Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

[Si modo]

You're playing with words. CO2 traps energy and then re-emits it. Since statistically half would be emitted towards earth, what would that extra energy be doing, except to contribute to warming?

Just so you know, any molecule that is IR active (meaning it has a dipole moment, which, incidentally CO2 does not, but that is another story) absorbs specific quanta of energy correlating to its functional groups with influences on the exact quanta from neighboring groups to that functional group.

Once IR radiation is absorbed, it is converted into molecular vibrations (symmetric, asymmetric, in-plane, out-of-plane); the IR energy is converted to kinetic energy.

There is no trapped energy.

If there was, we would have no need for oil.

If there was, we would have no need for any electrical cells, either.

How would that mean we have no need for oil? The energy trapped by greenhouse gases is high entropy, I don't see how we can produce electricity or power of any kind with it.


Greenhouse gases do indeed cause the Earth's atmosphere to trap more energy, elsewise we'd all be frozen right now. They raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth by making it harder for energy that enters the atmosphere to be re-radiated, requiring a higher temperature for the power flows in and out to balance one another. Its just like a blanket. If you throw a blanket over yourself, you won't get warmer and warmer without end - eventually an equilibrium is reached - but its obvious the blanket is trapping energy elsewise they'd be useless for warming you up.

CO2 does not "trap energy", as the poster stated. It's just a fact and nothing to fear.

 

[wirebender]

Greenhouse gases do indeed cause the Earth's atmosphere to trap more energy, elsewise we'd all be frozen right now.

So called greenhouse gasses don't trap anything. Again, if you model the earth as a sphere that is radiated across 180 degrees of its surface by the sun and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, there is no need for a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth. In fact, the models show a slightly warmer earth than exists which is then cooled by the radiative and scattering properties of CO2.

A greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the earth's temperature only if you model the earth as trenberth et al have in a way that doesn't even begin to explain reality. Tell me, how do you suppose you can wrap a -20 degree atmosphere around a -18 degree earth and suddenly raise the temperature of the earth by 33 degrees to 15 degrees C?

They raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth by making it harder for energy that enters the atmosphere to be re-radiated, requiring a higher temperature for the power flows in and out to balance one another.

No they don't. IR radiates from the earth, through the atmosphere and out into space at, or very near the speed of light. So called greenhouse gasses don't slow down anything.

Its just like a blanket. If you throw a blanket over yourself, you won't get warmer and warmer without end - eventually an equilibrium is reached - but its obvious the blanket is trapping energy elsewise they'd be useless for warming you up.

The old blanket saw. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't grasp the concepts of radiation, the Stefan-Boltzman law, or the laws of physics.

Black body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human body emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law,

"The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W."

So putting a colder blanket (20 deg C) on a warm Body (33 deg C) REDUCES the Body surface temp to 28 deg C precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Heat flows from the warmer body to the cooler blanket.

Since we know that throwing a cooler blanket over a warmer body causes the surface temperature of the warmer body to actually drop, the idea of comparing the atmosphere to a blanket is just silly. The average temperature of the atmosphere is -20C. Wrap a -20 degree blanket around a -18C earth and just as the temperature of the body dropped when from 33C to 28C, the temperature of the earth will drop, not increase by 33C to 15C.

Tell me, which law of physics do you believe predicts and supports such a temperature change?

 

[wirebender]

???? Yes, it can. A fluid element can contain photons of any distribution of momenta. A single look at the radiative transfer equation should tell you that, its a 7-dimensional PDE - 3 spatial, 3 momenta, 1 time.

No it can't. A simple look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells you that heat can not flow from a cool object to a warm object without some work having been done to achieve the movement. A further look at the SB equations tells you that they describe a one way energy flow from warm to cool.

You are in no position to criticize another person's understanding of electromagnetic radiation.

Of course I am as shown by the ease with which I have shown your own understanding of EM radiation to be flawed from its foundations. You have made so many errors that it is clear that you don't have any understanding at all and are just a parrot repeating what you have been told without having even the barest notion of what it means.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Several hundred gigatons of CO2 are produced every year. Humans are responsible for a couple dozen of those. The increase in CO2 every year in the air is about half of the amount that humans add to the air every year. This is because some of what we produced is absorbed or cycled back into C and O2 - some of it just builds of in the air. We are therefore responsible for the increase. Its pretty straightforward. Even the small handful of credentialed AGW skeptics can understand that.

You say that the earth produces several hundred gigatons of CO2 every year. Then you say that man is responsible for a couple of dozen of the several hundred gigatons that are produced every year. Then you say that humans are responsible for half of the increase every year. Explain the logic that leads you to believe such a thing when the fact is that the CO2 we produce is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry that produces the several hundred tons per year.

Seriously?


Let X_m = CO2 produced by man in one year
Let X_n = CO2 produced by not man in one year
Let Y = CO2 removed from atmosphere in one year
Let Z = net change in atmospheric CO2 in one year

It is trivial to determine that

X_m + X_n - Y = Z

Set X_n = Y, then

X_m + X_n - X_n = Z
X_m = Z

NO MATTER HOW BIG X_n is.

the fact is that the CO2 we produce is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry

Please justify.

 

[Si modo]

We also know, from scientific research, that the Earth was once much cooler than now when the CO2 levels were much higher. We also know, from available data, that volcanoes don't add all that much CO2 to the atmosphere and however much CO2 human activity is generating is a tiny fraction when compared to that occuring from natural causes. And we also know from available data that CO2 levels have been increasing steadily over the last several years while the mean temperatures have remained stable that suggests that CO2 could likely be the result of climate change rather than a significant cause of it.

Several hundred gigatons of CO2 are produced every year. Humans are responsible for a couple dozen of those. The increase in CO2 every year in the air is about half of the amount that humans add to the air every year. This is because some of what we produced is absorbed or cycled back into C and O2 - some of it just builds of in the air. We are therefore responsible for the increase. Its pretty straightforward. Even the small handful of credentialed AGW skeptics can understand that.

"Cycled back into C"?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Radiation entering the atmosphere from the sun is mostly in the visible spectrum. Most all gases in the Earth's atmosphere are optically thick to most of the Sun's radiation.

Actually, most of the gasses in the atmosphere are optically invisible to most of the radiation that comes from the sun. O2 in the high atmosphere is responsible for blocking most SW radiation, but the rest is optically invisible to incoming radiation from the sun. Your misunderstanding begins at the very beginning of the process and that leads you off on the wrong track throughout the process

You are correct. I mis-wrote. Most of the atmosphere is optically THIN to solar radiation, yes (I have corrected my post that you are replying to).

The Earth's surface is optically thick to visible radiation and much of the rest of the solar spectrum, so when it hits the Earth's surface, the atoms absorb the photons and convert that energy into thermal energy. The energy is then remitted as Planck blackbody radiation in the lower frequency IR spectrum.

You don't make yourself sound smart by using terms like "optically thick". You would serve yourself better by simply stating that the earth's surface absorbs incoming energy from the sun. By the way, the earth does not emit blackbody radiation as it is not a blackbody. The AGW hoax is largely built on the fallacy that the earth emits like a black body but if you model the earth as a 3D sphere that receives radiation across half of its surface and is dark across half of its surface at any given time, then the greenhouse effect is not necessary to explain the temperature of the earth.

I'm not trying to make myself smart. "optically thick" is the term us physicists use to describe material which is opaque to radiation. Sorry you're not down with the common jargon.

Your assertion that the Earth does not emit blackbody radiation because it is not a blackbody absolutely incorrect. ALL material bodies that have a temperature above ZERO emit blackbody radiation in accordance with Planck's law.

Here is how the science dictionary defines blackbody:

blackbody - A theoretically perfect absorber and emitter of every frequency of electromagnetic radiation. The radiation emitted by a blackbody is a function only of its temperature.

The earths temperature is a function of the amount of radiation it absorbs, unlike a blackbody in which the radiation it emits is a cunction of its temperature. Blackbody describes a star, not the earth and in the energy budgets put forward by the priests of AGW, the earth is treated like a blackbody. trenberth, for example expresses the radiation received by the earth from the sun in the form of /4 which, in reality models the earth as a flat plane receiving 1/4 as much energy from the sun but receiving the energy across the entire surface 24 hours a day. Such a model doesn't even begin to portray reality and yet, it is the model upon which AGW alarmism is built.

Trenberth - when? What journal? Are you going to provide me with the reference I need to address your point or not?

CO2 and other greenhouse gases are optically thick to IR radiation. Most other gases in the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are not. The energy which was able to pass through the atmosphere and strike the Earth's surface is not able to be radiated back into space as efficiently. These effects are all described by Maxwell's equations.

IR radiates away from the surface of the earth to space at, or near the speed of light. CO2 does not slow down the escaping IR by even 1 mile per hour. It is still travelling at or near the speed of light when it reaches cold space.

It SCATTERS the radiation. The individual photons are still traveling at the speed of light, but they take longer to get to space because they have to take a random walk to get there. For the same reason, photons produced at the center of a star take hundreds of thousands or more years to reach the surface.

I would suggest you start with Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics". If you don't have a strong background in calculus and differential equations, you'll need to back up a bit and do those first.

I do have a background in calculus and differential equations. If you want to have a math battle, I am armed. I suggest that you first familiarize yourself with the AGW hypothesis as you are in opposition to it right off the bat. AGW alarmism is built on the idea of backradiation whch your explanation omits completely.

backradiation? Define?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They do not emit it in the same direction that it is absorbed in, its closer (though not exactly) to isotropic emission. The individual photons - while traveling at or close to the speed of light - get scattered, bouncing back and forth between molecules instead of escaping into space.

CO2 molecules emit IR at a slightly longer wavelength than the wavelength at which it was absorbed and as a result, the radiation is not absorbed by other CO2 molecules. It is absorbed, emitted, and heads on out to cold space at or near the speed of light.

Here is a link to that bit of information whch you clearly are not aware of:

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

What you're clearly unaware of is that when the CO2 molecule emits a photon its does it nearly ISOTROPICALLY. It may go out into space, or it may instead head back to the Earth's surface, getting reabsorbed there.

The spectrum that the CO2 re-emits will depend on the temperature of the Co2 gas - PLANCK'S LAW. Most of the re-emitted radiation will be in the IR band.

CLIP: What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.

And here is a set of calculations on the movement of IR through the atmosphere which demonstrates pretty convincingly that CO2 is not slowing down the escape of IR from the atmosphere in any way that might lead to the dire consequences threatened by your priests.

Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere

Nasif Nahle's paper is very poorly written. He uses a formula that he claims to be in one one of his references - but the reference is a 822 page book and he fails to give an equation number or page number for the forumla. I'd tell you which formula I'm talking about, but since Dr. Nahle neglected to include equation numbers or even page numbers in his own paper, it won't be easy. It is the formula which is directly after the words

Now let us proceed to calculate the magnitude of the overlapped radiative emission bands of the water vapor and the carbon dioxide. To do this, we apply the following formula:

It is a crucial formula to his entire "paper", yet he provides no explanation except to refer to an 800+ page book. I'm looking at the book right now online - Radiative Heat Transfer (2nd ed) - it has 22 chapters and goes up to appendix F.

Sorry - I don't have time to wade through such poorly written crap. Papers about physics must have equation numbers, and gee whiz, page numbers are nice, too. Nahle is apparently a very sloppy scientist on other counts, as well, as he makes basic math errors on other parts of his page Talk:Biophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

??? That's not even true. Anything with a temperature above absolute zero has thermal energy. When a photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule it is transformed into kinetic energy, and if the CO2 is surrounded by other molecules that it bounces off of, that kinetic energy becomes thermal.

The other molecules around it that the energy bounces off of? Which other molecules would that be? Among any million molecules surrounding our CO2 molecule that has absorbed the photon, none hundred ninety nine thousand six hundred and twenty are invisible to the IR so it isn't bouncing off them. The energy emitted by our CO2 molecule is at a wavelength that is to low for any of the remaining 380 CO2 molecules to absorb so it is effectively invisible to them as well. Tell me, exactly what is this energy "bouncing" off of?

1) Even if the re-emitted photon is not absorbed by any molecule in the atmosphere - it has about a 50% probability of hitting the Earth's surface instead of shooting out into space.
2) Your assertion that the photon's re-emitted by Co2 cannot be absorbed by Co2 is wrong. The re-emitted photon frequency can be at ANY frequency.

 

[Dragon]

In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Greenhouse gases do indeed cause the Earth's atmosphere to trap more energy, elsewise we'd all be frozen right now.

So called greenhouse gasses don't trap anything. Again, if you model the earth as a sphere that is radiated across 180 degrees of its surface by the sun and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, there is no need for a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth. In fact, the models show a slightly warmer earth than exists which is then cooled by the radiative and scattering properties of CO2.

A greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the earth's temperature only if you model the earth as trenberth et al have in a way that doesn't even begin to explain reality. Tell me, how do you suppose you can wrap a -20 degree atmosphere around a -18 degree earth and suddenly raise the temperature of the earth by 33 degrees to 15 degrees C?

They raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth by making it harder for energy that enters the atmosphere to be re-radiated, requiring a higher temperature for the power flows in and out to balance one another.

No they don't. IR radiates from the earth, through the atmosphere and out into space at, or very near the speed of light. So called greenhouse gasses don't slow down anything.

Its just like a blanket. If you throw a blanket over yourself, you won't get warmer and warmer without end - eventually an equilibrium is reached - but its obvious the blanket is trapping energy elsewise they'd be useless for warming you up.

The old blanket saw. Once again, you demonstrate that you don't grasp the concepts of radiation, the Stefan-Boltzman law, or the laws of physics.

Black body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human body emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan–Boltzmann law,

"The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W."

So putting a colder blanket (20 deg C) on a warm Body (33 deg C) REDUCES the Body surface temp to 28 deg C precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Heat flows from the warmer body to the cooler blanket.

Since we know that throwing a cooler blanket over a warmer body causes the surface temperature of the warmer body to actually drop, the idea of comparing the atmosphere to a blanket is just silly. The average temperature of the atmosphere is -20C. Wrap a -20 degree blanket around a -18C earth and just as the temperature of the body dropped when from 33C to 28C, the temperature of the earth will drop, not increase by 33C to 15C.

Tell me, which law of physics do you believe predicts and supports such a temperature change?

LOL! Tell me, since you seem to know that the Earth's blackbody temperature is a frigid -18 ^C - what mechanism is it that makes the Earth's surface quite a bit warmer than that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

???? Yes, it can. A fluid element can contain photons of any distribution of momenta. A single look at the radiative transfer equation should tell you that, its a 7-dimensional PDE - 3 spatial, 3 momenta, 1 time.

No it can't.

Yes, it can. Photons are bosons. They don't bounce off of each other.

A simple look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells you that heat can not flow from a cool object to a warm object without some work having been done to achieve the movement. A further look at the SB equations tells you that they describe a one way energy flow from warm to cool.

The NET heat flow must be from warm to cool if no work is done.

You are in no position to criticize another person's understanding of electromagnetic radiation.

Of course I am as shown by the ease with which I have shown your own understanding of EM radiation to be flawed from its foundations. You have made so many errors that it is clear that you don't have any understanding at all and are just a parrot repeating what you have been told without having even the barest notion of what it means.

How? By citing papers that look like they were written by 5 year olds?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We also know, from scientific research, that the Earth was once much cooler than now when the CO2 levels were much higher. We also know, from available data, that volcanoes don't add all that much CO2 to the atmosphere and however much CO2 human activity is generating is a tiny fraction when compared to that occuring from natural causes. And we also know from available data that CO2 levels have been increasing steadily over the last several years while the mean temperatures have remained stable that suggests that CO2 could likely be the result of climate change rather than a significant cause of it.

Several hundred gigatons of CO2 are produced every year. Humans are responsible for a couple dozen of those. The increase in CO2 every year in the air is about half of the amount that humans add to the air every year. This is because some of what we produced is absorbed or cycled back into C and O2 - some of it just builds of in the air. We are therefore responsible for the increase. Its pretty straightforward. Even the small handful of credentialed AGW skeptics can understand that.

"Cycled back into C"?

Yeah dude. its called the carbon cycle. Plants take Co2 and rip it apart into O2 and C. They emit the O2, and use the C to make sugar, starches, etc.

 

[Si modo]

In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW,

....

In order for AGW to be even rebuttable, there must be some evidence of the significance of man made CO2 on warming.

It's not even out of the gate.

 

[Si modo]

Several hundred gigatons of CO2 are produced every year. Humans are responsible for a couple dozen of those. The increase in CO2 every year in the air is about half of the amount that humans add to the air every year. This is because some of what we produced is absorbed or cycled back into C and O2 - some of it just builds of in the air. We are therefore responsible for the increase. Its pretty straightforward. Even the small handful of credentialed AGW skeptics can understand that.

"Cycled back into C"?

Yeah dude. its called the carbon cycle. Plants take Co2 and rip it apart into O2 and C. They emit the O2, and use the C to make sugar, starches, etc.

I know about the carbon cycle. I was confused with your reference to CO2 being converted to elemental carbon. It's not.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[westwall]

You're playing with words. CO2 traps energy and then re-emits it. Since statistically half would be emitted towards earth, what would that extra energy be doing, except to contribute to warming?

Well then konny, if what you say is true and oh so logical why then is the world not continually warming? CO2 levels have skyrocketed in the last three decades and yet the warming has stopped. Twelve years and counting of no statistically measurable warming.

How do you explain that Mr. logical? If CO2 is the end all and be all of your religion it looks like it's REALLY FAILING to do its job now.

(bold in above quote added by me)

Why would you expect statistically significant warming over such a short period?

I don't. Your religion mandates it however. We sceptics have continuously pointed out that your claims of every single weather "event" (it seems the world is no longer capable of just enjoing weather, now thanks to you alarmists everything is an "event") being a result of AGW is ridiculous. We have maintained quite consistently that these are normal cycles of weather we are experiencing.

Go back to any period in history you wish and weather "events" occured with great regularity absent any possible human input. Everything we have experienced for the last 14,000 years is easily explained by natural variability.

On the other hand, your religion states very emphatically that CO2 is the sole driver of temperatures and yet the CO2 rises ever higher and just like WE SAID the temps are level and may be dropping.


OOOOOPPPS!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Foxyre, you are a liar. Anyone that understands anything at all about the environment has seen what has been happening in a warming world. Anyone with the least understanding of science grasps the fact that you cannot increase the GHGs in the atmosphere by large percentages without changing the climate. When you change the climate, you change the environment.

The burning of fossil fuels is one of the primary, if not the primary, cause of pollution in our environment. From the poisoning of the land and rivers from the mountaintop removal of coal mining, the the lead and mercury in the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Add the poisoning of rivers by flyash. And you fellows fought tooth and nail to allow the generation plants to continue to pour sulphates and sulfides into the air, poisoning our lakes and killing our forests. Acid rain was and is a problem.

The environment is changing to rapidly for many species of plants and animals to adapt. From the changing temperatures that create environments that favor insect pests over forests, to the acidification of the ocean. These are the effects of putting 40% more CO2 into the atmosphere. To state that you cannot see the results and that you are an environmentalists is like the Nazis that claimed to have Jewish freinds.

I think there is a position for you in the Flat Earth Society.

 

[Foxfyre]

In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

That is a valid point IF this particular group of scientists are doing completely unique research that is different from what other climate scientists are doing. But the fact is, if THEY are recognizing that the models and collected data is seriously flawed and/or bogus, that reflects on the results other climate scientists are producing using the same methods for research.

It confirms what many of the skeptics have been saying all along; i.e. the models and data being included in the Summaries for Policy Makers aren't holding up under close scrutiny.

So it finally comes down to one of two things. Either you are going to blindly submit to the conclusions of scientists that haven't quite established a strong case - or - you join the rest of us skeptics who are not willing to easily give up their freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities for what may actually be seriously flawed or even bogus science.

 

[westwall]

In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

Not thousands at all. If you were conversant on the subject you would know that it is a small group that are in editorial positions and in the drivers seat of the various organisations. figure around 100 scientists give or take and a few willful co-conspirators within the media (which is very clearly demonstrated by Andrew Revkins emails to the "Hockey Stick" group offering his services (he works for the NYT) to battle the arguments of the sceptics.

Read a few hundred of those emails then get back to us.

 

[Si modo]

In order for alleged improper behavior on the part of climate scientists to be a logical and effective rebuttal of AGW, it would be necessary that this behavior represent a universal conspiracy among thousands of scientists and on the part of all academic climate science establishments in every university and every scientific journal on the planet. That is a preposterous notion that has no plausibility at all and is sheer tinfoil-hat stuff.

What's more, if it were true, the same factors (quest for research grants from government) are at play in all areas of scientific research, which means that this indictment would be an indictment of all of science from one end to the other. That is even less plausible, even more tinfoil-hat stuff.

It's important that improprieties on the part of scientists be dealt with properly, and we should always remember that scientists are human beings, not demigods of objectivity. Other than that reminder, "Climategate X.0" (in this or any future edition) proves nothing, and inherently CAN prove nothing.

If you think other scientists aren't pissed about this and the ramifications their behavior has on them, you are mistaken.

An Insult to All Science

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well then konny, if what you say is true and oh so logical why then is the world not continually warming? CO2 levels have skyrocketed in the last three decades and yet the warming has stopped. Twelve years and counting of no statistically measurable warming.

How do you explain that Mr. logical? If CO2 is the end all and be all of your religion it looks like it's REALLY FAILING to do its job now.

(bold in above quote added by me)

Why would you expect statistically significant warming over such a short period?

I don't. Your religion mandates it however.

I'm an atheist.

We sceptics have continuously pointed out that your claims of every single weather "event" (it seems the world is no longer capable of just enjoing weather, now thanks to you alarmists everything is an "event") being a result of AGW is ridiculous.

I never made such a claim.

We have maintained quite consistently that these are normal cycles of weather we are experiencing.

Many are.

Go back to any period in history you wish and weather "events" occured with great regularity absent any possible human input. Everything we have experienced for the last 14,000 years is easily explained by natural variability.

So?

On the other hand, your religion states very emphatically that CO2 is the sole driver of temperatures and yet the CO2 rises ever higher and just like WE SAID the temps are level and may be dropping.

Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.

 

[westwall]

(bold in above quote added by me)

Why would you expect statistically significant warming over such a short period?

I don't. Your religion mandates it however.

I'm an atheist.


I never made such a claim.


Many are.

Go back to any period in history you wish and weather "events" occured with great regularity absent any possible human input. Everything we have experienced for the last 14,000 years is easily explained by natural variability.

So?

On the other hand, your religion states very emphatically that CO2 is the sole driver of temperatures and yet the CO2 rises ever higher and just like WE SAID the temps are level and may be dropping.

Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.

Wrong, you are a worshipper at the cult of AGW. So? So? You claim to be a physicist and you don't know or understand Occam's Razor.