Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; John Cook has released a new video which attacks a climate skeptic straw man, to try to bolster his 97% climate consensus claim.
Watch the video, judge for yourself.
What do I mean by “climate skeptic straw man”?
When John Cook claims 97% of climate scientists believe humans cause global warming, he is likely absolutely correct. The straw man is Cook’s suggestion that climate skeptics do not believe humans cause global warming.
Most climate scientists whom opponents identify as “climate deniers” believe anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I believe anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming. Suggesting that most skeptics do not believe CO2 causes global warming is nonsense.
But there is a huge difference between believing humans cause global warming, and believing that humans cause significant global warming, or that humans are the ONLY cause of modern era global warming.
Believing that humans cause global warming is not the same thing as believing that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are leading us towards an imminent climate catastrophe.
For anyone interested, the “Herr John Cook” image comes from a set of creepy images Cook published on Skeptical Science.
John Cook, climate change/global warming propagandist.
That’s all I have to say.
Stay safe and healthy, all.
Bob
Ich bin immer ein Slosher!
Such childish, anti-German propaganda is ridiculous. And it’s all based upon easily debunked & impossible nonsense.
Only lies require censorship and the imprisonment of those who engage in free speech & Thought Crimes.
Simply stated, the hateful, fake, & impossible ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived.
http://www.codoh.com
The grinning galoot trails his coat for attention again.
John Cook’s grin really creeps me out.
He could walk into the lead role in a Son of Dr Strangelove movie with Lewandowski as his pet parrot. Hey, there would be a buck in it which is what matters.
“ believe”?
This is what I was going to bring up. You can believe whatever you want but it doesn’t belong in science. There is data, observation, statistics, and the scientific method, but leave your beliefs out of it.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_39.html
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Thermal-Enhancement-on-Planetary-Bodies-and-the-of-Holmes/5d3ecd676b4ad08fe1a054b265eea789a9659dc2?p2df
Back radiation hypothesis is pseudoscience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHmGNDMV1cY
The Vostok ice-core data showing air temperatures changing BEFORE CO2 is incontrovertible evidence that the warming effect of the gas is negligible. The Warmists have causation the wrong way round.
Yes – but more to the point, the Vostok ice-core data show that temperature starts FALLING before CO2 starts falling, AND WHILE CO2 LEVELS CONTINUE TO RISE, which is REVERSE correlation clearly showing that CO2 has NO effect on temperature whatsoever. The effect of CO2 on temperature is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL and the exists NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE in the climate record that CO2 has ever been the “driver” of temperature in any direction.
Exactly. Why do you use the word “believe” Eric. That belongs in a church, synagogue, or mosque, not in science.
How about the data shows that ……. followed by the data ??
“Believe” in this context means accept as likely. I agree the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate is far from certain.
Any science that one must “believe” in is just religion in a white lab-coat.
Eric’s use of ‘ believe” here is fine, as in I believe in xyz because the scientific evidence demonstrates it to be true.
However the CAGW alarmist, overwrought with emotion, has a blind belief that is incapable of being reconsidered. This inability to consider the possibility of error is itself unscientific.
“That belongs in a church, synagogue, or mosque, not in science.” … and in ‘transgender’ and in ‘gender’ ideology, and in non-heterosexual ‘marriage’, for that matter.
If 97% of said climate scientists is a strong number enough to make global warming real and significant, then if 100% of priests (theology being their specialty) believe in God, then God must be real and significant. Why would we believe the first and deny the second?
Because the 97% consensus on global warming/climate change was a lie.
Luckily, with climate”science”, we are not (yet) in “believe or die” situation, like it was during crusades.
Unfortunately even his own study does not support that statement. He had to collapse 2 categories of respondents to get his 97%. 1) people who believe that CO2 is the major factor in CC, and 2) those who believed that CO2 has some effect, no matter how small, on temp. He could have broken those 2 categories out in his paper, which would have been the acceptable approach, and then show them combined. He chose not to do that, which in itself is telling.
It hinges on the meaning of “cause”
Cook needs “cause” to mean the IPCC definition which is more than half of the observed warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 but his data shows that “cause” means that only some of the warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 and that “some” ranges anywhere from a little to a lot but is completely undefined.
Worse for Cook is that from his data attributing “cause” as meaning greater than half of the observed warming is only supported by less than 3% of scientists.
It’s the old “if you don’t want to hear the answer to a question then don’t ask the question” thing. He asked the wrong question and now has to scientifically lie when discussing his findings. That makes him a despicable advocate and not a scientist.
Other problems with the survey
A) He includes opinions expressed by author of studies that did not address any causes
B) he omits from his stats, studies that did explore the cause of warming, where the authors of the study did not express an opinion as to the cause.
C) Authors who did multiple studies and who expressed the same opinion in those multiple studies get counted multiple times
You are a mug Eric just as bigger mug as heir Cook,
All you luke warmers are just gate-keepers of the none existent RGHE and you should be ashamed you cowardly bastar ds.
Stop it Gary you’ll make me cry.
Or laugh.
Science really does upset you.
As to cowardly bastards, I don’t believe you actually know what either of those terms mean, given how badly you have misapplied them.
Be kind – Mr Ashe has grown up with that surname. It has crippled his ability to think of anything concerned with warmth as producing anything but a blazing inferno. Clearly influences all of his thinking, especially on AGW!
“heir”?
>>>herr?
People like Cook flourish because of lukewarmers,
There is no evidence for CAGW because there is no evidence for AGW.
Ah yes, the inquisition abounds. Anyone who doesn’t worship as I do must be destroyed.
The evidence for a green house affect is all around.
The evidence for CO2 being the “driver” of said effect is nonexistent. To the extent the GHE is valid, it is the result of the TOTAL effect, which is ultimately at the hands of WATER VAPOR. CO2 level is meaningless outside of the hypothetical thought bubble the so-called “climate scientists” are lost in.
Every time I post about the GHE, MarkW suddenly appears with some stupid lukewarmer comment.
I think he has been taking lessons from Willis. Willis is the sphere, MarkW is the shell.
I refer to him as “My Little Stalker”. 🙂
Eric,
Is there proof the greenhouse effect exists outside a greenhouse and to what order of magnitude?
That CO2 impedes the flow of IR energy has been know since the days of Arrhenius. That’s the proof.
Yes, but it’s hydrology that establishes and maintains the thermal equilibrium.
Presently, there’s no indication that CO2 emissions have affected air temperature at all.
It is certainly possible that increased hydrological cycle cancels any warming. But I suggest the existence of seasons is evidence that the system can be perturbed by changes in the radiative balance.
“suggest the existence of seasons is evidence that the system can be perturbed by changes in the radiative balance.”
Aye, and as to the hydrological cycle I suspect it takes considerable energy to accelerate it.
A curious thing about seasons; as a SH summer induces a rather large 90 W-sqm INCREASE in solar radiation, which results in a global DECREASE of mean G.A.T. However it is far better to be precise that this is a reduction only atmospheric T. Causes – ? increase land NH reflection caused by NH snow, and increased below surface ocean absorbtion of TSI, and perhaps increased cloud cover.
The point is that earth’s atmospheric T response to an increased radiation flux that is almost two magnitudes greater then CO2 caused flux, is in the polar opposite direction; greatly increased TSI resulting in reduced atmospheric T.
Pat,
The earth currently is not at thermal equilibrium. The global temperature has been rising steadily (once you average over a decade or so to remove short term fluctuations) for the
last century and satellite measurements show that there is an imbalance at the top of the atmosphere so the earth is storing energy.
As for the claim that there is no indication that CO2 emissions have effected air temperature I would be curious to know what you would consider an “indication”?
Walton
Last century? How about the last 120 centuries?
–Pat,
The earth currently is not at thermal equilibrium.–
Right, and nor has it ever been.
And century or two time is too short of time measure global temperature changes. And Earth has cooling for thousands of years. And we been in Ice Age for millions of years- never reaching thermal equilibrium. One could not even imagine what a global thermal equilibrium temperature could be. Or there isn’t one, so you should not imagine you can, but tried anyhow, you would fail.
You say roughly, that it’s been quite cold lately- been having cold ocean and polar caps lasting for most recent million year- and cooler fairly recently.
“satellite measurements show that there is an imbalance at the top of the atmosphere so the earth is storing energy.”
In terms of heat, each 1 C of ocean is equal 1000 C of atmosphere- atmosphere doesn’t store a significant amount of energy in regards to global climate.
Just because the climate has warmed, is not evidence that CO2 caused the warming.
The climate has been 2 to 3C warmer than today for most of the last 10,000 years, all with CO2 levels much lower than today.
Wrong
Ceres OLR data matches UAH data very well.
There is no divergence.
Further more, balloon data , as analysed by the Connelly father and son duo, clearly shows that the atmosphere IS in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Just because water is the main green house gas is not evidence that CO2 is not a green house gas.
The climate signal is very noisy. The variation in that noise is greater than the projected CO2 signal. Not being able to find a signal buried in noise, is not evidence that the signal doesn’t exist.
H2O affects convection
CO2 does not.
Greenhouses affect convection
CO2 does not. !
Co2 is a radiative gas that is used in greenhouses to promote plant growth.
It has no “greenhouse” effect in the atmosphere, except to promote plant growth.
So you can just FANTASIES that it does…. Ok !
No evidence needed. 😉
CO2 affects convection, just not as much as H2O because H2O undergoes a phase transition.
CO2 DOES NOT affect convection.. PERIOD.
Its specific heat is less than that of H2O and the addition of a tiny fraction of CO2 would theoretically speed up convection by a tiny tiny , almost infinitely small amount.
Gases impede IR energy flow? Nope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHmGNDMV1cY
Atmospheres warm the surface of planets because they are kinetic and potential energy reservoirs, essentially acting as thermal capacitors.
In fact, Einstein developed the theory of stimulated emission by determining that thermodynamic equilibrium could not be achieved with spontaneous emission alone.
The theory has been proven with laser cooling.
That is completely backwards. Einstein’s 1917 paper on emission introduced spontaneous emission as a completely new physical effect. Stimulated emission was well known and understood but spontaneous emission was new. In effect he introduced randomness into physics since spontaneous emission is random which is rather ironic given his later claim that God does not play dice.
@ Isaak Walton
As “The Compleat Angler”, you’ve certainly landed a biggun there !
Tight lines !
😁
Really?
“Stimulated emission was a theoretical discovery by Albert Einstein[1][2] within the framework of the old quantum theory, wherein the emission is described in terms of photons that are the quanta of the EM field. Stimulated emission can also occur in classical models, without reference to photons or quantum-mechanics.[3]”
That’s just wikipedia, but also confirmed in the MIT open course I just watched…
Not true.
Air heats while it is being compressed. Held at constant pressure there is no heat being generated.
I suppose, yet increased molecular density certainly increases heat capacity.
?( Is a thermometer only affected by the energy of the molecules striking it, or also by the number of molecules in a given mass?)
The atmosphere is ALWAYS under compression.
This allows it retain energy.
If fact it MUST retain energy to hold up the air above it.
Are you one of these people who thinks that it doesn’t require energy to hold something steady against gravitational forces? REALLY !!
And where does the energy to do all this come from? The sun.
Like Fred states below, the atmosphere is RETAINING energy, not generating it. This is a strawman we’ve clarified countless times but the follower-lukewarmers just seem to ignore it. Apparently these are also people that believe once a gas phase is created, the only thermodynamic property that matters is radiative emission. Which of course would lead to runaway warming, maybe read some of the links.
If you heat something up, it immediately begins to radiate. This “retained” energy is nothing more than energy that hasn’t radiated away, yet.
If the atmosphere did not receive energy from the sun, it would eventually cool down and collapse into first liquids, then solids.
The idea that the atmosphere is hot because it is under pressure is pure nonsense.
Think of a bicycle tire. When it’s being pumped up, it gets warm. But leave it alone, it eventually returns to the same temperature as the surrounding air that is at a much lower temperature. According to your theory, the tire should remain warm until the pressure is released.
“If you heat something up, it immediately begins to radiate.”
Something? So solids are just gases like, climastroligy fallacy #1 presented yet again.
“If the atmosphere did not receive energy from the sun, it would eventually cool down and collapse into first liquids, then solids.”
Yes, you got something right though it is basically non sequitur in this sense. It condenses due to conductive collisions with cooler molecules, not radiative.
“The idea that the atmosphere is hot because it is under pressure is pure nonsense.”
Sigh* The same strawman ad infinitum. The atmosphere’s energy primarily comes from the sun. The energy is RETAINED by gravitational compression.
Sigh* The same strawman ad infinitum^2. When you pump up a bike tire, you are doing work on the gas within the tire, the gas is trapped within the tire, the velocity of the molecules within the tire increase due to conservation of energy, hence, temperature increases. When you stop increasing the number of air molecules in the tire, it cools down, the air molecules within the tire cool down. If you put that tire into a freezer, the volume within the tire doesn’t change if it’s rigid, the number of molecules doesn’t change, but the pressure and temperature drop. This is because the velocity of the molecules decrease significantly. In essence, your bike tire has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here, we’re talking about quadrillion tons of air above the surface of the planet. I don’t know what your problem is here, maybe you think air molecules aren’t affected by gravity? Maybe you don’t understand that each air molecule is a gas in the first place due to solar energy, not paradoxically from back radiation of air molecules?
I know that concepts like energy can be tricky at first, maybe you should keep reading up on kinetic energy and potential energy.
Again, try understanding https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_39.html
Maybe this is helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a4D2xqHBF4
I’m beginning to see why Australia and England don’t have space agencies.
Arrhenius neglected convective flows, which is where the heat transfer action is in the troposphere.
Also, almost everyone neglects the fact that they’re answering the wrong question.
The relevant question is “do atmospheric CO2 levels above pre-industrial levels, generally agreed upon as around 280ppm, warm the planet globally”.
Answers on a postage stamp please or, in the alternate, wake me up when it gets measured.
Only “Doctor Who”, with his Tardis could possibly answer that question. 🤔
Maybe he will do it in the future/past or sometime in the spacetime continuum ?
We shall see, or we won’t see will we, or not?
🔄
Ugly straw man Jack ….
Specifically that convective flows are impeded by gravity. Gravity is effectively the roof of our greenhouse we call Earth, the real greenhouse effect.
Sun warms planet, some of the planet becomes gas, kinetic energy is converted into potential energy, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, kinetic energy provides a feedback for enhanced thermal energy at the planet’s surface. The kinetic energy is even the primary reason for most of the water vapor in the air, providing the noticeable latent heat.
Do these people really think that a thermometer measuring the temperature of the night air is due to infrared emissions of the air? Or is it that they think infrared resonance with gases only increases the kinetic energy of gases despite unequivocal proof that it also decreases the temperature of gases?
It reaches a point in the atmosphere when all the heat that has to come out of the planet has to do it through radiation. There is no other way. The height where this happens changes when the GHG levels change. If the emission height increases, the temperature at that point decreases, reducing the emission as it is temperature dependent. Since the amount of energy that has to come out is the same as the amount of energy that comes in, the temperature of the surface has to increase. The theory is solid.
However other effects can alter the result. A change in albedo also alters the radiative balance. There are also other feedbacks that can alter the result, so the amount of warming that an increase in GHGs causes is not known.
Nothing quite like a solid theory that bears no further investigation. Climate science has a tendency to make constants out of variables ,ie lapse rates.
Javier, there is a fairly large band at the top of the troposphere where the temperature is constant. Also, why can’t slight changes in convective flows prevent a change in emission height
If the emission height increases that would mean a larger area of the atmosphere is being warmed by radiation leaving the surface. Same amount of radiation, therefore a slight cooling effect in the atmosphere. Why then would surface temperature need to increase?
Research by Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin in 1989 – The Effects of Infrared Absorbing Gases on Window Heat Transfer – showed that air provided better insulating performance than carbon dioxide!
The change in emission height depends on GHGs. Withouth GHGs the emission height is the surface because the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation.
The amount of energy that goes out has to match the amount that comes in (on average over time and disregarding the negligible contribution from geothermal from a cooling planet, and the energy provided by tides and Moon backlighting).
The energy of the GHG molecule (be it water, CO2, or other) doing the emission determines the chance of emission. The temperature of the molecule (its vibrating state) is a manifestation of its energy. If the molecule is colder because it is higher in the atmosphere the chances of emission decrease, which means there is less energy being emitted. This causes the Earth to warm until more emission is produced to match the incoming energy.
The theory is very solid. The sky-dragon slayers have always been very wrong. The problem is that CO2 is just a factor out of several. It is like putting double glass in your windows. It should keep the house warmer, but if the house is old and full of currents you are wasting your money as the warmth escapes through other places.
Yes. But effects of doubling of CO2 seems quite small, I put the effect at 0 to .5 C in the short term of hundred years.
And considering that we live in an Ice Age, one should be welcoming such a warming effect.
What is important in regards to global temperature is the temperature of the ocean. The ocean require a lot heat to warm up, and stores a lot energy. And our present ocean has cooling mechanisms- arctic cold water falling- which is factor effecting our icehouse climate and causing us to be in an Ice Age.
When you are in Ice Age with it’s cold ocean, volcanic heating of deep water becomes more significant controlling factor. Or if the ocean were 10 C rather the present temperature of 3.5 C the ocean geothermal heating has a less noticeable effect upon global temperatures.
During our Ice Age the ocean has not warmed higher than 5 C nor cooled below 1 C. And volcanic heating is factor that stops ocean from getting colder [going into Slushball Earth] and ocean not going to go higher than 5 C ocean at roughly the present “levels of ocean geothermal heating”. And that range of ocean temperature is our Ice Age.
Or ocean geothermal heat is not everything, but it’s not insignificant either, and it seems it’s more significant during an Ice Age.
But ocean temperature is everything, and I don’t think levels greenhouse gases are having much effect upon ocean temperature- they seem to mostly follow, rather than cause an effect.
True, but not relevant.
For there to be convective flows, the air must first warm up.
The sun does some of this, however green house gases increase the affect.
GHGs have their heat retaining effects in the first two miles of atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere cooling is dominant (radiation gets lost to space). This has been shown applying the Schwarzschild equations for water (the dominant GHG), methane and CO2. Earth warming and cooling during the last hundreds of millions of years have more or less tracked the solar magnetic field activity (low field = cooling, high field = warming). The sun is the key, not CO2 which is being dissolved or outgassed from the oceans depending on temperature (it’s levels follow temperature, it isn’t the cause).
Another quick tap on the shoulder Mark – you’re answering the wrong question again.
You’re in good company though. Even Willis and Lord Monckton exhibit that bad habit on occasion.
Known, even?
🤔 ….
Endless Enigma ?
Really John Cook is a rent seeking fantasist in mine opinion, and Arrhenius didn’t have the tools that modern protagonists have available, such as digital computers and orbital satellites etc. Arrhenius never saw a deep drilled ice core, nor did he have access to gas chromatography. Age old arguments from long dead decrepit theorising and algebraic assertions based upon incomplete data are meaningless and pointless in any modern credible hypothesis.
Here is a message for John Cook from ELP, that’s appropriate in the circumstances I think.
“Why do you stare
Do you think that i care?
You’ve been mislead
By the thoughts in your head
Your words waste and decay
Nothing you say
Reaches my ears anyway
You never spoke a word of truth
Why do you think
I believe what you said
Few of your words
Ever enter my head
I’m tired of liver for freaks?
With tongues in their cheeks
Turning their eyes as they speak
They make me sick and tired
Are you confused
To the point in your mind
Though you’re blind
Can’t you see you’re wrong
Won’t you refuse
To be used
Even though you may know
I can see you’re wrong
Please, please, please open their eyes
Please, please, please don’t give me lies…”
Emerson, Lake & Palmer – Endless Enigma
(Rachel Flowers International Collaboration cover version)
[code]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_7cNKWmRtI[/code]
….. Nice 😎
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_7cNKWmRtI
WordPress changed again ?
How tedious that WordPress won’t embed a YouTube video from merely the URL, but this mini-demo here may help some others to do it. So use the format like above with the “code” brackets etc., but do remember to use the chevroned ones (greater than – less than symbols) and not use square brackets unlike I did there … Oops. 😣
IMHO, I don’t think we will ever really know how much, if any. Feedbacks may be positive, negative or neutral in the scheme of things. There is just no way to conduct the experiment because of the complexity of the weather/climate and the fact that we only have one planet to observe locally. How would we know what the temperature would have been today, had we not yet starting burning fossil fuels? An impossible question to answer.
One thing most of us agree on here, is that not only is it not dangerous warming, but it is beneficial warming and the CO2 byproduct its most definitely beneficial as we see from the greening of the good Earth. If anything, what people think is warming is the Urban Heat Island (UHI) that actually does make people feel warmer, because it is, in a city. Sometimes 6-7 C warmer in the big city compared to the countryside. But cities are only a small fraction of the land surface of the planet, and do not warm the entire planet, but the majority of people now are living in big cities so they do feel warmer because it is warmer in the city. But that doesn’t have anything to do with CO2, so is a moot point. It would still be pretty much the same temps in the city from UHI no matter what the atmospheric content of CO2 is/was and lowering the CO2 in the atmosphere won’t decrease UHI much, if any. People are confused, and then some shiesters come along and say we can cool things down if you pay a tax on fossil fuels. It’s amazing some people are this gullible and some scientists are this crooked.
“How would we know what the temperature would have been today, had we not yet starting burning fossil fuels?”
Just build a computer model, enter the answer you want as it’s output, then change the data, parameters, equations to match the output. Climate “scientists” can do this in a heartbeat.
Why bother with the effort and expense of a computer model to forecast a rising temperature trend when you can change history through a process known as data homogenisation and actually HAVE a rising trend – forecast free. It has already warmed; the ‘data’ tells us so.
Feedbacks have to be negative, they must oppose change, otherwise the Earth’s climate would not have exhibited the remarkably stability we’ve observed over geological timescales. The current Quaternary Ice age is a significant outlier.
DING! DING! DING!
We have a winner!
An impossible question? Not really. All you need is a site with impeccable records situated in the middle of a desert (dry constant climate) ,far from the sea and the tropics and far removed from mans influence (agriculture forestry construction) and observe the response to changing CO2 levels, over ,say , the last 65 years.
If nothing changes apart from CO2 levels, effectively a controlled experiment.
Check out Giles weather station in Aus. BOM data.
No increase in minimum temps, no reduction in Tmax-Tmin
Conclusion…No extra heat trapped, NONE.
QED
Same as it ever was. Probably true in shorter time frames that we can see and measure. Certainly nothing to worry about. Probably a fraction of natural variation anyway within the planet’s cyclicality. And if CO2 actually did do any work, where it would be seen, it would be in the desert, in Antartica, where the humidity and water vapor is already low, and not have to compete in the 15 μ band with water vapor. And we don’t really see it, if any, in the desert or Antartica. So why would it have much effect in the rest of the atmosphere? It really is a Nothin’ Burger. Except it is good plant food so I have to conclude overall that it net beneficial and the best thing to happen to the planet in millions of years as far as life goes.
Lrp
No.
What is the probability that anyone who doesn’t support the “consensus”, can even have a position as a climate scientist? A self-selecting group, that demonstrates it has a 97% selection bias, isn’t news is it?
What’s the daily rate for punching the straw man? Is it like ad placement buys?
Consensus = Politics
Evidence = Science … there is NONE.
Eric, you state, ‘I believe anthropogenic Co2 causes global warming’. Big fan of your contributions to this site. As a fan, could you kindly elucidate your reasoning for this statement? If you could possibly clarify between natural Co2 emissions and those of natural origin, taking into acount very localised UHI effects, and bearing in mind the latter (natural) knock the former (anthropogenic) into a cocked hat I’d be obliged? Best wishes, Mack.
Mack I was speaking in an abstract sense. Starting from the position that GHG increases the greenhouse effect, adding even a thimble full of CO2 must have an impact. How the Earth’s climate responds to that added CO2, how significant that anthropogenic CO2 is in the context of natural sources, etc. I don’t pretend I have the answers to those questions.
I’m with you on the ‘thimble’ analogy! Many thanks and keep up the good work. All the best.
Eric,
You must consider the complete atmospheric process.
Sure, the science says that CO2 is able to absorb snlight and to get warmer as it does. (Then, it radiates heat away.)
It is incomplete to then infer that the complex system named “the atmosphere” will warm as a consequence of having more CO2.
One could observe, trivially, that a magnifying glass can affect the radiation from the sun, making a hot spot able to make paper and wood catch fire. But, one cannot infer that more people using magnifying glasses can or will cause atmospheric temperatures to rise.
The reason is because anomalous heat in the air is acted upon by processes tending to bring that heat back to average levels. If this did not happen, there would be run away heating.
That said, there are processes that do lead to an overall change in the average T. They happen for example, with changes in the distance from sun to earth, in complex ways.
For your assumption about GHG to he credible, you need to be able to explain why more CO2 in the air is different to people using more magnifying glasses. You need to include the back end processes of energy dissipation in the atmosphere.
I have read many, many papers that set out to fully explain how the GHG hypothesis works. I have not found a single paper that succeeds. The mechansms are complex, hard to measure, hard to comprehend. That is not a reason to duck-shove the problems and merely assert that the hypothesis can be accepted, let alone enforced by governments who simply do not have a clue about what they are unleashing. Ignorance rules, OK?
Geoff it is entirely possible that other atmospheric processes cancel out GHG, but as I said earlier to Pat Frank the existence of seasons are evidence that changes in radiative balance can perturb the surface temperature, despite negative feedbacks.
Having said that I accept that it is far from clear exactly what effect anthropogenic CO2 has on global climate. It is entirely possible atmospheric CO2 forcing on global climate is utterly insignificant compared to other forcings, such as changes to cloud cover driven by ocean currents or cosmic rays or whatever.
The fact that the surface temperature, in most locations on the planet, rise and fall on DAILY basis means there is never thermal equilibrium anywhere on the planet.
Surface temperature has little meaning with respect to heat balance as well. Australian surface temperature varies greatly depending on the amount of water in the soil and water vapour above it.
Globally, the amount of water in the atmosphere varies by about 25% over a yearly cycle as well as varying from year-to-year. That factor alone has a huge impact on the global energy balance and any measurements aimed at arriving at a number.
There is no convincing evidence that the globe has had a net increase in thermal energy since 1850; no convincing evidence that such a thing as ‘greenhouse effect’ exists and absolutely no evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere has resulted in a net increase in thermal energy on planet Earth.
First off, the sun doesn’t warm CO2, it doesn’t absorb short wavelengths.
The sun warms the ground (or oceans).
This heat then has to radiate back to space.
The affect of CO2 is nothing like a magnifying glass, it is more like a blanket.
97 percent is old news. The latest consensus is 105 percent, based on a show of hands from 20 scientists at a recent Brilliant Government Bureaucrat Scientist Convention.
After the official vote a committee was formed to discus the 105 percent, and after a one hour heated debate on whether lunch would be vegetarian pizza or meat pizza, it was concluded that one of the 20 scientists must have raised both hands during the consensus vote.
However, that was deemed “okay”, because they assumed that scientist was so SURE about a coming climate crisis that he was overcome with emotions, and raising one hand was not enough.
So now the climate consensus is 105 percent. Only old fogies and losers still say 97 percent.
Yeah you got me 🙂
those bastards at the BGBSC piss me off, they refused to count me 3 times as I had one leg up along with my 2 hands. So I was only counted once.
I did jazzhand the hell out of them though, really bedazzled them.
they will rue the day they crossed me…
John Who? This guy disappeared long ago from the scene as he had nothing else to say. We shouldn’t waste any time talking about him anymore.
Yes but it was an opportunity to show the “Herr Cook” picture again.
I can’t imagine why anyone would think that it was cool to dress up like an ‘exterminator.’
He’s an assistant professor at George Mason University, “John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, researching cognitive science.” I saw a reference to him as a “Climate Communication Scientist”. Puke.
Considering he was a cartoonist, that speaks really badly of George Mason University. Anyway cognitive science is a contradiction of terms. That’s one of the fields at the center of the reproducibility crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Psychology_replication_rates
With a 50 % replication rate that is no science at all.
No wonder considering they hire people like John Cook, famous for lying.
97% was the result of a literature survey where the authors guessed what the scientists were thinking including assuming that if a scientist who studies the possible effect of warming agrees with the assertion that it is actually happening; such scientists would not have a job without assuming that global warming happens. There has been no real controlled survey of the scientists themselves and it will never happen because everyone including Cook knows the result will not be 97%.
At the start of fourth paragraph in the above article: “When John Cook claims 97% of climate scientists believe humans cause global warming, he is likely absolutely correct.”
I stopped reading right then and there. I don’t have time for such nonsense.
You shouldn’t have. Because humans do cause global warming. The question is, how much.
Not as much as Termites or Ants who outnumber Humans by several orders of magnitude, consuming biological matter and emitting millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere on an ongoing basis. Nobody has even made a dent in their vast numbers.
That’s just one example, but Humans are so hubristic aren’t they? Why if something’s happening in the World, it must be us what done it, and we must do something to turn back time to make it all the same again, as we remembered it from our youth?
Tomorrows population of Humans will be saying they’ve caused Global Cooling, and trying to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, to make it “right again” by warming up the planet and make it how they remembered it from the days of their youth.
“Global Warming” is a temporal issue, caused by the less than 100 years lifespan of Human individuals, isn’t it? In the future the criteria and the data will change to suit the next crisis. Humans NEED a crisis to operate in society. With no crisis to focus on, everybody could just do what they linked and wanted individually, and that’s no good for World Order is it?
Hmm.
MarkW stated “Because humans do cause global warming.”
I eagerly await the scientific demonstration that this is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Please point me to the scientific paper (preferably papers) where IN SITU experiments have confirmed this theory. Models and handwaving arguments are not acceptable substitutes for experimental data.
In particular, this demonstration must be able to show—again, beyond reasonable doubt—the specific causes of observed Earth’s cooling period from 1940 to 1975 and observed Earth’s “hiatus” in warming from 1998 to 2015, both intervals having ever-increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 (yes, including ever-increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2).
In a very real sense, nature has already run the experiment that demonstrates humans do NOT cause global warming (to any significant degree).
Because, as Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman stated:
“If it disagrees with experiment (observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
“I stopped reading right then and there. I don’t have time for such nonsense.”
What do you expect from guys who add and subtract fluxes?
What next? Adding and subtracting temperatures?
So you reject people who do science. Good to know.
“So you reject people who do science. Good to know.”
Yes, that’s why I totally accept you, MarkW.
MarkW+MarkW= 2MarkWs
What a horrible thought.
The whole premise of this video is that the “97% claim” is an undeniable and unchangeable “fact” (and any questioning of it is “misinformation”). If you start with a false premise every logical attempt to show the falsity of the false premise appears to be, to you, illogical. Thus, contrary to the intention of the video, it fails to show how illogical (or fiendish) are the folks who are trying to show the illogical nature of the premise.
Ideologically possessed.
Just remember, 87.125% of all statistics are made up.
If you make it up, you don’t need to explain how you got it, it just “is”.
John Cook’s ideas on CO2, Global Warming and government response required to deal with a non-problem are as creepy as the photos of himself in Nazi uniform as “Gauleiter Johann Cook”, which he published on the Skeptical Science site.
We’re back in the 1940s and 50s:
A: “97% of tobacco scientists say that smoking does not cause lung cancer.”
B: “But Dr Smith of John Hopkins University, who is an expert on respitory disease, says it does.”
A: “He is not a tobacco scientist. “
”But Dr Smith of John Hopkins University, who is an expert on respitory disease, says it does.”
…….. But not in 85% of cases…..should be added. So it doesn’t more than it does.
From Paul Homewood’s blog in 2015:
“It is clear that. from the very start, Cook and his colleagues were intent upon providing an eye-catching “consensus” which they could sell to the media, and which would be picked up by politicians and others in the establishment, regardless of what the evidence actually said.
The reality is starkly different. After searching through 12000 scientific papers, spread over 20 years, all they could only come up with was 65 which supported the supposed consensus.”
So 97% of sweet FA, yet here we are still breathing life into it as if it was a genuine statistic.
Cook’s day job was as a cartoonist, but him and his rabid little gang (Vermicelli, Lewandowsky et al) were actually listened to by people who ought to have known much better. A dangerous – and expensive – fool.
So they came up with a new criteria, any paper that doesn’t explicitly reject catastrophic global warming is assumed to implicitly accept it. Even the papers that had nothing to do with climate.
I’m not really fazed about the back & forth arguments and assertions from agw that it’s all down to manmade CO2. Science will win out on this in the end.
What p155es me off though is that the agw boosters demand that we buy their whole “package” – that there is an existential climate problem, and so we need to trash our treasuries and economies in order to install unreliable, under-performing wind and solar “solutions”
I mean, rational thinking and analysis are in extremely short supply in the agw camp.
Mr
Excellent comment.
The alarmists are promoting a “package”
Absolutely! Accepting the “climate emergency” means accepting a chain of weak links in its entirety. If any one of those links is broken, no climate emergency.
Yes, to paraphrase that sage advice from Clemenza about the Nazis in ‘The Godfather’ –
“we shoulda stopped them at Rio”
Follow the money – who is making a profit here – and it all starts making more sense. It was never about the climate, or warming, or CO2 – those are the cover stories to keep the public engaged. It’s about getting more funding for research, climbing the prestige ladder (for more money), controlling industries, picking winners (so you can invest in them first). Al Gore comes to mind.
Would like to link to Eric Holthaus’s recent statement that climate change isn’t about science, but about “justice.”
Doesn’t seem to work here.
Is it really that complicated?
If you can’t explain temp rises in the past, you can’t use the co2 hypothesis to explain the temp rise in the present.
+97
Could it be that the reason this video exists is the warmists sense a ground swell of dissent?
An essay scheduled for tomorrow discusses an interesting issue with commitment to global warming alarmism.
How can people be so ignorant? I can’t imagine how dishonest a person must be to try to defend that 97% idiocy. Cook is a charlatan and Oreskes a fabulist.
Jim Jones had 97% consensus
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/consensus-science/
“When John Cook claims 97% of climate scientists believe humans cause global warming, he is likely absolutely correct.”
He absolutely is not correct on that point as has been repeatedly demonstrated in many places. The paper and data are still available for download. It is a relatively straightforward job to review the data. I have done so myself.
Its a subtle piece of semantics. Humans cause global warming, but probably not very much global warming. IMO Cook is manipulating language, something he’s good at.
I think the conjecture is mostly to do with the lifespans of Humans, remembering their own past from several decades ago. As the planet continually warms or cools, it depends upon what the average temperature was during their youth, as to whether they perceive if it’s warming or cooling in the present day.
There is no stasis in Global temperature, or anything else, on this small rock travelling through space and time, and orbiting its nearby giant thermonuclear reactor , we call The Sun. Most people don’t even think about these issues, except in an abstract sense. It hurts their tiny brains to do so, and they’ve got families to feed, and daily life to get on with. Only hokum and bogus rentseekers make a big deal about what is after all a blip in geological time, in the grand scheme of reality.
Maybe the Aztecs got it best of all. The Sun is in control of all our lives, and we can do nothing about The Sun’s behaviour can we ? Maybe we don’t need to worship and pray to a Yellow Dwarf Star, we can but look and wonder. That’s it.
CO2 ? Schmee O2. Oy vey !
Jumping Jack Flash, it’s a Gas !
Pretty sure that if a scientist does not agree with the “global warming” farce..
….. they are not classed as a “climate scientist” in the slimy worm’s ideology.
Its sort of self limiting to 100% !
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/49302/
That(John Cook’s Skeptical Science) is probably the worlds biggest climate science disinformation site.
They take a field(climate science) that few people understand or have data for and use a bunch of real climate science combined with anti science to spin a fake climate crisis out of a climate optimum.
Then, they pretend that they are the complete opposite of what they are and accuse those that disagree with them of doing what they do.
Supposedly objective and open minded, they are the exact opposite of that. They start with a climate crisis and interpret(spin) all data to support the crisis, with very little skepticism or objectivity and one of the top priorities, is to discredit people like me (so called deniers) that are actually using scientific skepticism and letting the data lead us vs subjectively interpreting data so it only supports one thing and ignoring all data that doesn’t show it.
They even did a bogus (manipulated) study that supposedly showed 97% of climate scientists agreed on the climate crisis.
John Cook, who runs it, has probably contributed to more people getting dumber about climate and CO2 using internet sources than any one person on the planet.
John Cook and his team looked at tens of thousands of papers that mostly don’t support his position but he twists them to make you think they do. 97% of climate scientists(including me) believe that humans have caused varying amounts of global warming/climate change, some more than others. This is what he found. If that was his position……………….no problems. But he believes that we are having a climate crisis from the beneficial warming. This is NOT what those 97% stated at all. Only a small fraction of them believe that we are having a climate crisis and the vast majority, like me DISAGREE with his view.
I actually PROVE that we are indisputably having a climate OPTIMUM for life on this greening planet with all my empirical data/research. Not despite climate change/global warming but BECAUSE OF IT.
Keep in mind, for the past 38 years, almost every day, all day long, I analyze the global atmosphere and have spent the past 2 decades studying climate and applying this to the real world that includes predicting crop yields/food production and energy use.
I haven’t published any peer reviewed stuff using the information that I’ve observed and learned and I’m not as smart at math as some of the PHD climate modelers that program computers to simulate the weather/climate for the next 100 years using mathematical equations but I have, instead published 3 dozen articles/discussions, generously sharing it here with others that want the truth.
You will not find the truth in global climate models, that have all been too warm for decades and been discredited by all objective sources………….but continue to be relied on as evidence of the crisis. You will find the truth by observing what has been happening in the REAL atmosphere for the last 100 years and how its affected the REAL life on this REAL planet……………not a simulated world and from people using worst case and exaggerated scenarios that don’t match up with the REAL world. Almost all of their apocalyptic predictions have been wrong for more than 3 decades now.
Funny thing. 3 decades ago, I actually believed much of it about the crisis. Fortunately for me, my profession as an operational meteorologist allowed me to understand the atmosphere better than those continuing the catastrophic predictions. I have learned a tremendous amount during that time because the science is NOT settled as many insisted 15 year ago(Gore for instance). But what about Joe and Jill non climate experts that only get their information from the gatekeepers?
One of those gatekeepers is John Cook the climate charlatan. I would love to have a debate with him or anybody else that represents the fake climate crisis.
Ironically, he spends a great deal of time trying to convince everybody that people like me are the ones spreading misinformation:
Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change
John Cook George Mason University, USA
https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Cook_2019_climate_misinformation-1.pdf
It’s convincing sounding scientific frauds like him………that have a 10,000 times bigger following than I will ever have that make my mission to enlighten people with the truth(about the fake climate crisis) a futile effort but still worth it since, at least, some people have come to better understand authentic, climate truths based on science not politics .
This is my stuff:
…using data, from the viewpoint of an atmospheric scientist that has analyzed weather and climate almost every day for the past 38 years. I’m just reporting how the atmosphere and life on this planet is responding…….and how/why the politics hijacked climate science for global socialism/Marxism.
Climate Reality discussions-new article 2-24
Started by metmike – April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
So John and skeptical science talk a convincing sounding game using words and sometimes cherry picked data as well as leaving out most of the wonderful benefits that this climate optimum is having for most life. (Don’t you ever wonder why you don’t read about the benefits associated with climate change?……….oh, except for ticks and roaches and mosquitoes and weeds and virus’s……somehow, all bad life flourishes on climate change but the same climate change………kills all good life. Weird.
Actually, if you have some objective brain cells you know that can’t possibly be the truth. Only in politics, is the beneficial gas CO2 defined as pollution and the current climate optimum defined as a crisis………..wait, the latest word that sounds even more scary is the climate emergency.
Less than 10 years to go before we destroy the planet. Better do what they say this time (-: They didn’t really mean it the last 31 years, when they said the exact same thing every year. This time is for real (-:
You know that story, “The boy who cried wolf”?
If he cried wolf 31 times in a row and the village people came running to him each time, with no signs of a wolf 31 times in a row, instead of it being a lesson to children to not give false alarms or you will never be believed when you tell the truth, the lesson would be much different.
People can be gullible creatures that will believe/buy anything and forget common sense if you package the product with the right marketing scheme(s)………..”saving the planet”…..after all, who could possibly be against saving the planet………..outside of us deniers that don’t believe in the climate model fairy tale forecasts!
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
“Don’t you ever wonder why you don’t read about the benefits associated with climate change?”
A recent paper by the Harvard Forest research facility, “Carbon budget of the Harvard Forest Long-Term Ecological Research site: pattern, process, and response to global change”. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343425030_Carbon_budget_of_the_Harvard_Forest_Long-Term_Ecological_Research_site_pattern_process_and_response_to_global_change.
This paper says that forests have been growing much faster in the past few decades.
Scientists coming out of the woodwork-no climate crisis!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/41293/
In 1939 Germany the support for the little guy with the ridiculous mustache was also 97 %. However after the war you could not find a single German that would admit having been a supporter.
The same will happen after the climate war is over. At least in the case of John Cook we have the picture as proof.
Yep, this will start to happen when scientists in unrelated fields realize that this is affecting them and their ability to fund their own science projects, and lives in general.
Alas, the lessons of actual history are lost on the agw boosters.
Perhaps that’s what happens to folk who only see the world through their lens of fantasy models.
Realities don’t get a seat at their table. And it shows, viz – “professor” John Cook.
Yes and the other 3 percent who refused to sign the pledge were sent to the earliest versions of the concentration camps. Their names and photos are documented at some of the camp museums to remind visitors of the domestic political aspect of some arrivals. As the cleansing of ‘Good German Science’ progressed even the inventor of mustard gas weapons from WWI was sent fleeing because of his ethnicity and the early researcher into the unique potential of uranium for fissionable reactions lost her standing.
Much of the support for the little guy is, similar to the support for CAGW currently.
Bad things will happen to you if you don’t.
This damned 97% BS CAGW scientific consensus lie is, and always has been, bogus….
All good Leftist government propaganda contain an element of truth and CAGW’s” 97% consensus” BS is a perfect example.
100% of empirical evidence show: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs photons with a frequency of 15 microns, 2) CO2 forcing does cause SOME global warming, 3) we’ve enjoyed about 1C of beneficial global warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850….
The big lie is, 4)” 97% of all scientists believe CO2-induced warming will be “catastrophic” which is complete lie.
Hell, there is ZERO empirical evidence showing CAGW’s assumed ECS (global warming per CO2 doubling) is anywhere close to the 3C~5C, which is based ENTIRELY on disconfirmed and bogus climate model projections.. ZERO.
Even if CAGW’s assumption that “most” (>51%) of the 1C total global warming recovery we’ve enjoyed since 1850 is CO2 induced (Legates el al shows only 0.3% of all climatology peer-reviewed papers make this specific claim, not 97%), that’s just 0.5C to date, for an ECS of around (0.8C ~ 0.9C–because CO2 forcing is logarithmic), which not only isn’t a problem, it’s a net benefit…
All empirical evidence show CO2’s actual contribution to total global warming recovery is closer to just 0.3C since 1850 (Linden and Choi et al supots this), for an ECS of around 0.5C~0.6C…. Oh, my…
CAGW is believed by so many primarily because of 3 logical fallacies: argumentum ad populum, argumentum adveredundiam and post hoc ergo propter hoc….
Bottom line, CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis. If we did NOTHING to reduce C02 emissions, we’d enjoy around 0.9C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, and have: longer growing seasons, increased crop yields from CO2 fertilization, earlier springs, less crop frost loss, fewer deaths from exposure, more agriculture output in Northern latitudes, more dense forests, less drought, more rain, less severe winters, etc…
CAGW is just a Leftist hoax concocted to destroy capitalism and steal $100’s of trillions and take control of every aspect of our lives through unneeded and economy-killing CAGW regulations…
Excellent analysis and one that I would concur with. I just hope there is a smidgeon of warming because that is an insurance policy on any temporary dip in temps to some forcing such as VEI 6-7 volcanic eruption that disrupts agriculture temporarily. Any little extra warming will hopefully tide us through any dip that could be a problem for agricultural output for a season or two. With 7-8 billion people on the planet at any one given time, there is a risk of things not always going to plan and that could be a problem, even if temps recovers to normal within a few years as it usually does.
Earthling2-san:
Yes, we’re due for VEI 6+ eruption since the last one was Pinatubo about 30 years ago.
Ironically, the biggest threat to humanity is Leftist government hacks actually wasting $100’s of trillions on bogus CAGW mitigation and starving humans of energy, which could lead to a global economic collapse….
Ah, yes, the Immutable Law of Leftist Irony rears its ugly head again…
A few years ago, I read the blow-by-blow of how the original ‘97% consensus’ paper was created, and the vast errors in procedure during the literature survey part of the ‘work’, up to and including ‘reading only the Abstracts of the papers’.
My conclusion at the time was that the team played fast-and-loose with the methodology, so the result was highly questionable… that is, until it was cited by President Obama.
A quick visit to the site show that the source materials have been greatly expanded since that time.
For close to 1,300 years 100% of educated westerners believed in the Ptolemaic view of the earth and Aristotelian physics. Then came along Copernicus, Galileo and Newton.
Then for about 300 years 100% of educated people believed in Newtonian Physics then came along Maxwell, Einstein and Schrodinger.
For the last 80 years any body 100% of people with even half an education believed in General Relativity and QED. Unfortunately, they both can’t be right as they have a completely different view of how information is preserved (or not).
My view is that anyone who claims that consensus validates a scientific theory is simply ignorant of history.
Generally they don’t even teach history in schools these days, and reading is largely a forgotten pastime, as almost everybody I see these days has their nose stuck in a mobile phone screen, watching some trivial inane TV show, or playing in some LARP game, or typing out a few fatuous phrases into Twitter etc.
But “History” IS after “His Story”… It is what “He” told or wrote. Who is “He” ? That depends much on where you are located, and which society you inhabit as an individual. There are very many “Histories” but they are mostly all propaganda of some sort, tailored to suit the narrative of your present day authoritarian entities. The proletariat must be controlled, or else they’d rebel if they knew the real truth.
What is the truth? Someone once asked that question long ago, and we are still searching for the answer, or at least that’s what honest scientists with integrity are doing. The trouble is that spouting lies to support the diktats of your current oligarchs and plutocrats pays much better than honest research.
Follow the money, and see who’s paying for the lies. You probably won’t change anything, but you will know who is telling the truth. They will be the people that are scraping away with outdated equipment, and meagre resources, toiling to even have their hypotheses read, or published in the scientific journals.
Humans cause global warming, they do not cause Global Warming. 🙂
+97 🙂
Before all this political AGW, 97% concensus, pseudo scientific collective back slapping came along, I remember that real scientists used to bend over backwards to try and prove their theories wrong.
Scientists would steel man the heck out of their ideas to make them stronger.
I don’t understand these “climate scientists” today who should normally be defending their ideas from perfectly valid points of contention, but instead prefer to dismiss all critics as heretics.
In my mind it makes their theories look much weaker than they might otherwise be.
You have to call in to question the mental stability of someone who deliberately photoshopped themselves to be an SS officer.
Nothing to question really. It’s all on show.
The late great humorist Art Buchwald authored “ You Can fool all the People all the time” in the eighties, one of the many books collecting his syndicated columns.
Mr. Cook obviously entertains the belief that this is an ideal to work towards.
Does anyone even visit his website?
I see no comments on his latest entry…and it’s been up for 2 days (NZ time).
The little thumbs haven’t registered much traffic either.
When John Cook claims 97% of climate scientists believe humans cause global warming, he is likely absolutely correct.
And when I say at least 99% of Catholic priests says god really exist , I am also absolutely right , but that does not mean the 99% are .
“97% of climate scientists…”. Amateur hour-all old Soviet Politburo members received at least 105% of the vote….
I’m trying to put my finger on what it is that makes John Cook’s face the most punchable on the planet.
I’m trying to put my finger on what it is that makes John Cook’s face the most punchable on the planet. Almost makes me wonder if his groin is equally kickable?
99% of people once believed the earth was flat. That did not make it so.
John Cook sounds as if he is trying to turn an indefensible position into a rout.
Is it just me, or is John Cook every day looking more and more like Col. Klink?
I quite believe the 97 % consensus but dispute that it is something to be proud of. I first became conscious of the climate change issue when I found out a colleague on our computer modelling team was actually trained and a climate scientist rather than in engineering. It transpires he queried whether it was valid to use data selected specifically not to include all types of conditions as input to a climate model and what were the implications in terms of errors. He found not only was the project turned down but no other one he suggested subsequently was acceptable, got the message he was not wanted and decided on an alternative career. I recognised some other names of his associates and found they also were now working in business management marketing or sales and I had come across them already. If I as a single person know of nine altogether how many others have been removed?
Will future generations learn the true meaning of
to Cook the books?
If ALL energy received by the planet from the is radiated back to space (and evidence from the cold, dead rocks flying around our solar system indicates that it eventually is) then “temperature” as we humans view it, is merely a function of the time delay between absorption and radiation. An average of the rate of absorption divided by the rate of radiation expressed for a given period of time, as it were. Thus, the argument is not “what is the temperature” but rather “are we increasing the delay between absorption and radiation due to the increase in the proportion of CO2 to other gasses in our atmosphere”. The secondary argument is this; “does it even matter”, given that ice ages exist and we are still in one. I will argue that it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. Given the negligible ability of CO2 to retain energy within a narrow frequency for a any significant period of time, at its current level of energy saturation, and its “trace gas” status within our atmosphere, it is highly unlikely to have EVER played a measurable role in the delay of energy return to space. Nor will it ever play a roll, even at four or more times the current concentration. Its effect is immeasurable when compared to the rest of our atmosphere. The tail cannot wag the dog.
Any model which shows temps increasing with CO2 concentration increase is wrong. Any theory which insists we’re all going to die from increased CO2 is wrong. Any belief system which calls the other side “deniers” is blatantly wrong and has demonstrated that they’ve lost the ability to think rationally.
An increase in CO2 only ever leads to an increase in carbon sequestration by the biosphere. It is plant food; essential to photosynthesis, essential to human life as we do like to eat plants and animals who like to eat plants.
We should be actively considering how to create MORE of it, to better aid food production on this frozen rock we call home.
Was it Einstein who said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result? The physical properties of Carbon Dioxide make it incapable of causing our atmospheric temperature to increase because its net radiation time delay effect is bowled over by every other molecule, factor, or forcing in the atmosphere. This is why the “missing heat” cannot be found. That is the only fact which should be hammered home in schools and internet forum discussions about this entire farce!
Mere opinion is of interest to scientific novices who don’t know what the science says, but that science trumps opinion. When it comes to CO2-driven AGW, when will the world wake up to the basic radiative physics facts based on Planck’s Radiation Law which make atmospheric CO2 unable to melt an ice cube with its 15 micron radiation, the same as dry ice? Dry ice is cold, and cold is not heat and can’t heat anything. CO2 can’t heat anything higher than -80C, just as 5500C solar radiation can’t heat anything higher than 5500C. The Earth’s surface temperature range is -50C to +50C, therefore CO2 therefore can’t absorb heat from Earth’s surface, and can’t emit heat to heat anything. If CO2’s absorption/wavelengths covered a golden basket from 30C to 50C, say, the CO2 warming theory might have something to it, but -80C is outside all of Earth’s surface heat, which is removed daily by a number of processes in which CO2 can’t play a role or interfere. The leftist-run U.N. IPCC picked the wrong getaway driver for their mad plan to steal the world blind to save them from an imaginary problem, which doesn’t have to demonstrate results and won’t refund their money.
There’s no “mild” warming effect from CO2. There’s NONE. Here’s the physics presented step-by-step if you went to college. If you have a crushing disproof of my analysis whip out your Ph.D. and take me on, but there’s only one Planck Radiation Law and it covers all cases in radiative physics unless you’re claiming it doesn’t apply like they do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Atomic resonance in the infrared light frequency range produce atomic spectra that emit or absorb at those frequencies. Nett heat transfer by radiation is from hot to cold (relative). Heat transfer is irreversible. If the greenhouse effect was true, the lapse rate in the lower troposphere, where it is claimed to exist would be superadiabatic, to account for back radiation. Back radiation does not exist. Energy is transferred upward as indicated by the average lapse rate being less than the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Water vapor is also not a greenhouse gas, H2O is responsible for the upward transfer of energy due to water vapor in air reaching saturation at higher elevations, as pressure and temperature drops, resulting in the release of latent heat.
Actually, the theory of greenhouse gas warming is solidly based on molecular (not atomic) dipole moments being able to be excited into (mostly) discrete vibrational and rotational modes by photon absorption at certain frequency bands within the visible to far infrared portion of the EM spectrum. These vibrationally-excited molecules will likewise radiate a single photon of energy at the same frequency as the photon just absorbed (or emit multiple photons at lower discrete frequencies), assuming that vibrational energy is not fist transferred to other atmospheric gasses, as translational or vibrational energy, during collisions.
In particular, it is the characteristic of certain molecular gases, such as CO2, that the they absorb and radiate EM energy in spectral bands located almost exclusively MWIR-LWIR spectrum (say, 2.5 to 20 microns wavelength) where Earth radiates due to its approximate 210-310 K range of surface temperatures, while at the same time being essentially transparent to the incoming solar spectrum, that is the physical basis for “greenhouse gas warming” of Earth. CO2 freely allows solar energy to reach Earth’s surface in its shorter wavelength spectrum, but absorbs (“blocks”) and then re-radiates back toward Earth’s surface a portion of the MWIR-LWIR radiation from Earth that would otherwise pass directly to space.
The predominate greenhouse gas is water vapor (the molecule H2O). It has far more absorption/re-radiation bands across the MWIR-LWIR portion of EM spectrum, and thus produces far more re-radiation of IR energy (aka “downwelling radiation”) from Earth’s atmosphere onto Earth’s surface.
You also stated: “Nett {sic} heat transfer by radiation is from hot to cold (relative)”. That is actually immaterial to the theory of greenhouse gas warming. It is a simple fact that greenhouse gasses, especially during night time, reduce the amount of energy that Earth would otherwise radiate directly to deep space (at ~3 K). It is also a fact that a cold substance can radiate energy to a relatively warmer substance.
Here is what NOAA has to say on the subject: “The average surface temperature of the Moon, which has no atmosphere, is 0°F (-18°C). By contrast, the average surface temperature of the Earth is 59°F (15°C). This heating effect is called the greenhouse effect.”—source: https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy
Contrary to what you state, the scientists at NOAA certainly believe there is such a thing as “greenhouse gases”.
This same NOAA website also shows graphically the daily average earth-atmosphere energy balance. It notes that 23% of the energy arriving from the Sun is immediately absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere and clouds, while at the same time noting that the equivalent of 98% of that arriving energy is radiated from Earth’s atmosphere and clouds down to Earth’s surface. Seems impossible, right? The explanation is two-fold: (1) greenhouse gas re-radiation from the atmosphere and clouds of upwelling surface radiation, and (2) Earth receives incoming solar energy only on a hemisphere, while it radiates over its entire surface (i.e., both day time and night time).
From the article: “But there is a huge difference between believing humans cause global warming, and believing that humans cause significant global warming, or that humans are the ONLY cause of modern era global warming.”
Yes, humans produce CO2, and that CO2 might just lead to cooling rather than warming, after all feedbacks are accounted for.
So if CO2 is causing increased warming that ultimately causes the Earth’s temperatures to cool after feedbacks, then is it correct to say that CO2 causes global warming?
I believe it is Moeller who says a two percent increase in clouds would offset CO2 warming completely.
The science isn’t settled.
“This paper says that forests have been growing much faster in the past few decades.”
Thanks Joseph Z!
Any authentic study/paper on tree growth, shows the exact same thing. We just don’t hear about it very often and almost never from the main sources that tell us what they want us to think about this topic.
Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2, by itself is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production………all plant growth.
We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of studies that hold everything else constant, except CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants.
Here’s how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Go to plant growth data base:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Pick the name of a plant, any plant(or tree) using its starting letter. Let’s pick soybeans. Go to the letter S,
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_s.php
Then scroll down and hit soybeans. This is what you get:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
This tells us that there were 238 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 48.3% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that.
In the real world, in US soybean fields, yields have doubled in the last 30 years. During that time, CO2 levels have increased by something like 80 parts per million. Global temperatures have also increased by several tenths of a deg. C.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php
The law of photosynthesis has not be repealed:
Sun +H2O +Minerals(from soil) +CO2–COVERTS TO–Sugars(food) +growth +O2
Since CO2 has been a limiting factor on the left side(plants were experiencing CO2 starvation before we rescued them), adding this beneficial gas is boosting the products on the right side. This will continue for CO2 levels up to more than double the current ambient atmospheric levels(for many plants).
The data at the link above for soybeans has been updated and I had not updated it on my computer in the last year. I apologize:
As of September 6, 2020:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
This tells us that there were 290 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 47.9% from all those studies.
It’s odd such a simple issue causes so much controversy. We know how many ‘scientists’ (at least in the US) believe in God so why it’s so controversial to set up questionnaire about global warming? Few sensible questions and job done.