Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Earths climate has never been static It has always changed. And nobodynot a soulknows what an ideal climate is.
AGW is not the only theory of climate change There are many rival theories, but you have never heard of them. Oneor even noneof them might also be true and could be useful in predicting future climates.
The accuracy of historical temperatures is questionable We do not have direct measurements for most of the Earths history, and have to rely on statistics-God help us!to impute the missing records. This process is fraught with error and uncertainty. Anyway
Historical temperature changes are not direct evidence of AGW Because it was cooler, or hotter, in the past is not direct evidence that AGW is true. Any historical temperature observation is consistent with all known rival climate change theories. Thus, past temperatures are, at best, indirect evidence for many different climate change theories, and not just AGW.
Statements of what happens when it is hot outside are not evidence that AGW is true If you heard that an iceberg melted when it was exposed to hot air, you have learned what you already knew: ice melts when it is hot. Absolutely no observation of any plant, mineral, or animal is direct evidence of AGW. Thus, every horror story you have heard about small fish whose native waters got uncomfortably warm, about a species of grass that was stressed under the harsh sun, or that a small town in Argentina set a record high temperature on Tuesday, or another in Pittsburgh was especially wet one afternoon, and on and on, are not direct evidence that AGW is true. They are only statements of what happens when it gets hot out or when it rains or fails to.
Every statement about what might happen if AGW is true is worthless Horror stories about the evil, wretched future that awaits us once the tipping point has been breached are useless as evidence for AGW. They are empty of any kind of proof. Studies that claim future awfulness due to AGW are inappropriately and disingenuously used by scientists (and other forms of life) to hint that AGW is true. This is naughty of them. This behavior is equivalent to the Tokyo scientist who solicits his government for a Godzilla-studies grant because of the havoc the old nuclear fire breather could cause if he were real. This grant is not evidence of Godzillas existence.
The best indirect evidence for AGW is the fit of climate models to historical data AGW climate models can reproduce some of the historical data in some regions fairly well, but they cannot do so in all times or areas. And many of those rival climate change theories fit the historical data equally well. Thus, the ability to reproduce historical data to an arbitrary level of goodness is not especially strong evidence in favor of AGW.
There does not exist direct evidence for the truth of AGW The only possible direct evidence would be if the AGW models skillfully predicted future climate data. These skillful predictions would tell us that the theory underlying the models is likely to be true. But no AGW climate models have yet skillfully predicted new data. However, some rival climate change theories have. Thus, according to the best direct evidence available, it is more likely that these rival theories are true than is AGW theory.
Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn't Settled - WSJ.comWhat does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.
The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.
And still the ice melts, the weather continues to become more erratic, causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle, and the seas continue to acidify and rise.
But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.
And still the ice melts, the weather continues to become more erratic, causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle, and the seas continue to acidify and rise.
But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.
I certainly don't mind you saying that you are concerned about those things. Just don't say it is scientifically shown that CO2 is causing them.
I don't need some "scholar" to see it. I watched 100 acres of coffee get ripped out and replanted 1000 feet higher because coffee now has issues at the elevations it was grown in for the past couple hundred years.
I know. murkins like to talk about all the snow in JewJoizzy because it's all they're told.
konradv- you simply dont understand the physics involved. the LR absorbed by Co2 molecules is trivial, it is the increased time to escape into space that changes the equilibrium. likewise you misunderstand the stasis mechanisms involved with CO2 dissoving into the oceans.
I really wish you would investigate CO2 rather than just regurgitate the same incorrect comment over and over again.
konradv- you simply dont understand the physics involved. the LR absorbed by Co2 molecules is trivial, it is the increased time to escape into space that changes the equilibrium. likewise you misunderstand the stasis mechanisms involved with CO2 dissoving into the oceans.
I really wish you would investigate CO2 rather than just regurgitate the same incorrect comment over and over again.
I think you're the one trying to complicate things that are really quite simple. I reject your notion that the energy absorbed is trivial. CO2 is well known to keep the earth warmer than if it were not present. That hardly seems trivial to me. You're also trying to obscure the fact that CO2 dissolves in water. If there's more, more WILL dissolve and pH WILL go down. If anyone's repeating the same thing over and over, it's you and the other skeptics trying to tell us that well known physical attributes of CO2 don't count.
konradv- you simply dont understand the physics involved. the LR absorbed by Co2 molecules is trivial, it is the increased time to escape into space that changes the equilibrium. likewise you misunderstand the stasis mechanisms involved with CO2 dissoving into the oceans.
I really wish you would investigate CO2 rather than just regurgitate the same incorrect comment over and over again.
I think you're the one trying to complicate things that are really quite simple. I reject your notion that the energy absorbed is trivial. CO2 is well known to keep the earth warmer than if it were not present. That hardly seems trivial to me. You're also trying to obscure the fact that CO2 dissolves in water. If there's more, more WILL dissolve and pH WILL go down. If anyone's repeating the same thing over and over, it's you and the other skeptics trying to tell us that well known physical attributes of CO2 don't count.
The last time the CO2 content rose high enough that the plants weren't able to use it all a form of limestone called Dolomite was deposited all over the world, that was 5 million years ago. If everything that contained CO2 in it was burned, it would only drop the average ocean pH level from 8.1 to 8 so much for your silly acidification worries.
And still the ice melts, the weather continues to become more erratic, causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle, and the seas continue to acidify and rise.
But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.
I certainly don't mind you saying that you are concerned about those things. Just don't say it is scientifically shown that CO2 is causing them.
What's been claimed for CO2 that hasn't been proved scientifically? We know that it traps infra-red radiation, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means more trapped energy. We know that CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid, so common sense tells you, more CO2 means lower pHs. If the concentration in the atmosphere has been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, why shouldn't we consider it a major contributor in what's happening to the climate?
Global Warming - A Discussion of HeatAtmospheric Heat Pipes
At the bottom of the atmosphere there is liquid water. Without changing its temperature, heat is used to convert this to vapor. On land, plants help to perform this task. Because humid air is actually lighter than dry air (simply because water molecules weigh less than nitrogen and oxygen molecules), the humid air rises. As the air rises, it tends to expand and rise faster the higher it rises.
The fact that air at the surface is usually warmer than the air above it helps - but it is not always necessary.
At some point, the expansion cools the rising air mass to the point where water begins to condense (forming clouds). Since the energy released is equal to the heat of vaporization, heat has been moved from the surface of the planet to the top of the clouds. At this point, the clouds act like mirrors reflecting the heat out into space.
Note - if the heat was released inside the cloud, it would simply be reabsorbed by the surrounding water droplets causing them to return to the vapor state. Therefore, the vapor *effectively* condenses only at the top of the cloud.
To complete the cycle, the condensed water returns as rain (or snow).
Even though there is no confining tube, I have described this cycle as an Atmospheric Heat Pipe because of the obvious similarities. These heat pipes are not the only way that the Earth cools itself - but they are the most efficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Point
All Global Warming arguments I've seen assume that the only way for the Earth to loose heat is by radiation directly from the surface and that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will block that radiation.
The model described here provides one mechanism for heat to move around the additional CO2.
Think of it this way
The Earth is hot and surrounded with an insulating blanket of atmosphere
The atmosphere is heated by
Conduction - the air touches the surface and gets hot
Radiation from the surface - Water, CO2, and methane absorb some of this heat. With a few exceptions, the rest of the atmosphere is transparent to IR radiation.
At this point, both the atmosphere and the surface are trying to radiate heat into space.
Note that the atmosphere is a very poor radiator because the radiation goes in all directions and, therefore, some of it returns to the surface and some is reabsorbed by the atmosphere. This is actually how the atmosphere helps to insulate the planet.
It is heated mainly by conduction
The heat is spread out via mixing - convection and wind
Radiation to space is very inefficient
Radiation from the surface of the planet is more efficient because it is less likely to be reabsorbed
Radiation above the clouds is the most efficient because it has less atmosphere between it and space ... and all of it is radiated upward
It has not been proven yet that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have any effect on the atmosphere's ability to hold heat ... but, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there is a significant measurable effect. In this case, adding CO2 simply makes the insulating atmospheric blanket a little better at holding heat - specifically, it makes it harder for heat energy to *radiate* into space.
The Atmospheric Heat Pipe model presented in this page provides a very efficient mechanism to bypass this problem.
Of course, wind, weather fronts, and storms greatly complicate this model. My point was simply to show that simple evaporation followed, by cloud formation, effectively pokes a hole in the insulating atmospheric blanket so that heat can escape. As a result, if additional CO2 makes this blanket more efficient at holding heat, that will have almost no effect because the water driven heat pipe (phase change assisted heat transfer) will provide the necessary negative feedback.
Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Emission Spectra | Watts Up With That?Earth Surface: Warmed by shortwave (~1/2μradiation from the Sun, the surface emits upward radiation in the ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ regions of the longwave band. This radiation approximates a smooth “blackbody” curve that peaks at the wavelength corresponding to the surface temperature.
Bottom of the Atmosphere: On its way out to Space, the radiation encounters the Atmosphere, in particular the GHGs, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the ~7μ and ~15μ regions in all directions. Most of the ~10μ radiation is allowed to pass through.
The lower violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 8.1 in Petty and based on measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking UP) indicates how the bottom of the Atmosphere re-emits selected portions back down towards the surface of the Earth. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK (equivalent to 27ºC or 80ºF). Note how the ~7μ and ~15μ regions approximate that curve, while much of the ~10μ region is not re-emitted downward.
“Greenhouse Gases”: The reason for the shape of the downwelling radiation curve is clear when we look at the absorption spectra for the most important GHGs: H2O, H2O, H2O, … H2O, and CO2. (I’ve included multiple H2O’s because water vapor, particularly in the tropical latitudes, is many times more prevalent than carbon dioxide.)
Note that H2O absorbs at up to 100% in the ~7μ region. H2O also absorbs strongly in the ~15μ region, particularly above 20μ, where it reaches 100%. CO2 absorbs at up to 100% in the ~15μ region.
Neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in the ~10μ region.
Since gases tend to re-emit most strongly at the same wavelength region where they absorb, the ~7μ and ~15μ are well-represented, while the ~10μ region is weaker.
Top of the Atmosphere: The upper violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 6.6 in Petty and based on satellite measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking DOWN) indicates how the top of the Atmosphere passes certain portions of radiation from the surface of the Earth out to Space and re-emits selected portions up towards Space. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK. Note that much of the ~10μ region approximates a 295ºK curve while the ~7μ region approximates a cooler 260ºK curve. The ~15μ region is more complicated. Part of it, from about 17μ and up approximates a 260ºK or 270ºK curve, but the region from about 14μ to 17μ has had quite a big bite taken out of it. Note how this bite corresponds roughly with the CO2 absorption spectrum.
And still the temperatures go up, the ice melts, and deniars get stupider every day.
And still the ice melts
the weather continues to become more erratic,
causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle,
and the seas continue to acidify
and rise.
But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.
And still the ice melts
The ice has been melting for some 14,000 years now. What, exactly do you find unusual, or disturbing about the fact that it is still melting.
Were the ice melting steadily since the deglaciation, the sea level would be much higher than it is at present. As a matter of fact, had the sea levels been rising at the rate they are today, most the seaports in Europe would have been underwater many decades ago. The fact is that the sea level has been fairly stable until recently.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today
the weather continues to become more erratic,
Peer reviewed research says that the weather is no more erratic today than it has ever been.
Of course, it may just be a bad luck year, but most Pakistanis and Russians would disagree with you.
We produce more food today than at any other time in history.
Yes, and we have more mouths to feed than at any time in history. And the cost of producing that food, and the recent weather events in Russia, Pakistan, and China has caused a substancial decrease in the food supply we have in store.
http://www.rabobank.com/content/images/Rabobank_IMW_WB_report-FINAL-A4-total_tcm43-127734.pdf
The oceans are alkaline, not acid. In fact, they aren't even close to becoming acidic.
This is just one of many articles on the acidification of the oceans.
What is ocean acidification?
and rise.
The latest peer reviewed research states that sea level is not rising at an historically unusual rate.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today
Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.
But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.
Clearly, you will do whatever it takes to avoid looking at reality. When you allow your politics to determine the way you look at the world to the point that you are no longer a skilled observer, you are indeed lost.
And still the ice melts, the weather continues to become more erratic, causing foodstocks worldwide to dwindle, and the seas continue to acidify and rise.
But whatever it takes to avoid looking at the reality.
