-points) and CO2 (processed at 3.0C per doubling, so 280 ppm = 0.0C and 560 ppm = 3.0C and 1,120 ppm = 6.0C – 3,200 data-points).
I’m scoring this as ZERO correlation. A climate scientist will try to use this same data by cherry-picking 10 CO2 data-points. But there are thousands of them that follow a certain pattern which seems to hold together over time while it seems crazy to just throw out 3,290 of them and keep 10.
And a climate scientist will not use the temperature estimates correctly as has been shown in a recent WUWT article.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/04/oxygen-18-stability-in-foraminifera-fossils-implications-in-paleoclimatology/
ZERO correlation.
Bill, what always jumps out at me…is that big drop about 35 mya when c4’s evolved
I think the dates are really between 32 to 24 million years ago which is also what the fossil evidence shows. The initial evolution of C4 grasses started at 32 million years ago when CO2 was still in the 1,000 ppm range.
By 24 million years ago, the C4 grasses now covered what was previously bare ground or desert in ALL the epochs previously in the history of Earth, where rainfall was slightly lower than other places.
Now the Carbon reservoir held in plants had increased to modern-type levels and the Carbon reservoir in the atmosphere was drawn down and fell to current levels. In essence, 250 ppm to 280 ppm. The evolution of C4 grasses which is estimated to have occurred between 32 to 24 million years ago draws down CO2 in the atmosphere so that it reaches the lowest level in history up to that point, 280 ppm, the very first time.
But what is also so weird at this point, is that the planet starts warming up as this transition to lower CO2 levels happens. CO2 down, temperatures up. The other evidence shows that the glacial level on Antarctica fell by 50% over this period. Complete glaciation at 27 million years ago, only half left by 25 million years ago just as CO2 levels were crashing.
The next interesting thing happens between 14 to 5 million years ago as Antarctica starts cooling off again and regains it glaciers. Planet is cooling off but there is NO change in CO2.
Then the next big thing happens is that the planet starts drying out at 8 million years ago. The C4 grasses expand exponentially according to fossil pollen. The first open savanna appears. CO2? Nothing happens. The very first grass herbivores evolve. There simply was NONE before this time. An Ape moves down from the trees right at this time as the first savannas appear and the rest is history. By 1750, the descendants of that Ape are now burning fossil fuels.
Bill Illis says: “The next interesting thing happens between 14 to 5 million . . .”
Perhaps of interest:
During the middle to late Miocene epoch, the Columbia River flood basalts engulfed a big area of Washington and Oregon. Eruptions were most vigorous 17–14 million years ago, with less extensive eruptions continuing to 6 million years ago.
There are also flood basalts in India, Siberia at least 8 other places.
Bill, I would like to use the graphic above. Can you tell me who to attribute it to and what data streams are used?
No attribution is needed. Anyone can use my charts any time they want without attribution but you can say I made it if you want.
The Temperature estimates are from Zachos 2001 dO18 isotopes which have been detrended in the manner outlined in Royer, Berner 2004 and this recent study, Bernard et al 2017.
The CO2 numbers are the mean estimates in these studies.
Berner GeoCarb III, Pagani 2005, Antarctic Ice Core Composite, Pagani 1999, Royer 2006 Composites, Pearson 2000, IPCC AR4 2007 – Royer 2008 Composites, Pearson 2009, Tripati 2009, Bao 2008, Hoenisch 2009, Pagani 2010, Beerling Royer 2011, Bartoli 2011, Seki 2010, Mcanena 2013
I (and certainly many others) have solid reason to think the paleo-climate records are important for understanding the background on climate change — that is, that the Earth’s climate system is ever-evolving, ever-changing even in the last 6,000 years. And that there is nothing unprecedented about the temperature rise of the late 20th century to today. There is nothing unprecedented about today’s global temperatures or glacial extent, or seasonal sea ice numbers.
But paleo temperature proxy records are not what is at the core of the alarmist argument:
Fact: CO2 in the paleo record has not been this high or where it is going (near 600 ppm) by 2100.
Conjecture: the climateers base their argument for alarmist rhetoric solely on what the models project to 2100. Hence it is necessary to demonstrate how the climate models are nothing but junk science, tuned confirmation bias outputs.
The climateers go from fact ot conjecture using the models. Demonstrate how much the GCM’s are simply junk science, and the alarmist arguments melt away too.
I hope this book does a good job of exposing the junk science that is the climate model ensemble of the IPCC.
correction: CO2 in the paleo-record has likely not been this high or where it is going (near 600 ppm by 2100) in many millions of years.
Define many millions. Figure that we have had plant life and animal life around for 2400 million years…
Review up already here-
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18168
and as the man says-
‘In Australia the book can be purchased for $20.00 from the website http://www.mirrorsandmazes.com.au. Overseas the book is printed and distributed by Amazon in North America, UK and Europe in the currencies of those countries.’
UTube Channel Mirrors and Mazes: Dr Howard Brady
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIvachS4m3oaxRjnUCp4wig
Interviews and talks. Very interesting.
Here’s Brady’s homepage:
http://www.mirrorsandmazes.com.au
Clive Best addresses the lapse rate/ gravity issue on this blog post:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=6305
To sum it up, no gravity implies no lapse rate and no greenhouse effect.
With no greenhouse gases, you still get pressure falling off exponentially with height, but you don’t get a temperature lapse rate.
Alan,
You do get a temperature lapse rate with no GHGs because in all gases KE is replaced by PE as one moves upwards. Work is done in moving the mass of rising columns up against gravity and along the declining pressure gradient and that creates PE (not sensible heat) at the expense of KE (sensible heat).
Most of the PE is created by the molecules moving apart along the pressure gradient rather than by the simple act of lifting it up.
No, with NO greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would reach an equilibrium temperature.
See
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
I remember years ago reading a speculation that earth’s atmosphere was much denser during the Jurassic Perioid, leading to a greater greenhouse effect. I immediately thought of the PV=nRT equation, and realize that it told me nothing. What fraction of a 20% increase in atmospheric pressure lead to a higher Temperature, and what fraction would go into increasing V, the average volume of the atmosphere? There’s no way of telling from that formula. Right now, space is assumed to start around 100 miles up. What keeps the atmosphere from petering out at 50 kilometers, with double the current atmospheric density of gases below that 50 miles? You cannot get that information from the the PV = nRT formula.
No, in your scenario, as a faster than average molecule moves upward, replacing kinetic energy with potential energy, the average temperature of those lower molecules will go down, since they have less kinetic energy. When a slower molecule in the upper atmosphere falls to a lower level, the relative temperature of the remaining molecules in the upper level will increase. Sooner or later, you’re going to get a temperature equilibrium, with constant temperature all the way up with no greenhouse gases.
Pardon me, both increased P and increased V lead to increased T. I should have said, if P increases 20%, what’s to keep volume from DECREASING 20%, resulting in no change in T?
Gravity
+100.
That is what its all about.
Sorry thought you were proposing the opposite. The volume as it pertains to the atmosphere is dictated by kinetic energy and gravity, not some fixed container that you can change the the size of. In the case of a 20% pressure increase, that is the final result and doesn’t tell you how you got there. That 20% pressure increase already took place along side a volume increase.
So given a star 80 % as luminous as the sun, and an earth sized planet 1.4 AU from the sun with twice the atmosphere that earth has, what’s the average temperature on the planet going to be?
I say PV=nRT tells one NOTHING on how to compute the temperature.
“In Praise Of Carbon: How We’ve Been Misled Into Believing that Carbon Dioxide Causes Climate Change,” by David Bennett Laing on amazon.com, as eBook and paperback, explains why we no longer need to be alarmed about the chemical that makes up over ⅔ of all of us, if all the water were to be squeezed out of us.