The greenhouse effect, as explained by Dr. Laurie Johnson of the Natural Resources Defense Council:
When you get in your car in summer, your car is hot because it has greenhouse gases in it. That’s why its hot.
This couldn’t possibly be correct… could it?
(London Free Press, May 1990)
When in doubt ask the experts, I say.
Glass is silicon dioxide; one wonders where he thinks the carbon is.
Anyone in Canada that still takes counsel from Suzuki, a wingnut whose whole scientific career was spent assisting and breeding fruit flys is in serious trouble. Cattle breeding, horse breeding, hell I’ll even throw in sheep for those who have those proclivities, but fruit fly breeding. Great Balls Of Fire, worthy of a freak show. Beyond Flea Circus.
?!…The UV scam didn’t fly so now IR is the culprit? Quick! Somebody tell the evacuated tube solar collector manufacturers.
http://www.apricus.com/html/evacuated_tubes.htm#.UZ_DGcorJOM
Ha!..When did Suzuki write that tidbit?
Duh…1990…So this would be the foundation of Suzuki’s greenhouse effect/AGW knowledge..?..
I remember seeing Suzuki making that idiotic comment in an interview and since something really didn’t seem right I checked the chemical composition of glass. Needless to say, there are a lot of things that can be put into glass depending upon color etc; carbon isn’t one of them.
maybe its the carbon in the steel?
not
Auto “safety” glass is a sandwich with a plastic layer in the middle. There will
be carbon in there somewhere. Still, he’s an idiot.
My apologies to the Spa Lady crowd.
He must , he must increase his pension trust.
No unusual levels of CO2 in my car. There are, however, high concentrations of methane in the driver’s seat foam.
The only place I get high concentration of greenhouse gasses is in… my greenhouse.
God almighty, this is so staggeringly stupid on so many levels. Chemical composition of the glass has nothing to do with it. It’s a trapped air mass unable to circulate. The windshield converts some of the UV to infrared which does not escape as easily through the glass regardless of what’s in it.
The only thing Laurie and David have demonstrated here is that neither one of them has even a high school understanding of basic physics and the function of an actual greenhouse.
It’s thoroughly depressing that these are the “great minds” purporting to give us instruction based on their understanding of science. Every time I think I’ve seen the abysmal depths of the stupidity of these people, they go and show me a new sub-basement below it.
“high concentrations of methane in the driver’s seat foam”
Do I smell a solution to any future energy crisis? Seriously though, in the late 1980’s and early 1990′ Suzuki was predicting that the earth would become uninhabitable by 2010 if then current levels of pollution were not curtailed.
Sooooooo. If my sealed car interior becomes butt frying hot in the summer,why doesn’t that happen in the winter? Also,I’ve noted, through numerous peer reviewed experiments,that when I open a window in the summer/winter,it gets cooler. Must all that CO2 escaping.
Considering what I do while driving alone, I can’t disagree that there’s a high concentration of methane in the driver’s seat.
And yet, despite what you guys think, and some people getting things wrong sometimes, scientists are still in consensus that climate change is happening, and humans activity is largely the cause:
http://www.psmag.com/environment/climate-study-consensus-still-means-consensus-57917/
I think with a PeeHatchDee in fruitflying that the good doctor, Suzookey, not Yamaha, is a “fart smeller”!!!!
“scientists are still in consensus that climate change is happening, and humans activity is largely the cause”
I didn’t know it was a popularity contest.
Any scientist who thinks the earth has warmed in the last 15 years hasn’t a freaking clue. Look at Italy almost June.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/snow-cancels-19th-stage-giro-italia-bike-race-article-1.1353772
What can we tax to make the planet warmer?
Do you all understand that many commercial greenhouses bleed carbon dioxide into the greenhouse to promote healthy growth of their plants?vhjyuz
“…scientists are still in consensus that climate change is happening, and humans activity is largely the cause…”
96.375% of people who believe that “scientists in consensus” = science do so because of an imbalance in the four humours, but will improve with a good bleeding.
Suzuki must be confusing the science. Normal plastic does nothing for or against the heat build up, except for interfering with normal convection to dissipate the heat. However, polycarbonate plastic, not only is used for window armor (it resists bullets) it is also the most common translucent filter for ULTRAVIOLET It is used to protect the eyes of inspectors from UV in penetrant and mag particle inspection, but also to protect the worker from the UV from mercury vapor lamps in the ceiling. Does this mean that you can call me “doctor ol’ country boy” and get his pension, since I know more about it than this charlatan?
Brilliant!!
Following this Suzukian deductive methodology, one would immediately see the need for protective eye-wear against infrared radiation while driving. So for those Prius minded individuals, may I recommend protective shades of at least level 5 (IR-5) for their safety. Perhaps the good people at Toyota will build this into the windshields of their Prius vehicles. That would be immensely satisfying.
There are 3 forms of heat transfer, convection, as through the air, conduction , with heat transferred via a material such as steel in a spoon, and radiant energy from the sun.
Radiant energy passes through auto glass strikes the seat etc in the car at which time it changes to infrared heat, thereby heating the interior of the car. This is called the green house effect. I very much doubt that the roughly 400 ppm of CO2 makes it worse than if it were 300 ppm. The same effect occurs with the sun shining through a closed window in your house.
Being outside with the sun rays hitting bare skin produces warming also. It has nothing to do with the CO2 in the air
The heating would occur if there were no CO2 in the car.
I do not think Dr Fruit fly knows what he is talking about. He should stick with what he knows best, sexing fruit flies.
Same for all other ignorant greenies, don’t they have anything better to do?
John, you’re missing a bet over all of us suckers. No one here is investing in property on Ellesmere Island because it’s too cold, and we expect it to stay cold. Just think of how good you’ll feel with your own exclusive beachfront property on Ellesmere island when the rest of us are roasting in +50 degree (Celsius) weather. Or do you not believe in investing your life’s savings in what you believe in?
John, how many times does it have to be explained to you? Consensus is irrelevant to science. 100 years ago the consensus among anthropologists supported the Piltdown Man. 60 years ago, the consensus among Soviet scientists was Lysenkoism. 200 years ago, a consensus of scientists supported the ravings of Dr. Mesmer.
As Albert Einstein remarked (paraphrasing a bit), “It doesn’t matter how many say it, it only matters if it’s true.”
“…scientists are still in consensus that climate change is happening…”
And SDAers are still in consensus that John is a dickhead. So John’s a dickhead, right?
It does not matter what the activists say. There are plenty of uneducated (or half educated) bimbos out there who read stuff like this and believe that they have just become subject matter experts.
They do it with regard to the climate hoax, the GM crops hoax, water use and safety hoaxes, drug and medicine hoaxes, food … nutrition … exercise … internet use.
You name it and there is a BS huckster out there and a host of suckers going along with the scam.
It’s the Sun, Son.
Just say no to solar warming denial.
So…he is infact a simpleton.
John, there can not be a consensus on climate change because there has been no climate change. There is future projected climate change, projected by climate computer models. I am a climate science researcher as well as a computer scientist and I am currently researching climate computer models, so I do know what I am talking about.
There has also been no global warming for at least 16 years, and as long as 23 years, depending on which IPCC approved dataset you use.
The name of Suzuki’s CBC program was “The Nature of Things”, and it was stolen from Lucretius and was known as ‘De Rerum Natura’. Even the curmudgeonly Harold Bloom admits that St. Jerome’s vilification of it was why it disappeared for a thousand years, before resurfacing in the 15th century. It was an attack on anything spiritual, religious or moral. Yup, sounds the same.
I’ve always assumed it was the Oil Sands that made my car hot.
Why..?..you got one of them newfangled bitumen burner water heating jiggys?
The local paper had a huge news article a couple weeks ago, all panicky over the fact that CO2 levels have reached 400 ppm. It was totally loaded with errors, including the claim that CO2 causes warming exactly the same way a greenhouse warms.
I wrote a letter to the editor correcting the errors. They declined to print it.
Maybe the warmers can run an experiment by shutting the windows of their cars and running the engine with the exhaust pipe blocked?
Hey Dirtman, you must be quite an optimist if you are looking to the local fishwrap for true stuff. Mine had an article the other day about the Justice Department “accidentally” putting a couple of terrorists in the witness protection program. Now, to a logical person, this might sound like the ultimate screw-up. Not to the simpletons who write for our newspaper. The article became a criticism of Republicans who dared to criticize such a minor and understandable failure.
Talk about confused from a scientific perspective. C02 is transparent to the greater number of infrared frequencies. This is precisely why we use it in CO2 lasers and in welding to keep the weld from overheating – in both cases allowing the heat generated by the processes to escape and thereby not destroy our equipment and allow a weld to cool quickly enough to stay put. Infrared is not reflected back by carbon in CO2, as Suzuki seems to believe. The car gets hot, and a greenhouse gets hot, because the heated air is trapped, as many have pointed out. Suzuki needs to be acquainted with louvers installed on greenhouses to prevent overheating. The environmentalist greenhouse theory is based on the idea that CO2 holds heat, not that it reflects heat back (but then one wonders if environmentalists know what they think). Suzuki does not appreciate what those of his cohorts who came up with the idea were saying. But, of course, this is wrong too because relative to the other gases in the atmosphere, like water vapor and nitrogen, CO2 is a poor retainer of heat.
a little bit of levity is always welcome. as barbara frum might have said – “thanks for that.”
“Suzuki needs to be acquainted with louvers installed on greenhouses to prevent overheating.”
Not at all,gmarpag. He needs to be introduced to a jail cell,along with all his fruitfly offspring and female ffly partner,and all their assests returned to the taxpayer.
Oh. And please ignore the troll,pipples.You cannot reason with somebody who has made up their mind without using reason.
Well, on the Merc I have diamond windows and on the DeLorean after-market graphene windows: can’t have enough of that carbon to keep things toasty.
So John, explain to me then why, according to scientists the earth is apparently billions of years old and has gone through extremes of climate change several times before human beings even existed?
Then of course, there is the fact that we now know that geological changes occured much more rapidly than first thought; pretty much exclusively due to natural disasters. Earthquakes were much more common and more intense than anything recorded or written about in the last few years thousand years. The same is true for volcanic erruptions and large scale flooding, fires and mud slides-the earth has always been a naturally violent place-long before humans or industry. Canada’s vast oilsands are mother nature’s oil spills.
What’s most laughable is the answer to this supposed climate change that requires the micro management of people; severely restricting their freedom with the said endgame goal being de-population, is penalizing our schools and hospitals hundreds of thousands each year in carbon taxes, despite them being under funded and the push to limit family size through abortion, and other choices of a sexual nature-begining in kindergarten when they are also introduced to doomsday enviromental scenarios in the name of social justice science.
Environemtalists believe they have a right to micro manage human beings lives to “save the planet”. Judging by their words and actions, most could easily be diagnosed as sociopaths. Consider the following:
“The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future” and believe that it achieved their goals because “it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future.”
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…[5]
Ehrlich proposes adding “temporary sterilants” to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to “criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area.”[8] He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family’s tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which “should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment.”[9] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.”
“move forward”
Nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the idiot hiding behind the PhD.
Ah yes, the genius of Paul Ehrlich. I have his 1970’s books from my environmental phase and I guess I have to thank Dr. Fruitfly for getting me out of my overromantization of the pastoral. Hearing him speak in 1973 or so made me realize how much of a moron he was and I haven’t looked back.
The whole watermelon movement is all about people control. It involves very opinionated unimaginative control freaks who assume that their version of the future is the only correct one and everyone who disagrees should be imprisoned or executed. The problem with most of these models of the future is that they don’t survive contact with reality.
Let’s look back at some of the pressing problems of the early 1900’s such as the accumulation of horse shit on the streets of Manhattan as population increased. Assuming that horse drawn carriages would be the primary means of transportation into the indefinite future, horrendous extrapolations were made of the depth of horse shit that would cover the cities streets. Few people nowadays worry about this problem as the automobile eliminated this potential future catastrophe.
Humans are very creative primates and they figure out solutions to problems as they come up. People who build elaborate future scenarios assuming that nothing new will be discovered are not very creative. Creative individuals generally don’t like the idea of centralized control. Unfortunately we’ve become a very risk averse society and it looks like most new scientific advances will come from countries where there is a free spirit of inquiry and safety regulations are viewed as in impediment to production. Risk aversion is the best way to ensure that apocalyptic scenarios occur since fear of trying anything new means that nothing new will be discovered. Having an ignorant population also helps as thus no-one questions the “carbon in glass” theory of automotive warming or Man Bearpig’s several million degree temperature of the earth’s core.
John, I wonder where a consensus of these scientists were getting their funding from. Could that be somewhat related to their consensus. No, their too evolved and intelligent for anything that capitalistic and evil…sheesh…
Lucky Lori…piece of pee to explain 4.5 billion years of stuff happening and John not being able to realize it.
See,for leftards,history starts every day when they wake up.Yesterday does not exist.Oh.And do not even go near trying to explain to these useful eedjits that the climate HAS been changing for 4.5 billion years. And Homo sapiens has f**k all do to with it.John is in the eco-cult of cAGW,and probably in the pay of the greentards. Or makes his living by being a leech.
Loki, terrific post at 2:08a. Thanks for that.
mhb23re
Can I get some of those carbon windows for my house, so I won’t need a furnace in winter? This is a solution, not a problem.
Suzuki is, always was, and always will be an idiot.
CO2, SiO2, what’s one row of the periodic table between alarmists?
I can’t trace it now but I believe I once read Suzuki ascribing the rise in ocean levels primarily to thermal expansion of seawater, rather than polar ice melting.
I once heard Richard Leakey blame gravity on the rotation of the earth (to his credit, he was making the point that evolution is a fact and not a theory). But it is unwise to trust celebrity scientists on, er, science.
Yes Suzuki is a complete idiot when it comes to physics as is Laurie Johnson as is Richard Leaky and Jim Whyte when it comes to scientific principles. FYI Jim: A theory remains a theory until it is proven. In the case of the auto-genesis of life, proof would require replication.