A Real Physicist Responds to the Climate Change Scam

[CrusaderFrank]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

Morons, such as yourself drive me nuts. All you need is "Google" and "experiments that prove global warming" and 5 minutes of spare time and you can read about all the experiments you want. Right wingers are all alike.

Google

Cosmic rays?

Experiment with no Results??

"So, what has this NOAA experiment found? The bottom image (Image #3) tells that story - when compared to measurements from the old, inaccurate, non-pristine network, temperature "warming" in the U.S. is being overstated anywhere from +0.5°C on average, up to almost +4.0°C (+0.9°F to +7.2°F) in some locations during the summer months."

C3 NOAA Conducts Large-Scale Experiment And Proves Global Warming Skeptics Correct

Doh!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

Morons, such as yourself drive me nuts. All you need is "Google" and "experiments that prove global warming" and 5 minutes of spare time and you can read about all the experiments you want. Right wingers are all alike.

Google

You didn't check any links, right?

 

[mamooth]

Frank, great 2-year-old conspiracy theory. You really know how to cherrypick the best of the kook denier blogs. Does it bug you that nobody else has paid any attention to it?

And why the babbling about cosmic rays?

 

[jc456]

Yes, water on earth is finite.

No, fossils are stone things, and oil doesn't clearly doesn't come from fossils. You don't go the museum and squeeze dinosaur bones to get oil.

And If you've got a point to make, just have the guts to state it clearly.

I was responding to a post. Perhaps you should go reread the post I responded to. The other point is that oil is not from fossils so running out of fossil fuel is not possible.

 

[jc456]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

Morons, such as yourself drive me nuts. All you need is "Google" and "experiments that prove global warming" and 5 minutes of spare time and you can read about all the experiments you want. Right wingers are all alike.

Google

so you don't have the link that proves what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate. So you don't know it does.

 

[rdean]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

Morons, such as yourself drive me nuts. All you need is "Google" and "experiments that prove global warming" and 5 minutes of spare time and you can read about all the experiments you want. Right wingers are all alike.

Google

so you don't have the link that proves what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate. So you don't know it does.

I'm not a scientist and neither are you. Why don't you post some link showing that CO2 does nothing to the climate? We both know you won't and can't. Science deniers never have experiments of their own. They think they are being smart by poking imaginary holes in other's work. They are called "deniers" for a reason. Denial is the sum total of their own research.

 

[jc456]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

Morons, such as yourself drive me nuts. All you need is "Google" and "experiments that prove global warming" and 5 minutes of spare time and you can read about all the experiments you want. Right wingers are all alike.

Google

so you don't have the link that proves what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate. So you don't know it does.

I'm not a scientist and neither are you. Why don't you post some link showing that CO2 does nothing to the climate? We both know you won't and can't. Science deniers never have experiments of their own. They think they are being smart by poking imaginary holes in other's work. They are called "deniers" for a reason. Denial is the sum total of their own research.

But I did, Herr Koch 1901 from Real Climate, here:

"The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

 

[mamooth]

Jc, you understand that that situation has nothing to do with how the atmosphere works, right?

You should, given how it's been explained to you before. Did you not understand the explanation, or are you just choosing to lie about it?

If you didn't understand, ask politely, and we'll explain your error to you again.

 

[mamooth]

The other point is that oil is not from fossils so running out of fossil fuel is not possible.

No, because "fossil fuels" does not mean "fuel that comes from fossils". Fossil fuels come from the fossilized remains of dead plants. There is a difference in meaning between "fossil" and "fossilized remains of dead plants."

Now, was there any point to that failed bit of attempted lexical revisionism?

 

[rdean]

Now that would be interesting. Perhaps we could see a 2 or 3 year plummet were we to get a Tambora szed eruption, however, the temperatures would immediatly go back up as soon as the aerosols washed out of the atmosphere.

And the trend is not for five years, it has since 1880. Why don't you attempt to learn something for real rather just spouting unsupported opinions without any base at all?

and still no experiment!

Morons, such as yourself drive me nuts. All you need is "Google" and "experiments that prove global warming" and 5 minutes of spare time and you can read about all the experiments you want. Right wingers are all alike.

Google

so you don't have the link that proves what 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate. So you don't know it does.

I'm not a scientist and neither are you. Why don't you post some link showing that CO2 does nothing to the climate? We both know you won't and can't. Science deniers never have experiments of their own. They think they are being smart by poking imaginary holes in other's work. They are called "deniers" for a reason. Denial is the sum total of their own research.

But I did, Herr Koch 1901 from Real Climate, here:

"The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas."

From your hilarious link:

Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to blah blah blah........".

Have you ever met a REAL scientist? Not one you imagine. They don't work like that. It's such bullshit. How can you guys argue when you say such stupid shit. It's like calling them "over educated" or "without common sense".

You want a real lack of common sense? Check what passes for science in the GOP. A 6,000 year old earth to start with. Who could be so fucking brain damaged to believe something so preposterous. Oh wait. I know.

 

[SSDD]

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

We all have seen climate change....it would be damned strange if we didn't since the climate on this planet is constantly changing. What none of us, including yourself have seen is man made climate change. The claims of impending doom that you wackos have been drumming for the past half a century are simply bullshit. Climate does what it does with or without our help.

Here is a prime example of the bullshit spewed by warmer wackaloons. We have been hearing about unprecedented warming at the poles for the past 35 years...warnings of an ice free arctic...the poles are the canary in the coal mine....unprecedented melting...dying polar bears...and on and on and on. So after 35 years of "unprecedented" climate change...and "unprecedented" melting ice at the poles, where is the ice at both poles?......it's normal...that's where it is. For all of the hyped up claims, tampered data, warnings of imminent catastrophe...and hundreds of billions of dollars flushed down the toilet...the ice at both poles is normal. And the rest of the earth is experiencing what it has always experienced as well. There is no man made climate change beyond the heat island effect that has corrupted the surface record beyond retrieval.

 

[SSDD]

Just because a photon "doesn't experience time or space" doesn't mean a photon can predict where it will impact warmer or colder matter, millions of light years away, and decide whether or not it will be emitted.
But that sure would be a magic photon, in pursuit of your theory.

In addition to back radiation, do you also believe in back conduction and back convection?

And again, you are measuring distance again....photons don't experience distance...or time. You are applying your own experience of time and space, and using them to constrain a theoretical entity that experiences neither. Again, do you believe in back conduction and back convection?

 

[SSDD]

Is that your explanation, the molecules on Earth don't emit, unless they know their photons will hit that cooler camera?

They don't need to know anything...when a cooler object opens a vector, energy from warmer objects flows to it....Look around...all measurements of "back radiation" are made by instruments that have been cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere. That is the only way you get radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the ground...by cooling the instrument to a temperature cooler than the atmosphere...but then, it isn't really back radiation is it? It is just energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...just as the second law predicts.

 

[SSDD]

The issue is how the hydrocarbons are produced in the first place. Earth has as active and hot mantle that can generate hydrocarbons

The true anti science types among us are easy to spot....while we have actually made hydrocarbons in the lab via replicating the conditions that exist deep within the earth...no one has come close to even explaining the process by which decaying organic matter might become oil, much less replicated it. The anti science wackaloons think that only gaia can make oil and that she is going to punish us by letting it run out.

 

[SSDD]

Is there anything to the possibility most climate change deniers are religious and think God wouldn't allow dire consequences of global warming to effect his favorite little people? I remember a classmate in the 80s saying if Russia launched a nuclear attack against us, God would wave his hand and make the ICBMs vanish. The absurdity of that made it burn itself into my long-term memory. Is something similar going on though with deniers?

I am afraid that it is your side who is behaving in the manner of a religious cult....and true to propaganda form, you are accusing the other side of the behavior that you are engaging in.

 

[SSDD]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

The IPCC says that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for over a century..are you denying what the IPCC says?

Of course the IPCC ignores dozens of studies that find otherwise...but what else is new?

 

[Dot Com]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

The IPCC says that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for over a century..are you denying what the IPCC says?

Of course the IPCC ignores dozens of studies that find otherwise...but what else is new?

I said I guesstimated on the CO2 lifespan in the atmosphere. You helped me slam my point home by 300%

 

[Old Rocks]

The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea - CRAIG - 2010 - Tellus - Wiley Online Library

The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea

1. HARMON CRAIG

Article first published online: 18 MAR 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x



Abstract
Steady-state equations governing the transfer and distribution of a radioactive isotope between its various exchange reservoirs are applied to the natural distribution of carbon 14. The radiocarbon enrichment or depletion in each reservoir, relative to the hypothetical state in which mixing is infinitely faster than the decay rate, is evaluated as a quantitative function of the exchange rates between the reservoirs. From the observed distribution of C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere, biosphere, and sea, and from the estimated production rate of C14 by cosmic rays, the residence time of a carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere, before entering the sea, is found to be between four and ten years.

The atmospheric residence time may also be evaluated, independently of the estimated C14 production rate, by considering the functional dependence of the C14 concentration in the oceanic mixed layer on the residence times in the atmosphere and the deep sea. This second method of evaluation also leads to an atmospheric residence time of about seven years. The average annual exchange flux of carbon dioxide into the sea is thus about 2 times 10−2 moles per square centimeter of sea surface. The average residence time of carbon dioxide in the deep sea is estimated as probably not more than about 500 years.

Note here that the residence time being stated is for the individual molecules of CO2, not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The dishonesty of the 'skeptics' is mixing the two has long been noted by anyone with a basic science education.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

What's obvious is that there isn't one single lab experiment that shows how 120 or even 1,200 PPM of CO2 can raise temperature

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

When I see a topic preceding the word "scam", that tells me something right there. Like objectivity isn't your forte. I have seen the climate change in the last thirty years, and that is a fact. Only a fool would ignore the obvious.

^ that

add to the at the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by the BRICs

Guess the total weight of Earth atmosphere, to the nearest quintillion tons