68 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. There is little doubt that environmental alrmism serves the interests of transnational corporatism and transnational governance alike.
    The list of corporate sponsors/benefactors of the alarmist NGOs reads like a who’s who of international insider pillage.
    I get a deep sardonic chortle at all the insensate reactionary leftbots who serve as useful idiots in propelling this transnational corporatist resource monopoly agenda just because it’s tarted up as a green agenda…the very monopolist oligarchs who are the sworn antagonists of so called democratic socialists populate the very international cartels that fund the environmental/climate change NGOs.
    There are none so blind as those who don not see.

  2. Thanks for that link, Kate. I have added the site to my reading list. I haven’t looked yet to see if they have a comments section- if they do, I imagine john cross and the like are furiously banging theirs heads against the wall of truth there.

  3. BBBBBBut the skeptics are funded by BIG OIL!! Which automatically makes their findings wrong!
    I think we all know that the answer to this problem is to stop funding skeptics.

  4. Also from the Icecap website:
    Climate Change Violates One of Newton’s Laws
    Excerpts from this humorous yet insightful piece by William York in Online Opinion.
    The bylaws, Newton’s Laws of Experts, are as follows:
    First Law: every expert persists in his state of rest or opinion unless acted upon by an external grant
    Second Law: the rate of change of opinion is directly proportional to the applied grant
    Third Law: for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

  7. The ‘skeptics’ have no more credibility than the ‘alarmists’ no matter what level of funding they get.
    ICECAP lists Fred Singer as one of its ‘experts’. Not sure why anyone would want to be associated with such a dishonest man. He’ll say anything if the price is right, e.g., second-hand cigarette smoke is harmless (after receiving grants from Big Tobacco).
    A pox on all of them, deniers and alarmists alike.

  8. ‘A pox on all of them…’
    Way to show off your superior critical thinking skills and elevate yourself above the fray there, GreenNeck. If only we all went out and renounced every belief that we held just because the same opinon was held be someone of dubious motivations…

  10. He’ll say anything if the price is right, e.g., second-hand cigarette smoke is harmless (after receiving grants from Big Tobacco).
    Yo GreenNeck…If I made an accusation where I said, “Studies show that being in the same room as GreenNeck raises the risk of brain tumors in non-GreenNecks by 30%”, you would probably want to challenge that assertion.
    You would hire someone to conduct a study to show that that was not true and, besides, 30% is not statistically significant. Once you showed, through empirical evidence and the use of experts in epidemiology that my original assertion was false, you should win…right?
    Now, imagine that my counter to your well-mounted defense is to point to your experts and say, “Yeah…well, their studies were all funded by GreenNeck.” That would be pretty silly and stupid, right? Why not in this case?
    The fact that someone who is accused of endangering others is going to have to pay in order to defend themselves is kind of an axiom. The question you have to ask is…”But, is it true.”
    I believe the skeptics when it comes to second-hand smoke and global warming for one main reason: I hear the skeptical scientists give numbers and refer to real cohort studies and textbooks. The believers only ever fall back on tactics like claiming that there is a “consensus”…or appealing to authority…or relying on the intuitive nature of the non-scientists (i.e. the people that they are trying to convince).
    The day that the believers come forward with real evidence (or even engage in an open debate about the evidence with the skeptics) is the day that I will listen to them.
    Until then, as long as they send out only celebrity spokespeople and avoid confrontation, I will assume that it is they who have something to hide.

  11. Bryceman: I think you are correct, there should be open and frank exchanges based on the science. To that end (apologies to those who have read it before) I assert:
    1) That we are responsible for the recent CO2 increase.
    2) That adding CO2 will cause an increase in downward IR radiation.
    Do you disagree with either of these?
    Regards,
    John

  12. “I believe the skeptics when it comes to second-hand smoke and global warming for one main reason: I hear the skeptical scientists give numbers and refer to real cohort studies and textbooks.”
    In fact, the skeptics are not all on the same page and often contradict each other. Hardly an indication their position is solid.
    For example, some claim the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with our burning of fossil fuel, but is caused by the oceans warming.
    At the same time others say there is no warming. Kate has written numerous entries on the 1930s being warmer than today, and on several faulty weather stations that may give the illusion of warming.
    Of the above at least one is wrong.
    What the skeptics say amount to this: We can keep adding carbon to the atmosphere and it will have no effect at all on the climate. Those who say otherwise are fear-mongers.
    Well, I still have to read one solid, peer-reviewed scientific paper showing conclusively that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have no effect on climate.
    Until then, the debate is all political.

  13. John:
    I am not a scientist, and do not claim to be an expert. Like most people I know only what I hear and read. I carry my own set of prejudices and suspicions when it comes to people feeding me information…which, I acknowledge is an instinct that has to be fought in order to give the people who are trying to convince me of something a fair shot.
    With regards to your two points – which I am not qualified to even try to speak to as an authority…
    1) That we are responsible for the recent CO2 increase.
    I think that there truly is a consensus when it comes to the idea that humans have added extra CO2 to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. This also appeals to people’s common sense, we all know that everything from our lungs, to our cars, to smokestacks all put out gases – CO2 being one of them.
    The issues are…is what we add significant in the grand scheme of things.
    On the skeptics side, I have heard it said that CO2 is responsible for something like 7% of the entire greenhouse effect on Earth…and that humans are responsible for only a fraction of that.
    On the alarmist side, I hear things like, “Don’t believe those skeptics. We have uncovered evidence that some of them went to school with people who had relatives that once worked for Exxon.” Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard an alarmist tackle actually the numbers or offer any real counter to the skeptical assertion that, while we may be adding to the overall CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the end effect is like getting behind a tractor-trailer and pushing. Yes, you might be helping it along…but it really doesn’t need you in order to keep moving.
    So, I am inclined to believe the skeptics because the believers don’t offer anything more than attempts to appeal to the natural distrust of people with profit motives.
    2) That adding CO2 will cause an increase in downward IR radiation.
    Again, not being an expert, I don’t claim any independent authority on this.
    But, from the skeptics, I understand that downward IR radiation is greatly affected by CO2 levels – when there is no CO2 there in the first place. But, as you add more and more CO2, the effect on downward IR radiation is less and less (i.e. it is not linear – that, past the point of saturation, the relationship is better represented as a 1/X increase in temperature for every X increase in CO2).
    From the believers, I hear that Leonardo DiCaprio believes Al Gore.
    Who am I left to side with?
    I really like this presentation and the other three parts that can be found in the “Related” section…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
    If the alarmists would just come up with something like this – or, better yet – something that argues directly against this guy, I would listen with interest. The fact that they don’t do this makes me very suspicious.

  14. “But, from the skeptics, I understand that downward IR radiation is greatly affected by CO2 levels – when there is no CO2 there in the first place. But, as you add more and more CO2, the effect on downward IR radiation is less and less (i.e. it is not linear – that, past the point of saturation, the relationship is better represented as a 1/X increase in temperature for every X increase in CO2).”
    In that case, I’d like to hear how those skeptics explain the 400-degree greenhouse effect on planet Venus. Its atmosphere is nearly all CO2.

  15. Point 1 is well established. Point 2 is probably true in the limited sense that if one were to establish a controlled system, one with more CO2, and one with less, the system with more CO2 would see an increase in downward IR radiation. The question is what happens in a highly non-trivial situation like the earth’s atmosphere. Are human contributions the primary source of the increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere? Is the change in the CO2 content the principle reason, or even a significant reason for the warming the atmosphere has experienced in the past thirty years? That’s less well established.
    To make a stupid comparison:
    1) Humans are responsible for putting boats in the ocean.
    2) Putting a boat in the ocean causes the level of the ocean to rise.
    Establishing point 1 and point 2 does nothing to prove that human nautical activity will lead to disastrous coastal flooding. The effect is just too small.
    This doesn’t prove of course that anthropogenic global warming in analogous to that example. The amount of CO2 increase due to human activity is comparatively greater than the volume of ocean water displaced by boats.
    But granting your premises doesn’t significantly advance the conclusion that global warming is a catastrophic problem worth sacrificing the industrial output of the world to solving. Assuming that that’s where you were going with that line of argumentation.
    Nobody is saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will obviously have no effect. They’re suggesting that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive that the impact of CO2 emissions will be large enough to justify the massive governmental intrusion and expenditure being proposed to solve the problem.
    To put this is scientific terms, the null hypothesis (i.e. that observed climactic conditions are within the normal range of natural fluctuations) has not been disproven with any significant degree of probability. The alternative hypothesis (the climate is spinning wildly out of control because, and only because of effects caused by CO2 emissions) hasn’t been, and probably can’t be, proven true with the scientific tools at our disposal today.

  16. In that case, I’d like to hear how those skeptics explain the 400-degree greenhouse effect on planet Venus. Its atmosphere is nearly all CO2.
    This is why I have a hard time talking to people like you GreenNeck. Mars has an atmosphere that is 90% or better CO2 as well – and it almost never gets above freezing. If CO2 is all it takes, than Mars should be warmer than us…right?
    Now is the time where you are supposed to say, “There are other things that affect temperature – location and solar activity to name two.” And this is absolutely correct…but you should have thought of that BEFORE you tried to bring up Venus as a comparable example.
    That’s what the whole freaking debate is about…what are the variables and how well do we understand them all.

  17. An interesting graphic. Is the comparison one of area or of height of graph? It would be a good idea to say. The message, of course, remains the same.
    The situation in Canada, at least under the Chretien and Martin governments, was particularly deplorable. The federal government shut down or curtailed environmental monitoring programs (especially in the Arctic), drove off the best glaciologist in Canada, all the while trumpeting global warming.
    It was a real scandal. Canada because of its large land area, much of which is at high latitudes, is in a position, a unique position, to gather climatological data which are not accessible to other countries.
    This was well understood, and probably still is well understood, in the civil service. But Trudeau had no use for science and redirected the federal government toward quick payoff work.
    So the Canadian gov’t in effect under the Liberals was antiAmerican but relied on them for environmental data.
    Any honest person interested in climate, regadless of convictions about global warming, will deplore that state of affairs.
    Whether the present federal government has alleviated the situation I don’t know, but have no reason for optimism. After all it was a Conservative government that cancelled the Avro Arrow project, and Brian Mulroney was Trudeau lite when it came to any issue touching on the sciences.

  18. Bryceman: You gave a very well presented logical answer. This requires a logical presentation on my part which requires some digging and I am going sliding with the kids now, I will reply later tonight.
    You say that your haven’t see anyone offer real counter to the skeptical question. I can sympathize with that and let me add a data point. Since I have been posting on this site I have tried to keep my posts polite, direct and on topic. In reply I have been called: a moron, plodding, pedantic, a socialist, a commie, a leftard, dishonest and an idiot. I have been accused of shilling for the IPCC, RealClimate and Al Gore. I have been told to go to hell, to just leave and to shut up. And a host of other things I don’t remember. In my opinion, those don’t form a proper reply either.
    However, that is part of the fun of it all 😉
    Jared: an interesting post and I will reply later as well – but I am sorry sliding with the kids takes priority!
    Regards,
    John

  19. Curious. john cross always speaks of how wrong anyone who disagrees with agw is- but is never available to actually prove his point / discuss.
    However, the kids do come first. May you and yours have lots of snow for decades to come 😉

  21. Hey John,
    It’s 3pm on a work day….going sliding? Must be a teacher off on 2 more weeks holidays….? Explains a lost, actually….
    JCL

  23. John Cross,
    A few questions for you, and please do give the answers of an intelligent,knowledgeable environmentalist, your credibility is at stake.
    1. Please give a rational explanation of why the Arctic has completely frozen over this winter in “record” time?
    2. Why did the Mackenzie river freeze over this fall so early (another record, my goodness)and put a halt to shipping on it?
    3. Surely these very underreported phenomena have been in part due to the consistently below normal weather conditions in nearly all of the country and in particularly in our Arctic?
    4. Was this episode of “global cooling” caused
    somehow by “global warming”?
    5. If and when this strange cooling phenomena continues for several more winters; which “real” history records prove that it has many times before; what will happen to the Kyoto fear mongering cultists and the global warmingist political movement, Al Gore and his pal John Cross? Will you be fearful of being burned at the ‘cross’ that bears your name?
    I am so disappointed as I was planning to start a banana plantation on Ellesmere Island.
    erwin

  25. Guy takes his kids sliding on a Thursday afternoon –> person is a teacher –> explains a ‘lost’.
    It’s good to have people of such skill in deductive reasoning on our side. Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

  26. Green Neck, what a great title for all the followers of Dion and Gore et al. Wonder if it would have the same effect as calling Albertans rednecks. Let’s try it.

  27. Actually, john cross, your politeness is completely superficial and serves primarily to deflect a critical response to errors and basic data problems in your posts.
    Your insertion of yourself as Victim is another aspect of your passive-aggressive presentation of yourself and another tactic to deflect and reduce contrary reaction to your posts.
    For example, bryceman has argued in great depth with you before; you seem to ignore his data. Your comment that his post of today is ‘very well presented and logical’ is an aspect of your ‘polite diversion’. You are deflecting the content; that fact that it is ‘well presented and logical’ is hardly relevant.
    Your focus on AGW and human-based CO2 is unscientific because it has moved into the realm of psychology. Your focus is primarily on Human Sin. The hard data of the insufficient data base, the multi-leveled data range and the many causes and therefore complexities of climate change doesn’t seem to interest you; your focus is on the human as primary causal agent and human-based CO2 as primary cause. Such reductionism is unscientific; such a narrow focus is, furthermore, suspect.

  28. MaryT,
    Sure….calling everyone who has been taken in by this heavy-duty propaganda campaign names is an EXCELLENT way of endearing them to consider another point of view.
    (That comment was dripping in sarcasm,just in case you didn’t notice on your own.)

  29. That’s right.
    It’s not the sun. It’s not the 97% of greenhouse gases that aren’t CO2. It’s not an historic cycle.
    Human’s are the the one and only cause of global warming.
    Now let’s figure out the socio-political guilt trip, supported by cherry-picked facts and twisted figures and let propoganda, ad hominem attacks and shame do the rest.
    Excellent plan.
    However, they are overlooking one tiny problem. There’s no rationally measured proof that temperatures are warming. And to make matters worse, I don’t think this winter is cooperating very well.
    The Star’s editorial cartoon has a couple bundled up outdoors with a penguin standing beside them. The caption reads: “All signs point to a colder than normal winter.”

  30. So what exactly is the “mean global temperature”? Where would I go to experience it? Given that the earth is not a closed system and is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, is it any more meaningful than talking about the “average telephone number” in Toronto? If I dial the “average telephone number” in Toronto, do I get someone at the centre of the city? Is the “mean global temperature” simply a statistic, not a real physical phenomenon? If it’s a statistic, how did bristlecone pines in Colorado supposedly learn to gather the data, divide by the number of measurements, and set their growth rings accordingly? If the temperature in Moscow goes up, does the temperature in Calgary go down, or up? Why all this hype about “mean global temperature”? Why not “mean global humidity” or “mean global wind speed”? Greenhouses dont’t work according to the IPCC’s “greenhouse effect”. They work by suppressing convection. What are the formulas that describe convective flow in the atmosphere that must presumably be fed into the computer “models” we keep hearing about? Could it be that no such formulae exist? If AGW is a scientific theory it must be falsifiable. What observable climatalogical phenomena would negate it? Come on AGW crowd — show some cojones. Quit your disingenuous blather and give us some hard science.

  31. John,
    CO2 is not heat — the Earth only emits so much heat and CO2 only absorbs at specific wavelengths — when those wavelengths are all absorbed thats pretty well it. If you put on 3 pairs of dark sunglasses you have pretty well blocked out the light — putting on a few more won’t make a difference — same with CO2 — that’s called ‘saturation’ . Incidentally there are lots of natural organic molecules, produced by plants and microbes which absorb infrared at many of the same frequencies, which can add to the saturation — I don’t think modellers have any idea of these molecules role in the climate. Based on actual lab studies Prof Hug (see ref below) suggests that the CO2 v2 absorption band is saturated at leass that 150 m.
    For more detail: Check out the following:
    Energy & Environment, Vol. 11, No. 6, 2000
    A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE HYPOTHESIS THAT
    CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY CARBON DIOXIDE
    Heinz Hug
    Lecturer in Instrumental Analytics and Organic Chemistry,
    Fachschule für Chemietechnik, Frankfurt, Main, Germany

  32. let there be some light – entering in your brain, please. Above freezing temperatures in January are common. Just as below freezing temperatures of minus 20C and more, are also common.
    So, one day of warm weather does not mean that the entire climate has changed; just as one day of cold weather is equally statistically irrelevant.
    Climate change is natural on this planet; it has been such for millions of years. The question is whether the current change is primarily caused by human’s emitting CO2. Scientific research rejects this, pointing out that the climate is complex not mechanical and thus, there are multiple causes. AND, that the CO2 levels aren’t sufficient to change the climate.
    However, unscientific political themes support AGW; that’s because they are being used to extort huge sums of transfer money, called Carbon Taxes, from industrial to developing nations. The developing nations are completely exempt from both emission and pollution controls. That fact is what informs us that the AGW theme is a money scam, not a scientific outline. After all, if AGW was a scientific fact, the UN and IPCC would want to reduce CO2. They don’t; their focus is only on the money – which will go to enrich the mediators, the UN, and the developing countries. It’s yet another UN scam.

  33. GreenNeck;
    Forget science. Think history. Vikings grew crops in Greenland 950ad-1350ad. They left or died off when it got too cold to grow anything. I’m sure you know that that is still the case today. It’s not so hot.
    Think back to the last point in Earth’s geologic history when there was no ice anywhere. Forests grew as far north and south as there was land. Nature was so bountiful that bugs grew to enormous sizes. Fossil records of ten foot long centipedes and dragon flies the size of large birds. Think later on to the dinosaurs and understand that they could not have evolved to their size without an enormous supply of food.
    All that ocurred when it was hot and was killed off when it got cold. Anyone who claims the Earth, or nature, to be threatened by GW hasn’t a clue what they’re talking about. I seriously wonder whether they’ve noticed the causal relationship between blooming flowers and spring.
    I don’t know about polar bears, or mankind for that matter, but if it gets warmer nature is going to love it. Raise your eyebrows a little to anyone who suggests otherwise.
    Personally, when I think about man’s actions causing me to be standing at Bay and Front in shorts and a tee shirt in January, I say throw another carbon burning substance on the fire. A merry GW to you.

  34. Over the past few years my Doctor says I have developed a disorder that causes headaches, urges to puke when close to an msm source and stomach cramps. He says it is entirely treatable it is called Alagoraphobia and symtoms are caused by an acute allergy to bullshit, since I raise cattle I am in deep trouble, but not as bad as my neighbor who had Suzuki over to look at his land for a cbc show and still can’t stay on his motorcycle. The doc says prolonged exposure to these two charlatans can cause bankruptcy. I believe him.

  35. @DrD:
    A good point on methodology! It explains why many find statistics so confusing: even though a mean is a kind of set-identifier, of the set of numbers that the mean average is taken from, it’s still expressed in exactly the same form as its elements – as a plain number, which looks the same as a “regular” element-number.
    I don’t want to get on too high a horse here, as the methodological issue is really subtle, but this analogy may be useful: think of a child who questions the fact that 1000 is 10 times greater than 100 because “there’s only one more zero in a thousand.” That child relies, common-sensically although incorrectly, on appearances.

  36. #1 Is the Earth’s climate warming significantly, unusualy and long term ? Not likely.
    #2 If it is warming, is CO2 responsible for a significant part of the warming ? Not likely.
    #3 If it is warming and if CO2 is resposible is man’s CO2 part significant ? Not likely.
    If it is warming and if CO2 is respnsible and if man’s portion is responsible is it such a bad thing ? NO !
    Especially for ‘land-of-ice-and-snow’ Canada. And besides, the much warmer than now Medieval Warm Period WAS much warmer than now and it WAS a great time for mankind !!
    A he** of a lot better than the mile thick killer glaciers that were over Canada a mere 10000 years ago.
    I don’t know about you, but to kill our lifestyle for an
    (if) X (if) X (if) X (if) = say, 0.1% chance of UNimproving our climate, is a no-brainer if I ever did see one.
    Alarmists — playing it safe ? Or just being anal ?

  38. Bryceman: In regards to your first point, I am not sure you understood what I was saying. I said that the recent increase is due to anthropogenic sources. Your reply seemed to talk about both increase and the effect of this increase. I will only talk about the increase here and leave the effect for the next part.
    In regards to the increase in CO2, there are several lines of arguments that indicate the source is anthropogenic. For example the carbon isotope ratios give an indication of the age of the carbon and current measurements show that the average age is increasing (which is what you would see if the increase in carbon came from sources millions of years old).
    In addition you can actually calculate the anthropogenic content. Get the numbers on annual consumption of fossil fuels. Calculate the CO2 released from the burning of these. We can walk through the numbers if you like.
    In regards to your second point, you are correct in the effects of adding more CO2 (i.e. as you add more the effects become less). This is well known and acknowledged by all climatologists I have read. A good look at the issue can be found here.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/langswitch_lang/sk
    Finally in regards to Bob Carter, I watched the first clip and I found it very entertaining – Dr. Carter is a good speaker. But one of his claims is that in the last 10 years there has been no warming. This claim has been examined in the past. I don’t know if he used the same dataset for his presentation, but he made the same pitch.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/04/bob_carter_claims_its_not_warm.php#more
    So, what is my point – I do not think the counter to the “skeptic” arguments is that Leonardo believes Al Gore, but in fact the counter is based on physics, analysis and looking at the data.
    Regards,
    John

  39. Jared: In fact, I can agree with a lot of what you have said, but there are some significant points where we differ. To begin with, I disagree with you that Nobody is saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will obviously have no effect. There are many people on this site who are saying exactly that!
    In regards to other points you made, for this question … “Are human contributions the primary source of the increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere I would say yes, that is well established but we can discuss it if you like.
    However I think that the most interesting statement you made is: But granting your premises doesn’t significantly advance the conclusion that global warming is a catastrophic problem worth sacrificing the industrial output of the world to solving. Assuming that that’s where you were going with that line of argumentation.
    I see two problems with it. The first is that catastrophic is a subjective term and it is hard to define what is meant by it. The second more interesting point is would we sacrifice our industrial output? I have not seen any study that I would consider rigorous that states this (and I have read through several). As a very quick example, if gas goes up will more people walk and bike? It seems reasonable to me. If more people walk or bike will we have a healthier population that will save in health care costs later on? I do not know but again it seems reasonable to me.
    As a final comment on the economics of it – I recall being told about 4 years ago by several people (who claimed to hold degrees in economics) that our economy could not stand it if the cost of oil went up to $60 a barrel which is what they estimated the cost of joining Kyoto would be. While it has not been pleasant, the price of oil is now well over $60 and the economy seems to have managed.
    Regards,
    John

  40. DrD: I am not sure what your main argument was, but one that you identified was that there is no such thing as a global average temperature. I would argue that there such a metric and it is a statistical construct. I am not sure what your comment about the BCP was in regards to, but I am aware of the “there is no such thing as average temperature since the globe is not in equilibrium” argument.
    While it is not in equilibrium, in the large scale, it is in a state called local thermodynamic equilibrium. This can be shown looking at the physics. The criteria for local thermodynamic equilibrium is that the average free path of the molecule is very small in relation to the temperature gradient.
    So does the atmosphere satisfy this? The free path of a molecule of air is about 0.000000097m (http://www.iupac.org/goldbook/M03778.pdf). If we look at the typical change of temperature in air masses we can make some estimates. I would say that 1 K in 100 meters is a rough estimate for the adiabatic lapse rate. Using a surface temperature of 300K, we see that a 1 degree change is 0.3333% change. To get this change a molecule would need to travel through slightly over 1 billion free path lengths. So is the atmosphere is thermodynamic equilibrium, yes – it is.
    Regards,
    John

  41. Old Chemist: First, in fact while parts of the spectrum is saturated, parts are not.
    A better physical description might be as follows. Lets say that the earth’s atmosphere is separated into layers based on their CO2 content (i.e. so much CO2 per layer). CO2 will absorb IR radiation and then emit it. As we go up through the layers we eventually reach a point where the radiation from CO2 can escape into space.
    Now, if we look at what is happening in the layers below we can see that the bottom one is providing a fair amount of IR to the Earth. However the next layer also provides IR to warm the earth (albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). The same for the third and so on.
    Now, we need to look at properties of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not uniform and will be warmer at the bottom with temperature decreasing as we go up. Thus layer 2 is cooler than the bottom layer and so on. This means that the downward radiation from layer 2 is being emitted by a layer that is cooler than the bottom layer. The same for layer 3 which will be cooler than 2 – and its turtles all the way up.
    Now, for simplicity sake, lets say that the layers act like blackbodies (they don’t but the effect is close enough for this simple look). Thus they radiate in proportion to their temperature.
    To this system we add more CO2. What this will do in effect is to add more CO2 to the layers which will now take up less vertical space (i.e. less space to get the same amount of CO2 – remember our layers are based on CO2, not elevation). In effect this moves all the layers lower. Lower layers will radiate at higher temperatures. Higher temperatures mean more IR radiation. This in turn means more IR striking the earth’s surface.
    The effect is small (relative to non saturated effects) which is why a doubling of CO2 will result in only between a 1 and 2 C rise.
    Regards,
    John

  42. et: I am happy to let the record speak for itself on which one of us posts psychology and which posts on the science.
    However here is another chance to show me wrong. You made a definite claim that “bryceman has argued in great depth with you before; you seem to ignore his data. “. I disagree with this statement and would challenge you to back this up with a reference. Can you, or will you ignore it, change the topic or just not answer at all?
    John

  43. Kate: My reply to Bryceman got caught in the moderation queue (too many links I guess). Can you please release it.
    Thanks
    John

  44. Kate, for JC, I typed out 5 pages of Plank’s Theorems and Alogrithms and molecular data base tables and Boyles Gas Laws and periodic Table constants and Solar Constants and Economic analysis that will put all of JC’s arguments to rest, forever and a day. But, damn, it got caught in the filter and is lost in the Ether and, and —– could you please release it ?

  45. Second-hand smoke kills!
    http://opti-grab.ca/msm/one.pdf
    http://opti-grab.ca/msm/two.pdf
    http://opti-grab.ca/msm/three.pdf
    http://opti-grab.ca/msm/four.pdf
    http://opti-grab.ca/msm/five.pdf
    Or at least it serves to demonize a portion of society that deserves to be pariahs.
    Or is it a sociological experiment testing tolerance levels?
    I hate smokers, we should just kill them. After all, they’re just doing it to themselves, why not just accelerate their death wish?

  46. Your insertion of yourself as Victim is another aspect of your passive-aggressive presentation
    Yet another tactic from the left to “build community”.
    It goes like this, essentially:
    Those rich people that drive expensive cars and live in big houses are your enemy. You can never hope to be as wealthy as *they*, so join us in our effort to bring them down. We will win because there are more poor people than rich people. Of course, as your leader, I’ll need special status to be able to represent you and I hope you’ll forgive me for acting like the rich people do.
    Regards, and thanks suckers,
    Leftoid P. Politician

  47. john cross – my reference was incorrect; it ought to have been Brian Klappstein (I have a poor memory of names). My point remains; you’ve been thoroughly debated and rebutted on this blog many times. With scientific empirical data.
    Yet, you reject any data, any scientific facts – and stick to your belief in AGW. That has moved your acceptance of that theory out of the scientific realm and into dogma. The fact that you hold on to a theory by virtue of dogma rather than scientific validity means that you have a psychological rather than rational attachment to it.

  48. John,
    CO2 only has three ir absorption bands — how do you know they are not saturated? There is still a limit to the amount of heat the Earth emits and therefore a limit to the amount that CO2 can absorb — this of course assumes that solar and geothermal outputs are constant or negligible — but then if they are not then “global warming” or cooling likely has little to do with human activity
    Regarding your re-absoprtion and re-radiation of infrared radiation by CO2 — you can’t get blood from a stone — there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine — energy is conserved — you seem to forget that CO2 only represents 0.038% of the atmosphere so how much re-absorption re-radiation is occurring relative to convection and friction — also remember, hot air rises and heat moves from a colder body to a warmer body (2nd law of thermodynamics)– the higher up you go the cooler it gets, so as the air is warmed by the ground it will rise due to convection currents and heat will transferred upward, radiation will send it out space at a greater rate than back to the ground.
    Again what about all the infrared absorbing volatile organics produced by plants and microbes that climate modellers know nothing about?
    Just a reminder:
    In the IPCC 1992 report, computer simulations of the “global climate” predicted a global temperature rise of about 0.27 – 0.82K per decade — 16 years later where are we?

  50. John Cross, you are the politest troll here, we appreciate it. But why take the heat for the ‘big boys ? Paid ?
    We know that the likes of Suzuki, Gore, Dion, Hansen, know of their fraudulent ways being challenged daily — here and at hundreds of other sites. Why do they not defend themselves. ? Because they cannot ?
    What did Suzuki do, when a Toronto radio host challenged Suzuki ? Did the “Icon” make his scientific points ? No, he walked out in a big huff.
    Perhaps, JC, you know. For some reason most media types are towing the ‘party line’. Why ?
    Just who is the Media’s Party Whip ? Rueters ? AP ?
    When they all lie, omit and spin in unison, is is as if someone is calling the shots.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation