A must-read: The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change

My friend Marc Morano of Climate Depot has a new book out now “The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change” which is one of many books in the The Politically Incorrect Guide® series that are now available from Regnery Publishing.

I had an early review copy, and here is what I wrote about the book, listed in the beginning section of the book:

“This book covers the history of climate, from the global cooling ‘coming ice age’ scare of the 70s to the ‘we have just a few years left to save the planet’ that characterizes the current global warming scare. Written in a light reading style, virtually every page is meticulously referenced with sources for the points he makes. Love him or hate him, Morano is very effective in conveying the history and the climate flim-flammery under the guise of science that has been going on the last few decades, mostly thanks to huge government funding of climate science. It reads like a postmortem verification of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, which warned of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but also said, ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’”

— ANTHONY WATTS, publisher of WattsUpWithThat, the world’s most viewed climate-themed website

(added) Though not included in the book (due to it being received past deadline) Dr. Richard Lindzen had this to say:

With his book “Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, Marc Morano vies to be the Thomas Paine of the movement to save the world from the tyranny of climate catastrophists. He exposes the seemingly infinite number of absurd claims, and the almost unbounded hypocrisy and venality of the proponents of this clearly inhuman and scientifically implausible attempt to control mankind by controlling and, more importantly, restricting access to energy. This book is an unrelenting polemic of the best kind.

— Emeritus MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen

The book is chock-full of history, and in page after page, points out how climate science has not just been a series of missteps, but an outright colossal failure of the scientific method because it has come to be so highly politicized. As I referenced above, money does that. Morano makes ample use of the work here at WUWT, and references many of our best essays throughout the book.

I particularly liked this bit of history, one I hadn’t read before.


The world is running a fever, and the effects will be dire. As another commentator observed,

Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep and of long continuance. The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold in the spring of the year which is very fatal to fruits.

This same observer also noted,

“I remember that when I was a small boy, say 60 years ago, snows were frequent and deep in every winter.”

Who said that? Al Gore? Leonardo DiCaprio? Nope. That’s Thomas Jefferson, in his 1799 book “Notes on the State of Virginia.


It just goes to show, that even before the industrial revolution started around 1850, before the world saw an invasion of big, bad, carbon belching machines, the climate was changing just like it always has. In today’s political climate, Thomas Jefferson would be labeled a “denier”.

Recently, we were all saddened by the death of our friend John Coleman. In the months preceding his death, he wrote the foreword for this book, and he says it all. I’ll just leave it in his capable hands.

Foreword by John Coleman.

Don’t worry about “climate change,” says Marc Morano—there is no significant manmade global warming.

Are you kidding me? We all know that the icecaps are melting, the oceans are about to flood our cities, and more and more superstorms are happening. And the experts are certain that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is causing it all. We have all the facts; right?

The truth is that there is a debate about climate change but it has been very one-sided. With the U.S. government, all the scientific organizations, Al Gore, the Science Guy, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the United Nations all behind the bad news that our use of fossil fuels is destroying the climate of Earth, anyone on the other side of the debate finds themselves behind the eight ball. Peeking out from behind the eight ball is Marc Morano. In this great book he begins his comprehensive review of the debate about global warming by chatting about the history of climate scares in centuries past—and goes on to decisively debunk the current climate scare. By the time he’s done, you will realize you’ve been hoaxed. Climate change has become a scam.

As the founder of the Weather Channel and a six-decade veteran TV news weatherman, I know a great deal about this topic. We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend out into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the “climate change” establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future. Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics.

So today anybody who defies the prevailing “climate change” scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger. That is where we find Marc. He is living life behind the eight ball. He has been there for decades. But whatever you may hear from his enemies in the climate change establishment, he is no crazy denier or shill for Big Oil. The explanation is simple. He is so certain of his data that he is quite comfy there behind the eight ball. When you really study the issue, you realize that Marc Morano is absolutely right. And it turns out he is not alone there behind the eight ball. He has developed relationships with hundreds of brilliant scientists and other experts who are willing to testify, along with Marc, that in fact there is no significant man-made global warming.

This book is exactly what parents need to counter the indoctrination our children are now being subjected to. Starting at a very young age and continuing through their teenage years, American school children are being constantly bombarded with climate change propaganda. This is science gone bad. It has become political. And climate science has been hijacked by the extreme fringe of the environmental movement. The truth is that while climate is naturally changing—as it always has—no crisis is occurring and there is no reason to fear any in the future. This book uses over twelve hundred footnotes to bolster its compelling, scientific, and logical demonstration that Al Gore and the United Nations are dead wrong on climate fears. And maybe even more important, this book uses the climate change establishment’s own words to refute their silly claims.

Read this book and Marc will become your hero. Give it to your friends to read. Maybe in the end there will be enough of us who no longer believe the climate change hoax that he and those of us who know he is right can get out from behind the eight ball and enjoy life. Read on, my friend, read on.

Available on Amazon here

Advertisements

109 thoughts on “A must-read: The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change

  1. Another interesting one for everyone to ponder:

    Groupthink on Climate Change Ignores
    Inconvenient Facts
    by Christopher Booker

    Since we’ve now been living with the global warming story for 30 years, it might seem hard to believe that science could now come up with anything that would enable us to see that story in a wholly new light. But that is what I am suggesting in a new paper, thanks to a book called Groupthink, written more than 40 years ago by a professor of psychology at Yale, Irving Janis.

    What Janis did was to define scientifically just how what he called groupthink operates, according to three basic rules. And what my paper tries to show is the astonishing degree to which they explain so much that many have long found puzzling about the global warming story.

    GROUPTHINK EXPLAINS SO MUCH ABOUT THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA

    And then there’s this:

    Search on ‘mental obtundity’ for a few bits of insight into the affliction of mental darkness. .

      • I really hate buying things on Amazon because I am not a big fan of theirs, don’t have a Kindle and really dislike the Kindle PC app. On the other hand, I want support your web site.

        What to do, What to do?

        I think I will buy it on Barnes and Noble and make a donation to your web site.

      • Just checked, B&N only has it in paperback, not in Nook format yet. I also do not like to buy from Amazon. Anthony, get a deal with B&N too so we have options.

      • Anthony: Being in Ontari-owe, and not knowing about your arrangement with Amazon.com, I have previously ordered from Amazon.ca. Do you have a similar deal with them?

        Thanks.

      • I was able to purchase “The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change” on Barnes and Nobel yesterday (2/26/2018) but was not able to download the Nook Book until today (2/27/2018) at 10:30 AM EST. I also made a donation the WUWT web site.

    • Exactly. While I appreciate Jeff Bezos giving my rocket-scientist son his first job after graduating from engineering school, I really chafe at the idea of propping up his Left-wing endeavors any further.

      • But doesn’t Amazon and the richest man in the world deserve more of your money, especially in the form of tax breaks for locating offices and warehouses near your community?

      • “I really chafe at the idea of propping up his Left-wing endeavors any further.”

        Bezos isn’t a left-winger. He supports Reason, a libertarian outfit. I don’t know why he bought WaPo except to show that his technology and marketing can make a winner out of a loser.

      • Jeff Bezos does what is best for himself and Amazon. The greatest threat to such a company is the left. See the announcement of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JP Morgan Chase establishing an insurance cooperative to offset the costs associated with the “Affordable Care Act”?
        The best defense is political ambiguity. Do what is best for the bottom line.

  2. Swiss Alpine mountaineer and skiing teacher Theodor Romang published his own thoughts about climate and the vagaries of weather based on a meticulously kept chronicle in his home commune of Saanen. The records are going back to the middle ages and give a fascinating insight about the climate during that period and the sometimes dramatically and fast changing extreme weather and seasonal patterns at that time – all without fossil fuel burning.
    https://www.mmedien.ch/en/publishing-products/books/vagaries/

  3. It is with hesitancy that I disagree with the great John Coleman, whose forecasts I was not fit to proofread. But I would not have written quite what he wrote:

    there is no significant man-made global warming

    Instead of saying that man-made global warming is insignificant, I would say that it is not significantly harmful, or that it is modest and benign, and that the best evidence is that emissions of what Scientific American once called “the precious air fertilizer” are highly beneficial both for mankind and for virtually all natural ecosystems.

      • Very good question, rocketscientist! Prompted by you, I’ve just sent Dr. Myneni an email, asking that question.

        My guess is that there’s not enough vegetation in those areas to calculate a percentage increase or decrease, using their satellite data.

        The Sahara and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica obviously have no vegetation, and they are colored white. But much of the American west and Great Plains, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, etc. are colored grey. My guess is that the difference between white and grey is that white means “no vegetation” and grey means “not enough vegetation to determine a trend from our data,” or something like that.

        BTW, do you see that broad, green swath over central Africa? That’s the Sahel retreating, at the southern limit of the Sahara Desert. National Geographic reported on it in 2009 (though without crediting CO2 as the cause). Here’s an excerpt:

        Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?
        …Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
        The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. …
        “Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said. “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back… The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

        Here’s another article about it:
        NewScientist: Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert.

        If you encounter one of those 350-dot-org people, campaigning for drastically lower CO2 levels, please ask him for me, “Is desertification, drought & famine in Africa your goal, or is it just “collateral damage” that you’re willing to accept?”

      • I just received a reply from Dr. Myneni:

        Yes, white is no vegetation or barren and grey is where the data does not show a statistically significant greening or browning.
        Best,
        -ranga

    • In the do it my way department – I’d leave out any mention of global temperature and simply say:

      “Increasing CO2 and methane
      emissions do represent a problem.”

      • Also it isn’t true that methane traps more IR than CO2
        https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/methane-good-or-bad/

        Methane is only worse in the atmosphere if it burns in the atmosphere which doesnt happen on its own.When mankind burns methane it turns into 1 molecule of CO2 and 2 molecules of water. H2O absorbs 10 times the IR of CO2 ; so that is the source for why methane is supposedly 21 times as powerful as CO2. This only happens when methane burns.Since mankind does not put methane into the air except via cows there is no need to worry because methane has NOT been steadily increasing in volume in the atmosphere. Iit has sometimes reduced and sometimes increased. For any increases maybe we can blame the cows. In any case it is only 1800 ppb (that is parts per billion by volume). So it really is insignificant. Methane does combine with ozone (O3) in the atmosphere to form methanol and oxygen (O2), so it doesnt hang around for a long time. So this whole thing about methane is another example of how the AGW crowd twisted a fact to suit their narrative.
        About the only 3 facts that the AGW crowd got right in 40 years of bullshit is that YES Virginia bad bad mankind has caused CO2 to be put into the atmosphere because of burning fossil fuels. That was proved by measurements of the decrease in the ratio of C14 isotope to the C12 C13 isotopes in the atmosphere. Apparently fossil fuel burning doesn’t produce C14 isotopes whereas natural sources do. The other fact that the AGW crowd got right is that there actually is an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere from 280ppm since 1850 to 408ppm today. The 3rd fact is that CO2 absorbs Infrared radiation. However those 3 facts (which are the only 3 facts that the AGW can claim as their own have to be weighed against the 1000 other false and ridiculous claims that the AGW crowd has spewed forth in 40 years. One last comment :

        The whole debate is over whether that increase in CO2 actually causes the earths surface temperature to permanently rise. Us skeptics say SHOW US THE MONEY. Because we havent seen any runaway global warming and we havent even seen any significant non runaway warming. By significant I mean a warming not caused by natural factors. I cant prove a pink elephant doesnt exist but it is up to the AGW crowd to prove that the Null hypothesis is not true. They refuse to debate because they say the science is settled. I have never seen a TV or internet debate about this in this 40 years scam of AGW . WHY IS THAT?

      • Alan Tomalty February 25, 2018 at 5:55 pm
        Who is increassing methane emmissions. [?]

        Doesn’t matter, methane is in the news and billed as anywhere from 21 to 86 times as powerful at “trapping” heat than CO2, implying that it’s a huge problem. It isn’t a problem. The news stories never say how much methane will run up global temperatures. The reason for that is that by 2100, the increase in temperature from methane would be too small to measure. It isn’t a problem, neither is CO2.

      • Steve Case wrote, “In the do it my way department – I’d leave out any mention of global temperature and simply say: / ‘Increasing CO2 and methane emissions do represent a problem.'”

        I agree, except that I think you meant they “…do not represent a problem,” right Steve?

        I hate it when my typos invert my meaning. I’ll bet you do, too.
         

        Alan Tomalty wrote, “When mankind burns methane it turns into 1 molecule of CO2 and 2 molecules of water. H2O absorbs 10 times the IR of CO2 ; so that is the source for why methane is supposedly 21 times as powerful as CO2.”

        That’s incorrect. Methane (CH4) is a GHG because it absorbs long-wave infrared (LWIR) around 7.7µ. The Earth emits much more LWIR of that wavelength than it receives, so absorbing blocks more outgoing radiation than incoming radiation, which is why blocking it has a warming effect.

        The reason that adding 1 ppbv of CH4 has a larger warming effect than adding 1 ppbv of CO2 is that there’s already more than 200× more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere. So the warming effect of CO2 is already past the point of diminishing returns. There’s so much CO2 in the atmosphere that its main 15µ absorption band is quite thoroughly saturated, and most of the warming of additional CO2 is from its effect on the fringes of that absorption band, where it absorbs only weakly.

        However, except in very dry areas most of the 7.7µ LWIR absorbed by CH4 would be absorbed by water vapor, anyhow. So you are right that the supposed threat of CH4-induced warming is vastly overblown, and the imaginary threat of “runaway global warming” from CH4 is complete nonsense.
         

        rckkrgrd wrote, “I would say that the negative consequences of CO2 enrichment and global warming are insignificant but that the benefits are substantial.”

        I agree.

      • So sayith: Alan Tomalty – February 25, 2018 at 7:09 pm

        Also it isn’t true that methane traps more IR than CO2

        Of course its not true, because, as far as I know, the only things in our universe that is supposedly capable of “trapping” thermal (heat) energy are Black Holes which are situate at the centers of galaxies.

        Also sayith: Alan T

        When mankind burns methane it turns into 1 molecule of CO2 and 2 molecules of water. H2O absorbs 10 times the IR of CO2 ; so that is the source for why methane is supposedly 21 times as powerful as CO2.

        Your above statement could be factual as far as I know, …… but its context matters not a twit whenever AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is the subject of discussion.

        To determine which of the per se atmospheric “greenhouse” gases (CO2, H2O, CH4) that is the “most powerful” at absorbing IR energy, …… the atmospheric ppm quantity of each gas is multiplied by the Specific Heat Capacity (SHC) of said gas and the resulting “totals” are compared to each other.

        If one measures the temperature of any specific volume of atmosphere and determines the said temperature is 78 degrees F, ….. then that means that all the gases in that volume of atmosphere, including the different “greenhouse” gases are at 78 degrees F, ……. but, ……. each of the different “greenhouse” gases required the absorption and/or radiation of different quantities of “thermal energy” in order to maintain said 78 degrees F temperature.

        The Specific Heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius.

        CO2 —– Specific Heat Capacity —– 0.844 kJ/kg K
        H2O vapor – Specific Heat Capacity – 1.930 kJ/kg K
        CH4 — Specific Heat Capacity ——– 2.220 kJ/kg K

      • Samuel C Cogar wrote, “To determine which of the per se atmospheric “greenhouse” gases (CO2, H2O, CH4) that is the “most powerful” at absorbing IR energy, …… the atmospheric ppm quantity of each gas is multiplied by the Specific Heat Capacity (SHC) of said gas and the resulting “totals” are compared to each other.”

        Samuel C Cogar, that is incorrect. The specific heat capacity of gases is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and nothing to do with how much or how little warming atmospheric gases cause. We’ve been over this before.

        It is the absorption spectrum (“color”) of an atmospheric gas which determines its (misnamed) “greenhouse” warming effect (or lack thereof). Here’s an earlier discussion of this topic, and in November Willis made a herculean effort to educate certain confused readers about it. Specific heat capacity has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect.

      • So repeatith again did: daveburton – February 26, 2018 at 7:05 am

        Samuel C Cogar, that is incorrect. The specific heat capacity of gases is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and nothing to do with how much or how little warming atmospheric gases cause. We’ve been over this before.

        YUP, we’ve discussed it before, and all you did was post “weazelworded” rhetoric without addressing any of my questions or comments.

        Dave B, ….. iffen “specific heat capacities” have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical property of a substance to absorb thermal (heat) energy resulting in a temperature change of said substance, …… then please explain to me and the rest of the world why in hell this
        “HyperPhysics” gsu.edu website states the following, to wit:

        Specific Heat

        The specific heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius. The relationship between heat and temperature change is usually expressed in the form shown below where c is the specific heat. The relationship does not apply if a phase change is encountered, because the heat added or removed during a phase change does not change the temperature.

        The specific heat of water is 1 calorie/gram °C = 4.186 joule/gram °C which is higher than any other common substance. As a result, water plays a very important role in temperature regulation.
        Read more
        here

        WHAT NEXT, Dave B, are you going to claim and attest to your imagined fact that “temperature” is NOT a measurement of thermal energy?

        Also repeatith again did: daveburton

        It is the absorption spectrum (“color”) of an atmospheric gas which determines its (misnamed) “greenhouse” warming effect (or lack thereof).

        HORSEFEATHERS, the atmospheric quantity (ppm density) of a specific “greenhouse” gas is what determines its “warming (cooling)” effect on any given portion of the atmosphere, ……… regardless of whether or not the thermal (heat) energy that said gas absorbs or releases is via radiation or conductance.

        “DUH”, when thermal (heat) energy is transferred via contact (conductance) with another gas molecule or contact with the earth’s surface, …… the absorption spectrum of an atmospheric gas matters not one (1) twit. Dave, just what is it about the above that you don’t understand?

        And Dave B, …. GETTA CLUE, ……… the absorption spectrum of/for an atmospheric gas simply denotes the “thermal energy” radiation frequency or frequencies that the aforesaid gas molecules are capable of absorbing and emitting. It no way in hell defines the amount or quantity of thermal (heat) energy a gas molecule is capable of absorbing. GEEZUS, iffen one has a cylinder of compressed air ….. and it doesn’t explode before it is heated up to 1,000 degrees F, just what do you think the temperate of the air molecules are that are inside the cylinder, ……. huh, …. huh, …. HUH?

        Dave B, please explain this silly arsed statement of yours, to wit:

        So sayith: daveburton – February 25, 2018 at 10:23 pm

        So the warming effect of CO2 is already past the point of diminishing returns. There’s so much CO2 in the atmosphere that its main 15µ absorption band is quite thoroughly saturated, …………………

        Dave B, iffen a monster “overturning” of a lake suddenly released another 200 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere, are you actually claiming and attesting to a “fact” that the “15µ absorption band of that 200 ppm of additional CO2 is “thoroughly saturated” before it was released from the lake bed ……. or “thoroughly saturated” immediately as it is being outgassed from the surface water …….. or that any further solar irradiance is completely void of any 15µ radiation therefore said 200 pm of additional CO2 would not be able to absorb any said 15µ radiation ?

        And besides that, Dave B, your above “silly” statement is directly contrary to a statement you made previously.

        “DUH”, why are you claiming in the above that the 15µ absorption band of the current atmospheric CO2 is quite thoroughly saturated …… whereas in your following comment you specifically state that “GHGs don’t “hold” heat”, to wit:

        Excerpted from this post authored by Dave Burton – January 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm

        Samuel C Cogar, the specific heat of greenhouse gases is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with how they cause warming, nor with how much or how little warming they cause.

        The reason the specific heat (“specific heat capacity”) of the GHGs doesn’t matter is that GHGs don’t “hold” heat. When GHG molecules absorb IR photons they almost always immediately transfer that absorbed energy to the bulk atmosphere, by molecular collisions.

        And DB, there is almost immediate radiation transfer of absorbed energy, but there is ONLY a per se “chance” of absorbed energy transfer by molecular collisions. “DUH”, the higher the altitude above SL, the greater the distance between air molecules.

        DB, me thinks you are still young enough to be learning something “new” from someone other than your beloved mentors.

        Cheers

      • Samuel C Cogar wrote, ” iffen “specific heat capacities” have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical property of a substance to absorb thermal (heat) energy resulting in a temperature change of said substance…”

        That’s the source of your confusion. GHGs do not work by absorbing heat, they work by absorbing photons of LWIR light.

        Have you ever been walking barefoot on a light-colored sidewalk on a hot summer day, and stepped from the curb onto a black asphalt road? If so, you probably stepped back onto that sidewalk in a hurry!

        What do you think accounts for the fact that the the road is much hotter than the sidewalk? It’s not the specific heat capacity of asphalt vs. concrete! It’s the colors.

        GHGs are colorants, because they change the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere. That is, they change its “color,” albeit in the far infrared part of the EM spectrum, rather than in the visible part.

        CO2 warms the air by tinting it to a “color” which absorbs far infrared (around 15 µ).

        The Earth emits as much radiant energy as it absorbs, but since nearly all of the energy emissions from the Earth are in the far infrared & longer bands, and over half of the incoming energy (from the Sun) is at shorter wavelengths (near infrared, visible & UV), tinting the atmosphere in the far infrared has a differential effect. Since there’s more outgoing than incoming far infrared, GHGs absorb mostly outgoing radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. That causes warming.

        It’s not how actual greenhouses work, but it’s still a real effect.

        Greenhouse warming of the air, in turn, warms the ground, by a couple of mechanisms, including increased “downwelling” infrared back-radiation from the air. Here’s a good article:

        http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm
         

        Samuel also asked, “Dave B, please explain this silly arsed statement of yours, to wit: / ‘So the warming effect of CO2 is already past the point of diminishing returns. There’s so much CO2 in the atmosphere that its main 15µ absorption band is quite thoroughly saturated,'”

        As anyone who has ever added food coloring to a recipe can attest (if they do the arithmetic, comparing volumes of food coloring to the rest of the ingredients), it only takes a few ppm to tint a solution.
        0.04% = 400 ppmv = a very heavy dose of colorant, which is the simple way of understanding why we’re way past the point of diminishing returns w/r/t the warming effect of CO2. That first drop of food coloring has a much larger effect on the color of your frosting than the 20th drop does.

        Additionally, it is my understanding that over the bulk of the 15 µm (really, 13–17µ) absorption/emission band of CO2, the Effective Radiating Level (ERL) (or Effective Emission Height, or any of several similar names) is within or above the tropopause, though various sources give varying average ERLs for CO2’s 15 µm band. Changing CO2 concentration changes ERL (higher concentrations raise the ERL), and the temperature at ERL controls emission strength, so to understand the effect of changing ERL you need to compare it to the ~12 to 15km altitude of the tropopause:

        Since the ERL for most of the 15 µm band is near the tropopause, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and thus raising the ERL, has litte effect on the atmospheric temperature at ERL — except at the fringes of the band: around ~13µ and ~17µ.

        On his AndThenThere’sPhysics blog, Ken Rice writes, “Between about 13 and 17 microns, the emission’s coming from a region with temperatures close to 220K – so, near the troposphere/stratosphere boundary.”

        But at the fringes of that 15 µm band, where CO2 absorbs only very weakly, the ERL is lower: below the tropopause. So as raising the CO2 concentration increases the ERL for those wavelengths, it lowers the average atmospheric temperature at ERL for those wavelengths, and that reduces the amount of energy escaping to space at those wavelengths.

        So “the action” (the warming effect of additional CO2) is mostly at the fringes of the 15µ band. For the rest of the 15µ band there’s already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more has little warming effect.

        So, as I wrote, the warming effect of CO2 is already past the point of diminishing returns. MODTRAN Tropical Atmosphere calculates that just 20 ppmv CO2 would have fully half as much warming effect as the current 400 ppmv. That’s why additional CO2 has only a modest warming effect: it’s not because 0.04% concentration is so small, but because it is already so large.

        For a deeper treatment, I recommend this UNC Physics colloquium by Princeton atmospheric physicist Will Happer:

        http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/

        After watching the lecture, be sure to also look at some of the follow-up links, especially the “another_question” link.

      • daveburton – February 27, 2018 at 8:10 pm

        That’s the source of your confusion. GHGs do not work by absorbing heat, they work by absorbing photons of LWIR light.

        Dave Burton, me thinks you have a serious problem that stems from the fact of you being educated via the Politically Correct Science that is, and has been, being taught in the public schools for the past 30 years or so.

        Anyway, to begin your remedial Science education it would be highly beneficial for you to reconsider your above statement ……. and embrace the factual science presented in the following, to wit:

        In gases simple scattering of the molecules transfers the kinetic energy of one molecule to the potential energy of another, i.e. raises an electron to a higher level. The electron goes back to its ground state releasing a specific photon, or a cascade of photons, depending on the energy. Remember that the higher levels with respect to n, the radial quantum number, are closely packed.

        These photons are the ones emitted as black body radiation, and they are a continuum because of the 10^23 molecules per mole and the almost continuous energy levels. The temperature is a function of the average kinetic energy in the gas, the higher the temperature the more energetic the kinetic scattering and the higher the average photon energy.

        Read more @ https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72174/why-do-moving-particles-emit-thermal-radiation

        Neither a GHG molecule or any other molecule is committed to “absorbing” a photon before it is capable of “emitting” a photon.

        As is stated above, gas molecules can transfer kinetic energy from one molecule to another gas molecule via conduction, and the recipient of that kinetic energy can rid itself of said absorbed energy by emitting a photon(s). The aforesaid is a common occurrence whenever GHG gasses come in contact with a “hot” surface, ……. such as “hot” blacktop, “hot” concrete and the “hot” rocks and sand in/of a desert environment.

        daveburton – February 27, 2018 at 8:10 pm

        GHGs are colorants, because they change the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere. That is, they change its “color,” albeit in the far infrared part of the EM spectrum, rather than in the visible part.

        CO2 warms the air by tinting it to a “color” which absorbs far infrared (around 15 µ).

        HA, given the context of the above, ….. me thinks you are mimicking the commentary expressed by a “non-accredited” female substituting as an actual accredited Science Teacher.

        Dave B, which of the atmospheric gases did your Teacher tell you was responsible for “coloring the sky blue”?

        And, ….. OH WOWEEEEE, ….. seeing a Rainbow or a “red” sunset would surely have “boggled” your Teacher’s imagination concerning the “colorants” of gasses.

        Give it up Dave, you are in a “junk science” hole …. so quit digging.

      • Here, Dave B, it might help if you studied this a wee bit, to wit:
        ——————————-

        Kids and Energy

        Initial Definitions of Heat and temperature
        Temperature is a number that is related to the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. If temperature is measured in Kelvin degrees, then this number is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the molecules.

        Heat is a measurement of the total energy in a substance. That total energy is made up of not only of the kinetic energies of the molecules of the substance, but total energy is also made up of the potential energies of the molecules
        Read more @ http://www.kids.esdb.bg/heat_principles.html

        When we measure an object’s temperature, we measure the average kinetic energy of the particles in the object. The higher the temperature, the faster the molecules of the substance move, on the average.

        Photons have momentum, p = E/c. When the photon is absorbed by a molecule, it causes the molecule to gain energy, but also momentum.

        When a photon is absorbed, it will make a transition to a line that has a short lifetime because the ease of absorption is equal to the ease of emission. So the molecule will quickly deexcite down to a lower energy level. Sometimes, this will be the same level it started with, sometimes, it is a different level that might have a very long lifetime. It doesn’t matter when it comes to heating. When the molecule does decay, even if it decays back down to the same level, the photon it emits will not be in the same direction as the one that was absorbed. The molecule recoils when it gives off this photon, but that recoil is not in the same direction as the initial absorption. As such, the molecule will have changed its kinetic energy through this two step process
        Read more @ https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-photon-give-kinetic-energy-speed-to-molecules-when-an-electron-in-the-molecule-absorbs-the-photon

      • Samuel C Cogar wrote (pasting from another source), “In gases simple scattering of the molecules transfers the kinetic energy of one molecule to the potential energy of another, i.e. raises an electron to a higher level.”

        Actually, 15µ LWIR radiation corresponds to a CO2 molecular bending mode transition, not an electron transition.
         

        Samuel continued, “Neither a GHG molecule or any other molecule is committed to “absorbing” a photon before it is capable of “emitting” a photon. …gas molecules can transfer kinetic energy from one molecule to another gas molecule via conduction, and the recipient of that kinetic energy can rid itself of said absorbed energy by emitting a photon(s).”

        That is correct (and it is a common source of confusion).
         

        Samuel continued, “Dave B, which of the atmospheric gases did your Teacher tell you was responsible for “coloring the sky blue”?”

        It is due to Rayleigh scattering, by all atmospheric gases, not absorption or emission of photons by specific atmospheric gases. The amount of Rayleigh scattering increases as the wavelength decreases, so blue light is scattered more than red. When you look at a section of sky “away from” line-of-sight to the Sun, the sunlight you see has been scattered, and a disproportionate percentage of it is blue light.

        That’s how God painted the sky Carolina Blue.

         

        Samuel continued, “And, ….. OH WOWEEEEE, ….. seeing a Rainbow or a “red” sunset would surely have “boggled” your Teacher’s imagination concerning the “colorants” of gasses.”

        No, the “coloration” of the atmosphere by GHGs is in the far infrared, nowhere near the visible region.
         

        Samuel also pasted (from a different source), “Kids and Energy / Initial Definitions of Heat and temperature / Temperature is a number that is related to the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance.”

        That is correct.
         

        Samuel continued pasting, “If temperature is measured in Kelvin degrees, then this number is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the molecules.”

        That is a simplification of the truth, because the “averaging” is not done by dividing by the number of molecules, but, rather, by the molar heat capacity, which is largely a function of the molecules’ number of molecular degrees of freedom. So a monatomic molecule like argon has a low molar heat capacity, because it has only translational modes for storing kinetic energy; there are no vibrational & rotational modes. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has higher molar heat capacity, because it has vibrational & rotational modes (which is also why, unlike argon, CO2 is a GHG).
         

        Samuel continued pasting, “When a photon is absorbed, it will make a transition to a line that has a short lifetime because the ease of absorption is equal to the ease of emission. So the molecule will quickly deexcite down to a lower energy level.”

        Not very “quickly” for CO2’s 15 µm absorption band. It takes, on average, about one second(!!!) before an appropriately excited CO2 molecule will get around to emitting a 15 &micron;m photon! (That fact startled me when I learned it.)

        By comparison, at 1 Atm pressure and typical temperatures it takes, on average, only a few nanoseconds before that CO2 molecule will give up its energy by collisional transfer to another air molecule.

        That’s why when CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs LWIR it raises the temperature of all the air, not just the temperature of the CO2 molecules.

      • Dave Burton, it is obvious to me that you saved one of your stupidest statements for the end of your above post, to wit:

        daveburton – February 28, 2018 at 10:39 pm

        By comparison, at 1 Atm pressure and typical temperatures it takes, on average, only a few nanoseconds before that CO2 molecule will give up its energy by collisional transfer to another air molecule.

        That’s why when CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs LWIR it raises the temperature of all the air, not just the temperature of the CO2 molecules.

        Dave B, that is one hellafa POWERFUL CO2 molecule you speak of, …… given the fact that you are claiming said CO2 molecules will “give up” their absorbed LWIR energy within a few nanoseconds ….. by transferring said energy to other (1) air molecule, …. and then other air molecule, & on & on & so on ….. until all the air molecules in the atmosphere have absorbed, dissipated, yet retained, ….. yup, RETAINED, ….. that original parcel of energy absorbed by the 1st CO2 molecules, …… thus increasing the kinetic energy (temperature) of all the air molecules.

        Dave B, what you have claimed above is PFM, ……. and I am not a “believer” in/of magic, junk-science or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        So, quit trying to BEDAZZLE me with your “weazelworded” political science “tripe & piffle”, ….. cause it will only impress your “like-minded” friends, family and associates.

      • It is not any more “powerful” or “magical” than paint, Samuel. If you paint a section of that white sidewalk with black paint, then when the sun shines on it that section of sidewalk will get much hotter than the surrounding areas of white sidewalk, even though the black pigment is a tiny fraction of the sidewalk’s substance. To a significant depth (well, much thicker than the layer of paint, anyhow), the white concrete beneath the black paint warms along with the paint.

        The same thing is true with the atmosphere, when GHGs tint it in the far infrared. A pure N2+O2 atmosphere would be transparent at 15µm, but an atmosphere “colored” with trace amounts of CO2 becomes increasingly opaque, because the CO2 in the air absorbs those wavelengths.

        It doesn’t take much CO2 to have a large effect. MODTRAN Tropical Atmosphere calculates that just 20 ppmv of CO2 would have fully half the warming (absorbing) effect that the current ~407 ppmv has.

      • Dave Burton sayith, to wit:

        The same thing is true with the atmosphere, when GHGs [H2O, CO2, CH4] tint it in the far infrared. A pure N2+O2 atmosphere would be transparent at 15µm, but an atmosphere “colored” with trace amounts of CO2 becomes increasingly opaque, because the CO2 in the air absorbs those wavelengths.

        It doesn’t take much CO2 to have a large effect. MODTRAN Tropical Atmosphere calculates that just 20 ppmv of CO2 would have fully half the warming (absorbing) effect that the current ~407 ppmv has.

        Dave Burton, ….. enough of your silliness, ……. put your money where your mouth is …… and defend your reputation and credibility by actually performing a physical experiment to prove or disprove your above stated “sensitivity” claim that was based on what MODTRAN stated, ….. that the addition of ….. “just 20 ppmv of CO2 would have fully half the warming (absorbing) effect that the current ~407 ppmv has”.

        DB, it wouldn’t take much money, maybe $500, but less than a thousand dollars, ….. and some borrowed equipment. Or you could apply for a government Grant of $200K or $400K and buy everything you needed with plenty of money left over for personal expenses. HA HA

        Dave B, just build two (2) identical size frameworks, ……. out of 1/2″ white PVC plastic pipe, ……. with the dimensions of 20 x 10 x 8 feet square, ……. outside in an area where each will be subjected to the same environmental conditions (sunshine, darkness, rain, wind, etc.), ……. place temperature sensing thermocouples inside of each structure and connect them to an externally located recording device, ……… then cover both structures “air tight” (top, bottom and sides) with 4 mill clear plastic sheeting, …. and at 1 AM inject enough CO2 in just one (1) of the structures to increase its 407 ppm of CO2 to say 800 ppm …… and when the inside temperatures in both stabilizes and reads the same, …….. say at 3 AM, record the temperatures in each structure …… and again record said temperatures every hour on the hour (or every half hour, or ten minutes) ……. for the next 24 hours (or the next 48 hours iffen that’s what pleases you).

        And if CO2 has the “sensitivity” to solar irradiance that you and/or MODTRAN claims it has, then when the Sun rises in the morning and starts shining on the structures, the temperature in the structure containing 800 ppm CO2 ……. should start increasing sooner and faster and reach a greater temperature than in the other structure ….. and when the Sun starts setting in the afternoon, the temperature inside the structure with 800 ppm CO2 should remain higher than it is in the other structure up until and past the 3 AM starting point.

        And if it doesn’t, …… then the yours and/or MODTRAN’s CO2 “sensitivity” claims are totally FUBAR … and the hashing and re-hashing of said CO2 “sensitivity” thingy should cease among those who claim to be learned individuals.

        Cheers

      • Samuel, do feel free to conduct your experiment if you wish. Here are some suggestions:

        1. make sure that your plastic sheeting is transparent between 12 and 18 µm.

        2. use much higher CO2 concentrations, since you’re trying to simulate the optical thickness of the entire atmosphere within an 8 ft high box.

        But before you go to all that trouble, here are two much simpler experiments that you could perform, which might be educational:
         

        Experiment #1:
        Lesson: color can have a large effect on temperature.

        1. wait for a hot, summer afternoon.

        2. find a sidewalk and blacktop similar to this:

        3. while standing on the sidewalk, take off your shoes and socks.

        4. step onto the asphalt.

        5. note the temperature difference, due to the color difference.
         

        Experiment #2:
        Lesson: only a very small amount of a dye or colorant is needed to greatly affect the absorption spectrum.

        1. Starting with a 10x10x10 cm (one liter) cubic glass or clear plastic jar of water, add one drop of food coloring. (Or if you can use a different sized container and scale accordingly; e.g. 57 drops in a 15 gallon fish tank.)

        2. Notice that one drop of food coloring will noticeably tint the whole liter, but one drop is only about 0.05 ml, so one drop in one liter is 0.05 / 1000 = 0.00005 = just 50 ppm.

        3. But consider: although the atmosphere is less dense than liquid water, it is miles thick. The full thickness of the atmosphere is about the same mass as a 30 foot deep layer of water. Your cubic jar of colored water is only about four inches thick. So to get an equivalent thickness to the Earth’s atmosphere, you’ll have to stack up 90 of those jars of colored water (or 26 of those fish tanks) in a 30-foot-long row. (You can actually do this part of the experiment, if you wish, but it seems like an awful lot of trouble to prove the obvious, so I wouldn’t bother.)

        4. Now, if you were to look through (or shine a light through) the row of 90 jars of colored water, imagine how deep the color would be, from just 50 ppm food coloring.

        That’s why just a few ppm of a trace gas can significantly affect the spectrum of the light which passes through the Earth’s atmosphere, and have a potentially significant so-called “greenhouse” effect.

        5. If you shine a bright light through the container, which contains wavelengths that are absorbed by the dye, the contents warm due to absorption of the light (compared to its temperature without the dye). Even a few ppm of dye is sufficient to detect the effect. (You can do this part of the experiment, too, if you wish, but, again, it seems like an awful lot of trouble to prove the obvious.)

      • Dave Burton,

        Me thinks it is extremely important for the future of mankind, womankind, humankind and all liberal “troughfeeding” parasitic public employees …… that you author a scientific paper on your brilliant thoughts and ideas concerning, to wit:

        The ‘coloration’ of the atmosphere by GHGs in the far infrared”,

        ……. then have your brilliant, mind-bedazzling paper pal reviewed, … uh, I mean peer reviewed, ……. and published in all the scientific journals.

        If you do that I will guarantee that you will be given a Nobel Prize, ……. probably two (2) Nobel Prizes because of your brilliant expertise and learned scientific knowledge of earth’s climate, past, present and future.

        Why I betcha that Obummer and Gorebull will surely “share” their Prizes with you too.

        How can I possibly soar like an eagle when I have to fly with the turkeys”?

      • Samuel C. Cogar, you can’t get a paper published saying what everyone already knows. (Everyone who knows anything about the field, that is.)

    • Re david burton:
      **there is no significant man-made global warming**
      No, I agree with that statement, most warming or temperature change is natural.
      I would just add your remarks.

    • I would say that the negative consequences of CO2 enrichment and global warming are insignificant but that the benefits are substantial.

  4. Delicious irony/parody in mimicking the National Geographic design for the cover, and of course the Smiling Poley Bear

    Think I’ll buy a dozen and donate to all the local libraries (heh-heh)

  5. On topic, assuming the topic is books by skeptics.

    I recently published the PAPERBACK EDITION of my short story “DAD, WHY ARE YOU A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER?”

    And I’ve prepared the graphs/illustrations for the second book in the series “DAD, WHY ARE YOU A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, TOO?” It’ll be a couple of months until it’s ready for publishing.

    Ciao.

    PS: A heartfelt thank you to everyone who’s purchased and will purchase “DAD, WHY ARE YOU A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER?”

  6. “I remember that when I was a small boy, say 60 years ago, snows were frequent and deep in every winter.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1799

    The man’s command of the language never ceases to amaze. Thomas Jefferson, the adult, stood 6′ 2 1/2″ tall. Those daunting 18″ snows of his youth undoubtably looked less imposing once full grown.

    • Thomas Jefferson: Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

      I’ll answer that, as TJ isn’t likely to:
      “In exile in Russia.”

      Thanx and a tip o’ the hat to Joseph Heller and Francois Villon.

    • There’s a little problem with that Jefferson quote. He wasn’t a small boy 60 years ago (1739) He was -4 years old. The sperm and egg could not possibly remember the winter LOL
      His parents probably remembered

      • “..when I was a small boy, say 60 years ago…”.

        He could easily have been talking about 1743 or 1744 when he would have been eight or nine.

      • Ah, here it is. He really wrote that, but it was in Dec., 1809, not in 1799:

        https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-02-02-0044

        … I remember that when I was a small1 boy (say 60. years ago) snows were frequent and deep in every winter; to my knee very often, to my waist sometimes, and that they covered the earth long. and I remember, while yet young, to have heard from very old men that, in their youth, the winters had been still colder, with deeper & longer snows. in the year 1772. (37. years ago) we had a snow 2. feet deep in the Champain parts of this state, & 3. feet in the counties next below the mountains. that year is still marked in conversation by the designation of ‘the year of the deep snow.’ but I know of no regular Diaries of the weather very far back. in latter times they might perhaps be found. while I lived at Washington, I kept a Diary, & by recurring to that I observe that from the winter of 1802.3. to that of 1808.9. inclusive, the average fall of snow of the 7. winters was only 14½ Inches, & that the ground was covered but 16. days in each winter on an average of the whole. the maximum in any one winter during that period was 21.I. fall, & 34. days on the ground; the minimum was 4½ I. fall & 2. days on the ground. the change in our climate is very shortly noticed in the Notes on Virginia, because I had few facts to state, but from my own recollections, then only of 30. or 35. years. …

  7. Are there plans to translate this book into other languages? It would be a grand idea to ship crates of them to the UN.

  8. Added historical note:

    Jefferson also reported/recorded the “weather” day by day during the
    Continental Congress sessions using a mercury barometer and thermometer.

    No one seems interested in digging that information out. This data would
    \otherwise make for a politically incorrect Master’s thesis.

    • The night that Washington led his men across the Delaware River to attack the Hessians at Trenton and save the revolution Jefferson reported 8″ of snow fell at Monticello.

  9. Anyone know when I can see Marc Morano’s movie, (climate hustle) will it ever come out on you tube for example?

  10. If you stand still (ie expect things including climate to be static) you will be left behind. Look forward. See where your foot lands. Consider where it lands, think about it, but don’t worry about it. Worry about those you love. Friends, family. The world, including climate, has always and will always change. In the end Homo sapiens sapiens must go extinct. Will you help in that evaluation or hinder it?

  11. I would say that the negative consequences of CO2 enrichment and global warming are insignificant but that the benefits are substantial.

    • …to the tune of $1.5 to $2.5 Trillion per year in foodstuff production!

      Just think of how many empty stomachs that fills!

  12. Our planet is cold. Only the sunny part receives enough heat and, in summer, the closest hemisphere. But the heat does not keep. Even in a very well insulated house, if you stop the indoor heating the temperature drops to become comparable to that of the outside.

    The heat is rising. Climb to the ceiling in a room and in the sky outside. But, this heat loses degrees when rising. The hot becomes cold. Cold like the intergalactic immensity that surrounds us.

    Only submarine and submarine volcanic heat maintains 24/24 hours a temperature carried by the currents. This heat goes up to the coasts / beaches and rises in the atmosphere. That’s why it’s always better in the seas. Winds also help to warm up distant lands.

    What would happen to our world if the sun were to go out ?! (stupid question often asked).

    Today, our planet would continue to live. On the one hand, abundant energy (nuclear or hydro) could illuminate large greenhouses or buildings built hard with krypton bulbs. The millions (billions ?) Of submarine and submarine hot springs would continue to heat up the wind and currents 24 hours a day. gas carbonic would continue to be absorbed by the plants that supply our oxygen or it would continue to be absorbed / transformed by the phytoplankton present on all oceans, rivers, puddles, rain and fog, in nanoparticles of carbon. These nano become very quickly micro that constitute coal. Coal that turns into gas carbonic during its combustion.

    All is transformed, everything is recycled continuously and forever (and free without the help of anyone !).

    https://huemaurice5.blogspot.fr/2017/12/est-ce-que-40-000-volcans-sont.html

    https://huemaurice5.blogspot.fr/2015/03/les-volcans-sous-marins-finalement-pris.html

  13. I only had to read the first couple of sentences of your Thomas Jefferson quote to realise that it wasn’t anything recent. The whole style of writing was different a hundred and more years ago…

  14. The following from Marc Morano above sums it up perfectly:-
    “President Eisenhower’s farewell address, which warned of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but also said, ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’”
    In the UK so many of us now ignore the BBC
    and other parts of our media that questions are now being asked.
    Me?…..I read WUWT….then use foreign tv stations in English with British and American presenters from France, Germany, RT Moscow, China. India and Al Jazeera.”
    All of them have an agenda….

  15. FYI: I wanted to see the Jefferson quote so I did a word search on the word “snow” at the “Notes on the State of Virginia” link. Didn’t read the whole thing but at least when searching for “snow” it came up empty.

  16. I already bought and read a “Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” about ten years ago. It was full of great facts for rebuttal of the “warmists”, and cute little illustrations of pigs (for Politically Incorrect Guide).

    Maybe Marc Murano has done an update for 2018. I really like that polar bear on the surfboard!

Comments are closed.